Study Shows Why We Like to Game
Players like to role-play, research finds.
The above article is what started me on this blog entry in the first place. It's a small article, with the one it's referencing likely to go into much more detail, but the article hits a key point. Videogames can give us the ability to play out our moral focus in a consequence free environment. This allows us to do as we please, see the repercussions, and change how we would act based on that end result. We can play through multiple times and see how various decisions affect each other, and change our behavior accordingly. This isn't just with games that have a morality system, but with almost any game. Playing a round of Call of Duty utilizing teamwork vs going it alone shows us how we work best. Playing Splinter Cell sneaking around vs all out assault show us the value of subtlety vs brashness, and shows us the best times to use each. World of Warcraft can show us if how we best help others, and in what ways we can best contribute to the group. All of these styles are reflective of who we actually are, which is why we do best when we play in a way that is self-reflective.
I don't exactly have the same moral compass that most have. I'm not sure why, but I don't. When I played Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic for the first time, I reveled in it because it gave me a chance to play the game as I would and see how my moral compass was currently working. Every time that I played as if it were me, I would end up in the middle on the morality scale. It also gave me an opportunity to see how things would turn out if I went all good or all bad. To this day, I play morality system games the first time around as I would (inFAMOUS games aside, since it hinders you if you don't choose to be all good or all bad), and also play good and bad, then one more time as I would knowing the potential outcomes.
Why does this matter? Simply put, I've noticed my moral compass shift because of how I play games. At one point, I admired Captain America because he did what he felt was right, regardless what others, including his government, thought. I still admire him for those traits, and more, but now I feel a connection with him, because I do what I feel is best, regardless of moral standing. Sometimes this puts me in negative moral standing, but in the end it's more than self serving. I do what I feel is best for me or the group as a whole. If I have the choice to save a city or an ally, I weigh his life against all. If I save him, will he be the missing cog in saving the world/universe, or even our squad? Are those millions of lives lost worth the one? I may choose to save my ally, knowing that it will be better in the long run, but I may get a negative reaction from the game. It's a choice I live with, as if it happened in real life, because it's one that I know that I would have made, had the situation been real.
In real life, I take the same principle and apply it. Do I fight for opportunities for a troop? Instead of lives, it's reputation, but it can have a massive impact, too. If I fight for the one troop, and they end up doing more harm than good, then my ability to get my superiors to help another is greatly hindered. I can't save everyone, either. Maybe, I have three troops that all want something. I may not be able to get them all what they want, but helping one means the other two can't, and vice versa. Sometimes helping the one has a greater impact than the two. I have to make the decision, which can potentially affect their careers in the long run, but I have to decide what's best.
Through video games, I've found myself being able to pick up on other traits that I had always admired, but couldn't quite integrate. As weird as it sounds, playing Legend of Zelda games has really helped me become a more courageous person. Playing as Link and helping the Zoras escape their frozen tomb, or aiding a young girl in her insect collection, has gotten me to do more of what I should do. I'm now much more likely to stand up to a bully for a friend than I ever would have. Even if I don't actually think it, there's always an air of, "What would Link do?" (WWLD) Even when thinking about characters not from video games, like Dick Grayson (Robin/Nightwing), James Buchanan Barnes (Captain America's Sidekick, Bucky), or Lucius Vorenus (from HBO's Rome), I've been able to integrate the traits that I admire from them because of the way that I play video games.
In the end, I've found myself doing more good than harm. If there was a light to dark bar right next to my head, would I be all good? No. I'd say that at best, I'd be half way from neutral to full good, but my motives are better. Considering my natural disposition, that's really good progress.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Comics and Books: Mutually Beneficial
When I say Comics and Books, I'm not distinguishing between comic strips and books, or the difference between comic books and graphic novels I'm saying that comic books and literary works have the potential to help each other out. Quite simply put, each has something that the other needs. Comics are easy to digest, and have the potential to capture broader audiences. Books have legitimacy, and have literally thousands of years of some of the best stories ever conceived.
Comics, unwittingly, were the architect of their own demise. Between the hokey comics of the Golden and Silver Ages of Comics, and the over-the-top muscles, boobs, edginess, and bad plot lines of the 90s, Comics are not seen as a legitimate. This is a perception issue, as Comics have also brought up some serious social issues. Green Arrow's sidekicks have both had their issues. The first Speedy had a heroin addiction, and the second Speedy contracted HIV when she was a child prostitue (before she became Speedy, of course). Tony Stark was an alcoholic, and had to address that in, "Demon in a Bottle." The Watchmen was allegorical of the dangers of when people in power go unchecked, obviously with the powers being literal, but that is how Comics best illustrate man's weaknesses. Even less obvious are things like the tumultuous relationships fathers have with their sons represented quite aptly through Bruce Wayne and his three sons, Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, and Tim Drake, each with their own own play on that father/son relationship. But perceptions are that, and perceptions are sadly stronger than reality.
People today want their literary works in easier ways to digest them. They want the to have what they are doing pop out at them. While there are some incredible works of fiction out there, they sadly don't have the attention of as many people as they should. Adding the artwork of a skilled hand can add volumes to the pages, and can make things much easier to consume. Think of what Dante's Divine Comedy, Herman Melville's Moby Dick, or Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility could become when combined with art. It doesn't have to be that elaborate. Right now, Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series is being converted into Comics, as had Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow. It could also help bring other books into the lime light, such as Christopher Rowley's Bazil Broketail. New life could also be brought to works that are not fiction, like Plato's The Republic, or historical works like Joseph J Ellis' His Excellency: George Washington. That has the potential to bring to life works that would otherwise go unnoticed.
The next question is how it would best be distributed. A monthly book is more expensive in the long run, but is easier to digest at a time. Graphic Novels seem fitting, but most books easily surpass 300 pages of solid text. A Graphic Novel would be at least triple that, if not 5 times that size. Graphic Novels that are 1500-3000 pages long seems quite a bit excessive. That would also cost a significant amount of money to produce and distribute. It might be viable with eBooks, which would reduce a lot of the costs, but the point is to increase circulation and legitimacy, not push it to a currently niche market. Perhaps a compromise is in order. A twice monthly book with chapter releases every so many months, and a full chronicle at the final is probably what is best. That way, the smaller bites can be released at a faster rate for cheaper at a time, and popularity of the bi-monthly can determine the speed and quantity of the chapter books are produced, with the full book released as a special edition for only the most die-hard fans. It would be best to start out with a few popular books to gain attention to the concept, and to gauge where the market lies.
Comics, unwittingly, were the architect of their own demise. Between the hokey comics of the Golden and Silver Ages of Comics, and the over-the-top muscles, boobs, edginess, and bad plot lines of the 90s, Comics are not seen as a legitimate. This is a perception issue, as Comics have also brought up some serious social issues. Green Arrow's sidekicks have both had their issues. The first Speedy had a heroin addiction, and the second Speedy contracted HIV when she was a child prostitue (before she became Speedy, of course). Tony Stark was an alcoholic, and had to address that in, "Demon in a Bottle." The Watchmen was allegorical of the dangers of when people in power go unchecked, obviously with the powers being literal, but that is how Comics best illustrate man's weaknesses. Even less obvious are things like the tumultuous relationships fathers have with their sons represented quite aptly through Bruce Wayne and his three sons, Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, and Tim Drake, each with their own own play on that father/son relationship. But perceptions are that, and perceptions are sadly stronger than reality.
People today want their literary works in easier ways to digest them. They want the to have what they are doing pop out at them. While there are some incredible works of fiction out there, they sadly don't have the attention of as many people as they should. Adding the artwork of a skilled hand can add volumes to the pages, and can make things much easier to consume. Think of what Dante's Divine Comedy, Herman Melville's Moby Dick, or Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility could become when combined with art. It doesn't have to be that elaborate. Right now, Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series is being converted into Comics, as had Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow. It could also help bring other books into the lime light, such as Christopher Rowley's Bazil Broketail. New life could also be brought to works that are not fiction, like Plato's The Republic, or historical works like Joseph J Ellis' His Excellency: George Washington. That has the potential to bring to life works that would otherwise go unnoticed.
The next question is how it would best be distributed. A monthly book is more expensive in the long run, but is easier to digest at a time. Graphic Novels seem fitting, but most books easily surpass 300 pages of solid text. A Graphic Novel would be at least triple that, if not 5 times that size. Graphic Novels that are 1500-3000 pages long seems quite a bit excessive. That would also cost a significant amount of money to produce and distribute. It might be viable with eBooks, which would reduce a lot of the costs, but the point is to increase circulation and legitimacy, not push it to a currently niche market. Perhaps a compromise is in order. A twice monthly book with chapter releases every so many months, and a full chronicle at the final is probably what is best. That way, the smaller bites can be released at a faster rate for cheaper at a time, and popularity of the bi-monthly can determine the speed and quantity of the chapter books are produced, with the full book released as a special edition for only the most die-hard fans. It would be best to start out with a few popular books to gain attention to the concept, and to gauge where the market lies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)