Computer Games Industry and texts

 The 3 question types we have prepared for are:

1. Explore the key representation (issues) within your texts? The issue is Violence in Computer Games

2. How effectively is your selected industry regulated? Refer to your chosen texts in your answer or 
Explore the impact of regulation on your three main texts or  Briefly outline the ways in which your selected industry is regulated. What impact has regulation had on your chosen texts? 

3. How do your chosen texts attract their audiences? or  
Explore the different ways your three main texts attract/ appeal
their audiences. or
How do your three main texts position audiences? or
How do audiences respond to your three main texts?  or
'The main function of a media text is to entertain its audience.’
How true is this for your three main texts?  

Much of the info is contained within the handouts you will need to get these from me ASAP. 

IT IS UP TO YOU TO PREPARE THE ANSWERS.

IN ADDITION MOST OF THE INFO (INCLUDING VIDEOS/ TRAILERS/ POSTERS/ GAMEPLAY AND SOME HANDOUTS) CAN BE FOUND AT

http://missarcher.weebly.com/ms4---games.html

Intro to Computer games

VIOLENCE
Video Games Violence

Addition info from 2007

Don't Shoot

Why video games really are linked to violence. (ARE they??? Think about the case studies and audience theory are we just passive???!!!)

By Amanda Schaffer

Master Chief in the video game Halo

On The Daily Show on Thursday, April 26, Jon Stewart made short work of the suggestion that the Virginia Tech shooter, Cho Seung-Hui, might have been influenced by violent video games. (Cho may or may not have played the popular first-person-shooter game Counter-Strike in high school.) A potential video-game connection has also been dangled after past killings, to the irritation of bloggers. The reports are that shooter Lee Boyd Malvo played the game Halo before his sniper attacks around Washington, D.C., and that Columbine killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold loved Doom. Does the link between video games and violence hold up?

Pathological acts of course have multiple, complex causes and are terribly hard to predict. And clearly, millions of people play Counter-Strike, Halo, and Doom and never commit crimes. But the subtler question is whether exposure to video-game violence is one risk factor for increased aggression: Is it associated with shifts in attitudes or responses that may predispose kids to act out? A large body of evidence suggests that this may be so. The studies have their shortcomings, but taken as a whole, they demonstrate that video games have a potent impact on behavior and learning. Sorry, Jon Stewart, but you needn't be a fuddy-duddy to worry about the virtual worlds your child lives in.

Three kinds of research link violent video games to increased aggression. First, there are studies that look for correlations between exposure to these games and real-world aggression. This work suggests that kids who are more immersed in violent video games may be more likely to get into physical fights, argue with teachers, or display anger and hostility. Second, there is longitudinal research (measuring behavior over time) that assesses gaming habits and belligerence in a group of children. One example: A study of 430 third-, fourth-, and fifth-graders, published this year by psychologists Craig Anderson, Douglas Gentile, and Katherine Buckley, found that the kids who played more violent video games "changed over the school year to become more verbally aggressive, more physically aggressive," and less helpful to others.

Finally, experimental studies randomly assign subjects to play a violent or a nonviolent game, and then compare their levels of aggression. In work published in 2000, Anderson and Karen Dill randomly assigned 210 undergraduates to play Wolfenstein 3-D, a first-person-shooter game, or Myst, an adventure game in which players explore mazes and puzzles. Anderson and Dill found that when the students went on to play a second game, the Wolfenstein 3-D players were more likely to behave aggressively toward losing opponents. Given the chance to punish with blasts of noise, they chose to inflict significantly louder and longer blasts than the Myst kids did. Other recent work randomly assigned students to play violent or nonviolent games, and then analyzed differences in brain activation patterns using fMRI scans, but the research is so far difficult to assess.

Each of these approaches has its flaws. The first kind of correlational study can never prove that video-game playing causes physical aggression. Maybe aggressive people are simply more apt to play violent games in the first place. Meanwhile, the randomized trials, like Anderson and Dill's, which do imply causation, necessarily depend on lab-based measures of aggression, such as whether subjects blast each other with noise. This is a respected measure, but obviously not the same as seeing whether real people hit or shoot each other. The longitudinal work, like this year's elementary-school study, is a useful middle ground: It shows that across the board, playing more-violent video games predicts higher levels of verbal and physical aggression later on. It doesn't matter why the kids started playing violent games or whether they were already more aggressive than their peers; the point is that a year of game-playing likely contributes to making them more aggressive than they were when they started. If we had only one of the three kinds of studies, the findings wouldn't mean much. But taken together, the body of research suggests a real connection.

The connection between violent games and real violence is also fairly intuitive. In playing the games, kids are likely to become desensitized to gory images, which could make them less disturbing and perhaps easier to deal with in real life. The games may also encourage kids (and adults) to rehearse aggressive solutions to conflict, meaning that these thought processes may become more available to them when real-life conflicts arise, Anderson says. Video games also offer immediate feedback and constant small rewards—in the form of points, or access to new levels or weapons. And they tend to tailor tasks to a player's skill level, starting easy and getting harder. That makes them "phenomenal teachers," says Anderson, though "what they teach very much depends on content."

Critics counter that some kids may "use games to vent anger or distract themselves from problems," as psychiatry professor Cheryl Olson writes. This can be "functional"  rather than unhealthy, depending on the kid's mental state and the extent of his game playing. But other studies suggest that venting anger doesn't reduce later aggressive behavior, so this thesis doesn't have the most solid support.

When video games aren't about violence, their capacity to teach can be a good thing. For patients suffering from arachnophobia, fear of flying, or post-traumatic stress disorder, therapists are beginning to use virtual realities as a desensitization tool. And despite the rap that they're a waste of time, video games may also teach visual attention and spatial skills. (Recently, a study showed that having played three or more hours of video games a week was a better predictor of a laparoscopic surgeon's skills than his or her level of surgical training.) The games also work for conveying information to kids that they will remember. Video games that teach diabetic kids how to take better care of themselves, for instance, were shown to decrease their diabetes-related urgent and emergency visits by 77 percent after six months.

Given all of this, it makes sense to be specific about which games may be linked to harmful effects and which to neutral or good ones. Better research is also needed to understand whether some kids are more vulnerable to video-game violence, and how exposure interacts with other risk factors for aggression like poverty, psychological disorders, and a history of abuse. Meanwhile, how about a game in which kids, shrinks, and late-night comics size up all these factors and help save the world?

Regulations
Outline the ways in which your selected industry is regulated. What impact has regulation had on your chosen texts? Answers are likely demonstrate an understanding of the relevant regulatory body (e.g. BBFC/ PEGI) and codes of practice. The impact that regulation has (or has

not) had on the selected industry is likely to differ but points may include:

•subject matter

•content

•placement

•language/image used

•certification/guidance

Pegi Ratings

BBFC v PEGI: Government Consults on New Video Game Classification System

October 02 2008

In the past year both Dr Tanya Byron and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have investigated the potential effects of playing video games. Byron, a specialist on mental health issues faced by children and adolescents, is the author of a review that makes a number of recommendations to improve children's safety when they play video games; the department's investigations also covered the safety of adult players. Byron and the department agree that the classification system for video games should be reformed, but disagree over which body should be principally responsible for classifying video games under the new regulations. This disagreement - and the level of interest expressed by the industry in relation to the issue - have prompted the government to conduct a public consultation, which is due to close on November 20 2008.
A dual classification system for video games operates in the United Kingdom. Under the Video Recordings Act 1984, the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) classifies certain games on the basis of content (eg, whether they contain violence towards humans or animals) and may also refuse classification. Games which require BBFC classification may not be distributed in the United Kingdom without it; however, due to the limited scope of the act, only around 4% of games released in the United Kingdom are classified by the BBFC. Most games are classified under a voluntary system administered by Pan-European Game Information (PEGI). PEGI was established in Spring 2003 with the aim of replacing the various classification codes in European countries with one pan-European system. Under the PEGI system, games producers complete a questionnaire to self-certify the content of their games. Games are awarded an age rating depending on the information provided and may be labelled to warn consumers of potentially harmful content (eg, violence, drugs or sex). Although PEGI has no statutory authority in the United Kingdom, console manufacturers will refuse to allow a game to be played on their machines unless it has been classified by either PEGI or the BBFC.
The Byron Review recommends assimilating the BBFC and PEGI models so that:

• all games containing content that currently receive a '12+' PEGI rating would require classification by law;
• BBFC classification logos would appear on the front of all games;
• PEGI classification logos would appear on the back of all games; and
• PEGI would continue to classify all '3+' and '7+' games.

Byron’s recommendation has been criticized by commentators who argue that a hybrid system would confuse the public. Perhaps in response to such arguments, the department subsequently recommended that a single classification system be adopted, with BBFC acting as principal classifier.
Both proposals have caused controversy. Although the video games industry agrees with the department that a single body should be responsible for classifying video games, it believes that PEGI should be the principal classifier in the United Kingdom. Certain companies in the industry - including console manufacturers Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft - argue that PEGI ratings are more accurate, as they were developed specifically for video game classification (whereas BBFC ratings also apply to films), and are more useful because they are pan-European.
The BBFC disagrees and is keen to retain its role in relation to video games. It contends that PEGI’s self-certification process is flawed and considers itself better placed to classify video games in the United Kingdom because of the widespread recognition of the BBFC classification categories. Furthermore, it argues that PEGI lacks detailed knowledge of British sensitivities, which it sees as essential in determining whether a game is suitable for release in Britain.
In order to solve the problem, the government’s consultation asks the public and the industry to consider the following four options for the regulation of video games:

• a hybrid classification system, such as that suggested in the Byron Review;
• an enhanced BBFC system;
• an enhanced PEGI system; or
• a voluntary code of practice.

As the interested parties have been keen to express their views at every opportunity since the publication of the Byron Review and the department’s recommendations, it remains to be seen how much new guidance the government will receive in the consultation responses. Nevertheless, given the value of the video games market in the United Kingdom and worldwide, the new regulations must strike a balance between fostering further growth in the market and protecting gamers against exposure to harmful material. Speculation on how the government will achieve this delicate compromise will continue until early 2009, when the government is due to publish its proposals for reform.

computer games regulations

Audience Computer Games