After reading through "Talking About Videogames" by James Newman, I have gained insight into, what Newman calls, the "myth of the solitary videogame player" (463). Newman believes that social remoteness in individuals is not a result of videogames, as some believe. He briefly discusses the key points in his first book that disprove this myth. The first false assumption is that videogames are a single-person event, when in fact they are not. Rather, Newman addresses the fact that all videogame consoles are specifically designed to allow several individuals to play. Some game systems have four controller hook-ups, while others can connect to Wi-Fi to allow players to share their experiences with others all over the world. The second false assumption appears on page 463; he states, "Second, it utterly refuses to entertain the possibility of the existence of videogames cultures of talk, discussion, sharing, and collaboration". Similar to films and television, people enjoy discussing different aspects of videogames, whether it be at the office, school, a party, or over dinner. Magazines, such as Edge, specifically dealing with gaming are even being published. There truly is an entire press for videogames.
Before reading this chapter, I always associated social ineptitude and withdrawnness with videogames and I still believe that there is a definite association. However, videogames do have the capacity to allow players to communicate and work with others to reach some final goal, whether those other players are in the same room or across the country. On the other hand, I feel some people may use videogames as a way to play a solitary game with no social interaction. This was not the intent of the game consoles developers, though. They encourage the interaction and social experiences a game can provide. On page 464 Newman states, "Importantly, this technical capacity for multiplayer gaming is not left as an under-exploited feature and the majority of contemporary titles offer some form of multiplayer mode that encourages co-operative or competitive collaboration." From personal experience as a child and even today, I have always used videogames as a social event. When I was young, my brother, my father, and I would spend time on the weekends playing videogames. It was a way for the three of us to bond and have fun. We communicated and worked together. And even today I still enjoy playing videogames, although I only actually play occasionally. My favorite thing to do is play online on the X-Box 360 with my brother and friends. Using the headset to talk to others all over the world always excites me. Additionally, just the other day I was playing Super Nintendo with a friend and we were able to relax and have fun. In conclusion, I never really considered videogames before to be a social interaction, although the evidence was always right in front of my face. I now understand that videogames are a tool to allow social interaction between people in the same room or across the world.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Comm 203 Compare/Contrast Game Blog
While reading through the chapter "What is a Game?" by Simon Egenfeldt-Neilson, Jonas H. Smith, and Susana P. Tosca in A Media Studies Reader, the two perspectives on the constitution of games that were personally most intriguing are Roger Caillois's views and Brian Sutton-Smith's views. Roger Caillois, a French philosopher, focuses his attention on the sociological approach of play. He begins by stating his four necessary requirements of play. On page 154, the requirements of play are stated, " it must be performed voluntarily, is uncertain, unproductive, and consists of make-believe." Furthermore, he goes on to develop four categories of games. These categories are competition, chance, imitation, and vertigo. Competition focuses on skill, an example being chess, while chance deals with randomness and luck, most video games would fall into this category. Imitation does not focus on winning but rather taking on a different role, for instance adventure video games, and vertigo deals with experiencing pleasure, such as riding a roller coaster. Finally, it is important to note that according to Caillois, a single game may incorporate more than one of these categories. The example used in the text is a popular video game entitled Super Monkey Ball. According to the text, this game includes imitation, competition, and vertigo.
In addition to Caillois's theory of play, Brain Sutton-Smith, a educationist, suggests some ideas about games as play. Unlike Caillois who gives four qualities of play, Sutton-Smith never gives a single definition for play. In fact, he believes because the nature of play varies, the definition must be that it simply is contingent upon the purpose. One interesting idea he proposes that Caillois never mentions is that games are not a part of all cultures. The text states on page 159, "Rather games emerge as societies mature and develop more advanced political and social organization." Basically, the advancement of the games in a society indicate a higher leves of political and social maturity and development. Similar to Caillois's definition of games, Sutton-Smith believes a game must be voluntary, but goes on to elaborate. He also says that two opposing forces must follow organization to have some final consequence. Like Caillois, Sutton-Smith divides games into four categories, including social, solitary, physical, and theoretical. However, these categories appear to be mutually exclusive.
Although Caillois and Sutton-Smith have many differing ideas about play and games, they have some similarities, specifically in games. This could be because they were in different concentrations of study or because Sutton-Smith studied this topic at least twenty years after Caillois. It is also possible that there is no real reason for the many differences other than the fact that they just disagree. Overall, each theorist proposed his personal ideas about play and games.
In addition to Caillois's theory of play, Brain Sutton-Smith, a educationist, suggests some ideas about games as play. Unlike Caillois who gives four qualities of play, Sutton-Smith never gives a single definition for play. In fact, he believes because the nature of play varies, the definition must be that it simply is contingent upon the purpose. One interesting idea he proposes that Caillois never mentions is that games are not a part of all cultures. The text states on page 159, "Rather games emerge as societies mature and develop more advanced political and social organization." Basically, the advancement of the games in a society indicate a higher leves of political and social maturity and development. Similar to Caillois's definition of games, Sutton-Smith believes a game must be voluntary, but goes on to elaborate. He also says that two opposing forces must follow organization to have some final consequence. Like Caillois, Sutton-Smith divides games into four categories, including social, solitary, physical, and theoretical. However, these categories appear to be mutually exclusive.
Although Caillois and Sutton-Smith have many differing ideas about play and games, they have some similarities, specifically in games. This could be because they were in different concentrations of study or because Sutton-Smith studied this topic at least twenty years after Caillois. It is also possible that there is no real reason for the many differences other than the fact that they just disagree. Overall, each theorist proposed his personal ideas about play and games.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Comm 203 Learning Styles Blog
After taking the VARK Learning Styles Test and the Soloman and Felder Learning Styles Questionnaire, I have gained much insight about my personal learning style and how to best apply this information while pursuing an education. A learning style is a preferred way for an individual to gather information, including visually, aurally,linguistically, and kinesthetically. The VARK Learning Styles Test focuses on these four aspects and scores the test taker on each. The higher the score, the more useful the style. According to this test, it is possible to use more than one type of learning efficiently. On the other hand, the Soloman and Felder Learning Styles Questionnaire uses a sliding scale to determine four different types of learning, including active and reflective, sensing and intuitive, visual and verbal, and sequential and global.
The test score I received for the VARK Learning Styles Test was VAK, meaning I can most effectively learn kinesthetically, visually, and aurally, respectively. Although, I scored very low in the read/write category. This basically means that I am best able to learn by actually trying, seeing, or listening and have a harder time reading or writing out directions. In addition, on the Soloman and Felder Learning Styles Questionnaire I dramatically leaned toward action and visual and only slightly leaned toward intuitive and global. These results correspond and agree with the VARK Test as well. It concluded that I can best learn when I can physically try and see and that I enjoy innovation and new concepts and am able to see the big picture but cannot always explain all of the details. I find these results to be quite accurate. It has always been easiest for me to learn when I have something physical to use and assist me. Also, I tend to be very observant and consider myself to be a critical listener. Often times I am able to grasp new concepts but cannot express the smaller details.
These tests are designed to assist and improve one's ability to learn and understand. Personally, there are many things I can do to improve my learning abilities. As far as the highest score I received, kinesthetic according to VARK or action according to Soloman and Felder, I must find a way to physically do something with the information I am given. For me, when I study I find making note cards the best way to retain the information. Because I am able to touch and move them to study, I am actively involved in remembering the information. The next highest score I received was visual or vision. To best assist me in learning, maps, charts, diagrams, ect. can be used to my advantage. My personal technique to best learn during a lecture is to use arrows to make connections between things in my notes and color coding of my notes, whether it be with the ink or the highlighter I use. Finally, I received a rather high score in the aural aspect. One way to improve learning is to record lectures or information and play it back. Also, listening closely during a lecture can be very helpful. This score immediately made sense to me because when I watch Jeopardy, I have to hear Alex read the clue out loud rather than reading it to myself. Unfortunately this makes me terrible at Jeopardy, regardless if I know the answers, because others have read the clue and have shouted out answers and Alex and I haven't even gotten through the clue yet!
The area that I scored low on according to the VARK Test is the linguistic style. This means that I should stay away from lengthy written descriptions or notes. Also, on the Soloman and Felder Questionnaire, I only slightly leaned to the innovation and global side, meaning I was rather balanced in those areas. I like new ideas and abstract concepts, but am not opposed to seeing how something fits into the real world. I tend to grasp the big picture first, but following a logical step-by-step process is possible for me as well. Although I sway to one side, it is not drastic. Overall, I feel like taking these tests will assist me in everything that I do. It is especially important now because I am constantly learning new information and having to apply it on tests; however, I will always be learning and can use this information to my advantage later on in my life.
The test score I received for the VARK Learning Styles Test was VAK, meaning I can most effectively learn kinesthetically, visually, and aurally, respectively. Although, I scored very low in the read/write category. This basically means that I am best able to learn by actually trying, seeing, or listening and have a harder time reading or writing out directions. In addition, on the Soloman and Felder Learning Styles Questionnaire I dramatically leaned toward action and visual and only slightly leaned toward intuitive and global. These results correspond and agree with the VARK Test as well. It concluded that I can best learn when I can physically try and see and that I enjoy innovation and new concepts and am able to see the big picture but cannot always explain all of the details. I find these results to be quite accurate. It has always been easiest for me to learn when I have something physical to use and assist me. Also, I tend to be very observant and consider myself to be a critical listener. Often times I am able to grasp new concepts but cannot express the smaller details.
These tests are designed to assist and improve one's ability to learn and understand. Personally, there are many things I can do to improve my learning abilities. As far as the highest score I received, kinesthetic according to VARK or action according to Soloman and Felder, I must find a way to physically do something with the information I am given. For me, when I study I find making note cards the best way to retain the information. Because I am able to touch and move them to study, I am actively involved in remembering the information. The next highest score I received was visual or vision. To best assist me in learning, maps, charts, diagrams, ect. can be used to my advantage. My personal technique to best learn during a lecture is to use arrows to make connections between things in my notes and color coding of my notes, whether it be with the ink or the highlighter I use. Finally, I received a rather high score in the aural aspect. One way to improve learning is to record lectures or information and play it back. Also, listening closely during a lecture can be very helpful. This score immediately made sense to me because when I watch Jeopardy, I have to hear Alex read the clue out loud rather than reading it to myself. Unfortunately this makes me terrible at Jeopardy, regardless if I know the answers, because others have read the clue and have shouted out answers and Alex and I haven't even gotten through the clue yet!
The area that I scored low on according to the VARK Test is the linguistic style. This means that I should stay away from lengthy written descriptions or notes. Also, on the Soloman and Felder Questionnaire, I only slightly leaned to the innovation and global side, meaning I was rather balanced in those areas. I like new ideas and abstract concepts, but am not opposed to seeing how something fits into the real world. I tend to grasp the big picture first, but following a logical step-by-step process is possible for me as well. Although I sway to one side, it is not drastic. Overall, I feel like taking these tests will assist me in everything that I do. It is especially important now because I am constantly learning new information and having to apply it on tests; however, I will always be learning and can use this information to my advantage later on in my life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)