Terra Nova

MediaFX Sound and Fury

A new study from Craig Anderson and colleagues at Iowa State University claims to be definitive proof that violent video games cause aggression. The claim is based on a meta analysis of studies in the media effects paradigm, which has been discussed here before. There will debate about the validity of the study's conclusions, just as there has been about the individual studies on which this meta-analysis is based: Were samples properly chosen? Can you learn anything from a study of correlations? Do short-term effects matter? And so on.

The debate misses the point. For the sake of argument, let's grant every scientific claim that Anderson and colleagues make. According to Professor Anderson, exposing a person to a violent video game makes the person feel more aggressive. As to the size of this effect, Professor Anderson expresses it thus: "These are not huge effects--not on the order of joining a gang vs. not joining a gang. But these effects are also not trivial in size."

Very well. Let's say we have 10,000 perfect studies showing positive effects of videogame violence on individual aggression, and these effects are big enough to show up on the radar consistently without being the biggest blip anyone's ever seen. If this were the state of the world (I don't think it is, but again, for the sake of argument), what would we make of it?

Professor Anderson: "From a public-policy standpoint, it's time to get off the question of, 'Are there real and serious effects?' That's been answered and answered repeatedly. It's now time to move on to a more constructive question like, 'How do we make it easier for parents--within the limits of culture, society and law--to provide a healthier childhood for their kids?'"

Hear hear! I say. And yet - what an odd time to be saying this. Why would a professor ever decide to study a question that, by his own admission, is not very "constructive?"

Farmville = ?

Back in October, Mike & I & others mulled for a bit about Farmville and its place in the gaming/MMO sphere.  Recently, a lot of other people have been mulling about Farmville too, in a crabbier sort of way.  From various sources, it seems Farmville was the bête noire of GDC this year (see this Sauron reference), both envied (for numbers, revenues, and buzz) and despised (for various reasons, but it seems to me, at least in part, for not being anything remotely like Portal).

Mapping finalized

With many thanks to the comments here and via email from TNers (original thread), the Mapping project manuscript has moved from white paper to in-press manuscript. Yes, it took a long time.

Here is the final version.

I hope this is something researchers and thinkers find useful. From talks with funders and fellow researchers, I know that the issues of real/virtual comparisons and inferences are of keen interest, and it's my hope that this paper helps people think through the attendant issues. As I was contemplating the many uses I see in this space--disaster preparedness, military training--it occurred to me once again that the price of doing this wrong and drawing bad inferences is very high indeed.

O how I love thee, Media Effects Paradigm!

I just reviewed a grant proposal to a big agency. It was a media effects proposal. Depressing. We've gone over this many times here, but it needs repeating:

1. You cannot characterize a videogame without playing it. All of it. You certainly can't label it as "violent" vs. "non-violent" by just looking at the art, let alone the art on the box.
2. A game may have an effect in the lab. If you're going to claim that the game affects society, the lab effect had better be big and permanent. If all you're doing is having people fill out a survey - no.
3. Don't do an experiment with only one game and say you're studying the impact of "games." Just - don't.

Is Everquest II a Place of Public Accomodation?

About two weeks ago, I told Ren that I'd write up a post about the Stern v. Sony decision, which was issued early last month. This is a case where a federal court essentially answered the title question of this post.  The answer, at least according to this particular court, is "no." 

Virtual Goods at GDC

Spent the day at LiveGamer's event. Virtual goods now a $6b business. Secondary market at $2b. Growing at 40% per year. Number of people with some kind of virtual world account in high hundreds of millions. Rumor that US states will begin charging sales tax on virtual item sales within the year. See RetailingToday.com, Dan Hansen, Feb. 26.

Build Your Own Sheldon Syllabus

There’s been quite a lot of buzz about Jesse Schell’s great talk at DICE. In it, he mentions the syllabus of Lee Sheldon as an example of how you could use game design to re-think the college classroom. I’ve asked Lee to share his syllabus, and he’s graciously done so. Check it out. Below the fold, some thoughts from Lee on how to administer the syllabus. And then finally, some more general thoughts of my own on how to build your own “Sheldon Syllabus” – your own class-as-an-MMORPG.

Studying Game Studies

Recently, I did a review of Digital Culture, Play, and Identity: A World of Warcraft® Reader for Game Studies (no, it's not published yet; this is just setting the context, not trying to trick you into reading a book review). Although this WoW-related anthology of papers doesn't claim to be doing Game Studies, nevertheless the review was for a journal of that name, and all the papers in it could have been published in that journal.

It occurred to me, though, that individually almost all of the papers could also have been published in journals that specialise in other subjects. They could have found homes in journals for Anthropology, Psychology, Sociology, Communications, ... That being the case, what is Game Studies about? Is it merely an interdisciplinary holding pen for people whose object of study is games but whose subject is Something Else? Or does it have something unique at its core?

Put another way, what kind of paper could only be published in a journal of Game Studies?