War Games just got Realz

According to the Nichols article, the US army developed America’s Army (once a popular first-person shooting game) in response to a few problems. First of all is the training cost of infantry. Instead of using live rounds in training, the US military found that it is more cost beneficial if they used simulation. Secondly, with the rise of video gaming popularity and the decline in military draft; the US army decided to use gaming as a means to attract a special niche of the population. Amazingly enough, a good portion of these military simulation/training tools, which should be classified, are released to public. America’s Army is priced at $16 million US dollars, which are the most expensive game titles at the time. And I am pretty sure it is still ranked high up in terms of cost if we evaluated it against some of the current game development costs.

The newly introduced Medal of Honor is also a military based game designed by Electronic Arts. The newest installment of the Medal of Honor series allows the player to play as the Taliban; which, in my opinion, is highly controversial. Though the series did allow players to play as the opposing force but those editions were based in the past such as WWII. Though I am not a veteran or know anyone that is one; it seems to me that the game has already offended many people out there.

The anticipated Call of Duty: Black Ops will be released in less than two weeks. From what I know of the game, the game developers have added a personal touch to the game! Players can now further relate themselves to their avatar. Which, in my opinion, makes the game much more realistic? Players will be able to customize how they look in the game and the guns they use are heavily customizable. This game will make war simulation a big step closer to real battles…

My question: Do you anticipate augmented reality war games to be released in public anytime soon?

Heartless gameplay

The readings were very relevant and important because we still have a war going on right now.  I always thought the reason people played army games was because they enjoyed the thrill and chase of the game, but as I learned from the readings, some of the games are used as a recruiting tactic.  The specific term for this is 'advergame' which the reading gave America's Army as an example of this.

Nichols explains all this by saying, "America's Army is an advergame, making it a specific type of serious game.  Serious games are used to teach skills and responses to situations; advergames focus these gaming responses to create a positive view of the brand."

 

I was have never heard of America's Army before, so I went on Youtube and watched some of the gameplay in order to better understand the readings.  Here is what I found...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwGhlk7gkFw

My opinion on military games is one with a heavy negative presence.  Soldiers in the army go to war and fight for their country - that is not a game.  Many come back with psychological distress like PTSD and memories that will haunt them for a lifetime.  However, we have gaming industries making a game out of all of this.  Yes, there are people out there that would like to say, "But it is just a game" - and yes I do agree it is just a game, however; it is a very disrespectful game.  To make a game out of a very traumatic event where many lives were lost is just disgusting to me.   Other fighting and killing games that are based off of fantasy are fine, but when you start making/playing games that are based off of real life - we have officially crossed the line.  I understand the advertising aspect from the military's point of view, and using this advergame as a recruiting technique, but it should only be used on people who are thinking about joining the army so they can get a dose of what they are going to get him/herself into.

The next article written by Sulzberger goes over the point that I brought up last week about Medal of Honor taking it way too far by creating a game that allows the option to play as a Taliban fighter who can kill American troops.  Now how incredibly disrespectful is this?  It was so absurd to many people that the game was pulled.  I am very happy about this, but what about other army games that represent older wars?

Although I disagree with selling any army game, why is it ok to sell old army games, but not this one that represents a more recent tragic event?  So in years to come when this all "blows over" are they going to restock the game because by then people would have "gotten over it?"  Do you see how ridiculous and insensitive that sounds?

For the love of God, if you have a burning desire to play a fighting or killing game, go grab Dragonball Z - it's just as fun and it doesn't include the insentive and inhuman aspect of killing our old soldiers or old veterans.  But I mean, if disrespecting your country and military is something your into - then I guess thats OK too.

Game's practical usage. - in military?

In Huntemann and Payne's article, they describe how much the military uses the most modern technology - including using games to reduce the cost and make the virtual situation more realistic.

Before I read this article, I did experienced how much a game can be complicated, by Falcon 4.0, which was released about 10 or more years ago (according to this article, it was released on 1998) and how I gave up understanding about 450 pages of material (part of reason was that it was also in English). It was later on that I realized this was also used as a simulation tool for air force.

In this article's main example, which is 'America's Army', brings up an interesting side of economics, that game developers are feeling better about the game because 'Army is also in the part of the project and thus they share the cost'. in return, they were supposed to insert certain values that Army desired, as I assume, patriotism and certain people as their enemy.

However, I have my problem here. In this article, they were not able to tell us how much it exactly increased the enrollment or how much it increased the efficiency of the training. Without specific numbers, those claims cannot earn a status of being nothing more than a claim, and it really lacks evidences.

How much do you think the actual enrollment has increased due to this game? do you think it's a waste money?

The Political Purpose of War Games

The release of America's Army followed a long history of close relations between the video game industry and the military-industrial complex. Since the birth of video games, the game industry has been providing the military with simulations for use in training, these simulations commonly being remanufactured and rereleased as consumer video games. Such video games have spawned what has been called "advergaming," or games packaged as consumable media that also function to shine a positive light on war and bloodshed. It has been argued that war games serve to desensitize the public to not only the notion of war, but to extreme violence, bloodshed, murder, and hostility as well. At the same time, especially with warfare becoming increasingly more digital every day, today's wargames also serve to train its players to be comfortable with gaming software and hardware as they are now regularly being adopted by the military to replace obsolete or inferior technology. I have provided two links to a few interesting articles that talk about this trend:

"Game Controllers Driving Drones, Nukes"
"Military Use of Consumer Technology: Wargames"

With the invasion of video game technologies into every American household over the past decade, it only made sense that this "new" medium would be used as a means of reaching the masses. After an obscene increase in the miltary's recruitment budget, the America's Army project was launched and by October 2007, "the game had been downlaoded more than forty million times and had more than 8.5 million registered users around the world" (p. 40). With the development of the game having been committed to realism, elements of the game, such as the "maps," weapons, and even military campaigns were based on actual locations, weapons and events. However, death was portrayed very mildly and unrealistically, in what many believe was an attempt to lessen the association of death with war. I honestly believe that advergames such as America's Army are very effective in what they aim to do. In making war games enjoyable and through the "glamorization" of war, game companies have helped to make a mobile population of gamers ready and willing to go to arms simply for the sake of the excitement and action associated with war. However, this is no different from the commercials and movies the public is exposed to that also function to advertise and to glamorize war; new medium, same old tricks.

With the release of America's Army in 2002 we see the first successfully popular "advergame", or a game thats primary reason for being is that of an advertisement. After the US Army failed to meet recruiting goals for several years they started attempting to find new ways of recruiting young men and women into the armed forces. One of these new ways was the creation of the FPS America's Army, a video game that promoted  the life style of the US Army by communicating the core values of the army, "Loyalty, duty, respect,selflessness, service, and honor". It was given out for free at Army recruiting events, in magazines, and NASCAR races. The Nichols article continues to go on about the aspects of this game being a great recruitment tool for the Army and how the game industry is becoming more involved with the government and the making of training tools for US soldiers and other government workers such as baggage screeners.

Now there is controversy about how games as advertisements, like America's Army,  are trying to "brainwash" kids into joining the army or desensitizing them to violence. I think that is really just a bunch of BS. It isn't any worse than any other type of advertisement we see today and there hasn't been any real link to games and violence proven. What i am more interested in is these "advergames" like AA. With its success im surprised that we haven't seen other industries take a shot at it. Could games like Trauma Center be used as a recruitment tool for doctors and nurses? Is The Sims: Wall Street Banker edition far off? Or do gamers just wise up and know when someone is just trying to recruit them and thats why we haven't seen it work in other professions? I think video games can work as a great way to train employees and they are something todays generations will be familiar with and could pick up more easily.

So my question is do you think that we will see more "advergames" in the future? Have you played any "advergames" that weren't AA? and do you think that using video games as training tools is the next logical step in the evolution of the gaming industry?

Pushing The Limit

I found the article "Combat Game goes too far" for military to be very interesting, it goes into detail about Electronic Arts newest game Medal Of Honor and all the controversy that it has stirred up. Apparently the problem is that within the game you can portray and play as a member of the Taliban. This did not roll over well with soldiers of the U.S army because it hits to close to home, which is understandable. They cannot understand how this game can be seen as a form of entertainment when people die in real life situations in war due to the Taliban.

Personally i can understand where Sgt. Brian hampton is coming from with his remarks in regards to the game, but you cannot set the double standard within military games and say its ok to kill civilians and kill as many people as you want, but as soon as the game allows the person to kill from the bad guys side its a problem. I do not agree with this, as brought up earlier in the blog the airport scene from CODM2 can be seen as completely ridiculous and horrid if everyone was to look this far into military games. Also if you don't like a certain game than no one is forcing you to play it, it doesn't mean that someone else out there wouldn't enjoy the game.

I found the second article by Randy Nichols to be interesting a swell, the article talks about how the Army began using video games as a way to advertise, which all started on July 4 2002 with the game Americas Army. The game was able to give its audience a sense of what army life was like. I found this to be particularly interesting because i had never looked into the origins of Military gaming and how it started i never put that much thought into it, and being that i am very much into military games it was fun to read this article and learn more about how and why these types of games were created.

Question: Are military games pushing the limit to far?

Combat Game Goes Too FUN for Military?

After reading A.G. Sulzberger's article about how the military banned the sales of the newest Medal of Honor in their facilities because it allowed players to participate in the Afghanistan conflict as a Taliban fighter I must admit I started laughing hysterically. LOL. Personally, the US army is full of shit. They talk about how they are all about peace on Earth and protecting the greatest country in the world (LOL) and all they do is get involved  with conflicts that have nothing to do with and then they cry about it. First of all, if you are all about peace and protection, why not dissolve the army and all go into the Peace Core? Quit pretending like ur something more than a bunch of blood thirsty morons who got guns to play with. Ok, sorry. Back to the topic. I found it extremely funny that the army praises CoD and MoH as games with unparalleled realism that can be used to recruit people to the army, but that's only ok as long as you represent the the right option and you fight for the US. IF, GOD (lol) knows why, the video game is actually realistic and represents the real life ability to pick a side, a true democratic principle, then there is a problem. No moral problems or regrets with pumping young kids with games full of guns and blood and violence as long as it's directed the right way. Suprisingly they let COD2 slide with the airport level (which also had an option of turning it off im sure because of the military cry of how now right it is to be able to kill US civilians).. Nothing wrong with killing Taliban civilians tho, right?

How about we realize that the game is fun with that particular choice and as such should be further praised for it's realism, not be banned. Recognize that you need to do more than just talk about democracy and whatever else shit you got in store, and actually let people choose. If I was ever to get that game I hope there is an option to play the entire campaign as a Taliban soldier and end up assaulting Washington or something. Ya, is that too much? IT'S JUST A VIDEO GAME. Calm down military. I'm not anti-American, pro-terrorist, pro-communism, Marxist or whatever else you can call someone who disagrees with you. I'm just PRO-GAMES. Let the game be the game and don't read into it. Pick a side and don't bitch about someone else picking the opposite. OH, and don't cry about your friends getting shot in the head - what did you think was gonna happen in real-life combat? Want your friends intact, pick a different profession MR. BAD ASS SOLDIER.

Does this thing help?

Along with the increasing popularity of video games, the U.S. army started to develop milirary games that funcation both as serious games and a new form of elaborate advertisement (p40). It all started off when the recruitment hitting its lowest levels in 1999, which encouraged the U.S. Army to develop the America's Army project.According to Randy Nichols, the invention of the army games have successfully drew increased positive attention to the army and "helping with recruiment at an affordable price that other brances of the military have begun experimenting with games" (p41).

Although army games should supposed to be "serious", it is actually not the case. According to Randy Nichols, army games should be entertaining even when they are not produced for only entertainment purposes in ordert to attract more and more soldiers (p43). In addition, army games are very efficient in gaining awarenss in the society because games can be duplicated easily once they have been produced. Morover, the fact that "more than 50 percent of Americans over the age of six play video games" also suggests that video games can serve very crucial role in marketing the U.S. Army.

I don't know if counter strike can be counted as an army game but I used to be in love with this game. The game is pretty realistic in terms of the various kinds of weapons and team work that can be seen in real life. However, has this game increased the number of people interested in joining the army? I don't know, because to me, games and real-life situations are totally different since becoming real soldiers in wars can be very life-threanting. Before reading this article, I have only heard of people who are interested in paintball in Taiwan then later on decided to become a foreigner soldiers in France, but I am not sure how many people would join army because of all kinds of games.

Question for you all: do you think it is possible for those who first get attracted to army games to join the army? do those marketing or advertising methods help with the recruitment?

Gaming is SRS BZNS

In 1999, the military was running low on recruits. The turnout was so bad that Congress increased the recruitment budget to over 2 billion dollars per year to help them more effectively gain more soldiers. What did they do with the extra money? They made a video game.

America's Army, at $16 million dollars, was one of the most expensive games to have ever been made at the time, costing more than even most triple-a titles. It tried to make the gaming experience as reflective as possible of actual military life and ideals, giving players a taste of what it was like to be a soldier. This was advertising genius - gaming was, at the time of release, growing to be a dominant form of entertainment among Americans, and proved to be an excellent way to appeal to a variety of demographics who may not otherwise have been interested. The game's popularity soared, and players began signing up for the military to experience the game "for real." The Army itself was also able to use this "serious game" to train and monitor its soldiers, because of its similarity to actual combat environments. Not content with killing two birds with one stone, the game was also cheaper than other forms of advertising and training - as with any game, the initial production cost was high, but once produced, it cost almost nothing to reproduce.

However, the Army wasn't the only company making military games. EA's popular Medal of Honor series included in its newest installment the ability to play as the Taliban and fight against American troops in multiplayer mode. This has been done before, with previous Medal of Honor games allowing players to play on the opposing side in a WWII environment. However, the inclusion of the Taliban struck a little too close to some current soldiers and recent veterans, who had just returned from fighting in Afghanistan. In the article, one soldier is cited as saying, “You know how many of my friends have been killed by the Taliban? One of my friends was sniped in the head by them. That’s something you want to have fun with?” EA has since removed the Taliban feature from the game, replacing them with a more generic "Opposing Forces" character in the multiplayer mode. This incident goes to show that while games can paint the military in a positive light, they are also capable of demonstrating the bad points of war.

Both of the articles we read described Serious Games in terms of the military. Do you know of any other types of "serious games," i.e. those that aren't related to the military?

Taliban Fighter Ban

                In Sulzberger’s article, “Combat Game Goes Too Far For Military”, he begins by recognizing the graphical improvements of military games throughout the past several years.  These video games are increasingly becoming for realistic.  Sgt. First Class Brian Hampton stated, “It brings back a real reminder of what it actually felt like to be out there.”  Video game creators can get this knowledge and provided depth because they are granted access to military facilities and are able to interview combat veterans.  With the new version of Call of Duty, players were granted the ability to play as Talaban fighters.  This caused a ruckus among military soldiers.  As expected, there were mixed reactions to the ban.  Some soldiers simply saw it as a form of entertainment.  Others, however, found the new game insensitive.  “You know how many of my friends have been killed by the Taliban?”  Sergeant Schober asked.  “One of my friends was sniped in the head by them.  That’s something you want to have fun with?”  As a multiplayer video game, the game mechanics rule that somebody has to be the “bad guy”.  Toward the end of the article, Sulzberger states that some of the soldiers that supported the game’s ban from the military still intended to purchase the game.  I, personally, could definitely see the problems with releasing this game to the military and the insensitivity issues that come along with it.  I think that, like other games of its kind, an option setting should be made available to play as the Taliban fighter.  As long as you have the choice and it is not forced upon the player to be “the bad guy”, I don’t see a problem with this.

                What do you think about the Taliban fighter issue?  It was stated in class that the option no longer exists, but do you think this was a mistake by the game developers?  Or, is the country too sensitive about these issues and should simply accept it as a game offering a global viewpoint?

FPS

From a previous standpoint I had about first person shooters and to other video games, it was just about entertainment. It brought people together to have some fun for awhile. I remember how much my cousins and their friends would spend hours playing Goldeneye together. Also, I enjoyed games that were placed in the World War II setting as I liked playing through the historical context of the game space. Now I could see how these games have player space as well. Due to the advancements in video gaming, I could see how first person shooter games are used for training by the military. Since it is impossible to train soldiers with live simulations, video games are safe way to help train for real combat. It emulates real life situations with these games especially with the shooters that are set in the modern era. With multiplayer and online interactivity, players communicate with each other to strategize to win like they to do in gaming tournaments.

My first experience with America’s Army was when I was watching G4 where there was a show that two teams faced each other. I see how the teams had to work together to get to win the matches. As I play these games, I can see myself trying to survive as much as I can while picking off enemies. When it is really needed, I try to talk with teammates on what is lacking. I could see how games like these are used for training. Modern combat has all of those aspects. However, I wonder how well the training could be with certain people. Do first person shooters really make people more adept with weapons?


-Vircell

Games as Military Training Tools

Nichols explained a relationship between game and military in terms of recruiting, advertisement, and military training tool. The relationship was magnified when America’s Army was released to game market. More than a 4.6 million players got involved into the game, and many additional players joined monthly (Nichols, Pg.40). The game was really successful to inform young people in positive way about Army, and thus it really helped Army recruitment.  The game was not only an entertainment, but also new aspect of Army. With advance of game technology, the game could be played as tools for training. In this book, Nichols said

“Number of other military, paramilitary and political groups has begun to explore video games as tools for training mobilization and resistance” (Nichols pg.43)

I agree with this. I served as Commandos Sergeant when I was in Korean Army. My battalion actually tried to apply some engines of video games to military training. What I did was something similar to strategy game. The training was like Simcity. In Simcity, you need to build a building stuff, but the difference with the training program is that you build not only barracks or bunkers but also solider, and officers. I need to defense anything coming from Enemy. At the end of training, I got certain score depending on how well I was defensive against enemies. we were forced to apply what we learned from the game to real physical training, and had to explain how the game really helped us for our training. It was helpful to understand how military buildings and things such as bunkers and barracks are geographically important.

People targeted by both video game companies, and army recruiters are very similar (pg.44) therefore; military games could have great influence by using the game as advergaming (advertising game). The game, America’s army, became very successful in drawing more people to get involved in an Army. Consequently, companies, and advertisers realized how importantly the video games played as a vehicle used to convey an implicit messages to their targeted audiences. And the army also realizes their strategy for a soldier recruitment has to be as many as it can be such as advertisings, advergaming, and training games. Games were used for not only an entertainment but also an advertising. Moreover, in such games, player could control virtual soldier so they could experience military life indirectly. Nichols said game was great chance to have that experience.

“Games become ideal opportunities for training players. This is one of the key goals of america's army to introduce would-be soldiers to the Army's core value system.” (Nichols, pg.48)

I agree with this. As having served in army for 2 years, I can say that in military games, there are many things similar to the real military stuff. And by playing game, I believe that players could learn many important things such as a name of weapons, military stuff, and the way soldiers talk to each other. Of course, it is almost impossible to experience exactly the same as the real military life, but I still think it can be considered helpful opportunity for would-be soldiers to know basic information about the military, and this is good enough before going to army.  

Games like America’s Army were used as advertising that inspired young men to join the Army. The game was successful tool to know the basics about the military life, and it finally magnified the number of new soldiers.

Here’s my question to you. Do you think that playing military game would stimulate young men to join an Army?

America's Army

“what is happening now is that a lot of people who are coming into the military service are thrilled by the idea of war” (Linnett, 2004)

I want to start off talking about one of my good friends who went to the US military largely due to Halo2. He was a Halo2 obsessed kid when I first met him at school. All he does is playing Halo2 and talks about it all day long. I asked him what made him become obsessed with Halo2, then he replied, he likes it how it is very similar to an actual war. Like most of you guys know, Halo2 is set up in the future setting and fight against aliens. He loved the war-like concept of this game. After his graduation from high school, he went straight to the army without any hesitation. His only hope was to hold an actual game and shoot on his targets, just like Halo2. Therefore, I agree with what Linnet that a lot of people who are coming into the military service are thrilled by the idea of war.

Today the use of video games by the military-industry complex has long been a reality. Since the 1930s, the military was working on simulators to help train newcomers. Many of American military have adopted first-person shooter games like Doom, Operation Flashpoint, etc. According to the reading, the army began employing online gaming machines to bases overseas in 2006 as a mean of boosting troop morale. These game machines are said to have cost over $7,000 a piece. Therefore, military simulators industry is a very big money making industry with annual earnings of $4 billion, just for the simulation equipments, games, and events. Military’s use of video games is very helpful to video game industry to them in two ways. First, they use serious games, and second, these games function as a new form of elaborate advertisement. Today the America’s Army franchise has produced its fourth console title, America’s Army: True Soldiers (2007) for the Xbox 360. The U.S. military is a very important part of video game industry because the military needs the simulators to train their warriors. Therefore video game companies are competing one another to sell their product to the U.S. military. America’s Army is the first of the franchise produced for current seventh-generation game system and was developed by the Army in conjunction with North Carolina software developer, Red Storm Entertainment.  According to the reading, America’s Army is consists of two parts that are essential for military simulators. The first part is a role-playing military training module focused on communicating values for military service, while the second part is a first-person shooter. Although, America’s Army was made for simulation purpose for the US military service, but later it was sold to the public for PC games. According to the reading, for the army such an expense is sassily justified. Recruiting individual soldiers cost approximately $15,000 each; if 400 new recruits sign up as a result of the game, it will have paid for the game’s production though not it’s marketing. This is really good way of strategy to recruit new soldiers. People want to join the military service because they are thrilled by the idea of war. Since those people who thrilled by the idea of war are easier to recruit, advertising the US Army by a video game is a very efficient. Video game is a very useful in recruiting people. Since the US military knows that game is a very useful and cheap way to recruit new people, they attempt to gather a wider by promoting with a series of action figures of America’s Army at Toys “R” Us. Video game is a serious business today.

Have you ever played a military-base game that thrilled you with an idea of war and made you want to enter the military service? Or do you know anyone like that?

Female Raider

http://wow.joystiq.com/2010/10/22/drama-mamas-raiding-while-female/#continued

This post from WoW Insider is a response from a letter from a female raider about what she should do about her guild having reservations about her being female. This relates to our discussion about minorities in gaming. While women aren't a minority in real life, they're definitely a minority in hard core gaming like WoW.

America's Army

In 1999, recruitment levels for the U.S. Army were the lowest in thirty years. Because their goals were being missed by "considerable margins," the Army's recruitment budget was increased to more than $2.2 billion per year. With this money, the Army created the most successful advergame (a game used to advertise a product, organization or viewpoint) to date, America's Army. The game was made (and still is available) as a free download. By 2005, the game had 4.6 million registered users and gaining about one hundred thousand more each month. By 2007 it had 8.5 million users, 30 percent of which were between 16 and 34--the army's target audience.

The game's main focus is to recruit by giving people an idea of what the army is like. First, the player goes through a type of boot camp, where "characters are taught to follow orders to advance, which is based on their scores in 'loyalty, duty, respect, selflessness, service and honor.'" Here is a sample of part of the training:



The second thing the game offers is the actual FPS game, doing its best to maintain realism, using realistic sights and sounds. However, "players who are killed hear no noise and are shown only a small red circle at the time of their virtual death." This is done to make sure the game was held at a Teen rating, allowing most everyone to play it and an attempt to avoid a lot of controversy about the violence of the game.

Though the game was a large expenditure, it looks like it's paying itself off. "According to Army sources, recruiting using television ads can run between $5 and $10 per hour per viewer, while the cost of America's Army is roughly ten cents per viewer per hour."

And not only is the game a useful recruitment tool, but it can also provide training. Existing soldiers can receive scenarios from the military and then information from their play sessions would then be sent back for evaluation. It also introduces new soldiers to the army's "core value system" and giving them some training before their actual, real training.

While America's Army has been a great tool for the U.S. Army, it's generated a lot of controversy, especially among war veterans. Here's a video of a demonstration against the game:



Which side are you on--are you for or against the game? Explain

Office work stress

This isn't really related to the lesson we learned his week, but I think it is pretty funny.
It is about an office worker go crazy in his work place.

One of the tough jobs in the world

Although Huntemann brings up topic about how unfriendly the working environment in the game industry is, I think that there's a lot of jobs out there that are as time consuming as being game developers. In my understanding, game developers are creative people who not only need to be good at computer coding, but also need to have the artistic sense and be able to understand the aesthetics in game designing. It is similar to artists who need to stay up so late everyday either when they are studying at art schools or working as artists or designers. I have many friends studying in art school right now and they only only sleep three or four hours a day. They also tell me that they don't have a life as artists.

Another job that is similar to game developer is working as an account executive in advertising firms. When people think of an advertiser they would think that advertisers are cool people who are creative and can dress fashionably to work everyday. In fact, while I was working in an advertising firm this past summer, I realized the people there also don't have lives. They often have to stay up very late in the company and even have to work on weekends with no pays when they received excessive amount of works that cannot be done on weekdays. People also move in and out frequently in advertising companies, so this job is described as "cheap labors" by those who truly understand the advertising companies.

In my opinion, many tiring jobs in the world require 100% enthusiasm from their workers and game developers are just simply one of them. In terms of the reading, although I do think that game industry needs to include more female developers and minorities in the industry to make the industry better and their work more creative, the claim that the extreme working conditions is one of the reasons that the industry doesn't attract female workers is not true to me because I have seen many females working in tough working conditions and they absolutely love their jobs.

Question: what benefits do you think that females and minorities can bring to the game industry if more of them are hired?

Trying To Create A More Realistic Virtual World

One concept that Everett talks about a lot is "presence." Now that game developers are reaching a level of photorealism that is difficult to surpass, they no longer are spending as much time with the graphics of the game as the feel of the in game environment. They are looking to create more "authentic" worlds. Whereas in older videogames, it was not really possible to create immersive worlds that attempt to mimic a part of our planet's culture, now we find developers drawing from the urban/street stereotypes. As these sorts of neighborhoods in many US cities are populated with Latino and black families. There is also a stigma that a lot of illegal activity occurs in these areas. These are two key points that developers have incorporated into their games, to try to bring this space into the game.

While these game worlds may be inspired by real worlds, are they accurate? And more importantly, what do children take out of the game's portrayal of life in an urban neighborhood? Everett says the urban world is portrayed as "ultraviolent, hypersexual, exotic, and a repository of dangerous and illegal activity."

Do you think this is true about games? Is the way that these urban/street games show minorities disrespectful?

Sweat, pain, and work?

An industry that practices long hours with unpaid labor?  I would not consider this an industry, but more so a prison.  There are working people out there in the world who choose to work for money, those who work because they love what they do, and those who strive for both.  For those who only work because they love what they do, if the job is financially unstable, is it worth it?

The industry of game development would be perceived to be a really cool industry where you get to make games - AWESOME!...not so much.

The gaming industry is like the pedophile of the creative digital world.  They prey on young men to do their dirty work for them.  As Nina Huntemann states, "It relies heavily upon labor from young men with few attachments outside the office, who are new to professional life, with less than 5 years industry experience, and little political leverage to affect change. According to IGDA’s 2004 Quality of Life report, a third of survey respondents reported an intention to leave the industry within 5 years and over half expected to leave within ten, citing the heavy work load, job insecurity and unrealistic deadline pressures as key factors for their planned exit."  The fact that these men have to worry about the stresses of a heavy workload and unrealistic deadlines makes working extremely not fulfilling, especially when they have the chance to potentially lose their job any day!  I often wonder what these men are still doing sticking around and working under such harsh conditions like these.

I will refer back to my question posed earlier - Is it worth having a job where you love what you do when it is financial unstable?  Do you think this is even a matter of love for work?  Do you think it is simply that a young male came along looking for some kind of work no matter what is was?

On top of all of this, these young men may have wives and families waiting for them back at home - the place they never are.  These wives start voicing their opinions on these harsh conditions their husbands are working in because their work is extracting all of their time away from their personal/family life.  To some, they may view this as the wives just nagging and complaining, but them voicing their opinions could potentially save the lives of their husbands and spark change.  Will real change actually be put into effect, that questions still remains unknown.   Instead of just pushing this topic under the rug, it is good for others to know what is going on because it could potentially start a revolution for change in the gaming industry.

Do you think there is room for change and that a revolution could occur?  

The Dream Job

I realized two things about the gaming industry in the Huntemann article. First of all, the gaming industry is not a friendly environment. Despite the loose dress-code and working the “dream job”, the job itself is very strenuous and low pay. Secondly, the racial and sexual disparity of the industry is limited to young white male who are single.

I knew beforehand that the gaming industry environment is not as ideal as most people perceived. However, this article delved deep into real accounts of frustration and anger by the family and relatives of game developers. The article pointed out the Rockstar Spouses who posted anonymous articles on the real working condition of their counterpart. The article coined the phrase “crunch time” as the correct industry terminology for working overtime. Various other concerns was brought up in the article, but the main idea that Rockstar Spouses wanted to convey was the unjust working conditions that is causing mental and physical strain on their beloved ones. It makes me wonder… Where is the workers’ union for these individuals?

The racial and sexual disparity in the industry is understandable but it needs to be changed. When games first took off, it was generally targeted towards males. Naturally, the industry will be dominated by males as well. However, with casual games and other hardcore games that are tailored to women, it is only fair that this disparity should shift. Maybe, when that happens, the hyper sexuality of womens’ physique will be toned down to “normal”.

Question: If you were the director of a new ACTION game and you need to hire an extra member onto your “all male” team of game developers then who would you hire?

a) Very experienced female developer

b) Not so experienced male developer

Keep in mind that synergy and cooperation within a group is crucial…

"All Play Means Something"

In Anna Everett's article, "The Power of Play: The Portrayal and Performance of Race in Video Games," the author discusses the influence that video game representations of race may have on the player community. More specifically, the author expresses concern in the "role of games in the learning experiences and environments of youth" as video games attempt to achieve "realistic" portrayals of the social world in their encouragement of immersion and realism (Everett, p.141). By accepting the theory that video games can act as tools for learning, the author argues that modern day video games can "help facilitate how young gamers develop their knowledge of and familiarity with popular views of race and urban culture" (Everett, p. 144). Finally, Everett advocates that such gaming can ultimately "[alter] the familiar descriptive trifecta of nonwhite youths as poor, minority, and illiterate" (p. 158).
"More significantly, if video games portraying urban life and culture are perceived as authentic, then they become effective and, in many cases, uncontested devices for transmitting certain kinds of ideas about race, geography, and culture" (Everett, p. 145).

In designing urban/street gaming environments with "high degrees of 'perceptual' and 'social' realism," the look, sound, and feel of the real world are simulated through "objects associated with socially and economically marginalized communities" that act to further racial stereotypes and ideologies (Everett, pp. 144-146). Aside from the (sadly) expected objects such as "dilapidated housing, trash-filled streets... and background characters engaged in petty crimes, drug deals, and prostitution," urban/street games are filled with hegemonic representations of minorities that act to perpetuate existing dogmas with regards to race. Moreover, the actual representation of diversity within these "hyper realistic" gameworlds are, not surprisingly, unrealistic with the player-controlled characters of the ten top-selling video games being predominantly white (52%), "compared to 37 percent for black males and 5 percent and 3 percent, respectively, for Latinos and Asians" (Everett, p. 145). All these factors comprise only a small portion of a video game's "racialized pedagogical zone" which refers to "the way that video games teach not only entrenched ideologies of race and racism, but also how gameplay's pleasure principles of mastery, winning, and skills development are often inextricably tied to and defined by familiar racial and ethnic stereotypes" (Everett, p. 150).

Ultimately, the author expresses that urban/street games can have a profound effect on its consumers, not only through the hyperracialized imagery incorporated into these games, but through the act of gameplay itself. In creating a game where minority figures are associated with stereotypical narratives- a practice known in the game industry as "adding realism"- game designers give the players no choice but to accept the circumstances and to immerse themselves in it. Moreover, these players are forced to consume a media in which an acceptance of the hegemonic order is crucial to an immersive gameplay experience. In the end however, we are brought back to the root of the problem being the very existence of racism and ignorance in the first place and in that context, racial representations within video games is the least of our worries. This is not to say that they are to be ignored or should be trivialized, rather, that they should be considered in the broader scheme of things as video games are but one form of entertainment that falls victim to such fallacies.

and you wonder why you don't see much diversity in video games..

In the Huntemann article we get a look into the lessor known realities of the game developers. One would think that with the laid back corporate structure of wear anything to work and having air-hockey tables that there wouldn't be many complaints but you would be wrong. Apparently they suffer from long hours, unpaid overtime, and not getting standard pay increases( not to mention the mental and physical toles put onto their bodies and to their families). I do believe that all these complaints are fair workplace grievances and are things that would surprise people to know that they still happen in modern America. But what really got me thinking was some of the statistics that the article gave out. Huntemann said that "The “typical” game developer is white, male and heterosexual.⁶ Furthermore, the survey revealed the workforce is younger and more likely to be single or childless than the average population. Men dominate the creative roles of game production such as programming,art, audio and design by at least 88%".


This made me think that maybe this is the main reason we don't see alot of diversity in video games today. To tie this reading in with the Everett and Watkins reading about race we can see that maybe we don't get authentic portrayals of women and other races than white because these aren't the people making the games. Games like Def Jam Vendetta and Saints Row are made by 20something white guys. what do they know of black culture? nothing thats what. All they go on is stereotypes that are portrayed in older forms of media like tv and movies and then try to bring in some outside people to help make it feel more authentically "Urban". I mean without having a diverse staff how should we expect these games to turn out? 

Think about it. If the game development staff for Tomb Raider was comprised of more women do you think Laura Craft's breasts would be so outrageously huge and that female avatars in general wouldn't be so overly sexualized? I really doubt they would be. You might also be able to attract females to more games as well if you had games made by more women instead of men making games that they think women would like. 


Do you think that by having more diverse game development staffs that we would see people of different races, genders and identities represented in games better or more often? How can companies attract women and minorities into the industry?