For someone who has never once experienced the slightest urge to set foot in an online synthetic world such as the like described in Edward Castronova's "Synthetic Worlds", this book was eye-opening for a variety of reasons. Foremost of all, it introduced the concept of the synthetic world as a much less intimidating place, a place that could be shared and experienced by vast networks and nationalities without the social impediment of prejudice or stereotypes. It also introduced a world seemingly devoid of inequality- where anyone at all, whether your avatar be a hapless forest creature with no worldly possessions or a seasoned scholar, has the opportunity of equal benefits and enjoys equal exploits in thier world of choice.
Choice... here is the most tempting lure that the world designers can throw and perhaps the singular most enterprising feature of the online world to a novice player. In this world, I might be a small, insignificant student grappling with deadlines and meager paychecks in pursuit of a more fulfilling existence but in my own synthetic life, I can be....well....whatever my restless mind should desire. I can indulge my creative curiosity and become an artist or, were I to explore a more assertive personality, a ruthless corporate raider. I even have an inhuman option at my disposal just in case I might wish to morph into a flying squirrel and glide through the trees or a wolf to defeat my enemies with tooth and claw. But, social benefits and mobility, and endless choice with no ( real ) consequence are just a glimpse of what the synthetic lifestyle appears to hold in store for those who are inclined.
In fact, Edward Castronova describes a fantasy world that,in my opinion, caters to the whims of the real world in social strategy,economy, politics, and authority. While my wolf bounds, hunts, and stalks through the woodlands, it must take care to defend it's territory from invading wolves, defend itself from encroaching humans,yield to more powerful woodland denizens such as bears, and seek a life mate with which to form a pack. All of this my wolf must accomplish because it is a digital recreation of an actual wolf and so will take on the very same challenges that a real wolf must. In essence, my wolf avatar must play by the rules and these rules are specifically crafted by my world's designers to ensure me of a more thrilling, dramatic, and realistic experience inside the world of my wolf.In my digital forest, the birds sing, the rain falls, and the sun sets inducing my wolf to seek it's lair. This, in a proverbial nutshell, is what it all amounts to. This brings the gamers flooding into the online world to experience, for the first time, the lifestyle of any being that they dare imagine and all of the guts, glory, and dramatics that that particular lifestyle entails.
Try on a human avatar for size and you will find the same: a synthetic world, be it a medieval wonderland of dragons and wizards or a miniaturized metropolis, revolves around an economy not unlike our own. It is centered on accumulated possessions and personal wealth and the trade of possessions and personal wealth for status. Furthermore, in most digital worlds as in this one, wealth and possessions can only be accumulated through an avatar's skills and hours of toil mastering those skills.For example: the more gems my avatar can recover from a mine, the more coins or wealth she can acquire for her efforts. Her coins will then allow her to gain possessions that will allow her to expand her "avatar capital" in the digital realm. Apparently, an avatar's digital status is of great concern to multitudes of world gamers since most will not only devote hours of their own precious time to improving their digital identity's image, they will also, as Castronova has pointed out, spend oodles of their precious cash on this pursuit as well. Ebay is just one of the various real world corporations that has indulged a growing army of users that are auctioning, trading, and purchasing digital objects and wealth for use in synthetic worlds. If you have trouble grasping that concept, (as I certainly did)try this one: after you have won your item - with actual greenbacks - these companies will then deliver them expressly to your avatar at it's synthetic address- wherever that may be. (The very thought of this causes my head to hurt.)Unfortunately, my head has only begun to hurt.
In accumulating your various digital odds and ends and digital money that will give you tremendous digital satisfaction and digital standing in your digital society, it appears that there are hackers and identity thieves who are lying in wait to rob you of these possessions. If by chance, they manage to achieve this task, your avatar's status diminishes as she has lost the capital that she had toiled so devotedly to acquire. It also appears that there are at a few courts that are ready and able to bring these digital deviants to justice. To name one example, a japanese case of "user fraud" involved a man who took on the identity of another user's avatar and promptly sold the avatar's synthetic house while under that identity. The result? He was arrested and charged for his online criminal act... referred to by Mr. Castronova as a prime example of "toxic immersion".
But wait, just as synthetic deviants can be forced to compensate thier synthetic victims in court, so can politics shape and manipulate the world's design. It seems that users can beseech their world's designers for societal change similar to the way that real world lobbyists seek to gain influence in the soap opera of real world politics. You see, not everything is peaches and cream in our synthetic city: the wizards are enjoying life in the lap of luxury, amassing piles of gold coins while the dwarfs toil in the tunnels below with nothing but a collection of weapons to show for it. If this scenario sounds eerily familiar then you get the picture. Regardless, democracy is alive and well in synthetic worlds and economic change does indeed happen at the bequest of users from time to time. This, as Castronova points out, serves to balance the scales of equality for the users. In other words, it is a necessary interruption to the digital scheme to prevent multitudes of frustrated users from vacating the world. If only it were that simple here on planet reality.
After all, where there is society, any type of society, there must be cooperation and there is no better example than here in the synthetic world. For instance, unless you were planning on purchasing a fairly large digital cannon with your digital wealth, you are going to have little to no luck killing the mountain dragon by yourself. You will need to cooperate with the knight because he has the sword. Nor will you be able to accumulate your vast wealth without the merchant's agreement to purchase your magical dragon scales... In the synthetic world as in the real, it does not pay to be a hermit.
As you might guess, the concept of the synthetic world and it's complexities are all somewhat overwhelming for someone such as myself. Until now, it was difficult to conceive of a responsible member of society desiring to spend the larger portion of their time inside a computer realm with digitalized beings, events, and rules. The more I come to understand the realm of the synthetic world, however, the more intriguing it does become. I, for one, cannot argue against the intriguing possibility of entering a recreation of my world in any shape I wish with any occupation I desire in which I have limitless economic potential as long as I play by the rules, cooperate with the neighborhood and put forth an effort. I can live with that.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Violent Video Games
Okay. So I chose to focus my blog on the completely overbaked topic of video game violence... let's not beat around the bush here. It is what it is but that has much to do with the fact that it is also a completely exaggerated and misunderstood topic of public interest.
For instance, video games with -shall we say- an element of destructive mayhem and blood gushing have been maligned by researchers, social scientists, and opportunistic politicians alike for decades. These self-proclaimed experts claim that violent video games promote and enhance violent tendencies in children and young people. One argument that has been beaten ( no pun intended )to death is the claim that video games with a central theme of violence "prime aggressive thoughts, weaken inhibitions against antisocial behavior, model and reinforce decreased empathy toward others and create a more violent world view on the part ofthe young player". ( Dill and Dill 1998) These researchers apply the effects of violently themed television shows and movies to the medium of the video game, ignoring the undeniable fact that a video game is, by it's nature, a separate medium with differing characteristics. As Goldstein points out in this essay, the video game cannot be compared with a television show or movie by it's open-ended narrative quality and it's interactive abilities to nurture it's users' varying goals and needs. In fact, studies have indicated that young children readily distinguish violent video games from the more realistic and therefore more unsettling imagery of the television. (Goldstein)
Another argument that has made the rounds in the ring of public opinion in the concept of the "third person effect". In media research, this is known as the capability of a violently themed video game to "turn a good child bad". In other words, violent video games and media in general brings out the ax murderer in little Timmy. (Think twice about plunking your little brother down in front of "Grand Theft Auto" while your car is unattended or you might have a budding gangster on your hands.)While it is hard to imagine that such an asanine concept has found scientific support at all, my opinion can best be summed by an equally befuddled researcher: "this idea is so odd, it is hard to know where to begin in challenging it" ( Barker 2001, pg.38) Indeed.
Then there is the argument that repeated exposure to violent media such as video games will increase the likelihood that the youngster's impressionable and developing brain will form aggressive cognitions as opposed to a child that has not been exposed to this media. Obviously, this argument has it's roots firmly planted in the theory of social learning. Among other things, the child will learn to associate repetitive violent imagery and actions with normal behavior and will thus repeat these behaviors in human interactions. As you might expect, research has thoroughly confronted this idea as well with vastly indecisive results: While research has,in fact, proven that children will display stimulated and physically aggressive behavior after playing a violent video game, other studies have indicated that children naturally display more active and involved social play as a result of playing the games. As Goldstein suggests,this would indicate a coorelation with physical stimulation and prosocial play rather than a direct coorelation with violent play. Studies concerning whether violent video games actually cause children to display aggressive behavior toward others have been largely inconclusive across the board.... As a whole the topic remains a firebrand in the scientific community as researchers of various concentrations and backgrounds remain ever divided.
My own opinion is largely based on observation. My younger brother and his friends will play gory video games until they are carted away in a straight jacket ( the gorier the better ) and my father reports that he has not had to lock his car keys away, hide the kitchen knives or chain him to his bed and call the authorities. Make of that what you will. I've already formed my decision.
For instance, video games with -shall we say- an element of destructive mayhem and blood gushing have been maligned by researchers, social scientists, and opportunistic politicians alike for decades. These self-proclaimed experts claim that violent video games promote and enhance violent tendencies in children and young people. One argument that has been beaten ( no pun intended )to death is the claim that video games with a central theme of violence "prime aggressive thoughts, weaken inhibitions against antisocial behavior, model and reinforce decreased empathy toward others and create a more violent world view on the part ofthe young player". ( Dill and Dill 1998) These researchers apply the effects of violently themed television shows and movies to the medium of the video game, ignoring the undeniable fact that a video game is, by it's nature, a separate medium with differing characteristics. As Goldstein points out in this essay, the video game cannot be compared with a television show or movie by it's open-ended narrative quality and it's interactive abilities to nurture it's users' varying goals and needs. In fact, studies have indicated that young children readily distinguish violent video games from the more realistic and therefore more unsettling imagery of the television. (Goldstein)
Another argument that has made the rounds in the ring of public opinion in the concept of the "third person effect". In media research, this is known as the capability of a violently themed video game to "turn a good child bad". In other words, violent video games and media in general brings out the ax murderer in little Timmy. (Think twice about plunking your little brother down in front of "Grand Theft Auto" while your car is unattended or you might have a budding gangster on your hands.)While it is hard to imagine that such an asanine concept has found scientific support at all, my opinion can best be summed by an equally befuddled researcher: "this idea is so odd, it is hard to know where to begin in challenging it" ( Barker 2001, pg.38) Indeed.
Then there is the argument that repeated exposure to violent media such as video games will increase the likelihood that the youngster's impressionable and developing brain will form aggressive cognitions as opposed to a child that has not been exposed to this media. Obviously, this argument has it's roots firmly planted in the theory of social learning. Among other things, the child will learn to associate repetitive violent imagery and actions with normal behavior and will thus repeat these behaviors in human interactions. As you might expect, research has thoroughly confronted this idea as well with vastly indecisive results: While research has,in fact, proven that children will display stimulated and physically aggressive behavior after playing a violent video game, other studies have indicated that children naturally display more active and involved social play as a result of playing the games. As Goldstein suggests,this would indicate a coorelation with physical stimulation and prosocial play rather than a direct coorelation with violent play. Studies concerning whether violent video games actually cause children to display aggressive behavior toward others have been largely inconclusive across the board.... As a whole the topic remains a firebrand in the scientific community as researchers of various concentrations and backgrounds remain ever divided.
My own opinion is largely based on observation. My younger brother and his friends will play gory video games until they are carted away in a straight jacket ( the gorier the better ) and my father reports that he has not had to lock his car keys away, hide the kitchen knives or chain him to his bed and call the authorities. Make of that what you will. I've already formed my decision.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
