Written by Ms. Solomon and Ms. Keats

From OXO and Pong to NHL games and World of Warcraft, videogames have changed. From a basic black and white screen to an immersive world, it is not simply the games themselves that have changed, but (perhaps more importantly for our purposes) how audiences make meaning from those games. Even early on, games were a social experience. They gave people of all ages another way to play together using new technology.

What strikes me most about the above video is the enthusiasm of the players. These men created the game, have presumably played it many times over and, despite their best efforts to formally introduce the game, they can not help but get caught up in it. Videogames allow for a powerful connection between the audience and the media text itself, as well as other players.

We began our chat this week by thinking about a recent news article from the Globe and Mail. A couple of weeks ago, Electronic Arts released the newest version of their NHL game. This version now has a female hockey player because of the efforts of Lexi Peters. Ms. Peters wrote to EA because she and her friends played the hockey game but were frustrated at not seeing themselves represented within the game. There were no female avatars in the game. The best they could do (according to Ms. Peters) was to give the male players longer hair like theirs and to use their imaginations. This took away from the enjoyment and experience of the game. Lexi’s letter eventually changed all that.  More important than the decision to add a female avatar to the game (a decision which was likely more commercial than altruistic on the part of the game creators… but we’ll be talking about commercial implications next week), and more relevant to this week’s discussion is how audiences negotiate meaning within the context of video games. If the avatar represents the individual, what does it mean for gamers when they feel that they are not represented in that virtual world? Are virtual worlds perceived by audiences as idealized versions of the real world? If so, and if the creators of the game go to great lengths to create a “virtual reality” with “real” players and their “real” abilities (strengths and weaknesses) what does it say about the role of women and other groups who are not represented evenly (or at all)  in the virtual reality?

Some other questions that came out of the discussion:

(Ms. Solomon) How might seeing herself (as EA has now included an avatar based on Ms. Peters) in the game change her gaming experience?

(Ms. Keats) With respect to online gaming, how free are people to create an image for themselves?

(Ms. Keats) What impact does it have when a person does not control their identity in a role playing game/video game?

(Ms. Solomon) Question for the classroom: How would players (our students) make their favourite game better? What would they add/take away from their favourite games?

Heidi Siwak shared her observation that students felt empowered when playing a game like Minecraft, because rather than focusing on avatars, they are constructing the virtual world itself. For a fascinating interview that Mrs. Siwak did with her students, click here. The conversation touches on gender, advertising, Minecraft and the experience of gaming from girls’ perspectives. Minecraft, and the idea of the audience actually constructing virtual worlds got us thinking about the intersection between last week’s Key Concept discussion (on space and place) and its intersection with this week’s topic. When avatars are deliberately unrealistic, does that allow the audience to shift focus to the virtual space? How do audiences negotiate meaning differently in a game like Minecraft, or perhaps even one of the older video games (like Arkanoid) which did not have a specific character/representation of the player? Does that experience give the player a critical distance from the game? Or does it allow the player to be immersed more fully in the game because they are less conscious of the “self”?

Often, videogames are critiqued by those who see violence and overt sexuality—the worry being that the players immersing themselves within these types of games will be changed or warped by it, or become so connected to the virtual world that they are unable to make any connection to the world beyond the game. It makes for a titillating news story. The story less told in mainstream media is the powerful ways that gaming reflects the positive qualities of human nature, as well.  With online gaming, individuals can come together to solve problems and collaborate with one another; and this form of online community building is another way for individuals to construct meaning for themselves. In many ways, it reflects the notions of global citizenship—responsibility to others and an awareness of the broad impact small actions can have across great distances.

Beyond simply the player connecting to the game one-on-one, videogames have an incredible ability to transcend physical distance as well, connecting people from all over the world, creating meaning through the interactions amongst players. Video gaming can allow people to be accepted by their online community as an individual and to have a “voice” when they may otherwise feel limited. This is the transformative potential in videogames, and that power to transform individuals, communities, and networks contains other amazing possibilities in constructing and transforming the broader “real” world as well. In the TED talk below, video game designer Jane McGonigal aims to do just that. She sees the possibilities of video games as a tool to solve real-world problems. We’d love it if you’d continue the discussion in the comments!