The Drone Wars

Rolling Stone has a great piece on how America's use of unmanned drones is changing the way we go to war and conduct foreign policy. Made me think of Stahl's article and the idea that war is more like a video game and video games are more like war.

New Media and Internet Activism

Richard Kahn and Doug Kellner evaluate the new era of online activism in the article New media and internet activism. They discuss the early activities of the “battle for Seattle” and several protests surrounding the war in Iraq from groups such as MoveOn and ANSWER. Web based activism has really hit its stride since the turn of the century. Blogging has allowed anyone with internet access to become a contributing reporter. Kahn and Kellner note bloggers are able to post pictures, text, audiom and video on the fly from PDA devices and cell phones (93).  With the age of the article (2004) it feels to lack emphasis on the speed technology moves today. Since these publication advancements in society such as Twitter, smart phones, tablets, and Facebook have exploded to everyday use. Blogging and activism took a drastic increase in speed.

While I agree several avenues for democracy, news, and facts arose with the new blogging and reporting environment, the web is also rampant with misinformation. Take for example everyone’s favorite activist, blogger, and Right wing rabble-rouser Andrew Brietbart. In 2010 on his website he reported a video of Department of Agriculture agent Shirley Sherrod making seemingly racist comments (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/19/clip-shows-usda-official-admitting-withheld-help-white-farmer/). This created a hailstorm of media coverage. It was reported across the country with Fox-News at the forefront. Within days Ms. Sherrod was forced to resign only for details to later explain Brietbart heavily doctored the video footage (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/us/politics/22sherrod.html?_r=2).

Even though apologies were handed out by nearly everyone involved (except Brietbart who always held the spirit of his video was correct), Sherrod's reputation was permanently tainted and her name tarnished forever.

In another case Brietbart exhibited almost the exact same actions. In 2009 he released a video depicting the Government agency ACORN as promoting prostitution and fraud. Thus massive investigations were held by Massachusetts, California, and New York which concluded the ACORN workers committed no criminal activity and the videos were heavily edited to mislead and shape the material out of context. Any effort to critically analyze ACORN's credibility was derailed by the initial video and they were completely disbanded by 2010 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-atlas/acorn-vindicated-of-wrong_b_612265.html?page=3&show_comment_id=50563828).

While the ethics, motives, and validity of these stories can be heavily questioned, we've also witness a number of positive online causes. For example the Trayvon Martin case, after being entirely dismissed by local police, now has life in large part due to online activism. This summarizes the cause and the petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/prosecute-the-killer-of-our-son-17-year-old-trayvon-martin. Even people who believe Zimmerman is being unfairly persecuted by public opinion mostly agree the case should be invested more thoroughly than the previous attempt. A mother, whose son was tragically slain in public, now has a chance at truth for her son's final moments. Whether Zimmerman is guilty or innocent, right or wrong, just or unjust, further insight and investigation isn't much for a grieving mother to ask.

So I guess this brings me to my question, is online activism good for society? My guess, it is good at times, awful and others, and the “truth” to any situation will float somewhere in a myriad of online opinions.

~Tim Nettrouer

The Rhetoric of Internet Trolls.

At this point, it's safe to assume we've all been watching a youtube video or reading a yahoo news article when we see it: an outrageous, vulgar, offensive comment from someone with all caps writing and poor grammar that thoroughly convince you that humanity is, in fact, doomed.  From racial rednecks to obscene scandalizers, they make us wonder how and why these people couple possibly be the way they are, and what sort of sick, sociopathic pleasure could they possibly be getting from enraging hundreds of posters. 

I've been asking myself this question for a long time, and besides the protection internet anonymity offers and a sad, pathetic existence, I haven't been able to consciously put together why these "trolls" exist.  

The other day, I was watching a video and noticed the top comments were both like this: "Guys, don't even respond to his comments.  He thrives off of our anger, don't give him the satisfaction!" 

I scrolled down enough to see his comment look something like this:  "HAHA YOU ARE SUCH A FAG BRO BRO YOU SERIOUSLY NEED TO GET A LIFE BRO DON'T YOU KNOW THAT THIS VIDEO IS FOR BABY BITCHES WHO HAVE NO LIFE BRO WTF HAHA YOU ARE SUCH A FAG STOP MAKING FAGGY VIDEOS BRO SERIOUS" 

I clicked on his youtube name and it brought me to his profile, which had the following description:  

About YUMADBRO?

I am a little douchebag that dislikes and leaves shitty comments on popular videos. i have no friends, and i am a attention whore.i am a troll on the internet. i have multiple accounts on youtube that keep getting banned. i never learn my lesson and keep comming back to troll. I'M A COD FANBOY BRO I THINK I'M A HARDCORE GAMER BRO I THINK SAYING BRO MAKES ME COOL.I don't do anything all day so i have time to wait for hate comments on my channel BRO. i have 0 uploaded videos. i also like flagging videos for no reason bro. I like posting my shitty c.o.d gameplay online BRO and talking shit like a douchebag because i know i am protected by a screen.i also like saying bro alot, because i'm a fag that watches Jersey Shore. I know you all hate me and i don't care bro. besides what would youtube be without little teenage douchebags like myself leaving troll ass comments on videos? KEEP THE HATE COMMENTS COMING, I GET A KICK OUT OF THEM

When im not online trolling, im camping on c.o.D

At first, it almost seems like he's acting as a parody on trolls.  But there is no punch line, and with only this video, it seems like he recognizes the ridiculousness of his behavior, but commits to it nonetheless.  He still enrages hundreds of people daily.  He keeps making new youtube accounts once he gets banned (hopefully this one will still be up for us to analyze).  How, as students of digital rhetoric, do we account for people like this?  Yes, it is upsetting, but Internet Trolls exist.  People would never act this way outside of the internet, so is anonymity and a pension for hate the only reason, or is there something else at work?  Is the Internet truly a place to be an open, public sphere with the existence of this type of poster? 

Please take a minute to provide your input...

For my final project I am going to test my browser and search engines and see if I can manipulate the identity that is formed for me through cookies and other website tools that guide our internet behavior. When I talked to Professor Hess about it last week in class he suggested that I develop a character or two and do a number of different searches as if I was that character. The example he gave was conspiracy theorist. So the plan would be to enter search terms like - conspiracy, New World Order, moon landing hoax, subliminal messaging, etc - and then see if these searches would then impact a generic search for something like politics. Anyways, I thought it might be cool to get input from the class and see what you all thought would be an entertaining character. I like the idea of conspiracy theorist but I would like to do at least one more and see what you guys could come up with - any suggestions would be helpful. Thanks.

"You Don't Play, You Volunteer" Response.

First off, allow me to apologize for the lateness of this post.  I had a miscommunication with David, who also posted this week, and it turns out we were writing over the same article.  So, here’s my new post over Dr. Hess’ piece, “You Don’t Play, You Volunteer”: Narrative Public Memory Construction in Medal of Honor: Rising Sun.

            For this article, Hess dove into a narrative and ludological analysis of Medal of Honor: Rising Sun, a video game released in November 2003 during the Gamecube, Xbox, and Playstation 2 generation.  Since I spent more time than I care to admit playing this game as a 14 year old, I had an easy time slipping into the rhetorical world Hess wrote about; however, for the sake of those who do not partake in video games, I’ll offer an overview of the ludological and narrative focuses of this game (as researched by Dr. Hess) before diving into the interactive effects and implications Hess discovered within these aspects of Medal of Honor: Rising Sun, as well as an overall reaction to this piece and how it applies today.

            Just as with novels or films, video games too have overarching themes for audiences to experience and attribute meaning.  However, unlike the vast majority of novels or films, video games such as Medal of Honor: Rising Sun construct meaning through both narrative devices as well as player interactivity.  While the industry's humble begins from Tetris to Super Mario World leave much meaning to be desired, now, as Hess states, “computer mediated environments, such as multiple user dungeons, chat rooms, and especially gaming, have reached increasing complexity and realism” (p. 340).  Now that the technology exists, digital gaming presents interactive simulations that interweave player action with complex narratives to present fully rhetorical situations (i.e. Mass Effect), and in Medal of Honor’s case, one that uses historical events as a backdrop for a soldier-simulation in WWII (Hess 2007). 

            Due to this unique situation, Hess used narrative and ludological criticism to analyze how the narrative and interactive elements of Rising Sun.  Take a look at how Medal of Honor: Rising Sun is presented.  Hess stated that “the intersection between the gameplay narrative and the historical narrative is underscored through mission objectives” (p. 345).  Here, the objective (scene) is set up through a cinematic where players are caught up on the narrative and goals they have to complete.  Once the cinematic is over, the player takes first-person control of the main character, and it is up to them to fulfill the mission.  As an ordinary gamer taking the place of an ordinary soldier, the player is now thrust into a vernacular perspective on the wartime events that follow (Hess 2007).  The first person perspective of the interactive experience during historical moments in WWII rhetorically place the player in a situation that seems credible and real, leading them to a perspective of patriotic vengeance on Japan in which events played out seem like they actually happened as the player experienced them.

            However, as narratives tend to go, there is a beginning, middle, and end to the player’s journey, and in order to reach the end, the player must play the part.  Hess writes, “while immersed in the text, the player interacts with its limits, borders, and environment” (p. 344), and playing the part in this “authentic” historical environment leads to the critical blindness described in the article.  This blindness leads us to the implications Hess describes as Rising Sun using intertwined narratives to create a story of personal revenge, with the players actively becoming involved in at type of public memory that reigns in themes of nationalistic pride and jingoism.  One of the most important things to realize, however, is that the game is both, as Hess puts it, static and dynamic (353).  There is only one way to win, but getting there is an interactive journey taken on by the player.  Thus, the “politics of remembrance” are being brought to a new audience in a new way.  By reconstructing the war in this way, players are not only experiencing it, but also creating it themselves.

            It is easy to see that the rhetorical situation in video games is, at the very least, complex, and this complexity lends to the potential for game to use narrative construction as a work of art and tell stories that can affect the player in ways only a video game can.  Yet as technology increases at a rapid pace, so does the propensity for influential video games.  Call of Duty: Black Ops, which came out a few years ago, uses historical wartime settings, events, and characters (from JFK to Castro) in a very similar fashion to Medal of Honor: Rising Sun.  Here, the façade of better animation, better graphics, and better production value are offering the opportunity of better truths.  But while not all games profess these sorts of narrative arguments and conscious (or subconscious) representations, Hess’ research allows us to recognize the propensity for video games to attribute such important meaning to what is experienced within them.   

The focal point here is that video game narratives offer a unique opportunity for participatory experience within an emerging art form, and rhetoric in these moments is experienced from multiple vantage points thanks to interactivity.  Wolf states in his Game Studies and Beyond article that “with the addition of interactivity, the image is not just a window but a tool that allows one to (metaphorically) reach through the window frame to find things and manipulate and interact with them instead of just viewing them” (p. 117).  Video games implement different thematic production and narrative techniques found in film or the written word, but with interactivity, the rhetorical situation becomes much greater than the sum of its parts.  Now it’s your turn, classmates.  What do you think this means for the video game industry?  Does participation in a narrative actually grant players choice, or is it just as linear as the railway cars in Holocaust museums?  Do video games have the potential to become not just artistic, but the medium for an entirely unique rhetorical experience, or are they doomed to be simulative constructs that will remain planted in the linear? 

War Games

When the topic of video games first came up in this class, I wasn't sure how we were going to tie them into theories of rhetoric. Given my frame of reference is Super Mario Brothers and Mike Tyson's Punch Out, you can probably understand why. After reading the Hess and Stahl pieces, I have a much better appreciation for the rhetorical arguments that video games can make.

I have a lot of random thoughts, so in no particular order...

What I found particularly interesting in the Hess piece was the revisionist history that occurs in games like Medal of Honor: Rising Sun. History, they say, is written by the winners. And this game is a great example of that. While it has the outward sheen of authenticity, the game itself presents a singular vision of World War II which glorifies the victors and dehumanizes the enemy, leaving out any details which detract from its specific narrative. (Since many video games and consoles are made by Japanese companies, I wonder how people would feel about a Japanese version of the game that allowed the soldiers to participate in the bombing of Pearl Harbor? .....Guessing that wouldn't go over well). Like most of the war games in this genre, Medal of Honor also reinforces the idea that taking the fight to the enemy is the only patriotic thing to do. Even if people are not desensitized to violence by playing the game, it doesn't do much for promoting international diplomacy or peacekeeping efforts. I particularly liked the analogy of the video game to a digital museum display, the stories from "real-life" veterans to docents.  Just as we judge museum displays by the authenticity of the artifacts, we judge war games by the realism of the the uniforms, the weapons and the battle scenes. Medal of Honor gets its sense of historical accuracy from its era-specific artifacts; not by providing an authentic experience of war. Having never fought in combat, I can't say I know what it's like. But I'm pretty sure that no video game, no matter how realistic its graphics or advanced its game play, could ever recreate the experience of being at Pearl Harbor or the Battle of Guadalcanal. I wonder how many young people today will grow up with this game as their only frame of reference for World War II, in the same way that I conceptualized pioneer life by playing Oregon Trail....

The Stahl piece was especially fascinating because I had no idea just how deeply the commercial gaming industry and military industrial complex were in cahoots. I knew the U.S.Army had developed a video game for recruiting and branding purposes, but I never knew so many commercial video games start out as military simulations, and vice versa. When the video game companies aren't developing soldier simulations, they are trying to capitalize on real life conflicts. I thought it was interesting, albeit not surprising, that Sony tried to trademark "Shock and Awe" at the start of the Iraq War. (Didn't Disney just try to do the same thing with "Seal Team 6" shortly after they took down Osama Bin Laden?) The Kuma/War game goes so far as to even re-enact dramatic military missions down to the very last detail, only weeks after they played out in real life. To me, it would be more interesting to see games based on past wars and conflicts. I can only imagine the titles: Call of Duty: Battle of Hastings!  or Civil War: Shiloh Showdown!  How do you think people would react?

In any case, both articles make a strong case that the lines between video game and war, citizen and soldier, are blurring. Wars look more like video games, and video games look like wars.

Guess I'll stick with Super Mario Brothers.

Are video games art?

I really wish that Gee had started off his paper on videogames as art by giving us a context and definition of art. Whether videogames are art or not largely depends on our definition of art. Roger Ebert for instance argues that games can never be art because of their interactive component. To a degree I understand his point. Is there a difference between playing Madden on your gaming console and actually playing on a football field? Shall we consider sports art as well?

Kellee Santiago works for thatgamecompany. Thatgamecompany produces stylistic games such as “flower” and the more recent “journey”. She defends videogames as a style of art by comparing how videogames have evolved throughout the years in the same way that art has evolved from cave paintings to what we have today. You can watch her 15 min speech at the bottom of this response from film critic Roger Ebert. Ebert has become infamous within the gaming community for claiming that games cannot be art. I will not explain all of Eberts points in his blog post but I strongly encourage you to read it and watch the video of Santiago that he is responding to http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html

While Ebert raises many great points in his response to angry gamers defending games as art, I believe he neglects a careful examination of the interactive component of videogames that James Gee explores in his paper Why Game Studies Now? Before I continue I will adhere to what Ebert asks of gamers at the end of his response… “Why are gamers so intensely concerned that games be defined as art?”. To be bluntly honest, as a gamer myself, I don’t care... but defining games as a new unique form of discourse is important for furthering the field of rhetorical studies. Along with new trends in discourse come new ways to reason. What do you think? Is it important to define games as art?

My central problem with Gee is that he does not define art. My other problem is that while he gives good arguments as to why games are art, he does not explain why it is important to define games as art. He says that through the manipulation of symbols such as shapes, games produce two different narratives (59). As humans we produce stories to rationalize the world around us…think back to Fisher’s narration as a human communication paradigm. If you are moving a block in a game, such as Tetris, we construct a story around it. Even games that have a more explained reason for moving a block, such as Ico, will generate a second narrative within the users mind.

When you see Zelda all pixilated you visualize in your head what the real Zelda would look like. So part of the story is generated by the designer and the other part of the story is generated by your interpretation of their design. When I was a kid I used to go into the manual section of my nes games and there would be all kinds of illustrations. In this case the designer is guiding the gamers interpretation of the narrative. Also in defense of videogames as art, Gee relates gaming to experiencing a symphony because “ambience, mood, feeling, sound and look” (59) act in the same way that tones of sound work to move you through a symphony.

The main difference between a symphony and a game is that a game, unlike a symphony, has two different narratives. On one hand the designer is guiding you through a main plot and on other hand you can choose how to experience that plot. Even older games such as the original Mario bros which seem much more guided than modern games such as Skyrim, have a plethora of ways to go through it. For an example watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDX3zfn1LTU. My favorite is from 1:00 to 1:50.

One question I would pose is, if we are to say videogames are art because we are co-producing the experience can we say anyone who plays a videogame is an artist? Throughout history, has it not been the technical skill of the artist that has made certain paintings a work of art and other paintings a piece of crap?

I think this is where Ebert struggles in defining it as art. Ebert points out that George Melies can be considered an artist from his film “A Voyage to the Moon” (1902) because “he has limited technical resources, but superior artistry and imagination”. It seems to me that Ebert is saying that the art depends on the quality. I would agree with this. Editing video for a news station, I can tell you that what we do is definitely not art. He also openly admits that games could be art someday, but are not right now.

Gee, Santiago, and Ebert all raise compelling points…who do you side with most?

Gee, J. (2006). Why game studies now? Video games: A new art form. Games and Culture, 1(1), 58-61

~David Koehn

Further proof of the melding of mind and machine

Saw this article about "Google working on Internet-connected glasses" and immediately thought of Calleja & Schwager's piece on rhizomatic cyborgs.