My Rhetoric of Video Games Pt. 5 - Forming a Rhetoric of Literature

I hadn't originally intended to include that much about rhetoric in my initial planning of the thesis, but I felt it necessary to explain why video games are approached the way they are in the US, and to demonstrate that this is not a universal approach to the medium.  I feel like it's very important to establish that ideologies can shift radically-- video games were just a way to pass time in South Korea, but StarCraft struck a chord in the entire population, not just the youths looking for something to do. Now, professional players are hailed as heroes:  One of these players successfully pulling off a  "Zergling rush" tactic in the game is viewed in South Korean culture with as much excitement as a monster dunk by Lebron James is in America.

Now the key connection is that with enough enthusiasm and support, American ideology can shift just as easily. With help from academics like James Paul Gee, Roger Travis, and the creators of the WoWinSchool project, and pioneering producers like David Cage from Quantic Dream, video games will one day be able to transcend the role they have been pigeonholed into in our society.  Through the powerful medium of the Internet, the ideas of all of these revolutionary minds can be passed along.  It will take some more convincing, as we need more games at the same level of quality of WoW or Heavy Rain in terms of storytelling ability. 

One possible exception that naysayers may take, however, is that the medium is primarily for entertainment purposes-- for play if you will.  The hottest games on gaming consoles are all first person shooter titles (Modern Warfare 3 has consumed my life the past few weeks!), what literary experience could possibly come when the majority of titles are not made to be interpreted or analyzed?  The same can be said for the puzzle/casual games like Angry Birds, simple to play and easier to enjoy as it does not require interpretation.  Sure, the examples I've presented so far in the project have literary elements included, but it is true that most games do not.   However, the same can be said for the state of any medium-- Television?  With the exception of Breaking Bad, Mad Men, The Wire, and The Sopranos, what dramas have come out in the past 10 years that were really deserving of our attention?  How about film?  Out of the hundreds of movies that come out every year, how many of those are merely popcorn flicks?  Pretty much every action, horror, and animated flick is disgregarded come critical acclaim/analysis, but that doesn't mean that true gems come out every now and again.  And then there is print literature, which is probably the biggest sinner of all in terms of quality control.  Toni Morrison's Beloved, published in 1987, is considered by many critics to be the last great novel to have been written.  It is taught in colleges and high schools across the nation, a feat that no other book has yet to match since then (by that I mean becoming a universal critical success, which is also being taught to students).  Half the novels I read in 2011 had the same standard plot-- past secrets come up which throw the narrator's entire family into danger.  The medium isn't dying at all, don't get me wrong, but there are many redundancies. 

Video games still have a long way to go in America in order to be accepted, but the fact that I can even make such an argument online and in my final project, and can talk about the thesis and see the light bulb go off in someone's head who previously never considered the video game medium as anything other than mindless entertainment, is very encouraging.  The discussion must be ongoing, and the defense must be bolstered.  That defense though, is for another section of this project.  :) 

My Rhetoric of Video Games Pt. 4 - South Korean Implications

I will try my best to identify what persuaded the South Korean gamers though, and in order to do so I at first tried turning to Ian Bogost and his book Persuasive Games.  Contrary to what I expected, Bogost’s work devalues the rhetoric of play, and instead focuses on what he calls procedural rhetoric, or “a technique for making arguments with computational systems and for unpacking computational arguments others have created”(Bogost 3).  Throughout the book, Bogost refers to obscure examples of video games, specifically ones that are charged with overtly political, educational, or advertising-related messages, claiming that the procedures and gameplay found within video games “make arguments about the way systems work in the material world” (Bogost 47).  I think that his definition of “rhetoric” is rooted a bit too firmly in the traditional sense of the word, as rhetoric can be about things other than politics and advertising, and it most certainly does not have to be intentionally placed. 

Using his ideas, it would make StarCraft seem like it was making an argument for the use of drones in the military.  The players are in a safe location, commanding their units and conquering enemies, but if they lose, they pretty much just get a message stating “Game Over” with no harm being done to themselves.  The mission is failed, the war lost, but the player lives to fight another day.  Argument presented, case closed.  But to completely ignore the commercial aspect of games, seeing what makes players continue to play certain games over and over again, is a grave mistake on Bogost’s part in my opinion.  Wargames like StarCraft aren’t only about “creating ideologies of the enemy,” and establishing the player as a hero (Bogost 75).   Using these ideas and the knowledge of South Korea’s ten plus years of fanatically playing this game, if Bogost’s theory held true and the mass consumption of the game reflected discontent and military might, South Korea would be one of most militaristic societies in the world.  We only need to compare the country to its counterparts to the north to see how laughable this is.  The persuasion of StarCraft, according to Bogost, would be all about enforcing a perfect military, and viewing the three different races, their organizational structures, their tactics, and their interactions with one another under a microscope in order to look for aspects that criticize current practices within Blizzard’s or its game’s players’ own government.  Would this really result in the seemingly endless StarCraft craze if it spoke to the people in 1998, and continues doing so in 2010 while South Korean government and society has advanced in leaps and bounds?

Needless to say, I was a bit disappointed when I read through the book- the abstract made it seem like his ideas matched closely with Brummet’s, but this is sadly not the case.  Of course, in our traditional everyday usage of the word rhetoric, his definitions fit in perfectly, but for the sake of this paper, his only use was to point out exactly what I disagree with when it comes to a game’s rhetoric, which is indeed beneficial in a way.  However, Bogost does introduce a few theories, ones he disagrees with naturally, that are helpful when attempting to examine what message was received by South Koreans.  One of which was introduced by Brian Sutton-Smith, who feels that “rhetorics of play ‘identify how games and play embody ideological values and how specific forms and uses of play perpetuate and justify these values’” (Bogost 52).    So, in applying this to StarCraft, we can say that the game itself, and the text surrounding it, which involves everything between playing alone at one’s home, to meeting friends at a local café to play, to attending a huge stadium, embodies the widespread values of South Korea as a nation.  So unlike America, where there is a great divide in the value of playing a computer game, this culture as a whole has come to embrace it, and obviously justifies the values by awarding so much merit to it (sponsorships, money, etc.).  But this doesn’t answer where this inherent value came from still.         

Yet I may have a reasonable explanation.  Looking back at the Department of State’s profile on South Korea, there was a heavy emphasis on electronics and technologies in the 1990s, as the shift from industrial production to this field guaranteed a shot in the arm for the country’s struggling economy.  The industry took off in almost all major fields:  LG and Samsung were rapidly increasing their international sales in wireless communications, promising robotics and cybernetics programs were evolving, and even the field of biotechnology saw profit.  But, according to Rossignol, the locally produced video games from Korea were terrible.  These games did not provide innovative gameplay, but were rather cheap knock off attempts at reproducing the most popular online gaming genre of the 90s, the MMORPG or Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game.  Basically, these kinds of games had millions of users all taking the role of their own respective adventurer in a massive, immersive landscape.  In a top quality MMORPG, like Blizzard’s other smash hit World of Warcraft, players can go on quests, battle one another, interact with various people from across the world, as well as with the in-game environment in the role of their in-game character.  However, Korea’s MMORPGs offered very little in terms of content, and amounted to “nothing more than glorified chat programs” (Rossignol).  Rival Japan saw huge successes from their console sales of Sony Playstation and Nintendo’s various systems, so the South Koreans knew exactly how much potential was in the field, but were frustrated with their inability to tap into it.

When StarCraft finally fell in the laps of these bored teens (who could only play Baseball or practice Taekwondo as other forms of play since the popularity of sports was crawling along), as well as in the hands of the struggling South Korean video game industry, all hell broke loose.  Blizzard is renowned for its high quality games—they can delay games for years at a time if they feel that the product is not up to par, and have no qualms about disbanding a game altogether if the end product is inferior to their reputation.  So I think this answers one of the questions I posed earlier, where what was so special about StarCraft—which is that South Korea had never seen a product of this kind before, both in terms of its art, creativity, refinement, and coherence, as well as in its capability to allow so many people to connect online simultaneously, interacting with one another in order to form an online community. If nothing else, the overall product of this game had its own form of persuasion on those who witnessed it in South Korea:  Success and entertainment was possible in the video game industry.

As for the rhetoric that appealed to South Koreans in the game itself, I would argue that StarCraft’s futuristic setting was very reminiscent of the West’s creative outlook on the future.  Specifically, I am referring to the idea of Neo-Tokyo from Japanese animation and manga.  This New Tokyo is a recurring trend in several movies and comics overseas, a fictitious future version of the city of Tokyo where technology reigns supreme, complete with robots, bright lights all over the city, and a variety of imagined technologies that would be impossible to pull off today.  South Korea, despite its feud with Japan, really took to this form of the arts, as did much of the Orient.  The fictional idea of New Tokyo aligns itself well with South Korea’s initiative to produce as much technological advances as possible, since the nation seeks to be a worldwide leader in emerging electronic fields.  I think that the Terran and Protoss races utilize ideas found in Japanese animation’s fictitious societies, and the advanced technologies, space travel capabilities, and robotics struck a chord with South Korea.  Even though the races are stuck in an endless cycle of conflict, their array of weaponry, machinery, and computers are impressive and unprecedented.  Am I saying that all South Koreans are drawn to the game because they want to create these things?  Not necessarily, but when technology is stressed as a valuable resource that will be the lifeblood of their entire country, it’d be hard to argue that a fast paced, science fiction game based in outer space in the future would not at least pique the interest of a great number of people.

Now, we’ve established that there are two very different sets of rhetoric and persuasion when it came to the introduction of StarCraft to South Korean society.  First, this immersive experience that was unlike anything the Koreans had access to proves that this field of technology had value in entertainment and communal aspects.  Second, the futuristic setting of the game persuades the players to at least come investigate what the game was about in the first place, as the focus on technology and strategy spoke to both society’s values and to pop culture in the form of manga.  But the question remains as to what turned this game into a legacy over there?  Super Mario Bros. for the Nintendo Entertainment System is one of the highest selling games of all times, but that didn’t stop consumers from moving on to other games as they were released.  As mentioned previously, South Korea is not a militaristic nation, so the thrill of all out war doesn’t seem likely.  For more help, I turn to Jose Zagal, who says that players have the ability to learn a great deal through video games, and not solely in the educational sense like our friend Bogost does.  Using Zagal’s terms, StarCraft became so successful because the South Koreans could “understand” the game.  This means that they possessed “the ability to explain, discuss, describe, frame, situate, interpret, and/or position games and by deconstructing them and understanding their components, how they interact, and how they facilitate certain experiences in players” (Zagal). 

I would argue that the majority of South Korean society positioned this game in a high spot because it was so unlike anything they had ever experienced before, and the gameplay specifically spoke to them.  The simplest way to break down what makes a StarCraft player exceptional at the game versus being average is how many actions they can take.  A player’s “micromanagement” of specific units across the game’s maps, and their thought-to-action speed are often the deciding factors in a StarCraft match at the professional level.  I truly believe that human nature makes us competitive creatures, and these South Koreans take pride in their ability to operate the game.  Whether they were cognizant of the fact or not, they were able to deconstruct the game into something pretty simple:  Who can form strategies and implement them the quickest.  There is a simple enjoyment in winning a battle of wits against another human being, one that is not exclusive to South Korea, as evidenced in this YouTube video from the 2009 Video Game finals for StarCraft: 

The finals took place in China, and the announcers were speaking in English, so the professional gaming realm has begun to spread outside of solely South Korea, even though both finalists were indeed from the country.  It sounds ridiculous to American society, but South Koreans were able to learn about themselves from this game and turn it into a huge part of their economy and society.

I can only reiterate how fascinating this topic has been.  I gained more knowledge about persuasion than I ever thought possible, and learned that everything around us has the potential to carry messages.  The text of the StarCraft video game that I played regularly so many years ago has so many connotations and stories, whether they are from my own personal experiences, American pop culture, or South Korean national pride, the game definitely has its own rhetoric that speaks volumes.  I truly enjoyed studying our rhetoric of the game versus that of South Korea’s, attempting to find reason in a video game explosion that makes almost no sense to us over here.  I hope my study of both cultures and their rhetoric found in the game by the separate societies has proven to be an interesting study if nothing else, because I know it has been a great deal of fun for me. 

My Rhetoric of Video Games Pt. 3 - South Korean Background

When we look to our friends far out west, the gaming gurus of South Korea, we see what can happen when a video game is introduced to another society with entirely different cultural, technological, and societal circumstances, and how it can produce an enormously different response from the public.  Having lived in the United States all my life, and being pretty much obsessed with video games for majority of my 27 years, it is easy for me to discuss the rhetoric that Americans see in StarCraft in Brummet’s terms.  But when it comes to South Korea, I really had to do a bit of research to understand exactly where their society was at when the game found its way overseas in 1999.  I’d like to give a little bit of a history lesson, discuss how frighteningly popular the game is, and then try and ascertain what forms of persuasion were in the game itself to spark a cultural revolution by applying Ian Bogost’s ideas from Persuasive Games amongst other literature.

            Now, for a quick lesson in South Korean history, Korea was under Japanese rule until 1945 when the Japanese were defeated in World War II, and tensions have remained high ever since.  According to Jim Rossignol, an online editor at Rock, Paper Shotgun, a major PC Gaming website, the rivalry between the two nations “led to decades of trade restrictions that made early generations of Japanese game consoles prohibitively expensive for Korean gamers. If you wanted to play video games in South Korea then the cheapest way has long been to use a PC” (Rossignol).  As if the restrictions weren’t bad enough, in the early 1990s a grave financial crisis struck the nation, impairing its most prized export of industrial trade.  The economic turnaround was quick though; Starting in 1997, President Kim Dae-jung’s reform programs enforced a focus on “wireless telecommunications equipment, electronics, and online endeavors”  in order to shift the nation’s focal point of its economy to technology (U.S. Department of State).  Rossignol points out one specific reform that Dae-jung will forever be known for:

The nationwide focus on the development of cutting edge technology led their newly democratic government to seize the potential in broadband communications and, in the late 1990s, they used the then state-owned telecommunications company to install the infrastructure necessary to connect almost every building in Korea to high-speed broadband. The Koreans have taken to the net with the greatest of ease, with 60% of households boasting a broadband connection.  (Rossignol)

With this widespread Internet connectivity, it seemed logical for the “make a buck quick” business of choice to be Internet cafes, or “PC bangs” as they are called by our Korean friends, and several of these sprouted up in cities across the country.  The results were most unexpected though, as these cafes became “key centers for a youth culture thirsty for social activity and cutting edge entertainment” just as Blizzard’s smash hit StarCraft was making its way overseas in early 1999 (Rossignol).

            It seems like the timing was perfect for South Korea and StarCraft:  The socially depraved youths coming fresh off an economic downturn needed something to entertain them, something to belong to, why not this online game that had already proven itself half the world away?  South Korea’s inclination toward advanced technology already made it so that high-speed Internet was offered pretty much everywhere by the federal government, affording the South Korean teens the opportunity to take up the game as a hobby and keep playing over and over again.  Other games were introduced over time, but as we can see in the YouTube video from 2009, it doesn’t look like the original favorite is going anywhere anytime soon.

            I love looking at various factoids about StarCraft in South Korea, because it all seems so surreal to me.  An entire culture that not only supports video gaming, but rewards those who dedicate their time and energy to being the best at their craft (pun intended!) seems impossible to me given the skepticism Gamers face in society here.  For example, according to Mei Fong of the Wall Street Journal¸ one of the most famous players, 24-year old Lim Yo-Hwan reported making “over $300,000 in 2003, had his fingers insured for $60,000, has his StarCraft team of fellow players sponsored by the likes of Samsung and Coca Cola Inc., and even had a DVD released of his winning plays that outsold The Matrix Revolutions” during the year of its release (Fong). 
           The game was and still is marketed completely different in South Korea, as you can see in the accompanying media:   

 

Here is a bag of Dorito’s brand chips utilizing an iconic Terran character from StarCraft in an attempt to sell its product.  Could you imagine the same company attempting to do that with an American audience?  Who would respond positively when we have already established how poorly video games and the act of playing video games are viewed in our society. 

Next, we have a humorous commercial where a Zerg unit known as a Hydralisk terrifies a poor South Korean man mid-flight, followed by an American commercial which advertised the release of StarCraft 2:     

I do have to admit, I was shocked when I saw this other commercial during the ESPY awards last year, anight dedicatedentirely to sports and physical activity:

  

But it’s so fascinating to see how the game has to be sold like a movie—choosing to show all its cinematics rather than any of the gameplay.  Meanwhile, the South Korean commercial might not show gameplay, or really any hint as to what the heck the commercial is about, the iconic figure of the Hydralisk is enough to make a pop culture reference, and to excite the public for a particular date. Even just the advertising/pop culture differences between this video game in America and South Korea is huge, and warrants a study all its own!

If I haven’t stressed it enough, the professional StarCraft players are complete rock stars in their home country.  Stadiums were erected with the sole purpose of allowing the public to bear witness to major gaming events that all started with StarCraft.  Over a “third of the country’s population plays the game, which is roughly 17 million” out of the country’s 48 million people (Rossignol).  There are television stations dedicated entirely to airing StarCraft matches complete with screaming commentators.  But I guess my main question is why?  I understand the socioeconomic conditions were covenient, but there were several other games out there already, why did it take StarCraft coming over for this sudden boom? 

It is a well-received game, as evidenced by its winning Game of the Year, but there has to be something more that spoke to these people that kept them coming out to the Internet cafes, and continues making the game such a huge hit in the country.  Blizzard’s CEO Mike Morhaime has no answer for it, he simply says “with each game we develop, our goal is to make the best game possible, but the reception of StarCraft in Korea is nothing we could have possibly dreamt of or expected" (Business Wire).  The game was created by an American country, with no intention to target this country in particular.  Barry Brummet suggests that “meaning is sometimes beyond awareness – people may not consciously know what a particular text means to them…Participation in making meaning need not be done intentionally and with full awareness,” and I think this is a wonderful example of just that.  Neither the games producers nor the public that ate it up intentionally assigned meaning to the game, but they managed to create a specific rhetoric between the two of them (Brummet 84).   What exactly this rhetoric was, will be analyzed in the next post.  From there, we can understand what it will take to form a new, educational rhetoric towards video games in the United States.

My Rhetoric of Video Games Pt. 2 - American Idiots?

There are two entirely different worlds of rhetoric when it comes to StarCraft, as there are two entirely different sides of American culture who view this game and the people playing it:  Gamers and Everyone Else.  For the sake of this blog, we will just look at the Everyone Else category, and view the overall perception of video games.  In American society, it is easy to say that little to no value is placed in playing video games.  It’s funny, “playing” is viewed as a bad thing when it takes place in front of a television screen or computer monitor, but “playing” ball on a field will make you millions.  The general population, when exposed to the text of a video game, has such a negative connotation ingrained in its minds over all these years as a result of games being largely absent from pop culture.  Aside from Mario, Pac Man, and possibly Sonic the Hedgehog, how many household name video game icons are there?  This is because this rhetoric exists in our society that too few are willing to challenge.  There are no champions in the academic field  that want to argue the validity of games, and we laugh it off when thinking of how games are so popular in the western hemisphere that there are actually World Gaming Championships, where players are garnering wages equal to that of professional athletes.

Now, even though StarCraft was incredibly successful, “selling over 10 million copies and winning the Game of the Year award from the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences,” Sarah Kerrigan, perhaps the game’s most iconic character, will never gain the notoriety of Mario anytime soon (Blizzard.com).  (Although, NBC's The Office might prove me wrong a bit when resident oddball Dwight Schrute decided to dress up as her on halloween this year).  When an American non-gamer views the PC game, what is the rhetoric are they seeing?  What message is being conveyed to them?  The first and most obvious aspect they will see is the violence.  The game is a war game, and I can find no fault in Blizzard skipping out on having their character models explode into happy faces and confetti when dying in combat, and opting for the more realistic result: Blood. The game has a rating of “T” for Teen because of use of foul language, and violence.   I am not going to put my hat in the debate of whether or not games influence children to commit violent acts, but I can certainly see the association.  Brummet refers to the logic of video games as “beautiful violence,” and StarCraft definitely fits the bill there (Brummet 75).  Its sharp character models, lush landscapes on certain maps, and breathtaking cinematic sequences are mixed in freely with some pretty gory deaths, especially on the part of the Zerg.  The violence of a war game produces rhetoric—and a concerned parent could care less about StarCraft’s epic storyline or game mechanics if they see the game as mindless violence.

There are plenty of other forms of rhetoric that might emerge from other aspects of the game.  For instance, the game is science-fiction oriented.  Sci-Fi is associated with a certain group of people in our popular culture, people that are ridiculed but keep dressing up in costume every year for Comic Con anyway.  Science Fiction gets an “uncool” connotation because of this association, whereas Sports games or Grand Theft Auto really don’t have nearly the level of negative association in terms of genre. Another rhetoric that emerges from the text is the time involved.  StarCraft is easy to learn, but very difficult to master, as we can see from the South Korean professionals as they engage in hand stretching ritual early on in the match on the YouTube video.  Joking aside, even though the game is not too difficult to learn, it does require time investment.  People who play video games but do not consider themselves Gamers can very easily be dissuaded when they see a learning curve.  I don’t believe this to be exclusive to StarCraft, or even to the RTS genre, because “casual gamers” are becoming more and more prevalent in pop culture.  I only need to look at Angry Birds fever that has spread like wildfire through our country to prove that point.  So what can drive nongamers to suddenly accept video games as a useful or inspiring part of their culture?  We will look at our neighbors in the West next post to get a better idea of what it takes.

My Rhetoric of Video Games Pt. 1 - Introduction

To me, rhetoric was always term that belonged solely to politicians and advertisers.  It was a menacing method of wordplay that allowed nasty men and women in suits to fool the public by skirting around real issues or to persuade consumers into buying products they did not need.  Dictionary.com proves that I was not alone in my misconceptions on the subject with its first entry, defining the term as “the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast,” putting a negative connotation on the word rather than the artistry that Aristotle and the Ancient Greeks attributed to it (Dictionary.com).  The only connection I would’ve been able to make to the term “rhetoric” for video games is how players seem to have their own language/references that they type in the game’s chat client that corresponded to particular strategies or practices within the video game.  However, thank to my Rhetoric class at Trinity, I have a new appreciation for the term, and can now see how games like Blizzard Entertainment's StarCraft can possess a rhetoric all their own.  Using Barry Brummet’s Rhetoric in Popular Culture as assistance, I have tried to understand how this rhetoric made the game incredibly popular here in the United States, but more importantly how it became a national phenomenon in South Korea.  The idea here is to examine how the general populous was persuaded to make a major change in their nation’s culture over a video game that was never intended to become so wildly popular that it would become a national pastime.  Maybe by looking at this cultural shift, it can shed some light as to how the transition can be made in our educational system to approach games in a different light.
 

To clarify what I mean by rhetoric, I am not going based off of Aristotle's approach, but rather the theories posed in Barry Brummet’s Rhetoric in Popular Culture, a refreshing, and more importantly, up to date stance on rhetoric in society that asks us to “think about how everyday actions, objects, and experiences affect us and those around us” (Brummet 4).  Instead of the traditional reading, writing, and speaking, Brummet believes that we truly experience and learn about our culture in a nontraditional text, or a “set of signs related to each other insofar as their meanings all contribute to the same set of effects or functions” (Brummet 29).  I immediately agreed with him, mostly for my earnest belief that video games are just as much a high art form as music, film, or literature, because I feel that these games give just as much a glimpse into today’s society as any formal article written about the state of the youth today or documentary about the same subject. I believe that there is a persuasive language behind these games, as can be seen when considering which games are popular in society, and realizing that they definitely have their own rhetoric and connotations that make them relevant and widely played.  How much time one spends playing, what genres a person plays, where they play, when they play—all of these factors make up Brummet’s definition of a text, and paint a specific image of the type of person who is playing the game.  The question that remains though is where do they stand in society?  Apparently, it depends entirely on where they live:  America or South Korea.

Why do RPers RP...err?

A while back I had come up with the idea of trying to see what makes role players tick, to see why these players act as participants within WoW's storyline.  While I still have yet to make an in-game character who wanders around town asking (mostly because I'd like to be able to record the experience rather than just talking about it on the blog), I did find a few forum posts that provide a bit of insight:

Why do you RP 1

Why do you RP 2

Here are some of the responses that stuck out when I read through-

It allows me to be creative. I meet new and interesting people every day. If it weren't for RP, I most likely would have stopped playing a while ago. While fun, I don't think just the game play would hold my attention for as long as RP has.  - Salane

"Because even if I didn't put them down on paper, the characters that have come to life in my head would pester me about it."  This...I get so many ideas for character stories and what not no matter what RPG game I'm playing. In WoW, it lets me be expressive and see if I can create an enjoyable story for myself and others. - Rekha

I love expanding my character's story and sharing it with the world, interacting with other stories, and incorporating those advantures and interactions with my story, watching my alter ego grow.- Kaezer

It enables me to be things that I cannot be in real life. - Valkyor

Although I am only looking at the particular sect of gamers, and crowdsourcing their motivations for one specific action within the larger scope of the game, this is wonderful to read.  I hate repeating myself saying that the whole "video games will rot your brain" argument is dead wrong, but look at those wonderful responses!  Salane loves the creativity the game inspires within her, but at the same time is fully engaged and invested in her character.  Same with Rekha, who combines the narrative found within the game with the narrative that she is motivated to create.  I feel like it's an English teachers dream to be able to elicit that type of response from their students, where they can read a novel and be so inspired by the characters or setting that they create their own related content, or envision the characters of the story in new ways. 

Those same teachers might hit the floor if their students had responses like Kaezer's, who wants to share his creative work with the world.  It's a work in progress, no less, as he or she constantly refines his character's traits and behavior to conform to however he or she feels that character should act within the world (of Warcraft).  Furthermore, it is a collaborative effort, in that all of the creative tales that are being spun by these players mold one another's tales.  They must react to one another's personalities and actions, an exercise that requires fast thinking, but can be quite fun at the same time. 

And lastly, the idea that players can "be" something they can't in real life is that identity aspect of video games, which no other medium can mimic, working in action.  Players like Valkyor are immersed fully into this identity, and see a part of themselves in this character.  This strong association players and/or students have with the characters of video games should be embraced, and the narratives examined, compared, broken down in order to enrich these students' minds.

Progress Report 3: November Challenges

This month arguably has been the most challenging so far.  While I have generated a fair amount of content in the written portion of the project (I am currently on 21 pages and am in the middle of Section 2), it was a painful process just putting ink to the paper.  Or in modern terminology, to park myself in front of the computer and type content that I could always edit later even if it was unorganized and sloppy.  I don't know whether I necessarily hit a wall, or if I suddenly got too comfortable after a quick start to the project. I am well aware that April is fast approaching, and I am trying my hardest not to be unprepared when the deadline comes.  I am that guy who waits until the eleventh hour, usually defending my "process" by saying that I needed to feel some pressure in order to be truly motivated.  This project is unlike anything I have ever committed to before, so I am impressed that I have nearly hit my midpoint goal of having 30 pages typed by the end of December.  I am not saying that the pages I have are of the highest quality, or that I necessarily will use all of them, but it is a strong draft, and am very happy with my organization of ideas thus far. 

As for my goals this month, I have simplified them into two categories:  1) Read more.  2)  Write more.   The video production can hold off for a bit, as I feel like my theories must be rounded out further, and my argument against the notion that "play cannot be academic" must be iron clad.  While the videos are a huge aspect of the project, in the end, they are complimentary to the essay, not the other way around.  It is a multiplatform defense, but as this is an English thesis, the written component must take precedence in order to attempt persuading the Thesis Committee that video games have a place in the classroom.  I have a few new books (even though I still haven't finished the last set) including Jeffrey Wilhelm's You Gotta BE the Book, which focuses on the need for engagement within the adolescent classroom setting.  This will help demonstrate how antiquated teaching practices simply do not work with the modern technologically inclined student, which will help make the case that video games, a medium that is huge in today's generation, can function as a way to make the class interesting and engaging again.

There are a lot of distractions coming all at once this month-- work is currently filled with drama and frustrations, tutoring is filled with students who are pulling their hair out over their essays (it's like looking into a crystal ball and seeing my future 5 months from now), the colloquium is coming to an end and will no longer keep me focused on writing, and the holidays are almost here.  I want to try and go over my 30 page goal, but I am staying realistic and positive. 

In the meantime, I am trying to come up with a few creative posts for the blog that might not find their way into the final paper.   Speaking of advantages of different mediums, since the videos and paper are presenting a logical argument, I can try using the blog for more personal reflections or experiments on the video games themselves.  I think tonight I am going to try logging onto WoW and playing for an hour (yeah right), and then reflecting on all things literary about the experience.  If it goes well, maybe I can try that for all of the games that I will be incorporating into the thesis.  We'll see how it goes...