Redux and Qualitative

First,
I feel my post about the quantitative was a bit loose in its structure and meaning. So, I want to clear some things up.

• When dealing with gratification, the wide variety of media out in the world all leads to different types of gratification. The viewer essentially chooses their own accord to follow, thus they want to receive the gratification they want. One hypothesis I am working on is:
  That the players want to want (yes, want to want) the next level. Basically, the way a character is leveled is more of a spiral moving outwards, than any cyclical development. Achieving the next level means the player has to work even harder to achieve the next, but by gaining this level, the player almost proves to him/her self that they are capable. This capability is their drive and ambition to be able to accomplish the next, more difficult and strenuous task. This drive is also something I am going to dive into later with research into Lacan.
• Now for exposure. I need to jump into my hypothesis to explain, which is almost begging the question, but hey, this is a blog not a formal paper:
  I want to redraw my connection to sports players and WoW. Now, lets take soccer for example, the players who play professional soccer, and I am talking about the big pros like Beckham, Zidane, Ronaldinho, and of course the classic Pele. These players eat, drink and play soccer. Yes, they have other passions for life and what not, but they constantly think about soccer, and if they did not, then they probably would not be the professionals they are and do not deserve the millions they get each year. And the only way, in my opinion, for a player to be so devoted to their game is to have that drive (back to Lacan). What I am getting at here is that these professional players DO NOT play within a media. Yes, the news media is surrounding these players and the game, but soccer itself is not a media. With WoW players, they do the exact same thing, but exist and compete within a controlled (by Blizzard) media. This is where the difference is between those who could be claimed as professional WoW players to professional soccer players. Soccer was not created like WoW was; WoW is as Jenson says the "primary product of media organizations is not its content, buts its audience." Thus, this media’s product is competing players, and Blizzard created (and patches frequently) WoW to keep this game from doing what it is designed to do. The level of exposure is directly correlated to how much a person wants to compete, and the higher level of exposure is what any media wants. (I feel like going on, but I think you all get the picture. I will continue this thought with another post).
• Next was my weird parallel with the news. What I meant from this is:
  People play WoW for gratification in competing, when the game is designed to achieve levels; where people watch the news without retention, where the news is designed to give the facts. Both medias have subtly changed to fit in how the viewers ‘view’(I think this thought may be applicable, but I do not want to give it much more brain juice right now).

Next is my bizarre idea around the 4 types of research that focuses out long term significance. (Which I can only assume would bring out the reason why my research is important). Here are the key points for each of the 4.

· Natural Experiments. The view of the natural availability of the media and the change in the audience with increased exposure time.

· Public Events. Shows how public events become more of a spectacle, or media event. I want to look into how competition within WoW is becoming a spectacle more so than a mere event.

· Institutional Practices. I am slowly thinking that this is not applicable to my research. The only way I can see it is (relating back to the soccer vs Wow) how WoW designs a form of competition for players to compete more so than the players creating it. But this could run into a chicken egg conundrum.

· Cultural Formations. This is applicable because of how the players treat other players in the game. Does WoW affect cultural practices within the game and outside?

Now, I feel better about my quantitative research understanding. Now for QUALITATIVE!!!

Moving on to chapter 10 in A Handbook of Media and Communication Research: This chapter, in my opinion, shows how there is much difference between Quantitative and Qualitative. But, both are equally necessary for my research.

I came up with several questions for my project, and I would rather list them than go into details about what I think about the key concepts of Qualitative research.

• First, How does being in public places affect playing a game like WoW? Is there much difference in playing in a lan center than interacting with these people in ones own home?
• How is WoW intregrated into the lives of the players? This related back to how constant playing increases their drive to play and submission of other things (media or not) within their life.
• Do demographics change the way people play, compete and interact with each other? Does age become a non-issue? I.E. Kids playing on equal ground with adults. Does this change the way people compete?
• Does the game change how players conduct themselves? Change their beliefs or empirical thoughts about the IRL world?
• Is wow a means of representing competition or a resource for competition?
• Comparison to romance novels. Fans of romance novels look at the books as a resource on how to live and be romantic (according to Jensen). Do people use WoW as a resource in how to function in the world? I read some quotes on the Daedalus project that said this player felt more comfortable dealing with people and managing large groups because of the skills she ‘learned’ from playing WoW. What does all this mean when competition is the soul reason the game exists?
• Is the game creating a ‘Fandom’ where it is a resource for cultural practices?

Moving away from questions, I want to look at what this chapter has taught me about how I should approach my project:

• Discursive elements. The way people comprehend information and media is important in discovering how it affects their social life and ideals.
• Genres. This is important because I need to see if the information I find about WoW could be applied universally to other games of the similar genre. “Another reason for focusing on genres is that their mod of address, in addition to their form and content, anticipates particular uses of media in social content” (Jensen 168).
• Hypertexts. This is particularly important in my research because it changed the way media is presented, from a singular narrative to a more open ended use of the media. (I will get more into this when I write a post about chapter 11)
• Media environments. Studies have gone towards defining issues and relevant approaches. At the same time, the bluring of divisions between ‘text’ and ‘context’ in virtual environments is adding to the complexity and challenge.

From here, I wish to dive into Chapter 11, which focuses on Computer Mediated Communication (OMG!).

My next post will be my condensation of a thesis and questions I feel are important towards my research, and finally questions I wish to present in surveys and interviews.

A Pretty Solid Week (again...oops)

Before I get started,
I got to meet Larry David at the LA premier of Sicko last night...
I worked as an usher (as part of the internship) and Larry David had forgotten his ticket to the movie.
This was my first real case of being star struck, and thankfully Larry was a nice, funny guy.

So I just realized that last week's last post was rather lacking.
it seems I didn't copy and paste from the daily journal...
Anyway, last week can be summed up with one word: COVERAGE

From Wednesday on I've been covering at least one script a day.
Unfortunately though, none of them were good.

They were entertaining though, to say the least.
The best one was about the Seraph class of angels--only they were evil angels.
So these evil angels would steal magical babies away from their safe homes on the countryside
and then throw the magical babies into volcanoes, eating their souls as they float up.
I tore it apart in my coverage.

NOW FOR THE DEEPER STUFF:

I wanted to take some time this week to talk about the work environment at TWC,
as it is almost completely different from any other work environment I've been in.

At my other jobs (working at a church, working at a supplies and logistics company, working at a bank),
people were generally tense, quiet, and pretty much serious all the time.
This made work unenjoyable and tense...I always felt like I was in trouble for something.
At the Weinstein Company, the environment is similar to what you would find in a friendly study group.
In our down time we joke with one another, tell stories, watch funny videos on youtube, etc...
but tension in the office only comes about when there's a rush to get things done,
and even then it's not as miserable as at the supply company or at the bank.

When I started thinking about all this, it was pretty easy to come up with a reason as to why the environments differ so drastically...
The Weinstein Company, despite its wide reach into film and television, is a company that makes entertainment.
Though TWC has hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, the projects it funds are still made for people's enjoyment.
When it comes down to it there are no lives at stake, nor major contributions to society being made from day-to-day at TWC.
But that's not to say that's a bad thing...just different.
Where a company like On-Target Supplies and Logistics makes money by organizing the distribution of office supplies,
TWC--and all other production companies, for that matter--makes money by distributing entertainment.
Therein lies the biggest difference.
Though we (film students) may see it otherwise, entertainment is far from a daily necessity...at least, not in the same way that pens, paperclips and printer toner are daily necessities.

Unfortunately my conclusions on this are pretty lacking at this point, as I've only recently started thinking about this stuff.
What I have concluded however is that companies are controlled by their driving purposes:

A supplies and logistics company is controlled by other companies' needs: paper, pens, toner...
so the pressure is brought from the companies placing these orders.

A production company is controlled by its own desires (or maybe Harvey and Bob Weinstein's): new, entertaining movies and TV shows.

So I'm glad to be in an environment where it's OK to watch mildly inappropriate youtube exerpts...
I find that it not only makes for an enjoyable workday, but it also makes the friendships within the office stronger.

My next post is going to be an overview of an awesome little bit of history that I've found while working here.
I was given a copy of a transcript for the meeting between George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Larry Kasdan when they came up with the storyline and plot for Raiders of the Lost Ark.
REALLY cool stuff...
but you'll just have to wait for it.

Debunking Quantitative Research

Before I get into my post topic, I want to briefly discuss where my project is heading.
I decided to fully go with competition and its impact upon social and individual play experience in World of Warcraft. In order to build a foundation for my research, I decided to look at quantitative research taken in WoW AND compare the findings to quantitative research methodologies.
I used a book Brett gave me called, A Handbook of Media and Communication Research, by Klaus Bruhn Jensen. (F'in Google Roxorz). Chapter 5 in the book runs the gamut of information concerning quantitative research. I found it extremely helpful in analyzing this:
Alone Together
All of this information is the basics of my research. This research is making it possible to compare and contrast basic information and help interpret more the more complex and Qualitative research (which I will be diving into next post).
Some examples I have found through my own analysis:
• There is a need for gratification. Gratification is a primary reason why people take in media. The research in Alone Together shows that the higher the level, the more time people spend in aspiration for the next. (Reference the two figures on page 3). Or another main goal is to become level 40 to gain a mount. These are just two of many goals people have in the game. But this data does not explain why there is a constant drive to continue to play the game and that the quantitative study of gratification has not proven itself useful in predictions. We just now understand the cycle of the player. Now, I want to look into the relationship between the amounts of exposure in game to the desire of competition (and winning or gratification).
• This dives into my next point, exposure. Jenson says the "primary product of media organizations is not its content, buts its audience." Basically, the idea is for the product/ media to make an apparently attractive role of 'being an audience'. Exposure is crucial for a certain mediums survival. Jenson continues on about how the creators and maintainers of certain media 'view the viewers' in determining what they want, in order to make their media the best, most enjoyable and audience building. WoW, as seen in Alone Together, gives the unique ability to dive into a media with extreme ease and uniqueness unlike any other. Allowing guilds to be built, competing amongst factions and each other, and the pure social environment all create WoW to be an audience captor and enchanter. Blizzard is definitely becoming good at gaining high levels in audience amusement. From here, I want to look at how this media is become something more than just a secondary means of exposure, into the main means of entertainment and social value. This, in my wild guessing, is going to be tied to competition because of the way people strive to gain levels, being that each level is harder and harder to achieve, to be better than the next person. I feel a parallel to professional sports where the players damn near only play their sport, and everything else is secondary to them.
• Next, I drew out a weird parallel between the news and WoW. Now, bear with me. What Jensen was saying about the news is that some people watch the news and are unable to retain much if any information from it. They just had the gratification of watching the news and knowing that there really is nothing of great importance. The people, who liked to watch the news, did so because of the pure enjoyment factor, almost an opposite of the desire to receive factual information. What I am hypothesizing is that people are playing the game, not to be immersed into the game, but because they feel the need to compete. But the difference between WoW and the typical evening newscast is that WoW is slightly adapted to the audience that desires to compete, because the media is creating an audience that wants to want to compete. Then again, none of this I can prove without diving into the qualitative research (Next post, I promise).

I took several more notes, but these were the more note worthy ones. I am going to end this post with how the WoW is applicable to Jensen's 4 types of research that focuses on long term significance.

1) Natural Experiments. This concerns peoples' play and conversation (and other uses of) time before and after exposure to a new medium. WoW tends to slowly suck more and more hours away from players, as their characters become more powerful. Again, I am drawing an element of competition here.
2) Public Events. The news coverage of sporting events are becoming more of a grand display then just the mere competition. The competitions between the higher-level characters are becoming somewhat interesting to the other players. Also, the company running WoW is able to set up certain events (such as a new patch, raid, or a competition) to create a public event worthy of everyone responding to and watching (or participating). This is how the media of WoW is able to shape participation within the community.
3) Institutional practices. This is involved in forming a balanced world, not the balanced world of WoW, but the idea that this media is becoming a balance between other institutions. This concept is still a bit fuzzy in my head, but I plan on working in out soon.
4) Cultural Formations. What I have determined this to be is the cultural norms the media is putting forth, and that we are adhering to. What in the game is universally taken out and put forth in real life? I am sure the 8 million people who play the game have taken something the game has taught them and applied it to some aspect of their real life. One ideal could be that sitting in front of a computer for 8 hours a day is not a bad thing after all.
That about does it for this post. I think I am going to read over this one more time tomorrow to see if I put everything I wanted to say in, and to see if any of this actually made sense.

Keep it Up

So far, you are all doing a fine job of providing in-depth updates on the progress of your work. Each of you is doing something quite a bit different from the others, but there are intriguing connections among all of your projects. I encourage you comment on one another's posts as well, especially as you see them relating to (or not) your own work. Keep peeling back more layers and see what you uncover.

A Pretty Solid Week

So, why did Widescreen ever come into being?

So for my class, Professor Boessen and I purchased Leo Enticknap's book "Moving Image Technology: from Zoetrope to Digital" in hopes of gaining further insight into the history of filmmaking. It turns out, there's a couple things that I never thought of (blame my 22 year-old ego that tries to convince himself of his own self-worth constantly)

I blame my generation

Anyway, we are aware that the coming of widescreen productions occurred near the beginning of the 1950s as ammunition to fight the new mediums that more people were getting a hold of (e.g. home film cameras and TELEVISION). However, Enticknap points out another valid event that might bear (or not) more significance towards this specific evolution:

Did you know Hollywood had developed primitive widescreen technology in the 1920s alongside sound? I know I didn't. Films like Wings, released in 1928 and the first recepient of the Academy Award for Best Picture, Happy Days (not to be confused with the television show of the latter-1970s) and The Big Trail, a go-getum Western along the Oregon Trail. But, it dies off until the 50s...why?

Enticknap says that the depression had a lot to do with it. Coincidentally, so did sound. The movie industries had poured so much energy, time and money into sound that little more could be set aside for another bold risk such as widescreen films. From Enticknap's chapter:

"In this context sound just got in under the wire. By the autumn of 1929 Hollywood had committed to producing 'talkies', a large proportion of cinemas throughout the Western world had already installed the reproduction equipment and the rest were compelled to doing so whether they wanted to or not. Too much money had been spent and too many boats had been burnt for the industry to back out. Widescreen, however, was still in the research and development stage with the early experimental shows in first-run city centre cinemas taking place during the autumn and winter of 1929 at the moment of, or just after the crash. Sound had already passed the point of no return" (55).

Not that television wasn't a cause for the widescreen phenomenon (and let us not forget smell-o-vision, either). Rather, it was not the only cause and the full truth, like so many other examples, goes much deeper down the rabbit hole.

Altruism

As I play more and more… and more and more, I finally understand why so many different people play this game. It’s addictive.
But, that is not what I want to talk about today. One component I have seen in the game is higher level characters helping lower level characters with quests, instances, and grinding. There are even the people who randomly buff (positively enchant) players they pass, and do not even talk to them. Buy why? Why is there this general sense of generosity that exists all throughout the game?
A player on The Daedalus Project said, “From my 4 or 5 years MMOG experience Id say that simply helping others is the most memorable thing you can do.” The site continues on with a comparison between the virtual MMO worlds and the real worlds. It claims,
“The other category revolves around being helped by a stranger in a time of great need. Typically, a lot of time investment, risk or trust is needed during these events. In real life, many friendships are solidified through a series of favors or repaid debts because they signify a sharing of trust and understanding. The difference is that crises are far and few between in our everyday lives, so it takes months if not years for those kinds of relationships to solidify, whereas MMORPGs are designed to be dangerous worlds where crises occur frequently.”
Basically saying that the game world is (at least partially) designed to allow higher level users to help the lower level users with ease.
The Daedalus Project continues its comparison between helping people IRL and helping people in the virtual world. The site claims that "Most MMORPGs on the other hand are designed to contain many everyday inconveniences. You need a travel ability to travel long distances. You need someone to rez you. More importantly, MMORPGs empower users to help each other. You can heal someone who is about to die. You can craft a component another player needs. You can root a mob long enough for the player to escape. Thus, MMORPGs empower players to help each other in a way that is often difficult in real life." This is a very interesting concept; the game designs certain fun things that only prohibit players to help each other. MMORPGs remove much of the ambiguity and danger of altruism. A kind of social engineering occurs in MMORPG by restructuring the rules and expectations of how and when people can help each other.
The altruistic nature is indeed important to how MMO games function, but there are always the players who are greedy, unappreciative and ask for more help. Basically asking for an inch and taking a mile. There are also the players who refuse to help, (or perhaps help for monentary gain). But, this is human nature, and one would not have the good helpers without having a definition of a bad helper (or helper).