The Digital Scapegoat [COMM 203]

Time after time video games have been scapegoated by the media and our society. They have been blamed for violence, crime, and social problems among many other issues. I find these to be completely unfounded when viewing them from a cause and effect relationship. There may be quantitative statistics, but I believe that these are completely inconclusive because most are designed not to find results, but to reinforce theories. They do not take into account specific incidents and the circumstances of the incidents. Basically, it is just done specifically from a numerical approach.

Personally, I find playing video games to be a very relaxing way to escape everyday stress and almost as a therapeutic activity. For instance, if I'm feeling down, watching television or a movie does not help me take my mind off of things that are bothering me, while playing a game does. The main difference is because when I am playing a game, I am interacting with the media and not simply observing it.

I do not own any game consoles, and I usually only play a computer real time strategy game called DOTA which stands for Defense of the Ancients. The game runs off the platform of Blizzard Entertainment's game Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne which was released in 2003. DOTA is a real time strategy multi-player game that I usually play in a LAN setting with two of my friends on campus. We play the game socially, meaning that when we get together it is basically just a common activity that we can all enjoy. My two friends do not drink or do drugs, and I am currently on medication that prevents me from drinking, so it just works out to be good clean fun that we can all enjoy.

There may be some anti-social gamers, but from my experiences the only time I generally play video games is in social settings and because it is a common activity that helps us all get together, relax, and socialize. DOTA is a game that requires an immense amount of strategy, so we are constantly communicating verbally. Overall, I think the media and society scapegoat video games as causing problems, when from my perspective they are a good clean way to relax and escape from our stress and work together.

What constitutes a game? [COMM 203]

This seems to be a fairly simple question with an obvious answer, but if you dig deeper it is hard to come up with a concise definition that formally answers this question. The reason for this is that there are so many variables and it is hard to make a clear definition, for example, one that encompasses not only physical childhood games but also very progressive digital games.

According to game historian David Parlett, he believes a game has two characteristics which are ends and means. Ends refers to the idea that a game is basically a contest that only one player or team can win. Means refers to the game equipment and rules. According to theorist Jesper Juul "A game is a rule-based formal system with a variable and quantifiable outcome, where different outcomes are assigned different values, and the player exerts efforts in order to influence the outcome, the player feels attached to the outcome, and the consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable"

Both of these definitions establish the idea that games must have rules, and they also imply that there must be some type of conflict. Parlett's definition seems to be somewhat narrow when applied to modern video games which have become highly innovative. For example, World of Warcraft is basically an open ended game that can continue for as long as you'd like (unless of course you cannot pay for your monthly subscription.) Juul's definition however seems to be more open ended and concise, which would classify World of Warcraft as a game because his definition does not call for there to be an ending.

Learning Styles [COMM 203]

Have you ever noticed many people excel in some classrooms while being completely lost in others? There are many things to take into account, for example, background knowledge, natural inclinations, study habits, and most importantly the individuals learning style.

A learning style is basically an individuals most receptive way of learning. For example, if a person is a visual learner, they are more inclined to to remember visual information being shown in class as opposed to reading the same information in their textbook. Aural learners are inclined to remember sound, such as a teacher's lecture or a friend's speech. Read/Write learners are inclined to remember things they read and take notes on. Kinesthetic learners are hands own learners who basically learn by physically doing things.

According to the VARK Questionnaire, I have a Multimodal learning preference, which means I am somewhat well rounded and I can switch methods based on how information is being presented. I found this strange however because my highest score by far was in the Kinesthetic (hands-on) category. I feel this makes sense because if I am faced with learning a new computer program, it is usually most efficient for me to get a copy of the software and just start messing around with it as opposed to being "taught" in a classroom.

After taking the VARK Questionnaire, they provide some strategies and ideas for what I can do to improve my lifelong learning. The strategy/concept suggested for me is called "Study without tears" which basically states my best way of learning from a lecture type class is to reduce my notes to the most important information, and then convert them into "a learnable package". From my understanding, this means that I should basically make my own charts/graphs to express how things correlate, and that the hands on approach will help me understand the material better by somewhat interacting with it.