Reflective Post

Well, I guess this is it, huh. One last post before we all go our separate ways for the holidays - oh wait, we've got some sort of essay due before then, don't we... :)

So, the weblogs. How were they as a learning tool? Well, as a means of introducing people who had never before seen an online community such as this, it was probably a pretty good learning tool, an experience that they hadn't had before. From my perspective, however, from a person who is heavily involved in several online communities, I don't think it was a good example of the scope and involvement that 'true' online communities can offer. Participants (myself included) stuck pretty much to their required posts and comments, and there wasn't much use of the weblog beyond that. This could be because participants didn't see the weblog as a community, just as a place for assessed work to be posted. In any case, the weblog served its function adequately.

I don't regard myself to be a cyborg. Despite the theories put forward by various people in the readings we dicussed in tutorials, my idea of cyborgs hasn't changed: a man-machine hybrid, yes, but a human in which the machine parts are an integral and extensive part of the whole. I don't consider things like hearing aids or glasses to be integral or extensive parts of the humans who wear them, and unlike true cyborgs such things can be removed. Similarly, I don't believe things like mp3 players and computers make us cyborgs - they are merely new ways of interacting with our peers and the environment.

I came to the course with a heavy background in digital technology and online interaction. Approaching the readings with that perspective, I often found the authors made assumptions and conclusions that directly contradicted my personal experience of similar situations or statements, which was quite jarring. This was, I think, often due to the age of several of the readings. With the current advances in digital technology preceeding at a fast rate, such readings often become outdated very quickly. However moving past the readings, overall I enjoyed the course. So often the issues we discussed in the tutorial are marginalised by academics and critics and the general population, so it was a great experience to participate in a unit such as this where current issues can be discussed and debated.

I really enjoyed the tutorial discussions (and apologise if anyone thought I talked too much!). If anyone wants to keep in touch you can drop me an email: velithya AT hotmail DOT com. :)

~Jen

Jen: Playing Politics Workshop Response

I selected September 12th and Donkey John as my two games to focus on.

1. Do you think the political simulation games you examined would have been "effective" in communicating with people via the Internet?

I think they would have been effective in communicating with people over the internet, yes. September 12th, other than requiring the installation of Shockwave, is very easy to play, requiring only mouse clicks, and Donkey John harks back to the 'old-skool' style of gaming, in particular Game and Watch and of course Donkey Kong. Both of these feature, I feel, would have helped make the games attractive.

2. Was the political message underpinning the political simulation games you examined immediately obvious? If not, were you driven or interested to find out what the game was trying to "say" (apart from the fact that you have to as part of the workshop)?

The games make their point very easily - as soon as you fire the first shot in September 12th, and watch one or more civilians morph into terrorists in front of your eyes, the point of the game is made very clear. The Newsgamming press release linked in Webct says "As you try to kill the terrorists, you will always kill civilians ('collateral damage')." I actually managed to take a few shots without killing civilians, and soon discovered that taking out large buildings could also be done without killing anyone, and was a good way to see who was hiding behind them and possibly approaching your line of fire, but in general, the game's designers were right. It is almost impossible to fire without killing civilians along with terrorists.

One thing I noticed that I thought was very cute, and harkened back to the initial notice that it was a simulation, not a game, was that when you kill the civilian-turned-terrorists, some of their 'corpses' are civilian corpses, not terrorist corpses. In addition, every so often one of the civilian-turned-terrorists will turn back into a civilian. Little details like these are ones that can help sell the game to more people, because the game designers could have not bothered to put them in - but they did anyway.

Donkey John was a little harder to understand, and I think it was only because I read the accompanying interview while I was waiting for Shockwave to download that I understood what it was about. Unlike September 12th, Donkey John is non-intuitive and the gameplay is a lot harder. You require actual coordination to play the game, and I was surprised when, after dying about a total gameplay time of 30 seconds, I was told I had reached a high score. I must confess, however, that if I hadn't read the interview and had just stumbled across it, I probably wouldn't have gone looking for the context as to why it was made - although having been linked the game the person doing the linking almost certainly would have summarised what the game was about, or I wouldn't have clicked the link to the game in the first place. This is probably a symptom of the iGeneration that Tama was talking about a few weeks ago - if it doesn't immediately impact you or yours or isn't something shiny and cool, you're not really interested.

3. If you had to write a political simulation game similar in size and structure to those you examined, (a) what would be the point you were trying to make and (b) how would the game be structured and operate in order to make that point? (Just give a very brief outline).

Not being very politically minded, I don't really know that much about the current political situation and such. I would probably focus on America and their illegal war, and about how they banned press coverage of things like the coffins and tried not to publicise the casualty numbers and such like that. As to the second half of the question, I would want to make the game as simple to play as possible, because complex gameplay would drive potential players away. Perhaps some sort of whackamole-style game where players have to click on coffins as they poke out of holes, with the cursor being a big hammer with the american flag on it, or something, to symbolise the Bush Administration's attempt to hide the truth.

Jen: As We Become Machines: Corporealized Pleasures In Video Games | Martti Lahti

The article discusses the relationship between the body and technology, as represented by computer games, It discusses the evolution of computer games in brief detail, suggesting that as that evolution progressed, instead of separating us further from our bodies, it actually grounds us in them. It then briefly discusses 'cyber envy', described as a longing to cross the human/machine boundary, represented by various games in which you can change your 'skin', play as your opposite race or gender, or ungrade your 'body' to become faster and stronger. However the article concludes that we can never cross this boundary and leave our bodies behind.

There are several issues to discuss regarding this article, and while I'll go into more detail in the tute I'll briefly outline some here. Do you agree with the main argument of the article, that video games ground us in our bodies rather than freeing us from them, or do you think that new media allows us to have 'out of body' experiences? The article mentions physically ducking and leaning in response to stimuli on the screen as evidence of a cybernetic loop between player and computer. Do you think this is evidence of such a loop, or merely an ingrained reaction to certain stimuli that would occur in the real world? What is your opinion on what Lahti describes as 'cyber envy'?

Finally, one can take pleasure in all sorts of leisure activities, many non-technological. Is it overanalysing to talk about cybernetic loops and desires to blur man/machine boundries when regarding a player enjoying his computer game experience, or is it a necessary analysis of his enjoyment?

blogging survey

If anyone missed the workshop on Wednesday, it would be greatly appreciated if you would go to webct and fill in the blogging survey. Tama and I are really interested in your responses to the blogging aspect of the unit, and will be using the surveys to review the unit.
When you've filled it in, you could send it by email to me (bartlett@arts.uwa.edu.au) or the to English office (eccs@arts.uwa.edu.au) if you want it to remain anonymous.
many thanks,
alison