Today’s Plan:
- Paper Feedback (Alex and Darius links)
- Using the Heuristic to Analyze a Scene
- Homework Reminder
Paper Feedback
I have commented on all of the submitted papers (save Alex and Darius–I need you to resubmit your Google links). If you submitted a Word docx, then you should be able to find an attachment in Canvas, if you submitted a Google link, then my comments should be in the doc.
Upcoming Timeline
A reminder that your focus this week is on playing your game for and writing three journal entries. I will give the exact details on the upcoming paper Wednesday. For today, I will clarify that the upcoming paper is an analytic/argumentative essay–one that uses X in order to argue Y. There’s many different ways to resolve the variables in this argumentative equation.
For instance, you might think Sicart’s theory is great and useful. Cool. Your paper might use Sicart’s theory, particularly his ideas of player complicity and forced reflection, to analyze the effectiveness of the final scene in A Wolf Among Us.
Perhaps you played a game and found that the game did a great job developing complicity, but that the choices in the game were too moralistic (that is, it is very clear which answer the game thinks is the right answer). Okay, cool. You might use Sicart’s theories of player complicity and wicked problems to articulate why Fluffy’s Big Adventure fails to maximize its potential as an ethical game. While Fluffy’s Big Adventure develops strong player complicity, its Goody Goody scoring system made it too easy for me to make instrumental, rather than ethical, decisions.
Perhaps you played a game that shows a weakness in Sicart’s theory, or a flaw. So now we flip the the variables, something like: This paper looks at the moral scoring system in Fluffy’s Big Adventure in order to challenge Sicart’s idea that moral scoring systems short circuit player’s ethical decision making.
Notice how focused these theses are: I am not attempting to discuss the entirety of a game–you cannot possibly write a paper about all 8 hours of your gameplay. Rather, I am trying to whittle down to one or two key ideas. I am also, if possible, going to analyze 1-3 key moments in the game. (The roots of the 5 paragraph essay). So, let’s say I am going to argue the last point–then I want to walk through 3 different decisions, the scoring outcomes, and make an argument in each for how the scoring system didn’t impact ethical decision-making.
As you keep playing your game, you should be thinking strategically about what scenes to analyze and what kind of argument you’d want to make. Early in the process, this might be as simple as “would Sicart think this is a good ethical game?” The more you play and write in your journal, the more you want to focus on what elements of the game most reflect/challenge Sicart’s theory: the “why” or “why not” follow up questions.
Let’s Analyze a Scene
Today I’d like to analyze a scene from The Walking Dead, using the heuristic as a prompt.
- Walking Dead Episode 2 playthrough video (start at 1:48:56)
- Starved for Help summary
- Walking Dead “Starved for Help” statistics
Homework
Complete journal entry #2 in your gaming journal.
