gamer-identify-yourself

a blog about identity and the video game industry

[gamer-identify-yourself]

How Trolls Operate (part 2)

Now that we've looked at why the fitness and feminist communities were targeted for the "bikini bridge" troll, let's take a look at the methods the trolls used to ensnare these groups as well as the media and social commentators.

According to the Buzzfeed article, and true to the initial 4chan poster's plan, the trolls began by creating the impression that the bikini bridge is looking to be the net big summer fad prior to engaging either of the two groups central to the controversy. They created fake screen shots of celebrity twitter feeds (such as Katy Perry and Justin Bieber) casually mentioning the bikini bridge in a positive manner. They also posted an article on Buzzfeed (in the unmoderated section of their website) as well as on the CNN website. The "celebrity endorsement" and realistic looking articles apparently did the trick. Within 24 hours, there were over 2000 tweets and over 100,000 favorites associated with the fake celebrity endorsements. In almost no time at all, trolls created the impression that the bikini bridge is real and destined to be the next big summer trend.

This is an important step. A few trolls infiltrating an online community and talking about how cool they think bikini bridges are risk being dismissed as trolls if the existence of a bikini bridge fad cannot be substantiated. After all, a troll ceases to be a troll the moment it is recognized as one. No one will engage with them, and no one would spread the news of the latest fad to their friends as the trolls want. However, if a foundation has been created, so that when someone googles "bikini bridge" they find substantial content on it (including Justin Bieber's endorsement and thousands of twitter hits) suddenly the bikini bridge fad seems real, and the comments of a few trolls might be seen as the genuine beliefs of real people commenting on the latest trend. Rather than people blowing off the trolls, people would likely feel compelled to engage them- to either show their support and embrace the fad, or to try and "talk sense" to them by showing how harmful trends like this can be for women's self esteem.

The media was a big help with this. Every article that sprouted up decrying the bikini bridge also helped to legitimize it as an actual fad that actual people are embracing. Even if the writers of these articles knew the fad was a hoax, by engaging with it, by speaking to the larger societal issues they felt it highlighted- they legitimized it and exposed it to more people. As the Buzzfeed article mentioned- by this point, sorting out the work of trolls and the work of honest people, became nearly impossible. As one commenter put it (who claims to have been in on the troll) when addressing the writer of a Washington Post article on the subject:

... The goal of Operation Bikini Bridge was not to "Invent" the bikini bridge as you put it, but to popularize it among alternative social media sites. We wanted to see if we could get a term to go viral. So I suppose I should be somewhat thankful; your article greatly helps our cause. 4chan does not care whether women have a bikini bridge or not. It is the media that have linked the term to women's health problems. We merely sought to test our powers by adding a term to social media vocabulary. It is the "thinspiration" and "fat-shaming" crowd that hijacked the term, inadvertently furthering our operation. 4chan was merely the catalyst. You, Caitlin, are our obedient messenger. -Anonymous

Though I disagree with the writer's claim that it was "inadvertent" when the "thinspiration" crowd picked up on the term (the initial 4chan posting made it clear this crowd was a big part of their plan), this comment highlights the media's role in assisting trolls spread chaos. Though it was trolls that started this fake trend, in just a matter of weeks, fake became real. Fiction became non-fiction. Myth became reality. Is there anything more chaotic than that? Than not knowing what is real and what isn't?

[gamer-identify-yourself]

What is a Troll?

Contrary to popular belief, the term has nothing to do with large smelly monsters that live under bridges in old fairy tales (though this certainly is a troll). The kind of troll I am referring to exists on the internet (so look at the first picture and not the 2nd). The word "troll" can be used as either a verb or a noun. It can be a person, a posting, or the act of posting or interacting with a person in a specific way. Its etymology goes back to the fishing industry. Here is the Wikipedia definition:

trolling is a method of fishing where one or more fishing lines, baited with lures or bait fish, are drawn through the water. This may be behind a moving boat, or by slowly winding the line in when fishing from a static position, or even sweeping the line from side-to-side, e.g. when fishing from a jetty. Trolling is used to catch pelagic fish such as salmon, mackeral and kingfish.

Like the hard working fisherman described above, internet trolls spend a lot of time setting up bait, and then winding that bait up, in order to ensnare their prey. What is a troll's prey? Gullible internet newbs. Just as fisherman do not have a specific mackeral in mind when they go fishing, trolls typically do not have a specific newb in mind when they go trolling. The bait they set is there to ensnare a general type of victim. Someone who associates strongly with a specific ideology, or social cause- but also someone who doesn't know they are ensnared and will actually help them ensnare others. Why do they do it? Because they think it is funny to watch people get worked up and upset. The more people that get upset, the more people that are attracted to their "bait," the funnier it is to them. These laughs generated by such actions are called "lulz." Trolls do it for the lulz.

In "The Art of Trolling" (an anonymously written guide to both trolling and recognizing trolls) I found the following description of an ideal troll methodology:

A troll is no different to any other Usenet posting. That needs to be stressed. Any article that you decide to write should be written with a view to it actually being read by large numbers of people. Simply X-posting to large numbers of irrelevant newsgroups is not creative trolling - it is just spam and should be avoided. The experienced troller spends time carefully choosing the right subject and delivering it to the right newsgroup. With trolls, delivery is just as important as the subject. Start the troll in a reasonable and erudite manner. You have to engage your readers' interest and draw them in. Never give too much away at the start - although a brief abstract with hints of what's to come can work wonders. Construct your troll in a manner to make it readable. Use short paragraphs and lots of white space. Keep line length below eighty characters. Use a liberal amount of emphasis and even the occasional illustration. A good rule of thumb is that as your troll becomes more and more ludicrous put extra effort into the presentation - this keeps the mug punter confused. Let confusion and chaos be your goal!

I added the italics myself to that last part. It is an important part of a trolls motivation and something I will return to later. So why am I describing what an internet troll is to you? You've guessed it! This is the start of a new blog thread! I want to spend the next several weeks looking at trolls. Why? Well, in my last thread about "video games and  the media" I mentioned that more and more interest is being directed towards online gamer communities when constructing the "video game narrative." Trolls are a big part of any online community and I'm curious about their influence in shaping people's perceptions of gamers. So now that you know what a troll is, and how they go about doing what they do, tune in next time where I will examine a recent troll and we can see this methodology at work.

* These images are not my own, they were found by doing a simple Google image search.

[gamer-identify-yourself]

Video Games and the Media (part 3)

As promised, now we can look at the other 15% of the articles for each decade and see the narrative for video games from the utopian perspective.

Throughout the 80's and 90's video games' benefits are viewed as instrumental. This means that articles praising video games in these decades did so for the practical skills they imparted on the children playing them. For example, improving hand-eye coordination was often cited along with how their popularity would "benefit computer science" by generating an interest in programming at a young age (something subsequent articles I have referred to earlier in my blog posts seem to confirm). For these types of narratives, McKern points out that video games' benefits are not related to their "unique aesthetic possibilities," or playing a game for the sake of playing a game. Instead, they serve as a training opportunity, a vehicle for imparting other valuable life skills.

This would continue until the 2000's when, on average, better access to the internet became more widespread. At this point the benefits begin being described more and more as "transcendental" rather than instrumental. Articles in this decade begin reporting more on the unique social experience video games are able to provide. They also begin comparing video games to movies. Though most articles thought the medium inferior to film, there was a growing number of voices contributing to the video game narrative that saw video games as having the potential to offer a powerful and immersive experience that film cannot achieve. Also during this time, video game reviews began appearing in the "arts" section of the NY Times. The content of the reviews was also changing. McKern reports finding many articles whose focus had shifted from technical aspects of video games (such as graphics, difficulty level, etc...) to more emotional and intellectual ones. Reviewing a video game was becoming very much like reviewing any number of main stream, "accepted," art forms. Though still a minority voice, in the 2000's, to some degree, video games started to look like "culture" rather than the end of society- and sometimes, it was even OK to enjoy a game simply because it was a game.

As we approach the half way point to a new decade not covered in the study, I think it is important to note how the narrative has once again shifted. In terms of the apocalyptic side of things, perhaps blogs like this show that more and more people are concerned with the representational content in video games beyond violence. Still lumped together with other media such as music, movies, and television- video games are frequently criticized for encouraging misogynistic or racist attitudes. Though on the surface this may seem like just adding one more thing to the list of harmful behaviors video games encourage, it also marks a more sophisticated approach to the criticism within the narrative. In addition to the games themselves being under scrutiny- online communities and real life conventions are becoming the focus of study. This means that games are now being studied for the social interactions and structures they are actually producing rather than the predictions experts make about our future- or the tenuous connections they have to the personal biographies of those involved in tragic events.

As far as how the utopian side of things are going, the progression of video games as art has also been furthered. In my experience, especially among younger generations, fewer and fewer people question if video games are art- it is now just assumed that they are. Furthermore, recent examples from the news media in this very blog show that the video game industry has now outgrown both the film and music industry in terms of revenue. The practical benefits of video games have also proven to be valid in terms of military applications  and, as mentioned earlier, the connection they have to high paying STEM jobs.

For all of these reasons, video games aren't going anywhere- but neither are the narratives surrounding them. Because of their direct link to rapidly changing technology as well as children, they are likely to remain a controversial issue for quite some time.

[gamer-identify-yourself]

Leland Yee

In my last couple of posts I've been reviewing a journal article about video games and the media. In part 2, I mentioned how politicians have railed against violence in video games and pointed to them as a corrupter of our nation's youth. In 2005, one such politician, Leland Lee (a state senator), authored a bill in California that banned the sale of such games to minors. Though the Supreme Court would eventually strike down the law as an infringement on free speech, taking a strong stance against video games helped further his career.

In the above image Yee is seen holding several objectionable video games- including one from the Grand Theft Auto series. Though I don't know where the photo was taken, presumably it was at some kind of press conference where he was advocating that such games should be banned. Given Yee's background in child psychology (and that his political career began with his election to a school board) his voice lent credibility to claims that video games have a significant negative impact on America's youth. Completely in line with McKern's findings on video games and the media- youth violence was the number one reason cited for why the ban was necessary.

All of this makes recent findings concerning Yee's private life more than a little ironic. On March 26th of this year, Yee was indicted by the FBI for a lengthy list of crimes including; corruption, arms trafficking, and money laundering. One co-worker, completely surprised by the findings, is quoted as saying "it's outrageous and reads like a b-movie..." In my opinion, it reads more like one of the Grand Theft Auto games Lee has clutched in his fist in the above image. Though violent in nature, these games are filled with corrupt politicians like Yee and sensational criminals and arms dealers like "Shrimp-Boy," (pictured above) whom Yee was doing business with.

What does all of this mean? Well, despite the immense sense of satisfaction I feel watching someone who despises something I love go down for being a massive hypocrite- the debate surrounding violence and video games will not be disappearing because of it. Though Yee's own motives for putting video games in the lime light are now under question, there are plenty of legitimate members of society who continue to blame them for things like school shootings and other tragic events surrounding teens and violence. Are they right? I don't know, but there is enough evidence out there to warrant the question and continue researching it. One thing is clear though, there are definitely bigger, more immediate, fish to fry than video games when it comes to making the world a safer place- like keeping a closer eye on our politicians and who they associate with and accept campaign donations from.

* These images are not my own, they were found by doing a simple Google image search.

[gamer-identify-yourself]

Video Games and the Media (part 2)

Of those articles that McKern analyzed, roughly ten percent for each decade made some sort of moral evaluation concerning video games and those who play them.

In the 1980's, the video game industry was just taking off. A golden age, ushered in by the American release of a Japanese game called "Space Invaders" had just begun in 1979 (finally, there was something other than "Pong" to play and people were excited). However, this golden age was short lived. Because the industry exercised no quality control, a flood of poorly made games killed it off and by 1983 video games didn't look like they had much of a future.

Once again, Japan came to the rescue in 1986 with its release of the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) in North America. Due to it's release title, "Super Mario Brothers," the NES was extremely popular and by the end of the 80's became a standard household item. Software producers once again entered the market and a flood of games soon followed. During this time, the predominant narrative surrounding video games in The NY Times "document video games' capacity to impede players' intellectual development." By taking a time away from more valuable activities, it was feared that American children were becoming dumber and less social by the day. 84% of the articles written in this decade adopt this moral stance. Because this generation of children's work ethic was thought to be at risk- the future prosperity of America was now in question. This apocalyptic narrative had two main characters; children and parents.

In the news articles, more and more video game players were cast as lazy and unintelligent children. Not lazy and unintelligent adults- but children. According to the media, only children played video games and it was a parent's duty to worry and fret about them and the nation's future. Parent's were encouraged to closely monitor the video game playing of their children with the aim of limiting the time they spent doing so or banning the activity all together. This attitude of constant surveillance being necessary in order to combat the technology encroaching on their children's lives (through their entertainment options) would follow parents well into the 90's.

In the 90's the narrative shifted slightly. The graphic quality of games was improving. Home consoles started incorporating CD drives and 3-D graphics.  And because PC's were becoming cheaper, they also began to evolve into video game consoles. These advances all lead to video games growing in popularity. Though video games were still considered a threat to America's future, now it was the threat of violence rather than imbecility that got people riled up. By this time, video games were now being lumped together with cable television, movies, and music for encouraging violence among our youth (88% of the articles reviewed). School shootings were getting a lot of press coverage and this coverage often pointed to the media these troubled teens consumed as the cause of their respective tragedies. Psychologists were also quick to cite video games' habit of presenting violence as the only solution to a given problem. Throughout this decade, America's youth was characterized as growing up to be little more than sadistic sociopaths. To combat this, many prominent politicians began suggesting such violent media be banned- that it was better to give up a little bit of our civil rights than let the threat of video games and rap music continue unabated. Others countered that people should "vote with their wallets" and more closely monitor their consumption decisions to better align with a culture we could be proud of. Though the nature of the threat had changed, the characters in the narrative remained the same. Video games were played by children, and parents should be very concerned about this.

When the new millennium came around in the year 2000- a new narrative concerning video games joined it. Though video games continued to gain negative attention in the media surrounding their violent content- the introduction of mobile platforms, massive online multi-player role playing games, and new consoles like the Wii (that incorporated motion technology), made video games more popular than ever. At this time, a newer, less covered threat than violence, entered the public discourse on gaming; child obesity. Like in the 1980's, video games were once again cast as a threat because of the opportunity cost they represent. Rather than running around outdoors, children were sitting in front of their TV's moving only their wrists and thumbs for hours on end. But by this time it was video games, TV, and the internet that were conspiring to make America's children fat and violent. Once again, the narrative cites children as the only consumers of video games and parents as the only barrier to such destructive behavior standing in their way.

Each decade looked at found roughly 85% of the articles that made moral evaluations to be apocalyptic in nature. What about the flip side? What social benefits were video games said to bring to the table? To find out, you'll just have to tune in for the final blog entry for this thread.

[gamer-identify-yourself]

The Witcher 2 Game Review (part 4)

OK, so the Witcher 2 doesn't have the best track record so far in terms of representing homosexuality. In my last blog for this thread I shed a little light on conditions in contemporary Poland that might be contributing to that. Women aren't presented as much better. True, to my surprise, the sex scenes (the ones I saw) were tastefully done. And Geralt and Triss's romantic relationship provides a healthy example of what two empowered individuals who respect each other, and themselves, might look like. But the largely lesbian group of female mages end up coming off as manipulative and power hungry. They claim to be supportive of a noble cause but really they just want more power for themselves. Today we will take a look at that "noble cause" and also talk about race.

Everyone living in the witcher-verse is white. Elves and dwarves are white. The townspeople and craftsmen are white. The royalty encountered throughout the game are all white (and so are the servants and prostitutes that work for them). Geralt, the man character and an albino- is super white. So how can we talk about race in a game that doesn't seem to acknowledge that more than one race exists? For one thing, it is possible to explore racial and ethnic issues without directly referring to contemporary racial identities and problems unique to America.

Poland's history with race and ethnic tensions is different from our own. It is not largely driven by obvious differences in appearance- such as skin tone. Instead, it is largely driven by religious and cultural differences that may not be immediately apparent on the surface. For example, Polish culture has a history of mistreating Jews and Gypsies because doing so served as a way to unite Poles. As mentioned before, Poland is a land lacking natural borders and has changed hands many times. As a result, the process of defining a national identity became a process of defining what Polish people are not rather than what they are. Polish people are not gypsies. Polish people are not Jews. Polish people are not German. Polish people are not Russian. As if, after everything else has been stripped away- whatever is left defines what it is to be Polish. For those who met this criteria; living, working, and peacefully existing was much easier than those who did not. Those who did not often found themselves living in a ghetto- away from the protection, and acceptance, of Polish society. This might mean different laws would apply to you. Your property might be seized at anytime- or you might have to pay a higher taxes on it. There also would have been social rules and regulations governing who you can talk to, work besides- or fall in love with.

This is who the dwarves and elves likely represent and how race is addressed in the game. They are "the others" which haunt Poland's past. Each digital city you visit is split up in a manner similar to the one just described. The dwarves live in one section of the city (confined to a ghetto). The humans in another (and always closer to the castle). Elves live furthest from the castle, and in the adventure I went on, actually lived outside the city walls in a "settlement camp." Beyond the borders of the camp lies a large forest where other elves live, elves that are considered bandits or even terrorists by the humans inside the city walls.

Iorveth is the leader of this band of renegade elves. The forest that they now hide in, and where the human city now stands, was once theirs. He represents a combination of narratives addressing race, class, and political independence. Part Che' Guevera and part Geronimo, Iorveth has a history of using guerrilla strikes and terrorist acts as an attempt to reclaim a homeland for his people. He does terrible things, but it is easy for players to sympathize with his motives and the deplorable conditions elves must suffer under which he draws attention to. He is a monster (he proudly admits to killing innocents), but a compelling one. A product of the racial and class strife that has plagued this fictional world's history as well as Poland's. The other, coming back to bite those that have tried to starve and silence it.

Yet for all of his past atrocities, and his ferocious dedication to a losing strategy of hate- Iorveth finds reason to believe in a better future upon meeting Saskia (the Madonna figure I mentioned in part 2 of this thread). Rather than a losing war of terror and attrition, Saskia introduces the idea of making the "Pontar Valley" a home for all of those who suffer under the oppression of man's world; human, dwarf, elf, and even witcher. Rather than each of these groups viewing their problems as separate and unconnected; by emphasizing the nature of their suffering, Saskia manages to unite them and offer a real challenge of independence to the surrounding monarchical powers who all claim ownership of the land.

The modern ideas underlying her political and social philosophies are made consistent with the fairy tale world the story is set in by dressing her up in tried and true virginal symbolism. Saskia is young, beautiful, and (and of course white- like everyone else). Only because she has never known the touch of a man (and is uncorrupted by the sin of sex or a man's influence), is she seen as fit to lead them. Like Joan of Arc, her "visions" for a new land that is both egalitarian and open to all inspires her followers with a religious like devotion. Because of her "purity" this devotion is free from suspicion and cynicism.

Overall where do these observations leave us? The treatment of racial and nationalist tensions in the game seem to mirror that of Poland's own past. It implies that Poland's future is still uncertain and that the quest for a national identity is ongoing. Saskia's ideology is just one attempt made in the game to lay claim to that identity- it is one alternative. Unfortunately, the game ends before we find out if the rebels are successful in their goals. I guess we'll have to wait until the next one to see if such beliefs are the product of a naive and inexperienced mind- or if they will serve as the foundation for a new way of doing things in a fictional universe built on old ideas like racism and patriarchy.

* These images are not my own, they were found by doing a simple Google image search.

[gamer-identify-yourself]

Video Games and the Media (part 1)

Earlier in the blog, a couple of times now actually, I mentioned reading Hebdidge's The Meaning of Style. In it, I found a great quote (from Stuart Hall) that discusses the role of the media in the construction and continuation of a sub-culture:

As social groups and classes live, if not in their productive then in their "social" relations, increasingly fragmented and sectionally differentiated lives, the mass media are more and more responsible (a) for providing the basis on which groups and classes construct an image of the lives, meanings, practices and values of other groups and classes; (b) for providing the images, representations and ideas around which the social totality composed of all these separate and fragmented pieces can be coherently grasped.

What does this quote mean? It means that as the experiences of individuals in a society grow less and less alike, as their experiences, routines, and ideologies grow more diverse and fragmented, mass media steps in and helps glue it all together. Media does this by giving one sub culture or social group a look into the lives of another sub culture or social group (via TV shows, news articles, documentaries, movies, art shows, video games etc...). However, this look is far from an objective one. The "images, representations and ideas" the media provides are charged with a narrative quality that either support or defy the values of the dominant culture the media exists in. Within this narrative, all social groups have a "place" or a "role to play" in a larger story that ties them altogether. So where do video gamers sit in this over-arching mythology the media has created (that may or may not be accurate)? Are they cast as heroes or villains? Are they swimming against mainstream cultural currents or with them? How are those  unfamiliar with video games being informed about video games through the media?

In "The Morality of Play: Video Game Coverage in The New York Times From 1980 to 2010" author Brian McKern examines three decades of media coverage dealing with video games and video gamers as portrayed in the influential news paper; The New York times. Over the course of his research, he found several patterns within The Times coverage that highlight a back and forth over the preceding decades between video games being presented as harmful and video games being presented as beneficial (both to society as a whole and to individuals). As he points out, the role of video games in the over-arching narrative "carries significant social implications." Praise from the media can lead to "social prestige and valuable resources for video games and video game players." The opposite can lead to restrictive laws or policies limiting video games and stigmatizing video game players.

McKern points out that video games are closely tied into new technology. Generally speaking, in mass media, new technology tends to attract narratives associated with either utopias or apocalypses. This is due to technology's track record of upsetting the status quo of the societies it emergse from or is exposed to (the classic example of this is the invention of the printing press and its effects on Western European society). For this reason, articles about video games tend to dwell on these sorts of themes. This means that gamers themselves are often cast as either helping society to progress or somehow destroying everything. Furthering this narrative tendency is the popularity of video games among children, a social group often viewed as our society's future- and thus the battle ground for many utopian or apocalyptic debates about how they spend their time. Because of these two factors (the involvement of technology and children) video games have been a lightening rod for criticism as well some occaisional praise.

Tune in for my next blog as I take a look at McKern's findings how the media's narrative surrounding video games has changed from one decade to the next over the preceding thirty years!

* These images are not my own, they were found by doing a simple Google image search.

[gamer-identify-yourself]

Stereotype Susceptibility

Throughout these blog posts I've talked a lot about the effects of representation in video games and mass media in general. But, I'm not sure that I have made myself clear as to how representations can be harmful. For those of you who have been following along, the concept of representation was first mentioned in part two of my "What Do the Numbers Tell Us?" thread. In it it, I referred to an article that used some rather abstract language to describe how people interact with representative stereotypes tied to their identity. Recently, I came across another journal article that I think explains it all more directly and I would like to share the results of one of the experiments with you.

In the article "Stereotype Susceptibility: Identity Salience and Shifts in Quantitative Performance" Margaret Shih, Todd Pittinsky, and Nalini Ambady show how the "implicit activation of a social identity can facilitate as well as impede performance on a quantitative task." Basically, what this means is that subtle reminders directed towards participants in the experiment regarding the stereotype of a social identity they belong to will directly impact the level of their performance at a given task that is also associated with that stereotype.

To explore this concept, the researchers asked 46 undergraduate Asian-American women to participate in an experiment involving some math problems. To begin, without the participants knowledge, the Asian-American women were randomly split into three groups and all three groups were given a questionnaire about their university experience. However, the questionnaires for each group differed from each other in an important way. The first group was asked questions tied into university life while emphasizing their gender identity. The second group was also asked questions about their university life- but instead of emphasizing their gender- their Asian ethnic identity was the focus. The third group served as the control, so the questionnaire they were given made no mention of gender or ethnicity.

Once the questionnaire's were completed each participant was given a 12 question math test. Why a math test? Because, as Asian-American women, the participants had two conflicting stereotypes surrounding mathematics. The common Asian stereotype relating to math is that Asians are all really good at it. The common stereotype surrounding women and math is that they suck at it. The point of the questionnaire was to subtly "prime" each participant for one of the two social identities and then see if exposure to that social identity would impact their ability to do the math problems as suggested by the common stereotypes (and just to clarify- neither of the two groups primed on a social identity ever received explicit exposure to the stereotype associated with it). As it turns out, the researchers did find a statistically significant pattern that verified a direct link to stereotypes and performance accuracy (this was also true for students in Canada when a similar experiment was done there).

Group one, the group primed on their gender identity, performed the worst (as the female stereotype regarding math "suggested"). They got only 43% of the answers correct on average. The control group, the participants who were not primed on a gender or ethnic identity, were in the middle with 49% of the questions answered correctly. Finally, the group primed on their Asian identity (and the stereotype that Asians are good at math) scored the highest with an average of 54% of the questions answered correctly. These results show that "test Performance is both malleable and surprisingly susceptible to implicit sociocultural pressures."

If a simple questionnaire is enough to activate stereotypical behaviors associated with a certain social identity- and can produce an 11% difference in terms of accurately answering some math problems- just imagine how the negative, and positive, stereotypes floating around in mass media (like TV, movies, advertisements, and, yes,video games) is impacting our performance in a multitude of tasks and contextual behaviors

[gamer-identify-yourself]

The Witcher 2 Game Review (part 3)

Ok, so before moving on to race and class in my review of "The Witcher 2," I need to return to the subject of homosexual representations within the game. The main reason for this? I spoke too soon concerning the subject of gay representations. Rather than "guilt by omission," something far more sinister seems to be at work.

Something I haven't touched on yet in my review is the complexity of the game's story and the far reaching ramifications each decision you are presented with can have (so always make sure you save before these crucial dialogues in case you make the "wrong" decision and want to go back). For example, based on the decisions I made, Geralt wound up supporting a rebellion seeking the formation of an independent state comprised of all the oppressed non-humans (elves, dwarves, etc...) and humans in the game. By doing so, I missed a long and involved alternate quest line where Geralt helps to squash the same rebellion. In this quest line (that I didn't actually play), there is one gay character.

I learned this by browsing through YouTube videos of the game and noticing a violently titled; "Vernon Castrates Dethmold" entry. I must warn you- before clicking on it- that the video possesses extremely disturbing content and it is definitely not for the squeamish. For those of you who chose not to watch it, Dethmold, a male mage, can be seen preening himself in front of a mirror as his male sex slave stretches out on a bed behind him. Suddenly, his chamber door bursts open and in run Geralt and his comrade Vernon Roche (a military spymaster of sorts for one of the monarchies). Both of the characters are seeking revenge for what Dethmold did to their friends. Within moments Geralt breaks Dethmold's arm as Roche unsheathes his knife while announcing his intent to "cut off [Dethmold's] balls" and slit his throat... an action he wastes no time in undertaking- with the addition of stuffing the severed "balls" into Dethmold's mouth as he dies.

Though it is true that the only gay character in the game isn't experiencing this violence because he is gay- Dethmold's sexuality does determine the nature, or the method, of the extreme violence inflicted upon him. Technically, Roche is seeking revenge for the death of his friends at Dethmold's hands. But the punishment inflicted upon him fits a different sort of crime- the crime of being gay (as evidenced by Roche's muttering "you reap what you sew" as he concludes his barbarous ball-stuffing act).

What is the purpose of this scene? Is it simply there to reflect medieval morality and justice concerning homosexuality in order to increase the historical realism of the game? Or, like the lesbian sex scenes with the female mages, is it there to reward the white-male-heterosexual target demographic of the game's perceived market? To answer this question, perhaps we should take a quick look at contemporary Polish society.

As mentioned in part one of this thread, Poland is a country that has gone through many invasions and occupations throughout its long history. As a result, Polish identity is something that has formed and reformed many times and under many names and incarnations. Most recently, Poland has gained independence from the Soviet Union and in 1989 formed what is now its current government; the Third Republic of Poland. However, establishing a national identity isn't as easy as creating and maintaining a government (which is also not a very easy task).

According to an article I read in The Economist, many Polish people are identifying with a far right, ultra-nationalist, political party that is strongly aligned with the Catholic Church (the conservative Law and Justice Party). The values espoused by this party, as well as the church, condemn homosexuality (by associating it with pedophilia) and actively campaign against organizations that advocate gender equality, LGBT interests, or anything that goes against the "conservative, patriarchal norm." As in Russia, it seems Poland has found some form of static national identity as anti-homosexual campaigns that flourished during communism continue in its absence at the behest of the Church and emerging conservative politics.

I believe it is these modern political tensions, rather than an attempt to instill a sense of historical realism, that are deciding Dethmold's ultimate fate in the game. One could perhaps argue otherwise if there were other gay characters presented in a positive light- but there are none. Just creepy old Dethmold, a man whose morality and fate are decided by his sexual deviance.

So does this mean all "Witcher" fans are as homophobic as Poland is now generally considered to be? Certainly some of them are. Even though America is thought to have made substantial progress in terms of sexuality- one look at the comments page of the above linked YouTube video shows there is plenty of work left to be done in the gaming community. How are some video gamers going about this?

According to Hebdidge (in his classic work Subculture: The Meaning of Style):

By repositioning and recontextualizing commodities, by subverting their conventional uses and inventing new ones, the subcultural stylist gives the lie to what Althusser has called 'the false obviousness of everyday practice,' and opens up the world of objects to new and covertly oppositional readings.

The above image is an example of this phenomenon at work. In this sense, the commodity is the video game (along with the characters and stories that comprise it). The "subcultural stylist" is the gamer and artist re-imagining the Geralt and Iorveth characters as lovers rather than comrades in arms. Suddenly, a world charged with heterosexual norms and values becomes a world charged with homosexual romance. Rather than fighting a battle driven by class (something I will explain in my next blog- I promise!), the battle becomes one of two lovers against a world that despises them for what they love. What was once invisible (i.e. "the false obviousness of everyday practice"), becomes visible. A world where heterosexuality was the only unspoken masculine norm now has another option. One that is embraced by the game's protagonist as well as one of its most beloved side-characters. The "new world" portrayed in the image provides the "oppositional reading" from the Hebdidge quote when contrasted against the old one.

PS - If you are curious and want to explore more "oppositional readings" of the Witcher-verse consider viewing this video. The fan video presents a subtle transformation of the character of Iorveth from a possible terrorist, bandit and murderer, into a romantic folk hero whose relationship with the protagonist, Geralt, appears less than heterosexual.

Now, if you're looking for an oppositional reading/transformative work with less subtlety, then I would recommend A Choice Made, by Charliehv. But be warned: this is an extremely explicit m/m story, focusing on the pairing of Geralt and  Roche, and it includes references to torture.

* These images are not my own, they were found by doing a simple Google image search.

[gamer-identify-yourself]

The Witcher 2 Game Review (part 2)

Though the menus and combat controls are cumbersome, they aren't such a problem that they can't be overcome with just a few hours of practice in the combat arena (a gameplay option available in the main menu). I recommend you do this before starting the story mode; it will make a big difference. Not only will you get used to the controls, but you'll also have a better understanding of how the alchemy and weapon/armor enhancement process works. Resources throughout the game are limited, so knowing which weapons and armor you can expect to find by playing in the arena first is a big help for determining what you want to level up in story mode. The same is true for leveling up Geralt. There is a level cap so whatever perks you choose to go with must be considered carefully in order to explore Geralt's full potential as either an alchemist, mage, or swordsman.

Once in story mode there is plenty of immediate evidence to support the game's claim to being adult oriented. One of the reasons this game, as well as its predecessor, generated so much controversy is because of the nudity and sexual content. Later in the game players do have the option to avoid this content, but this first scene is an obligatory romantic one between Geralt and his girl friend, a mage named Triss Merigold.

To my surprise I found the scene to be somewhat tastefully done. Geralt and Triss's relationship seems a balanced one. It wasn't just mindless demeaning sex meant to reward straight adolescent male gamers for their purchase. The two characters, throughout the game, lack any signs of unhealthy co-dependence. Triss is a powerful independent mage who knows what she wants and is pursuing a more serious relationship with Geralt. But at the same time, she isn't afraid of not getting it should the equally Independent loner decide to move on. Though I found the sex scenes throughout the game to be awkward and un-arousing, I never felt like I was watching an animated porno (or that the scenes were designed for only one sex to enjoy). Rather than misogynistic depictions that reduce women to sexual objects, a playful sense of romance and pleasure seeking pervades. Perhaps this is best exemplified in the Iorveth quest line during which Geralt has the opportunity to sleep with a goat-legged succubus (the above picture shows her little hoof on Geralt's shoulder and is about as graphic as the scene gets).  

If anything, the game's problem isn't that it contains sexual content and explicit scenes like the one above. It's problem is that the only sexual relationships depicted are either hetero-sexual or lesbian (which I suppose does undermine what I said earlier about the sexual relationships not being in the game to reward straight adolescent teenage boys). Suspiciously, there are no gay sex scenes or relationships available. Because the other two types of relationships are so common, a cloud of homophobia hovers above the game with respect to the gay community.

Just because the sex scenes are tastefully done, doesn't mean there isn't anything to gripe about in terms of how women are represented in other areas of the game. Aside from the balanced Triss Merigold, most other women fall into one end of the unfortunate Madonna/whore dichotomy. The female mages encountered throughout the game, for the most part, alternate between acting like sex-crazed lesbians or Machiavellian schemers hell bent on sewing seeds of chaos in order to further their own agenda. Since the female mages fail in their efforts, one can't help but think they are somehow being punished for challenging the "natural," hetero-sexual, male dominated, order of things.

As far as the "Madonnas" in the game go, the rebel leader Saskia is probably the best example. Virginal, noble, inspirational and beautiful- Saskia is basically Joan or Arc- except, instead of an army of religious minded Frenchmen behind her, she leads a rag-tag band of dwarves and elves in a semi-Marxist rebellion against the surrounding kingdoms. But you know what? I think I'll save the rest of this explanation for my next posting when I also discuss race portrayals as well as as class.

* These images are not my own, they were found by doing a simple Google image search.

[gamer-identify-yourself]

The Witcher 2 Game Review (part 1)

The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings (the enhanced edition) was released for the XBOX 360 roughly two years ago in mid-April of 2012. I purchased it some six months after that upon reading a few favorable reviews highlighting it's richly immersive environments, thrilling combat, and adult targeted, non-linear, story telling.

Though the hype about the environment design surprisingly fell short of the actual game play experience (every area in the game is absolutely stunning and ranks among the best games to come out for the 360 in terms of looks), I found the limited open world it provides claustrophobic when compared to RPG's I was more used to such as Skyrim and even Dragon's Dogma. For that reason, and also because of the unintuitive combat system and menu interfaces- the game wound up relegated to shelf status after several hours of it failing to draw me in... That is until recently when I decided to give it another chance.

Before telling you why I'm happy I gave it another chance, I think it would be best to talk a little bit about the game's background within the industry. Unlike most "AAA" software companies, the developers of The Witcher series are neither Japanese nor American. Instead, the studio that made the game, CD Projekt Red, is Polish. Also unique to the series is that it is based on a highly regarded collection of fantasy books by Polish author Andrzej Sapkowski. In Poland, and other Slavic nations, The Witcher is huge. In 2012 Sapkowski was awarded the "Medal for Merit to Culture" (similar to a "presidential medal of honor") for his work on the series and its relation to Polish culture. The Witcher has also had it's own tv show and movie before getting it's own video game franchise. A good example of the respect and adoration it enjoys can be found when the Polish Prime Minister came to America for a visit back in 2013. It is customary for diplomatic visits of this sort to include gifts that somehow tie into national pride. Along with some expensive vodka, The Witcher 2 was included in a bag containing numerous other Witcher-related items for our president Barack Obama. Clearly Poland is very proud of the series, and the video game.

In the books and video game, the "witcher" is Geralt of Rivia, an albino monster hunter who has unique powers that stem from special treatments he was forced to endure at the hands of other witchers when he was a boy. As a witcher, Geralt is feared and shunned by the rest of society; he is seen by many as little more than a monster himself, a lessor of two evils- a monster that is tolerated by humans only because he hunts and kills more dangerous monsters than himself. His adventures take him all over a fantasy realm modeled after Poland. The monsters he fights come from ancient Polish myths, and the political issues he sometimes finds himself ensnared in mirror those from Poland's own history.

To those unfamiliar with it, Poland's history is one of constant warfare on all sides of it's unnaturally formed borders. Until recently Poland knew independence only on the briefest of occasions. For the most part, it is an area that has suffered constant invasion and domination by such countries as Russia, Germany, France, Austria, the Soviet Union, and Sweden. With each new conqueror came new groups of people, cultures, ethnicities, laws, and religions that all wound up contributing to the contemporary Polish identity to some degree or fashion. Many of the social problems that arose as a result of living in a war-torn country while attempting to deal with race, history, religion, and class are issues that Sapkowski brought into his novels and thus find their way into the video game as well. I will speak more on this subject in part two of this blog when I relate it to the story as well as both gender and race representations within the video itself.

* These images are not my own, they were found by doing a simple Google image search.

[gamer-identify-yourself]

Dickwolves Revisited

Let's take one last look at the dickwolves.

In my previous thread (the one labeled "Gamer Culture") I explained what dickwolves are and the sense of controversy they brought to PAX events and Penny Arcade. For anyone who hasn't read those posts- long story short- a simple cartoon about role playing game mechanics sparked an incident that has become the poster boy for what is wrong with gamer culture in terms of misogyny and hyper masculinity. The creators of the cartoon (Krahulik in particular) are seen by insiders and outsiders as playing a prominent role in the three-year long affair and as a result many people have pledged to never attend a PAX event again because of their failure to provide a "safe environment" for gamers of all sex, gender, race, and creed to attend.

But why did this happen? Why did Krahulik get so defensive and turn a distasteful joke involving rape into a banner for free speech? Why were so many male gamers so eager to jump on board? What about people's reactions and promises to never attend again? What does it all mean and what does it tell us about video game culture?

According to wikipedia, the Penny Arcade cartoon began in 1998 and was just one cartoon of many on a website called loonygames.com. Since then, the Penny Arcade cartoon has grown into a full-blown brand name that has it's own website (that attracted 3.5 million readers in 2010), line of merchandise, and hosts some of the biggest video game conventions in the industry. Though I have yet to find an official timeline for these events, the rise of Penny Arcade, in my opinion, coincides with the rise of greater nerdom in American culture- an event that has had a big impact on video gamers who are also seen, or see themselves, as nerds.

To understand this phenomenon, how a stigmatized sub-culture can grow and become a part of the main stream, I will will be relying on Dick Hebdidge's book Subculture: The Meaning of Style. In it, the author examines the "punk" subculture of 1970's Britain by tracing back it's roots in relation to other sub cultures that were spawned by post-war hegemonic British values and norms. Where as Hebdidge looked at punks in relation to mods, teddies, immigrants, Rastafarians, skin-heads, and glam rockers- I will attempt to apply some of his techniques and insights to nerds, geeks, video gamers, trolls, and journalists/bloggers who write about them. Though the stated purpose for doing so is to shed some light on the dickwolves incident- the greater purpose is simply to increase my understanding of video gamers in general, as well as the problems they face and their unique place within our society.

[gamer-identify-yourself]

Why Net Neutrality Matters (Part 3)

OK, so far, in the first two parts of this thread, I have attempted to paint a picture of how the end of net neutrality has been greeted by the telecom  industry and how it is likely to impact consumers and how it is already impacting some edge providers. The basic summary? everything is about to get more expensive as either a direct or indirect result of net neutrality's absence.

Direct impacts on individual consumers include the possibility of different types of internet usage requiring different types of fees (such as streaming, downloading, uploading, and gaming packages and what not). The indirect costs will be what edge providers pass onto their customers now that the cost of doing business has gotten higher for them (for example, Netflix customers should expect to pay higher rates now that Comcast is getting paid for distribution).

Combine higher internet access rates with rising costs of gaming hardware and software, and the likelihood of our lowest economic classes having access to this kind of technology decreases. Video gaming could very well become the past time of "middle-class and up" households only. Now, you might be thinking "so what, who cares about video games?" If that is what you're thinking- then you aren't seeing the big picture.

As mentioned earlier in my previous thread on the video game industry, studies have shown that video games act as a "gateway" in terms of generating interest in STEM related technologies and careers. The more expensive these kinds of technologies become- the less likely households in lower economic classes will be able to afford them- and it becomes more likely that children in these households will not develop any interest or understanding about how the underlying technology that makes video games possible works.

At the moment this may not seem like a big deal; after all, not every video game is expensive or is designed for expensive hardware. However, technology improves rapidly. As it improves, as computers, consoles, and mobile devices can handle more and more information in less and less time- the software designed for them tends to grow larger and more complicated. When the internet first came out, the data being transferred was adequately measured in kilobytes- as time has gone on, even casual emails commonly exceed this size limit and now everything is measured in megabytes of even gigabytes. The same is true for games. Even the cheapest games available today far exceed the technical limitations and sizes of what was possible ten of fifteen years ago. How is a household of limited means supposed to keep up with all of this and thus increase the chances of their children winding up with a high paying STEM job some day? Especially if they are being charged for each gigabyte worth of information they download?

The quick answer? They won't be able to. Even today lower class households have to make difficult choices regarding the internet. Those that are fortunate enough to be able to afford it, often gain access to it using outdated technology at speeds so slow that even streaming a YouTube video isn't possible. These kind of situations will only grow more common as the internet becomes something that provides more and more differentiated experiences to consumers. Some experts predict the emergence of a "fast lane and a slow lane"- but such labels hide the fact that there is more than speed and convenience at stake. In the digital world, fast and slow makes the difference between having access to a service that is available online and not having access to it. Period. And it's more than just obtaining information, its also about putting that information out there so that others can gain access to it for the purpose of sharing or making a living off of the internet by providing a service for others.

Already many experts theorize that the growing income gap between the rich and poor has a lot to do with the growing pay checks in STEM related fields and the shrinking pay checks in other areas of our economy. If net neutrality isn't re-instituted, that gap is about to grow even larger- and our already diminishing rates of social mobility will shrink to even more depressing levels.

[gamer-identify-yourself]

What Would Karl Marx Have to Say about Net Neutrality?

In this post I want to step away from the main thread on "the end of net neutrality" for a moment in order to take a quick look at what Karl Marx might have to say about why and how this happened. Why Karl Marx? I'm glad you asked. I am choosing to refer to Marx because I recently finished a unit on him in class (one I thoroughly enjoyed I might add)- and also because he is widely considered one of the major founders of sociology. Furthermore, his focus and insights on economics is highly relevant to the matter.

In his work Wage Labor and Capital Marx describes the effects of competition in a capitalist economy, and how it forces a continual improvement of technology and labor practices, as a dilemma for capitalists:

"However powerful the means of production which a capitalist brings into the field, competition will make these means of production universal and from the moment when it has made them universal, the only result of the greater fruitfullness of his capital is that he must now supply for the same price ten, twenty, a hundred times as much as before... and because this mass sale becomes a question of life and death not only for him but also for his rivals, the old struggle begins again all the more violently the more fruitful the already discovered means of production are."

In other words, any gains made by a more productive labor force, or new and better technology, are only temporary. It doesn't take long for a "revolutionary" way of doing something becomes common practice and the competitive advantage gained by first adopting it is lost (which then leads to the whole process starting over again). However, for a capitalist facing this problem- the problem of unending competition and diminishing profits (which, ironically, are aspects of capitalism often hailed as being the most beneficial to society)- finding ways to secure more profit and market share without having to compete (i.e. without telecoms having to expand and improve their networks while charging consumers the same as or less than a competitor) might look awfully appealing. What might such a solution look like?

To answer this question I now turn to another of Marx's works, The Origin of Family, Private Property, and State:

"... [T]he state arose from the need to hold class antagonisms in check, but as it arose, at the same time, in the midst of the conflict of these classes, it is, as a rule, the state of the most powerful, economically dominant class which, through the medium of the state, becomes also the politically dominant class, and thus acquires new means of holding down and exploiting the oppressed class."

In the case of net neutrality, the acquisition of political power by the telecom industry (whose members include Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner, and anyone else providing internet, cable or phone services) would take the form of securing state (or government) granted monopolies that would end the vicious cycle of competition under the guise of stimulating it (as is happening right now in Utah as well as other states). However, for telecoms, there are actually two monopolies at stake; the first is the above described situation- having complete (or nearly complete) control of a market made up of people who want the internet in their home or business. Because these consumers often have no other option to turn to, they must pay whatever price the ISP is asking for- which makes the monopoly good for the telecom but bad for everyone else. This type of monopoly has long been established on a region by region basis. However, now there is also a new potential monopoly for telecoms that has opened up with the loss of net neutrality- a distributive monopoly obtained by ISP's in terms of the power they now have over other companies that want to use the internet to reach people (often referred to as "edge" providers). This is the monopoly I've been wrting about in my previous posts and what is now happening with Netflix. It is a situation that is very similar to the distributive monopolies that once existed when the "Rail-Barons" walked the earth back in the gilded age (men who exercised limitless control over the railroads and what was transported on them).

A big part of setting the stage for government granted monopolies is getting industry friendly people into the government. If I were a telecom seeking to further enhance and secure my monopoly, it would be a good idea to put one of my own in charge of the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), the government body which oversees the regulation of the telecommunications, or telecom, industry. Schemes like this is what Marx was referring to when he said "an economically dominant class also becomes politically dominant" and is exactly what happened when Thomas Wheeler was made head of the FCC. Prior to his appointment to the post, Wheeler spent 12 years as the Telecom industry's biggest political lobbiest. In light of this fact, is it any wonder that the FCC has yet to put up a real fight to preserve net neutrality and thwart a distributive monopoly? Sure, Wheeler insists that he still has the power to enforce net neutrality, but with no blanketing regulation, it will be on a "case by case" basis. In other words, if the case brought to the FCC's attention concerns a potentially dubious activity that increases a  member of the telecom industry's profits (like what has already happened with Netflix)- the FCC will probably not act. Doing so would defeat the purpose of all the money that was spent on lobbying politicians and getting Wheeler into office in the first place.

This is why I like Marx so much. He describes and criticizes capitalism for the way it actually operates in real life rather than its idealized form. He looks at how capitalists actually behave based on the incentives capitalism creates rather than how conventional economic theory dictates they should behave. It's fascinating to me that a person's insights concerning an economic system that were made roughly 150 years ago can still shed light on events that are happening today. I suppose if Marx was still alive and was asked to comment on "the end of net neutrality," he would probably say something like- "what else would you expect?"

[gamer-identify-yourself]

Why Net Neutrality Matters (part 2)

So far I have described what the concept of net neutrality is and how already, in it's mere three-month absence, the way people pay for, gain access to, and use the internet for their business is rapidly changing. Now it is time to get more specific about how the end of net neutrality will likely impact video gamers based on these trends.

One possibility is that the heavy weight console companies like Microsoft and Sony will seek exclusive deals similar to what Apple is now attempting to do. If such deals do go down, Microsoft (at least I'm assuming Microsoft would win out with most American ISP's- considering that their pockets are about 50 billion dollars deeper than Sony's) could gain a significant advantage over its competitors in terms of a more reliable connection to its services like XBOX Live, dodging industry imposed data caps for downloading games and DLC (downloadable content), and possibly even avoiding latency issues that can improve the quality of online multiplayer games. The consequences of exclusive partnerships between game companies and ISP's could also lead to console preferences varying by region, and who can deliver a reliable internet connection based on their exclusive partnerships with ISP's (rather than the features and benefits that each console offers). In other words, companies in the video game industry like Microsoft, who are seeing their console sales at half of what Sony's are because their product is inferior and more expensive- can suddenly gain huge market shares by ensuring their competitors have sub-par internet access. This isn't as far-fetched as it sounds, 96% of wire based internet markets contain only one or two providers (and to reach the high speeds gamers require, a wire based high-speed service is necessary), and if Time-Warner and Comcast merge, the resulting customer base would be roughly a third of all internet subscribers.

Another scenario is that along with new internet bundles designed for streaming, improved browsing, and downloading- ISP's could roll out "gamer" bundles in which subscribers pay additional fees each month to reduce latency and improve connections to game servers. Of course, this could only happen if no exclusive partnership is already formed with a particular game company... But if no partnership is formed, it will be subscribers, rather than game companies, that ISP's decide to squeeze for extra revenue.

Of the two scenarios outlined, the latter is preferable to the former- at least in terms of improving choice and keeping the amount of money gamers pay for hardware and subscription fees to online game services at a minimum. I hate to think what would happen to the quality and cost of hardware if Microsoft obtained a monopoly in terms of ISP partnerships over its competitors. But who is to say it has to be one or the other? Already the Telecom industry has shown that they are more interested in creating artificial costs to justify price increases rather than actual costs that would expand and improve their networks. If the day arrives when no more money can be extracted from large companies who wish to have a reliable presence on the internet, than it is individual consumers who will be next.

Tune in next time, for the thrilling conclusion of this three part thread, where all of this gets tied back to feminist sociology.

[gamer-identify-yourself]

Why Net Neutrality Matters

I know I said in  my previous post that I wanted to start things off with reopening the dickwolves incident. But before I get started on that, I want to bring your attention to something important you might be unaware of.

Consider the above image a bleak look at the internet's future.

Imagine paying your ISP (internet service provider) 40$ a month for a basic internet connection, and then an additional ten dollars a month for an online streaming package, and another ten for downloading above a certain gigabyte quota- and then another ten for an "educational" package that will ensure good access to your school's library and other resources like journals and news media. Of course, these sort of price increases would be added on to whatever extra amount of money you are already paying for your current download speed. Pretty soon, to get the same service you're currently experiencing, you will easily be paying double.

How does ending net neutrality allow this to happen- and why does it matter to gamers or someone with an interest in feminist sociology?

Before answering this question let me explain to you what net neutrality is. Up until a recent court ruling ISP's could not discriminate between content on the internet, FCC regulations forced them to make all legal content available at equal speeds and equal levels of reliability. This meant that no matter what the particular website was selling, how much traffic it was generating, or what message it was attempting to spread, it didn't matter; ISP's had no say in the content other people and companies were generating- there only job was to provide a way for people to gain access to the internet and get filthy rich while doing so.

Now however, without net neutrality, nothing is stopping ISP's from taking a bite out of the profits other companies are making on the internet. For example, Netflix recently ponied up an undisclosed sum to Comcast to ensure that Comcast customers will have a reliable connection to their website. Though Netflix subscribers who receive their internet via Comcast are back to watching movies without needless buffering, nobody knows how much extra they will be expected to pay in the future now that a precedent has been set and other ISP's will likely be seeking a similar deal.

In addition to now finding themselves in a position to charge companies like Netflix for reliable access, ISP's are also accused of discriminating in favor of their own streaming services. For example, Comcast offers a streaming service that competes with the likes of Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon. When Comcast customers (who are on plans with a data limit), use the Comcast streaming service, no data is debited from their available data bucket. In other words, streaming from the official Comcast streaming site is completely free while other options cost customers precious data from their plan.

Comcast isn't the only company taking advantage of the new rules governing the internet. AT&T is coming up with some pretty alarming ideas of its own. For one thing, they have already rolled out a sponsored data plan which allows websites to pay for mobile access from AT&T customers. This means that AT&T mobile phone customers with data plans could browse the websites of participating companies free of charge since it is the companies themselves who will pay for the data AT&T customers are using while browsing on their site. Furthermore, AT&T has also recently filed for a patent that would allow them to monitor the types of data its customers are using and assign credits to the customers based on their usage patterns. If AT&T sees you are fond of bit-torrent, or streaming movies on a competitor's website (rather than their own or someone they are partnered with), these credits could add up and eventually result in some sort of penalty such as "overage charges" or a loss of browsing privileges.

To see how the above described trends can lead to a situation like the one in the above image, tune in next time as I continue this thread and tie it all back to video gaming and feminist sociology.

*The image used in this post is not my own, it was found by doing a simple Google image search.

[gamer-identify-yourself]

And so it Begins... Again.

Hello loyal readers, it's a new semester here in under-grad land which means I have a new crop of classes and projects that need tending to.

The good news is that I can continue this blog as credit for one of them. Meaning that, once again, I will start posting new content regarding feminist sociology and video gaming. The bad news is- well, there really isn't any bad news... I only said that because for some reason I started off with "the good news is" when I began writing this post.

As far the new content goes, here is what I've got coming down the pipeline. First off- I want to tie up some loose ends with the whole dickwolves controversy I ended with last semester. There are two reasons I want to return to this subject. (A) I do not feel that I did a good job of providing an analysis of the situation; what I wrote was more descriptive than anything else. (B) There have been some new developments and I want to write about them and provide a proper conclusion to the thread.

In addition to finishing up the dickwolves I'm going to start doing some game reviews informed by feminist theory. These game reviews will be different than most game reviews in this genre because I will be adopting an experiential format focusing on one game at a time as opposed to a more systematic, stats based, approach that covers many games. For example, rather than simply counting the number of women and minorities in a game, and then using these kind of metrics to determine if the game is problematic or not, I will be looking at how subjects of feminist concern are presented and interpreted in the game from the perspective of someone immersed in it. In addition to this, I will also be providing some cultural and historical insight as back ground for each game I review in an attempt to clear up any misunderstandings that arise from judging the creative work of one culture from our own culture's standards. My first attempt at this will be a controversial Polish game called The Witcher 2.

Trolls, both on party chats like XBOX Live and as participants on internet forums direct a lot of negative attention to the gaming community. I want to understand them, and the role they play, better. This means mapping out both video gamers and trolls in terms of their sub cultural status and relationship to main stream hegemonic values and ideals. What is the difference between a "typical gamer" and a "troll?" What is the best way to avoid them? Why do they do what they do? These are some of the questions I would like to try and answer.

Finally, I also want to do a better all around job as far as my presentation this semester. This means cleaning up my old posts a bit by including links instead of those cumbersome footnotes I went with. It also means figuring out a way to clean up the quality of the images I use and taking a harder look at the organizational structure of the blog to find improvements. Hopefully these efforts will result in reaching a wider audience.

Anyways, that's all I've got for my little reintroduction to you all. I hope you stick around long enough to read and comment on my new content, I look forward to seeing what you think and expanding each other's knowledge on video games, video game culture, and video game identity.