Convergence Culture Chapter 4

Chapter 4 was called Quentin Tarantinos' Star Wars: Grassroots Creativity Meets the Media Journey.

The chapter focused on how grassroots culture is a blossoming sector of culture as a whole. Television, film, music, etc. are now open and available for the amateur auteur to take a stab at. Grassroots culture used to be an invisible group, mainly because they had no way of sharing their creations. The internet has now made it so that anyone and everyone can create something and share it with hundreds of thousands of people.

Grassroots experimentation has acted as an innovator, creating new sounds, new artists, new techniques, and new consumer relations. It used to be that members of the commercial culture would try and put an end to these fan based creations. They felt it was infringing upon their profit and the intellectual property. However, culture is veering towards participatory culture, where cultural and societal protocols are open ended, with less control from the media. It's more like creation for creations sake, not for a profit or to infringe upon anyone's work.

There's the prohibitionist stance, which wants to regulate and criminalize fan participation, due to fear of it getting out of control. Napster is one of those institutions of fan participation that led to music downloads, which led to a firestorm that I think everyone's familiar with.

The collaborationists stance encourages fan participation, and this stance generally applies to newer forms of media, such as internet, games, and in a lesser way, cell phones. Many video games and their companies are turning to a support of this position. Fans are creating game types, skins, noises, add ons for combat bars, and so on. They are active participants in creating the world of a game, in furthering it's entertainment and appeal.

There is a split in forms of culture; there is mass culture, which is the producer, and then there is popular culture, which is the consumer. These grassroots artists are blending the two together, blurring lines so that the groups can act as a whole. However, many larger entertainment companies don't want to see this reality, because once the consumer becomes a producer, there is a chance of losing customers or fans to them. However, in actuality, everyone already exists in both, as producers consume a good amount of culture, while consumers now have tools available to them so that they may produce their art.

The mainstream media already draws from and absorbs certain grassroots practices and creations. Interesting ideas, creative world or characters, implementation of game elements, many of these started as grassroot ideas that are now becoming productions from larger media.

Lucas Arts was the larger example given. Lucas started out completely open to letting fans create new stories in the world that he had built. He allowed them to be sent it, he created competitions, and so on. However, it has gotten to a point where they are claiming that fans are doing damage to the spirit of a franchise like Star Wars. What I feel is actually happening is the fact that fans are becoming more and more talented, and technology is becoming so advanced, that larger companies are fearing loss of profits and fan bases to these indie creations.

Jennifer Helper

Okay, I won't lie, I got really annoyed and upset over this whole ordeal. I didn't even know about it at the time that it was occurring, so I'm a little late to the party, but still.

I do think this is a problem with the gaming community, and I only say that because I exist in both world. I'm a gamer, but I'm a casual enough gamer so that I stand on the outside a lot of the time, especially during class. Look, I understand, people didn't like her comments, but that's no reason for personal insults. Hell, criticize her writing for the game, or go after the company as a whole, but make the comments weighty, make them count. Calling someone any number of names is cruel. There's nothing mature about it, there's nothing intelligent to be taken away from it, and you're doing a disservice to yourself and the community that you're representing.

I wasn't a fan of the side by side comparisons of the Jennifer and Ree. It was biased and it's not even a relevant analysis. They're both writers for Bioware. That's where the bus stops. Whether you like one's writing over the other is important, but it's not pertinent to the personal attacks made.

Jennifer was a writer for Bioware games. Let that sink in, mainly her profession. Got it? Okay, now let's look at her comments, about how she doesn't play games and how she wishes games had fast forward options. Those are her opinions. She's allowed to do whatever she wants in her spare time. If you work as a pest control employee all day, does that mean you have to go home and want to kill every bug there too? And so what if she wishes games had a fast forward option. She's not a CEO or creative director, so really, she's just throwing out a desire there. That does not mean it's going to happen.

I understand. Maybe some people didn't like her opinions, that's fair. This is America Goddamn it, have an opinion on whatever you want. But if your opinion is in direct odds with someone else, have an intelligent dialogue about it, rather than seeing how many curse words can be strung together. I wasn't a fan of the Youtube video either. I felt like I would enjoy it at first, just because it seemed like it was going to take a level headed approach from the side opposing Helper. I was wrong. It was still an attack, just more eloquent. The speaker tried to justify the whole situation by saying that players were mad at the game flaws and lackluster writing. Well, that's bullshit. Helper's an "obese cunt" because Mass Effect 3's ending was a letdown? Yes, very logical. To say that the way Bioware employees countered was immature is fair. They shouldn't have stooped down, especially with the high road just a few feet over. But to say they took down her Twitter to censor criticisms of Bioware games is ridiculous. They were attacks on Helper as a person. She is not a faceless company, and she is not an object. She is a person. I feel like that's what gets lost in these types of discussions. Just as in class. Yes, that Wall Street Journal reviewer had no idea what he was talking about. That's fair. But to call him an idiot, stupid, or any other insult is childish and really doesn't get anything done.

Focus on the games, not the people. If gamers have a problem with dialogue or character development, point criticisms at the company and the writing department. Do it intelligently, with research, specific examples, and other scholarly tactics. Don't name call. Don't insult. Don't degrade yourself. Then the gaming community becomes the same type of beast as the politicians and activist groups that attacks games and gamers. They call us names, but let's be the bigger people. That's all I'm asking. The gaming community, and games as a medium, will receive much more credibility and respect if we open dialogues with each other and developers, hell, even politicians. Words are powerful, so use them tastefully and carefully.

And also, on a side note, I'm not a fan of Tolkein's writing either. He's too descriptive and verbose when it comes to environment and backdrop for me, which left me feeling that the characters were somewhat flat. That's an opinion. Not something that you should encourage other "nerds" to jump upon for a point of critique. I respect that you think it's ridiculous, and I respect what Tolkein did for fantasy as a whole. Just not a fan. That's all.

Congress and a Lack of Understanding

Found the videos, so now I'll post the links and update them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpIBLTPMN_U Senator Kohl and Lieberman closing statements.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdojFVlAP-M&feature=relmfu Lieberman questions enforcement.

I watched all of the videos, but I'll just use these two as examples of how the government and senators are displacing the blame for the actions of misunderstood youth. Lieberman discusses how the companies that produce video games, such as Nintendo, Sega, so on, must enforce this new rating system if they want to maintain credibility as a medium and not to appear out of control. Senator Kohl goes so far as to say that they have been pushing the limits of freedom of expression and speech to the very last inch, and that if they push too far they'll do damage to youth and society. Those are ridiculous statements. Senators are caught committing lascivious and lewd acts all the time, yet they somehow feel the right to preach credibility and stability? The governmental process is a constant state of chaos, with constant debating and back room deals taking place. They know very little about the gaming industry, yet they feel they have a right to deem it out of control and as a passing industry. That's ignorant and short sighted. Senator Kohls' comments may be worse. Accusing the video game industry of pushing the limits on freedom is a firestorm accusation. It's borderline unconstitutional to tell game creators what they're allowed to put out, just as it would be telling a writer what to write, or an artist what to paint. Then it becomes a police state. I'm all for the rating system, but I don't think the government should ever step in with censorship and an iron fist. Which brings me to the second video, which is where Lieberman asks the game companies, publisher associations, and coinstop associations whether they'll adhere to the ratings and whether they'll enforce the age/maturity limit for game ownership or rentas. That's impossible and ignorant. Before the rating system, small children only got their hands on Mortal Kombat through friends or parents who weren't paying attention. Both are lapses of the family machine, not the gaming industry. It's also not fair to ask the arcades to have a guard on constant watch to kick young children out of certain game areas. It's forcing a company to adopt a new system, and then leaving it upon them to bear the extra costs to enforce it. That's not just ridiculous, it's stupid. Just stupid.


Anyways, I can update this later if I need to when I'm shown how to find them. Mr. Jenkins was right. That's where I'll plant my flag immediately. It's not that media isn't violent in some way, but to say that kids become violent because of the media is irrational. That is taking all blame off of social factors and putting them on the entertainment industry. It's ignoring some of the larger institutions that certainly shape and adolescents life in a much bigger way: religion, family, school, social circles, and so on.

What do I personally think? It may come across as harsh and a bit defensive, but I think that the government, at the time of Mr. Jenkins hearing, up through today, is out of touch with modern day media. Now, that's a sweeping term, and I'm not pointing to news networks or anything along those lines. I'm speaking in terms of film, television, new literature even, but most definitely video games. Video games are one of the youngest forms of media, and as such, it's understandable that some fear might creep into the hearts of the higher ups of society, those who had control over what they knew. They may view games as something that could challenge their position and hold, or perhaps as a propaganda tool of liberal media that they don't yet have their claws into. I'm not sure where the fear and distaste comes from, but I think we can all agree, it's definitely there.

I wish I could say that we as a people have changed in the years since the tragic Littleton shootings, but we haven't. There is still misunderstood violence occurring, such as the Aurora shootings, and yet, the scapegoat immediately became The Dark Knight Rises. It couldn't be that perhaps this young man had never been heard, or that maybe he had been outcast to an abusive degree. He also had clinically diagnosed mental issues. But those things are generally ignored, because they're not as booming of a target. The headline won't look as good, and therefore, there would be less backing for perhaps censorship laws, or, god forbid, complete bans. He must have gotten his ideas from watching violent movies, from mowing down enemies in a game, from listening to speed metal, right?

Well...no. I take part in all of those same activities. I've also never been picked on, bullied, cast out. I've had a loving, supportive family that accepts and supports me. I have great friends. I've never struggled in school, and I've always felt I had purpose. Do I always accept myself or love myself? Hell no. But, it never weighs me down too much because I have people there to listen.

I think one of the heavier quotes to walk away with the whole hearing and surrounding events came from Marilyn Manson, one of the people being crucified and explicitly blamed for the shootings. He's a shock rocker. He goes out and screams violence and open sexuality. He dismisses religion and standard family values. He's everything a government fears, because he embodies one thing: chaos. However, sometimes that's what the misunderstood of the world need. They need games, perhaps violent ones, they need music, perhaps profane in nature, they need film, perhaps with an antihero. These things are needed and important because they represent a controllable chaos. They give the misunderstood something to hold on to. A community of like minded people who can accept them. A place to let go of the demons.

If they have that, there's one thing I believe everyone needs to do. Manson put it best.

"I wouldn't say a single word to them I would listen to what they have to say, and that's what no one did."

 Instead of having one sided rhetoric, let's slow the conversation down. Let's have a rational discussion on the purpose and place video games serve in society. This goes back to the conversation about video games being viewed as art. They are art, they are entertainment, they are stupid. They are all of those things to any one person. They're not killers, and they're not the creators of killers. That is the world we live in, that is the social situation that is breeding an unhealthy, toxic environment. Let's tackle the problem at it's base, at it's root, instead of just trying to chop off the limbs. 

Covering, Sexual Diversity, and A Closed World

I'm going to be completely honest and just say it outright: I know absolutely no gay video game characters. I rarely play roleplaying games (except for Warcraft) and I think that's limited my knowledge on the subject. Now, maybe that leaves me to talk about the subject in a separate way than the rest of the class. Maybe I can look at the games I do play and have a discussion concerning this subject using them as the medium.

The only gay character I can think of off the top of my head would be the male character i just played in Closed World. However, I found the Covering read very interesting, and I think it makes a lot of sense. People, myself included, have a true self, the one that we hide, and a false self, I'll just refer to it as the "socially acceptable" self. I'll look at Madden, because that's my conference game as well. Madden doesn't offer up sexuality in it's gameplay or mechanics (not out of prejudice, more likely due to the fact that it doesn't have a large hold on gameplay, but still). Perhaps that's because Madden as looked at as a game for guys. It's hyper masculine. It's a game that's recreating what could be considered a modern day gladiator sport. It's all about toughness, big men, and hard hits. It's not even marketed as anything but that. That's a lack of sexual diversity in a sense.

Or maybe I should look at other mediums and try my hand there. White Collar is a television show that plays on USA. Matthew Bomer is one of the lead characters, Neil Caffrey. He's a very handsome, highly sexual character who constantly is able to use his charm and looks to woo girls to further the plans set in place in the show. Matthew Bomer is gay in real life. Neil Patrick Harris is Barney on How I Met Your Mother, pretty much the epitome of womanizer. NPH is gay in real life. My question is, wouldn't it be more interesting to have these characters as gay characters? Would Neil Caffrey be able to pull of the elaborate set ups and heists in the show if he was a gay man? Would Barney still play as an emotionally stunted sex addict if his character were written gay? I think there's opportunity in all of these shows to flip the script. To add that kind of depth to a character. Not only that, it would add a new take on these shows. Why are all handsome, muscular men in television and film straight? Is it because it's the easy way out? I love the show Modern Family, don't get me wrong, and the premise is great. It's taking what the American family archetype is and blowing it all to hell. But the two gay father  characters on the show don't tend to add any sort of insight or intrigue, they're more for comedic relief.

I think that's the problem I'm getting at. Homosexuality is either used as a joke or it's completely assimilated in the sense that it's just like every other relationship. That worries me, just as Yoshino pointed out. Assimilation is fine, but it shouldn't be done to an extreme. That's a crippling move to the human race. Yes, accept everyone, give equal rights, all of that is fine. But at the same time, recognize that there are differences, and celebrate those differences, explore them in fields and mediums that generally stick to the straight and narrow (no pun intended.)

I'll take a game like Fable and point out how it failed me as as sexually diverse game. You can choose a female or male character and then proceed to find a lover, whether in a straight relationship or homosexual one. You can have/adopt children no matter what orientation you choose. Yet, it all plays like a big joke. I'm not saying the straight relationships hold any depth unless you marry your child hood friend from the beginning, but there's no emphasis placed on being in a "gay" couple. Again, that's probably just so no one gets mad, but why not shake things up? Tackle real issues? Have people on the street either commend you or reject you. That's real life, and it would've been interesting to see a game known for it's nonchalance and humor to tackle such a weighty subject.

I'm just saying, even though I have a limited knowledge, games aren't a great bastion of any sort of diversity yet, let alone sexual diversity. Hopefully one day we'll get there, but it's not today.

Gender in Video Games

I watched all the videos, and they all made great points on how societal pressures are affecting what men and women are allowed to do or be within our cultural confines. Even during class, there were a few great discussions about how female characters are always portrayed as overly sexualized or in need of protection and guidance.

However, the whole time, I was focusing more on the male side. Maybe that's something society has imbedded in me; I'm not the man, so my views and beliefs are shaping these stereotypes. I digress. What I was thinking about, though, was the fact that video games and media in general are shaping societies views of what it means to be a "man." I feel like the "Tough Guise" video got it dead on. Men aren't allowed to be submissive, weak, emotional, vulnerable, or anything, because then they have feminine traits and qualities, so they can't be "real" men.

Video games aren't necessarily doing anything to help this flow of belief either. There's games like God of War, where Kratos, the protagonist, I'm using that label loosely, is hyper masculine. He's strong, violent, shows a lack of emotion (except for anger), and he gets things done. He knows what he wants and he takes it. All very stereotypical masculine traits. Take a game like World of Warcraft; all the male characters have some form of muscle definition. Even if you choose a class such as a mage, your human avatar will still be in great shape. Seems weird. Just saying.

Gender is games is following the predetermined road map set about society when it comes to handling gender. It's sad to say, but it's true. However, even then, it's a tight rope to walk. When a game offers both male and female characters to play, the characters tend to have the same personality type and traits, the only real difference lying in romantic interests. Now, maybe this blanket mechanic of character decision is helping to phase out gender, by having male and female characters adopting identical traits, or maybe it's just a safety net. Maybe game designers are so afraid of taking a chance in terms of gender traits and roles that they'd rather have a character defined by sex rather than personality. Now, those two things seem to get confused a lot, but gender and sex are completely different, just as the Extra Credit video pointed out. Sex deals with the biological makeup of a person. Gender deals with the human psyche, and it generally has to do with internal and psychological traits that are connected with masculinity and femininity. I can't say video games are handling the latter correctly, but I can't necessarily say that there is a correct or acceptable way to handle this subject yet either. I don't think society necessarily knows what it means to be masculine or feminine, especially when I can look at other cultures and watch the makeup of these two categories change. So, is it fair to criticize games and game developers in their handling of gender? Sure. I don't think that the only traits that make up a woman are her breasts and her need for protection. Not by any means, my mom made sure I knew that women could be strong, independent, and decisive while at the same time being caring, nurturing, and sympathetic. My dad has all of these same traits. So where my real struggle comes in is fully placing the blame on society and video games. We can sit on a high horse and say that games and media are just perpetuating stereotypes. But aren't we shopping at the same store? By saying that a male avatar should be able to be sympathetic and vulnerable, are we now saying that masculinity can be defined by a certain softness? And if we say that women should be portrayed as being more driven and having more strength, aren't we trying to change the definition of femininity to that of masculinity? I don't think there will ever be a video game that perfectly portrays gender and attributes, but that's because I don't think there's a set standard for what that definition is.

Male Body and Kratos is a Dick.

Susan Bordo's "Beauty (Re)Discovers the Male Body" was one of the most engaging, fascinating articles that I've read in awhile. Enough fan-girling.

Yes, that was a pun at the end there, but I think it's a decent segue. Men aren't supposed to lose control, they're not supposed to be weak or impressionable. Men are meant to make the decisions, to take action, and to dominate. However, Bordo shows that advertising for men has taken a turn. It's now becoming acceptable to be desired while still maintaining masculinity. I'm not exactly sure when her piece was written, but Bordo seems to have been viewing a turn in the culture of fashion and sexuality, albeit a more recent one. I'd have to say that the stigma's of men being "beautiful" and "objectified" is almost on the same level as women being subjected to the same thing, at least with an eye on today's media. I'll use the film "Magic Mike" as an example. The movie was built upon the idea of selling men through sex. It was a cast of famous, handsome actors, that also happened to be in great shape and shirtless throughout portions of the film (I'm speculating here). There has been movement, at least in terms of sexuality. Men are allowed to be viewed, to decorate themselves now, to be an idol rather than the viewer.

However, I don't necessarily think all gender roles and positioning in society have been wiped away. Take one of the more recent Doctor Pepper commercials, for Doctor Pepper 10. It's a pseudo action scene, in which a man shoots his way through an exploding forest, all while explaining how this "diet" soda isn't for women, because the great taste is completely manly, even though there's a focus on nutrition. Or even the now very famous Old Spice commercials, with the shirtless man who is seducing women watching the commercial. He ends up shirtless on a horse. He's confident, in shape, and asserts himself, explicitly telling female viewers to ignore their men, while at the same time suggesting to men that if they wear Old Spice body spray, they'll achieve the epitome of masculinity, presumably this man.

Even more than that, just take commercials for dinner products or grocery shopping. It's normally a woman that's doing the shopping, or setting the table, or slaving over the stove, while if a man is ever shown cooking, it's generally out back, on the grill, drinking a beer with a bunch of buddies. Then there's Vodka commercials, like Skyy Vodka, in which Amber Rose, a woman who is considered to have goddess like proportions, sells the product. Women drink Vodka, men drink beer. Or, as I'm going on this tangent, take the 1800 Tequila commercials, in which a man in a suit talks to the viewers about how he's tired of all the "emotional" men out there, getting all "done up" and acting feminine, and how they drink feminine drinks, while he drinks 1800, which is for men.

Then there's the question of race in terms of the masculine/feminine binary. It's acceptable for black men to wear "loud" clothing, to match their outfits to a tee, because they have "swag." White men have no "style." Yet, black men are also very rarely shown as dressing up in suits, going to the high class events, stepping out of a chauffeured cars. Black women are generally shown as having bigger butts and getting their hair done, take Nicki Minaj for example. Yet, white women are generally shown as wearing workplace outfits, power suits, or practical clothing. So not only does sex play a factor, race plays a factor into advertising as well.

Moving on to the EC take on God of War III, I'd have to say their take was valid. Look, I played all three games. I loved the first one, second one was somewhat forgettable, and the third was fun. I say fun tentatively. It wasn't fun in an engaging way, at least not intellectually or emotionally engaging. It was fun in how "epic" it was, how everything was so hyperbolic and ridiculous. The scale of the game was amazing. But that's all I took from it; it was a massive game, with massive amounts of violence and gore, and looking back, minimal amounts of story. Now the question that has been asked is if it's fair to be so harsh on a game for bad storytelling. My answer is a simple yes. Especially if gaming culture as a whole wants video games to be taken as an art form. The God of War trilogy was the perfect forum to express to critics that games could be a form of basic entertainment, while at the same time telling an epic story. I say this because of the gameplay, game scale, and the subject and form through which the game was telling a story. Greek tragedies are widely recognized and respected in literature, so what better way to show narrative through a game then to turn a new take on a respected narrative archetype. The first game delivered, but tragedies and epics are expansive, so God of War went to follow that path. Except without the story. It just brought Kratos along by the hand, and put bigger, bloodier places for him to show off his design. That is a disappointment, and we should demand better. We as consumers and players set the bar for what's acceptable, and we do so by shelling out money for an experience, a full one, not just a series of bloody mini games. So yes, I think it's fair to be so harsh, and I think story should play a bigger role, rather than just a testosterone driven killing spree.

Research for my paper

The one game that I found that will help me with my final project/paper is Madden, which seems really obvious considering I'm studying how roleplaying and social realism play a large part in what would otherwise be looked at as a generic, general audience sports game.

The first article I found to help me was by Sami Yenigun, entitled "How Madden NFL's Business Lineup Helps it Win Big." What is useful fromt his article is that it observes how Madden appeals to it's audience through it's use of constant updates and realism. The game builds upon the NFL logo and business by incorporating real player heights, stats, weights, and so on. What it then mentions is the fact that fans are immersed in this kind of stat explosion because it allows them the chance to have football year round. More than that, it's not just a passive form of football, it's a completely interactive, hands on form of football in which a fan can take part rather than watching from at home or in the stands. It also delves into how Madden and the NFL help each other through their constant advertisements, because if one succeeds, then through correlation, the other does too. They feed off each other, thereby bringing about the social realism aspect of the game.

The second article I found was by Alexander Galloway called "Social Realism in Gaming." The article focuses on how games mimic the real world, but perhaps not always through realistic-ness. The likeness and similarity through looks and aesthetics would be considered realistic-ness, while realism would be considered how closely the game can mimic actions and procedures that would take part in the non-virtual world, the example used was the Sims. In the Sims, the game characters and locations aren't necessarily realistic looking, being very pixelated and simply rendered, so to speak, but real life actions can be initiated, such as ordering a pizza, or sleeping. Then, there are games like  Socom, which looks very realistic, but, speaking in general again, most people don't take part in secret missions, killing terrorists and defusing bombs, so it's not based very strongly in realism. I want to use this to discuss how Madden can act as a "fantasy" game in a very broad sense, because, while player likeness is used, the fields are created to look like the real thing, and so on, the game itself is not based in a kind of "realism" because most people will not wake up every Sunday and go out to make a million dollars to play a game of football. That's where the roleplaying aspect I alluded to will be brought in.

The third article I found was "The Ideal Self at Play: The Appeal of Video Games That Let You Be All You Can Be" by Andrew K. Przybylski. This article is more straight forward than the others, as it studie the behavior and reasoning behind why people play video games, with a specification on the aspect of video games acting as a more ideal self. That's where Madden comes into play again. I assume, and this is my opinion, which I will need more evidence and support for, that most people play Madden because they have a fantasy of having made it to the NFL. There are very few people alive who will ever play professional football, but a game lets players act as their ideal self, the self that had the talent, time, and training, and made it to the largest of stages. More than that, it also allows a player to take on the role of their favorite team. Perhaps their team is terrible in real life, but in Madden, they can bring their favorite squad to success, to the pinnacle, thereby allowing them to influence more than just their ideal fantasy.