While playing with the group I heard one of our group members say that they did not like bashing wolves. I found that I didn't like doing it either but I had rationalised it because they were 'diseased' wolves and as such should be culled. However, in a later quest I had to collect the bandanas of some renegades and when I accepted the quest I realised that meant that I had to kill them. I was a bit uneasy about that but I had accepted the quest. I was killed at my first and second attempts but after being resurrected and figuring out (a la Gee) which weapon I should use, I was successful and forgot that I was 'killing' these renegades but just focussed on being successful in completing my task. However, when I went to get my reward and next quest, the quest-giver made a comment about how I didn't mind doing dirty work (or words to that effect). This jolted me out of my complacency and I realised that my character was a murderer. I had deliberately chosen the persona of a priest rather than a warrior to avoid being a 'bad' character. I was surprised at how easily I slipped into a murderer. I had an objective and became focussed on that objective - ignoring the means of achieving it.

I should add that I just came back from giving a paper at a conference in Berlin and spent the weekend exploring Berlin - which included visiting the Jewish museum and part of the Wall which is still standing. I was appalled at the stories of informers but my husband suggested that we did not know what pressures were put on informers. I mention this only because this experience is fresh in my memory and what I find interesting about WoW is how easy it is to be absorbed into a particular culture and a particular way of being. It made me wonder whether I could act more ethically in the WoW culture rather than passively just accepting quests.

Gee talks about three identities when playing a game – the virtual, the real and the projective. A player has some control in constructing their virtual identity in a game but the player’s choice is constrained because she has no control over the game world in which she has to play. So I chose Anavli to be a Priest in WoW so she could be a ‘good’ character.  However, the initial quests in WoW involve killing beasts, killing renegades etc.  My choice of my virtual identity was constrained by the game world in which my character has to live. Gee also talks about a projective identity using the term projective in two senses:

·         Players project their own values and desires onto their virtual identity (in my case Anavli)

·         Players see their virtual identity as a project in making – they need to take ownership of their creation (I have aspirations for the kind of character I want Anavli to become)

After creating my virtual identity, when I entered the game I was a passive player – accepting the quests and not questioning what I was doing. It was when the quest-giver made his remark that my real identity reawakened and questioned how my virtual identity was behaving.  At that point, I think that I began to be aware of my projective identity.  I wanted to take ownership of the kind of character I wanted Anavli to become but I was not sure of the constraints in the game world of WoW. 

Miguel Sicart has written on the ethics of computer games.  His view on ethics of computer games is linked to his definition of a game – ‘A game is not only it rules, its material aspect, but also its experience – the act of playing the game.’ (Sicart 2005:15) He takes the view that games players ‘are moral beings that evaluate their actions and the choices they make’ (Sicart 2005:15). However, he also argues that:

The way games are designed and how that design encourages players to make certain choices, is relevant for the understanding of the ethics of computer games. (Sicart 2009:17)

In his 2005 paper he uses an example from WoW.  WoW designers allowed player vs. player combat (pvp) in certain servers.  Because of the popularity of that feature, the designers decided to implement an honour system – where players got a considerable number of points for killing other players.  (Sicart points out that they did not at the same time implement a dishonour system.)  This design feature led to what the WoW community considered unethical behaviour such as corpse camping (i.e. waiting for other players to resurrect to kill them again when they were weak) and ganking (attacking players who cannot defend themselves).  The WoW community became divided – some liked the honour system, others disliked it so much that they stopped playing in the pvp servers.  The designers resolved this polarization by having certain areas that are designated in the map as battlegrounds. (Sicart was writing in 2005. I have been challenged to a few duels in WoW but I had the option to decline – so this is probably a further design feature refinement of the ethical issue the honour system raised.)

Sicart’s point is that both the player and the rules/fictional worlds are ethical entities which are both responsible for ‘the well being of the whole experience of playing a game’.  My concern was how passively I started to play the game – not reflecting on the experience. That may have been a feature of being totally unfamiliar with this kind of game and concentrating on learning about it.  I also wonder whether the quest-giver’s comment was a deliberate design feature to make me reflect on the nature of my virtual self.  It seems in Sicart’s WoW example, the game designers are responding to community issues.  If that is the case, then perhaps one could argue that WoW is an ethical game.  But I need to play more in it to discover whether that is the case.

Educators designing games need to think carefully of the culture they want to foster.  They need to take care that design features they create do not have negative ethical consequences. At the same time they need to see players as active moral individuals.  As I work with mature adults that is not a problem for me – those working with young children may need to think carefully of their level of maturity.  For both groups, individual and group reflection will help them resolve ethical issues.

References

Gee, James Paul (2003) What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy

Sicart, Miguel (2005) Game, Player, Ethics: A virtue ethics approach to computer games, International Review of Information Ethics, vol. 4 (12/2005) 13-18

Sicart, Miguel (2009) Ch1 Introduction in The Ethics of Computer Games. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.

I was starting to ‘feel’ that some parts of the board were more dangerous than others.  But I did not have the patience to pursue and investigate that feeling. I think it does have to do with learning styles – as Emma mentioned on the Discussion Board.  Thinking of Kolb’s learning cycle, I think arcade games would favour those who prefer an active experimentation style.  I, on the other hand, have a more reflective learning style and the sheer speed of the games does not allow any time for reflection. 

James Paul Gee’s account of the view that videogames are a waste of time as they have no content has resonance with the views expressed by my friends including my husband.  I never held that view myself mainly because I have no experience of those games.  Gee argues elegantly that a semiotic domain is not just content but...

”a  lived and historically changing set of social practices. It is in these social practices that 'content' is generated, debated and transformed via certain distinctive was of thinking, talking, valuing, acting, and often, writing and reading. “p.21

For people who have never engaged in playing videogames, the ‘silliness’ of the content is an easy target.  But Gee demonstrates that a lot of learning can be acquired in well-designed games. If a game is actively and critically played the player:

·         Learns to experience in a new way

·         Gains the potential to join and work with a new affinity group

·         Develops resources for future learning and problem solving in related semiotic domains

·         Learns to think of semiotic domains as design spaces that engage and manipulate people in certain ways and help create certain relationships in society among people which could have social justice implications

The key to critical learning is the ability of the player to be able to reflect on, to critique and manipulate the design grammar of a game at the meta level.  This requires looking well beyond the content of a game – but how it is structured, what elements it has, the characteristics of these elements, how it is similar and different to other games of this type. 

Gee sees the value of videogames in that they:

The player learns to think critically about the simulation and thus gain literacy of multimodal spaces.

Gee points out that the key is not questioning the ‘content’ of games per se but whether it is worth spending time pursuing the semiotic domain of a particular game.  And the questions he poses are ones of value judgements:

·         Is this a good way to experience the world?

·         Is this a good and valuable affinity group to join?

·         Are these resources for future learning applicable to other good and valued semiotic domains?

• is this domain leading the learner to reflect on design spaces and their intricate relationships to each other in ways that could lead to critique, innovation and good and valued thinking and acting in society? 

In the beginning of the book, Gee argues that even violent video games can be valuable. And I can see that he is thinking beyond the actual content.  But in terms of the value questions he poses, I feel there is a contradiction here. I have not read yet what he says in particular about violent games but Greenfield indicates that it is action rather than violence which children find attractive.

References

Gee, J. P. (2003) Chapter 2, 'Semiotic Domains: Is playing video games a "waste of time"?'In What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. (core textbook)

Greenfield, P. M. (1984) Chapter 7, 'Video Games'. In Mind and media : the effects of television, video games, and computers. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press

Kolb, D. (1993). The process of experiential learning. In Culture and processes of Adult Learning. M. Thorpe, R. Edwards, and A. Hanson (Eds.). (Buckingham, OUP): pp. 138-156