All's Fair In Love and Gaming...and Teaching

One of the obvious risks of being candid is that you will one day walk yourself into a hellishly awkward "wrong side of the rake" booby trap situation, circa Side Show Bob.  But if I was set on playing it safe, then I probably wouldnt have a blog in the first place.  So, when in Rome...

Sex. Despite the fact that our society flaunts it just about everywhere, sex tends to be a relatively private part of the human psyche. One that we don't often share with those outside of our closest circles, if anyone at all.  So as you can imagine, sex in video games tends to be one of those subsets of game discussion that often gets left on the shelf.  Not only is this because nothing makes people uncomfortable faster than talking about pixelated acts of loving.  Its also because, lets face it, the stereotypical gamer isnt exactly an Adonis.  And if you picture the cast of "Nerds" playing Leisure Suit Larry it leads to this uncomfortable mix of terror and pity.  <shudders>

But when you get right down to it, there is a lot more to it than that.  Such as, you might ask?  And what in the world is Stub doing looking for sexual content in his video games anyway?  Both are good questions.  And for the answers, I'll refer you to Daniel Floyd, and an unconventional lecture from his Media Theory class at the Savannah College of Art and Design.  Oh and just FYI, Daniel is an advanced degree student... hmmm....

 
 


Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, and I figured, what the heck, why not travel both?

1)  In general, I find sexuality in video games a bit ... silly, for lack of a better word.  Up until recently, sex in games has tended to be used lowest common denominator style.  And when you play that card, best cast its tasteless.  Worst case its demeaning or offensive, and as Floyd put so nicely, it does nothing to help the fledgling medium earn more respect from its critics.

I posted a question many moons ago, about why character development in video games is so ineffective at creating an emotional impact with a player in the way other mediums do.   I alluded to that fact that "choice" could help in this, but why not extend the idea a bit.  If relationships are a problem with game characters, why not focus on the relationships themselves.  In most games, characters are hollow, shallow, one sided and emotionally undeveloped as compared to characters in film or literature.  The result is a persona that is very difficult to empathize with, very difficult to care about, and ultimately lacking in its representation of humanity.  The old adage says sex complicates things...perhaps thats just the ticket for characters that need a little more depth.  I'm not talking about pornography mind you - but sexuality.  Some representation that these characters we play, like movie or novel characters, are multifaceted - more like us than they are like stone cold superheros. 

There are only a select few games out that have set out to tackle sexual relationships tastefully  - Mass Effect and GTA4 are two that come to mind.  And in both cases, there is a noticeable richness, an added depth to the characters involved.  They are "more human", and that humanity pays dividends in terms of the narrative, character complexity, empathy, and their ability to capture the human condition. 



2)  Now that you are undoubtedly looking for excuses not to associate with me anymore (honestly, sometimes I don't even know where I come up with this stuff), lets switch gears a bit . The inspiration for Floyd's lecture delivery is a web based, game critic series known as Zero Punctuation.  ZP is an incredibly crude, yet thoughtful and hilarious blend of cynicism and poorly drawn cartoons that comes together to make magic.  I'd recommend checking it out - but be warned, its usually pretty inappropriate. 

What I love most about Zero Punctuation is the way it distinguishes itself from the field.  Very rarely do I read game reviews.  Its not that I don't care, but rather that most game reviews just arent compelling.   Put another way, I don't consider them interesting, and even the most well written reviews are rarely entertaining.  "Are you not entertained?!"  (end obligatory Gladiator quote).  Zero Punctuation, by contrast, is able to accomplish the same function as a multi-page game review, but in a, 4 minute long video.  Whats more, the series has come to succeed where more traditional reviews fail - it is engaging.  Engaging to the point that not only do I watch every review, but I have sought out and consumed every back reviews and am all too aware that a new week brings a new review (hurray Wednesday!).  And don't go getting all sappy and nostalgic about the heyday of the newspaper editorial.  Ink makes Stub's hands sad. 

Through its unique blend of intelligent crassness and quick cut, attention consuming delivery, Zero Punctuation is addicting.  It doesnt show game clips.  It isnt PC.  And in an age of ultra-twitch media consumption, it won't even use a period (which, being a giant grammatical failure myself, makes him my hero).  Zero Punctuation isnt good because creator Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw is the best game reviewer on the planet.  Its good because its different - because it steps outside the box and scratches people where they itch.  And yes I am well aware of the irony in praising a twitch show while I write a blog that is wordier than a Herman Melville novel.

The format is not one I would have thought would work in an educational context, largely because up until yesterday, I had not taken the time to think critically about separating the delivery from the parental advisory sticker.  But after seeing Floyd's lecture I can see the light.  Look back over some the reasons I don't read game reviews.  Not entertaining.  Not interesting.  Not compelling.  Not engaging.  Well that sounds like a familiar problem, doesnt it?  

Floyd's presentation has, in less than two days, gotten almost 50,000 hits on YouTube.  50,000 people who have willingly sought out, and viewed of their own accord, a lecture.  It doesnt look like a class.  It doesnt sound like a class.  But that video is 10 minutes of edumication.  And it didnt need to load up on profanity and sexual jokes to sell.  Entertaining delivery meets digital distribution and boom.

Obviously this sort of format would not be well suited for Advanced Sub Molecular Microbiology, but I get that woo woo woo feeling when I think about Zero Punctuation style Humanities classes.  Does the fundamental content change?  It doesnt need to.  As with so many things in life, its not what you say, but how you say it.  And videos like this one say things in a way that connects with people, or at least makes them want to tune in next week.

So should every instructor run out run out and revamp their courses in this mold?  Most certainly not.  Even if a subject translates well to this sort of quick hitting presentation, its reasonably high touch, and without the right blend of humor and substance, it would flop miserably.  But I wanted to present it as an example of how "different" can really hit a home run, and the kind of unconventional teaching techniques that get me excited to come to work in the morning.  And it goes without saying its a great use of digital media.

So what says you?  Would Zero Punctuation Herman Melville be more or less tolerable for you?  Well... I suppose your right.  Meville is never tolerable ;-)  Regardless, I'm curious about your thoughts. 



Images from wikipedia.com and overcaffeinated.net