I’m here at The 21st Century Learning Conference, Hong Kong and I recently listened to a presentation arguing that English teachers should use video games as an entry point to engage students in literary analysis. That’s all well and good – any work of art can be criticized as art. Roger Ebert has claimed that video games will never be art, and then reversed his statement when bombarded by internet flame pointing out titles like Red Dead Resurrection, Bioshock 2, and other immersive video game environments. Fine, video games can be art, and can be criticized as such.
The problems I see in using video games as legitimate examples of literature outweigh the “entry point” argument.
- The most popular video games are overwhelmingly violent and graphic. While this doesn’t necessarily diminish their value as works of art, it does get gratuitous. Grand Theft Auto makes mayhem and murder into a kind of playful romp. Does it mean something that, say, “American Psycho” means? I don’t think so. The only way GTA and “American Psycho” can be compared is in a meta-analysis of modernity.
- These games can be addictive. They are designed for addiction, much like cigarettes. While there is a considerable amount of thought that goes into the historical accuracy of the images and characters, as well as the depth of the stories, it’s really about getting kids playing and then keeping them there. This is not “casual” gaming. This is the kind of things that makes you question what is real.
- I can’t think of a third reason. I just see them as not worth promoting. Of all the things we can encourage kids to do, there must be something more worthy.
Am I wrong? Is there a place for Bioshock 2 in the literature classroom, or anywhere in school?
Related posts:
I can appreciate where you are coming from and want to begin my comment by saying that I don’t know enough about gaming to make an informed comment. I don’t play them and besides what the media tells me about how dangerous they are, I have no personal experience to draw upon, having said that I can appreciate the importance of not having knee jerk reactions to media we do not understand.
I have seen too many people blame things they don’t understand rather than take a close critical look. So what am I trying to say:
1. Yes, games are violent and there is no need to promote violence in a global society that has become numb to the real world effects of a game like Call of Duty. However, there is value in critically examining a literature steeped in violence to see what effect the violence has on users. I think American Pyscho is a great example. I can see how many would never consider that book as literature, but it is an invaluable critique of run away consumerism, greed, and shallowness of the birth of the Yuppie in the 1980′s, so what does GTA reflect?
Why can’t we allow students the ability to take a meta look at games that take up so much of their time. I think a close critical look the narrative and literate of gaming would make a great project for students. What better way to ask students to not blindly follow an addiction.
As for gaming addiction, I don’t know much about that, because I don’t play games because I think it would suck up too much of my time. For students that is a parenting issue. It is a matter of a balanced life. Kids could also be addicted to books. Sure there are many things kids could be doing and promoting games is not the best idea, but I do not think a critical analysis of gaming is necessarily promoting an addiction.
We talked in person about balance and our own issues with too much tech, but we must be careful not to become to reactive when we learn to deal with this balance.
Thanks Jabiz: That’s what we’re doing here, and it is valuable – trying to understand the place of violent art, or video games specifically, in what it means to be “well educated”. You’re right, we should encourage students to “not blindly follow” what is placed before them, and foster critical evaluation of media.
That being said, let me clarify: A teacher suggested to me (us) recently (during the 21C Learning conference) that the video games themselves would be useful material for literary analysis. She wasn’t suggesting that they would be useful as a way to critique the value of the artforms (such as they are) themselves, but rather a video game these days has enough narrative and general literary depth to make it a valid basis for literary analysis. In other words, video games can be placed alongside novels, treated in the same way, and just as fruitfully. *That* practice appears to *promote* video games – I mean, it seems to lift story-based video games from their place as time-sucking fun worlds into a realm of art. Not all stories are created equal, and not all art-forms are created equal. For that matter, not all forms of fun are created equal. I have never experienced game addiction myself to any great degree, but I have spent my fair share of sleepless nights with games like Starcraft (back in the day) and Civilization (I keep having to delete it from my computer). A friend of mine almost ended his marriage over World of Warcraft, and he was a teacher, no less. There are good things to be addicted to. Reading is a good addiction, one would think.
This isn’t about addiction or the evil of gaming (I like games a lot), but it’s about how these video games fit into education. The presentation we saw at 21C suggested that it wasn’t about the ethics of gratuitous violence (or sex, I presume, although that never actually entered into the demos of the games). But if we are placing these games next to actual literature, then we should think twice. If they are part of a meta-analysis of video games as art, fantastic. Or if the games function as data for a discussion of the underlying nihilism of modernity or something like that, great.
(One point that I think is relevant: if the discussion were about sexuality instead of violence, it would be easier to agree very quickly. Many porn films have story lines, but no one is suggesting that they be allowed to be analyzed in English classrooms. And in pornography, sexuality is gratuitous much like in Grand Theft Auto violence is gratuitous. But it’s ok to kill people in virtual worlds. At least, it’s more ok than to fornicate with them.)
You make some great points and honestly I do not know enough about games to make an informed comment about whether or not they are thew new literature.
But I do know that literacies are changing and the way we “read” the world is changing as well. Perhaps it is important we ask ourselves what it is in traditional literature that we find so appealing and important to convey to the youth of today and then ask are those elements available in other media.
You said “Not all stories are created equal, and not all art-forms are created equal.” While that may be true we should be weary about deeming ourselves the arbitrators of what is art and what is not.
I am not sure if there is literature in gaming as I never play, but as an educator and lover of all art and expression I do not want to dismiss it, simply because I do not understand or because the media is bad. After all things like hip-hop graffiti and other things have been deemed as dangerous in the past and I know there is a ton of literature many Tupac songs!
Was that the high art/low art argument that just walked past the door?
As a side note, perhaps it would be interesting for students to investigate how canonical literary features could enhance (or diminish) narratives in games.
All texts are fair game in the language classroom.
Thanks for your reply, Sean.
All texts are fair game is not the same as all texts should be considered in the language classroom. It is always possible to design some advanced thinking exercise around media or art, even what some people call “pulp” fiction or the lowly comic book (which is one low-art form that I think has enormous literary merit). But video games seem less like art and more like sophisticated methods for “hooking” users. Writers use “hooks”, but their purpose is not nearly the same. It just seems to me that there might – might – be much better uses of precious language class time than considering the value of narratives in video games.
And then the question remains: is examining the literary character of video games as good a teaching tool as examining some more traditional text? I know the value of literature, I have yet to be convinced of the teaching value of video games.
Sorry for jumping in randomly and being obnoxious, but I saw Jabiz’s tweet about this post, and had to add my two cents:
1. Read the Iliad. It lovingly describes dozens and dozens of men’s bodies being slit and gashed and torn and ripped apart by bronze spearheads. Over and over again, with the most murderous characters rewarded for their “heroism” and their grisly “special moves”. And some characters have infinite lives. Then the gods show up and “reset” everything now and then. It makes endless deadly violence into a playful romp. Not fit for the world of education!
2. The works of Charles Dickens were designed for addiction, like cigarettes. He doled out hits of his compulsively readable, lowest-common-denominator stuff in cheap monthly installments, and crammed his lurid tales with cliffhangers and overblown sentimentality to hook the most susceptible readers. Not fit for the world of education!
3. The kids LIKE video games? This will not do. Surely there must be something older and more boring to teach them. Not fit for the world of education!
Thanks, Alex! Good points, they have made me think. I might add Genesis to the list: incest, fratricide, drunken mistakes, fire and brimstone. I’ll respond to your points in no particular order.
I don’t mind that kids like video games. I like video games. And I’m not saying that they don’t belong in education at all. Like I said in my first comment, they are interesting artifacts of their time, and can be a healthy part of the meta-analysis.
I really do think that we, as thoughtful, professional educators, can curate the material we present to students as examples of the best and most worthy of attention. (This goes to Jabiz’s comment, too.) Yes, the Illiad is gory. But goriness doesn’t make or break a work of literature. The Illiad is much more than its goriness. The modern video game has the advantage of interactivity, but I’m just not sure that it will stand the test of time like Homer has. If the point is engagement, then use the Illiad! Why waste time on Assassin’s Creed, other than as an off-hand mention? Am I crazy, or is it *really impossible* to say that the Illiad is a better work of art, more worthy of analysis, more worthy of time in class (on a practical level) than Assassin’s Creed?
Take another example: Dante. I’m pretty sure that I can say that the “Inferno” and a game like “Diablo” have certain symbolic things in common, characters and structure, etc., and while it might be cool to find where the video game has parroted the original text, it would be ridiculous to say that they are in some aesthetic way equally “fit for the world of education”.
Addiction. Is it better to be addicted to Dickens than World of Warcraft? I disagree that Dickens is designed to be addictive in the same way that World of Warcraft is designed for that purpose. (No one ever ruined their lives reading Dickens.) All writers want readers, and the serial story is meant to sell, yes. But WOW feeds the user (not reader, interestingly) a new identity – it’s not about imagining other worlds, it’s about *inhabiting* other worlds, and in fact, inhabiting a new self. This is a fascinating clinical study, or sociological study (surely they are occurring at a pace), but if WOW or some other immersive choose-your-own-direction narrative game can be considered literature, then it is a literature that is so alien to the common definition as to render itself unrecognizable.
Plus, cigarettes are addictive, too. We don’t consider cigarettes fit for the world of education!
Anyway, thanks, Alex, this is getting good.
This response probably isn’t going to be as thoughtful as your comment above, but here goes:
As for video games considered as a sort of potential add-on or companion to literature: I don’t think the issue at heart here is anything much different from the distinction between formats – books and movies for example – and the inevitable pros and cons of comparing different artistic formats.
Continuing to use the Iliad as an example – if you had a poet come in and chant Homer or Dante to your class, can we agree that that could add something to the students’ appreciation of that particular literature? Or if you showed a slideshow of some Dore etchings from “The Inferno”? Or if you watched part of a Shakespeare film adaptation with your class, would you agree to the same thing – that it’s an experience which adds something to the aesthetic enjoyment and understanding of the text? In other words, effective, authentic methods of teaching literature appreciation have long been multimedia experiences that involve more than staring at printed words on a page.
So, while I agree that Assassin’s Creed and WOW aren’t good supplements to the current curriculum, all it would take (theoretically) is for someone to make a game that added SOMETHING – anything – to the experience of literature (not that I know what that “something” is yet), for Game X to be as useful to the syllabus as watching a filmed version of Hamlet.
But this isn’t even the issue I think is really exciting here… I don’t think video games should be an add-on to English class or whatever. I think there are entire categories of aesthetic, kinaesthetic, moral and intellectual experience which video games provide MORE effectively than any previous medium. Again, can we agree that there are times when we feel that the experience of being swept up in a movie, play or opera is better than printed books? And that there are currently academic classes devoted to appreciating and analyzing those feelings? Or that there are certain types of experience (including educational ones) where film is better than paper? Tutorials for making origami, for instance. If one artistic medium proves to be a better delivery vessel for a certain type of education than another, why not use it? Literature might not be the most obvious candidate, but for example, driver’s education is something that perhaps used to be an entire paper-based course which could now be entirely based in a video game. Driving simulations would be, I hope we can agree, superior to reading a textbook about choices you should make while driving. I’m sure there are dozens of areas where gaming could be equally innovative in education, even if we can’t think of them yet, so writing off video games as inappropriate for, for example, literature education, is probably premature. Sorry if this is rambling and not responding to your points – I’ll try to make more measured comments later. Very interesting discussion!
Damn you guys! You are making me want to start playing games so I can start teaching them. There has to be something there like Alex says.
Greg we talked in person about balance, no one is saying we stop teaching Shakespeare and start teaching GTA, just saying that we can explore the best of what games offer to tap into something that people are inherently engaged in.
One thing I think is ironic (if that’s the right word) about GTA being constantly used as an example of mindless violence: most of the criticism of GTA 4 by gamers that I’ve seen is that it was *too* literary, too ambitious in replicating “Sopranos”-style themes, too weighted down by moral dilemmas to be enjoyable as mindless violence.
That’s truly interesting, actually. I just got finished with re-watching “The Sopranos” and I’m just in the middle of teaching “Macbeth”, and the parallels are obvious, although the best links are to “The Godfather”. I’d love to see the criticism of GTA as too literary.
Alex – your other comment is worth responding to, I’ll get to it. I think you are summing up the argument well – that at the very least we have the ability to link multimedia experiences with written literature, that this might just be about formats. And you’re right to suggest that perhaps literature as a discipline is not the most obvious candidate for being “overtaken” by video games.
By the way, some of the videos that Melanie has posted are fascinating. I watched one about WOW being used as a kind of core curriculum – seriously, it blew my mind that anyone would even try this, but I suppose that just uncovers some of my ignorance (and accompanying fear). I might be influenced too heavily by “The Shallows” – I bought it (on my iPad Kindle app, ironically) and have been reading it. More on that in response to Melanie below.
Thanks again, Alex.
Jabiz,
Thanks for asking me to come by. As you know, I am a gamer educator and I have made this topic (namely, the use of games, gaming environments and game play for learning – specifically, for my interests, ‘situated learning’) the focus of the next two or more years of my life (researching and writing). I’m investing most of my time and energy into trying to answer these questions. This stuff may seem really *new* to some educators, though game scholars have been researching and articulating answers to these questions for more than a decade. Unfortunately, their work is often obscured by media panic stories about games and gaming and somewhat non-accessible to those who don’t have a starting point. I’d like to provide a starting point here.
Type the name “James Gee” into Google and view or read anything that comes up (there are several great, short video clips of him in Youtube, for starters). Gee is the foremost authority of the subject what games have to teach us about learning and literacy. In fact, he wrote a book on that called: “what games have to teach us about learning and literacy”
it should be required reading for any teacher interested working in today’s (versus yesterday’s) schools.
Rather than going through each point of the post above, I’d like to share links to two lengthy posts I’ve already written (there are many others in my blog). These two posts feature a number of key arguments, figures, terms and examples that may be of use to you. Some of my reasoning is even more radical than some educators because I’m also arguing that we should explore (and play) violent games as well. And I’ve explained why in the second post linked below.
The gamification post has several arguments about where I think teachers need to start as well as how I think teachers could get gaming really, really wrong. I encourage you to choose even one of my recommendations and see how/if this changes your initial perceptions.
Playing to learn in affinity spaces
http://melaniemcbride.net/2011/02/12/playing-to-learn-in-affinity-spaces/
Gamification, gaming, edugames: play’s the thing
http://melaniemcbride.net/2010/12/05/gamification-gaming-edugames-plays-the-thing/
An example of a gaming in school project
Finally, a project going on in the US – World of Warcraft in Schools. A learning project for at risk youth created by Lucas Gillespie – @pcstech in Twitter. He and the other teachers have created curriculum for all school subjects that uses WoW as the primary learning space (for science, math, history, English). see the video then check out the wiki:
World of Warcraft in Schools: Student perspectives
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTnr95vrzBI
Wow in School Wiki
http://wowinschool.pbworks.com/w/page/5268731/FrontPage
I am @melaniemcbride on Twitter. I have several lists there related to gaming and games that you are welcome to follow. They include actual game development companies, gamers as well as scholars. This post has inspired me to create another list of teachers who game.
I hope this response was helpful.
Melanie, I checked out James Gee. I also found the book you mentioned (What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy). Looks entertaining, but it is also not empirical research and doesn’t even look like it’s peer reviewed literature. I guess if we’re going to advocate for gaming in education, I want to first see research demonstrating that the value in gaming is greater than or equal in value to the curriculum we’re giving up to allow gaming to occur. I want to see direct research on the video games he targets before seeing him making money off of the idea that he tries to intellectually tie to other kinds of research. Kudos to him for finding the niche, though.
I grabbed this quote from one of your links above: “When I talk with a student who plays World of Warcraft there is a shared recognition of the steep learning curve, massive time investment and knowledge base required of players.” It’s that ‘massive time investment’ that worries me bunches. Can a teacher just use gaming sparingly or does the real satisfaction come from mastery of levels or gaming skills — of becoming part of a community? That stuff takes time and time is lacking in most schools.
I just want to note that I don’t discount gaming outright. I don’t even discount James Gee outright . . . I just noticed that the references on his Wikipedia page were all to books instead of to any kinds of peer-reviewed sources.
Since I do not game, I will not add much more to this conversation at this time. Greg you are in good hands with both Alex and Melanie, both avid gamers and two of the smartest people I know. My work as match maker is done here. I am off to explore James Gee and see where that rabbit hole takes me.
“same way that World of Warcraft is designed for that purpose.”
With all due respect, you are incorrect. Game designers don’t design “addiction,” though this one of the most popular and unfounded myths of MMOs. Can people become “addicted” to MMOs? Yes, but MMOs are not the cause, but a symptom of other problems. Do game designers design to addict players? No, but they do design for complex engagement. Gaming scholar James Gee (Professor of Reading in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction in the School of Education at the University of Wisconsin, Madison) says game designers are the most “expert teachers” – I highly recommend his paper “Learning and Games” (2007).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Paul_Gee
On gaming, MMO addiction – real research about the causes.
Nick Yee: the trouble with “addiction” (in relation to MMOs)
http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001543.php
But if you want to compare literature to games in terms of their ill effects, here’s a great bit about the danger of the novel (from a media professor friend). Circa 1800s I think.
“The most controversial literary form in the early American nation was the novel. Americans worried about its allure, fearing that fiction might pull readers into false worlds, detaching them from necessary involvement in the New Republic. Doctors proclaimed that reading too many novels could cause madness and cautioned parents to steer their children toward history and other works of nonfiction. In 1807 Dr. Thomas Trotter wrote that men were, in part, guarded from the risk of madness induced by novels as they had natural outlets in their work life. Women, in the opinion of Trotter and other doctors, were far more vulnerable to the supposed dangers of novel reading. Women in the new American nation were warned repeatedly against reading novels because novels could lead them to put passion before reason and to neglect their womanly household duties. Immersed for hours in stories of love and romance, women might lose touch with reality, causing them to commit moral indiscretions. Because being a good American woman had become tied to morality, some believed that this failure on women’s part would do nothing less than bring the new American nation to ruin.”
http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/Wa-Wo/Women-s-Literature.html
Since we’re on the topic of addiction: nobody gets addicted to school (actually, teachers love school so much they never left – but the perma student is a very special breed of human being). Real learning can be truly addictive in the most meaningful ways – and that includes the learning that happens in games, which, in some ways, is far more substantial than a lot of traditional routes to learning. What I’m seeing more than anything is how the emergence of gaming as a legitimate literacy scares the daylights out of traditionalist educators who are unwilling and uninterested in accepting or developing their own literacies and knoweldge in this area (largely because they do not share an affinity with the culture). This is unfortunate, but it’s the same pattern that precedes every paradigm shift (and follows, exactly, Kuhn’s, Structure of Scientific Revolutions).
I rarely engage in this topic because it’s often driven by the same sort of anti-gaming panics that we saw in relation to the web back in the day – to the internet, to bloggers, to social media.
http://gobigalways.com/get-your-scary-software-out-of-my-workplace/
Panics come and panics go, but they’re always driven by one thing: misinformation.
Melanie,
Thanks for all your thoughtful comments. You obviously have a lot of insight, and research and opinion to back it up. More than I do, I’ll admit.
In a way, I am scared – you’re right. (I’m not a “traditionalist” in the pejorative sense of the word – I prefer to think of myself as a progressive traditionalist: looking toward the future and trying my damnedest to maintain what was good about the past.) Obviously in the space of a work day (I should have been grading papers, oh well) I haven’t been able to reach the depths of this topic that you have, but I appreciated the “WOW in Schools” youtube video you posted. It was interesting to see educators attempt to manufacture a coherent and complete learning environment inside this virtual world. And as far as that goes, the students were fairly good at articulating the challenges and outcomes of the project. But I wasn’t convinced, and perhaps this was because of the relative youth of the project. The “math” part of it was abysmal. Counting money? Predicting future costs? That might be “authentic” in the sense that you have to get a certain amount of money in order to achieve some future goal, but I don’t think it counts as a good basis for a math course. And math really is important. The other examples were equally unconvincing – literacy (reading quest descriptions? Really?), etc. The only things I found convincing about the project were the items related to collaboration, teamwork, and communication. I think that’s where these games’ strengths really lie.
So, assuming there are real, “authentic” and useful learning opportunities, the question we have to ask as educators is: what’s the opportunity cost, and does it outweigh the gain?
This is the point I will stick on every time. Is it better to do this or that? Reading long form texts is already falling off in popularity. Writing, too. Advanced mathematics is required for a lot of interesting real-world activities like designing a car or inventing a super-collider. There are some cool manual dexterity lessons to be learned (I read once about a surgeon who puts his students through their paces with the Xbox). But are you really arguing that all the content of “traditional” school be scrapped? Is that what the “paradigm shift” argument amounts to? Where is the line? Is there one at all? I really am curious how this is supposed to turn out.
I hope you consider continuing your engagement, I’d love to know what you think.
Cheers!
As somebody who uses games as teaching & learning tools I also attended that session in Hong Kong.
I don’t want to comment on the session but I will say I think the use of the games advocated was not something I would like to see in schools. We use, with younger students a range of games, appropriately rated, to help support a number of learning outcomes, including biography and non-chronological report writing. Our work has been accepted positively by the majority of parents, but they wouldn’t be so happy if we were using GTA! There are a huge number of games that could be used positively without needing to use M rated stuff.
As a current Grade 10 student and an avid gamer, I agree with both here – games both do and don’t have a place in the classroom.
GTA has been brought up multiple times, and the fact that the bestselling games are almost always violent games which most would say lack a compelling and important story. This is true, and there is really no conceivable argument for having GTA in a classroom except as a discussion point. However, what are the bestselling movies of the last few years? We see Transformers, Avatar(which survives on prettiness alone), Twilight. At their heart, all these movies are like GTA – they are pure entertainment. GTA actually has a quite compelling storyline when compared to some of the bestsellers, though it is a bit…shall we say, stretched. Many books, too, sell very well while being less than spectacular(again, I cite Twilight).
My point is, we should take the best examples when talking about the possibilities of something, not the worst. Talk about games like Bioshock and Mass Effect – games which, I truly believe, are far more fascinating and contain more discussion and study worthy ideas than most books and movies. Don’t talk about games like call of duty in this context unless you also would argue that Transformers means movies are not worthy of study.
Games serve different purposes – WoW is a game that is designed for addiction, as is the Call of Duty multiplayer. Bioshock and Mass effect and most games are not. No money is made if a player is addicted to them and plays them over and over again.
Can games be used explicitly to learn? Yes…but that isn’t the point of a game. Playing Brain Age all day isn’t really the maxing out of what a game can be, just as a history book isn’t the most a book can be, no matter how interesting you find the topic. Games can teach a sense of community and leadership and teamwork, that is true(I am referencing the WoWinschool mentioned by someone above), but in classrooms, I think games are worthy of study just as other forms of media are. Were it not for cost problems(also, the fact that some people are just plain bad at playing games), I would suggest that games be sometimes studies just as novels are. But they aren’t, and I think this is a discussion schools need to have.
Sorry I can’t leave it alone when Liam is making such great points. I could not have said it any better:
1. We should take the best examples when talking about the possibilities of something, not the worst. Talk about games like Bioshock and Mass Effect – games which, I truly believe, are far more fascinating and contain more discussion and study worthy ideas than most books and movies. Don’t talk about games like call of duty in this context unless you also would argue that Transformers means movies are not worthy of study.
2. Just as a history book isn’t the most a book can be, no matter how interesting you find the topic. Games can teach a sense of community and leadership and teamwork, that is true(I am referencing the WoWinschool mentioned by someone above), but in classrooms, I think games are worthy of study just as other forms of media are
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jabiz Raisdana, Bryan Jackson. Bryan Jackson said: RT @intrepidteacher: Love to see @bryanjack and his #talons all over the web- Great comment from Grade 10 student http://bit.ly/i4uQB0 o … [...]
[...] meal. And of course I started conversations with Neil, John, Jason, Justin, Greg (already started a great chat on his blog), Jamie, Gary, Philip, Lynn, and Makky. So what did I learn from this conference? I learned that [...]
Wanted to add this post to the conversation:
http://maryannreilly.blogspot.com/2011/02/literacy-colonialism-and-web-20.html?spref=tw
I’m a teacher in Denmark and I have read all of your posts with great interest and want to share a link – especially to you, Jabiz…This is a good place to start playing…being a teacher and all…
http://jayisgames.com/cgdc9/?gameID=11
I play WoW on occasion, when I’ve got the time(!!!) and other games as well. One of my favorites right now, is the free game http://www.atmosphir.com where you can play and design your own platform games, but more importantly share your work with others.
I believe, that the possibility for making great narrative while dealing with what makes a game great too, is fantastic and authentic learning for children and really demanding on quite a few levels of different disciplines in the traditional school system. I’m really interested in the modal literacies games consist of giving us different “reading” experiences. Concepts like remediation and convergence are also important aspects of this. For instance, when it comes to GTA and similar games I must stress how these “ludify” or gameify (I’m not sure how to spell this) other media. The tv-shows Lost or 24 are both show and game in one. Watch any action movie and you’ll see game elements behind the narrative. And this must not escape the searchlight of the class room, I think.
Thanks for the comment, and the links. I have to say, after reading so much on this topic beyond what was presented at our recent conference, hearing a lot of intelligent discourse on the subject, and most importantly, discussing this issue with my students, I’m beginning to sway. I’m not totally convinced, but I’m much more open to the ideas I’m hearing. I can see that my earlier attitude, which was fairly dismissive, wasn’t entirely fair. On the other hand, I still believe that encouraging a love of books is more important than encouraging a love of games. I think people get enough collaboration and sharing in the course of daily internet existence. We are already pretty good at that kind of thing, and there are ways to practice team work and strategy without the immersion of WOW – in fact, there are ways to practice that in relation to Shakespeare. In fact, given the course of technology in general, I think we’ll see classes in *how to be alone*, not how to work together. That’s a skill we’re all getting worse at.
This comment thread is such great illustration for the power of blogging as a tool to help people share ideas, think and change their thinking. I too have been looking at this topic from many angles and feel I have learned a lot. So thank you and everyone else involve. Just goes to show that a few key people in a network can make ideas spring to life and help us learn.
I agree with you about books. The irony is that I prefer books to games as well, I just wanted to point out you were being dismissive. I hope you would do the same for me.
I agree that we need to teach kids how to be alone and love books and nature and slow down and disconnect. This video is a great start:
http://bit.ly/ctZ9SS
Also looks like these kids are carrying on the conversation…
http://talonsliam.edublogs.org/2011/02/22/a-discussion-on-games/
Jump in!
[...] reading a blog post titles Literary Analysis of Video Games, I began to think of the idea of video games as a work of [...]
A bit late to the punch here, but I’d like to point out the analytical capabilities of games such as the ‘Legend of Zelda’ series – which has an entire fanbase dedicated to working out the hidden meanings and symbolisms in the games, as well as what chronological order they come in (some take place centuries apart).
I, for example, have recently begun writing a “thesis” of sorts: a postcolonialist reading of “The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time” (often considered the “Citizen Kane” of games). Quite like Shakespeare’s “The Tempest”, “Ocarina”, it turns out, is very open to the idea that perhaps there is more to the story that meets the eye – we, for example, have implemented the idea that the “bad guys” are actually victims of a terrible crusade for a holy relic – very much reflecting crusades of old.
I imagine there was a time when films weren’t considered ‘art’. I believe video games should be up there with films in media studies. Sure, there are games that are violent for violence’s sake (GTA), but there are popular films (“Godzilla” series, “Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, etc.) and even books (arguably the Bible) which are taken seriously.
Your points are well-reasoned but are grounded in ignorance.
Probably.
Just like movies, it’s up to you to pick and choose. Personally, I find that the more difficult something is to read, watch, play or do the more worthwhile it is in the end. This can be readily applied to books, film, sport and work, respectively. Video games are special in that they create fake goals with fake challenges. If I read Kant, for example, or go for a jog, the purpose is self-improvement. If I master my mind and body I will live better. The same goes for any instructive or inspiring media, in proportion to the amount of effort the viewer puts into understanding it. With video games, however, with virtual entertainment through a virtual medium, the achievements and improvements are limited to the medium. An in-game victory is only in-game. The sense of victory does little to nothing to improve your self-esteem, knowledge, or situation.
But perhaps we should look at the two definitions of GOOD. First, there is HEALTH. I’ve read articles about how micromanaging skills can be improved through video games. The army uses Quake 3 to train soldiers… somehow. In Cameron’s future the fate of alien civilizations will depend upon our ability to interact through computers. This would suggest that games aren’t bad for your BRAIN. Nobody’s saying video games are good for your body but with the increasing popularity of movement in gaming technology the market seems to be adapting to those of use wary of sedentary forms of entertainment (sitting is by far the most unhealthy activity). So, at least theoretically, video games can be good for your health. A diet of Wii Fit and Brain Something, for example. So, if HEALTHY is GOOD, you’re free to game on.
The second definition of GOOD goes much further back. It was put to paper most eloquently by Plato: VIRTUE. For the purposes of my argument this idea of ultimate good will get a lot more play. Compare, for example, running around a track from 7:30 to 8:00 every Monday, Wednesday and Friday with meeting at that same track and, for the same amount of time playing a game of soccer with your friends. Even without evidence from some esoteric brain study one can confidently choose which is more virtuous. And while the rules of virtue are certainly more complex than those of health, they are not completely foreign to even the most self-deluded gamer. So while video games seem to have (theoretically) conquered the modern notion of good health, they still have yet to really approach an idea of virtue. They remain a mere distraction and shouldn’t be taken as serious literature until we open the doors to Harlequin Romances, WWF, American Pie and bowling.