1.Send me drafts of portfolio work! 2.Any more researchers for next week’s “Under the Microscope?” 3.Public lecture on textual communication in online games: Tuesday October 9 th. Go!! 4.Start thinking about the (required) assignment, “Discipline as Punishment”, due October 24! 5.Class? On Hallowe’en?!
i.“Virtual world travelogue” -document your play in an online role-playing game -can be done any time ii. “Under the microscope” -A-V record your colleagues’ play & then analyze it -NEXT WEEK. iii.“Everyone’s a critic” -5-minute video review of a documentary film on games -can be done any time iv.“Public displays of gaming” - Hill library is (still) a good option v.“Playing in a material world” - play-testing on Nov. 14
1.Assemblages, cybernetic circuits, and post-humanism: a conceptual ‘toolkit’ for theorizing player-game relations 2.The early days of online sociality: -dreams (& nightmares) vs. realities 3.Gender is produced and performed through game design and play, as well as through social practices, organizations & institutions enacted around games 4.Today: the games industry 5.Next 4 weeks (“MMOnth”): ONLINE ROLE-PLAYING GAMES! i) quantitative & ii) qualitative approaches; iii) identity & community; iv) research & ethics
Why & how does it matter that the majority (--OR MOST VOCAL MINORITY--) of game players are (straight, white) male? Why & how does it matter that the majority of game makers are (straight, white) male? Why & how does it matter that the majority of game characters are (straight, white) male?
Immaterial labor (Dyer-Witheford & de Peuter) Technicity (Kennedy & Dovey) Hegemony (Fron et al.) 1.Define the term in your own words 2.Dig around for where it comes from (original authors & applications) 3.How do the authors of this piece use the term to frame their look at the gaming industry? 4.What are the barriers to more equitable participation that they identify? 5.What is their case for why this matters?
You’re responsible for reviewing TWO proposals (and for getting your proposal reviewed twice) Each review: 20 mins 1.Read 1 st colleague’s proposal: 5 mins 2.Fill out review form (Google doc or hard copy): 5-7 mins 3.Talk through any issues with proposals: 7-10 mins 1.Repeat with 2 nd colleague 2.Update / edit your proposal and send me the following: a. Timeline for completion (what you’ll do when) b. List of stuff you need & don’t have (hardware, software, literature )