The Alienation Effect in Violent Videogames and the 'Problem' of Serious Play

Jason Farman "The Alienation Effect in Violent
Videogames and the Problem of Serious Play" What social issues will video game developers and consumers be dealing with as this gap gets closer and closer?

There is absolutely no doubt that modern gaming has created some serious social issues, and the future does hold some curious sociological changes as interactive gaming gets closer to reality. However, the alarmist speculation that comes from Jason Farman is woefully misinformed. He talks about what effect theatre can have on people when you take away immersion elements, resulting in a more critical audience. I think it is a bit absurd to try to fight the human desire for immersion in a story. The main thing different with today's video game from the rest of the media we've consumed over the years is the interactive element. The question is whether the interactive element combined with full digital immersion could alter our understanding of the real world. I think this is a legitimate concern when the way we actually interact with video games moves beyond controllers, and we experience full immersion. Currently I think the use of controllers and the limited effects of screens does not pose a threat to misunderstanding the
differences between the virtual and reality.

For all the discussion of an interface-less interface, we would need exactly that for us in the virtual world to allow such a phenomena to occur. The real dangerous video games we hear about people losing their lives to these days utilize simple game design principles that bring out the obsessive and collector qualities in us. There may be some cases of trying to live through video games, but this same sort of thing can be seen through social networking and MUCKs. Even then, the people trying to conduct lives through the internet still usually recognize the difference between actions online and in the real world. It certainly isn't healthy for people to lose their lives to video games and online personas, but it doesn't pose an actual danger to larger society.

The Venus Project/ "Resource Based" Economy

(Seriously, Monorails?)^
The Venus Project and the concept of a "Resource Based" economy

I've heard it said politics isn't a battle of what's ideal, but what is possible. I have this view point not out of Skepticism, (although I can be a Skeptic, many in my generation are) but of what is practical. A complete reformatting of our economy from the ground up simply couldn't happen here. So many issues would arise from destroying entire life's savings to the destabilization of economy. Yes, our economic system is fairly unstable at the moment, cycling constantly between boom and busts after Industry bubbles form and break. However, I do believe when there is proper taxation and stronger oversight and regulation the capitalistic system, it could still work to benefit all. A resource based economy is quite similar to just a larger scale of the gold standard. Arguably it is a better basis for money than gold, as resources actually do have practical value. However it fails to account for the value of human and mechanical labor, which makes up the vast majority of all major economies. I think GDP could be an accurate measure of our actual economy if we completely reformatted the federal reserve (and integrate it with the government), stopped printing money, fixed Wall Street and the Finance Industry, and started knocking out debt whilst fighting inflation. It's a lot of things to do, but I think such high minded, idealistic concepts that do away with human centric economy (which is absurd) arises out of a disillusionment with money.

Economic politics aside, the concept behind the Venus project seems to be with the best intentions, but the aesthetic is ludicrous. It looks as if some fungineer from Disney tried to design a tacky futureworld city back in the 1960's. The concept isn't bad, but the rootshock, linearity, and lack of diversity in the layout and design of the buildings would make it a breeding ground for poverty. Brazilia had a futuristic efficient layout when it was built, but it resulted it large masses of unused land and huge bouts of poverty.
I am quite passionate about the politics behind city design every since I took an Urbanization class here at Tech. This class taught me the four major points of successful city design: Mixed Use of buildings, short city blocks, concentration of people, and a diversity of aged buildings. This city fails to deliver on efficiency of space (although it does have an efficient concept for city services: trash, sewer, etc.), short city blocks, mixed use, and the all important older buildings. I would say that we need a good reason to build up a new city, especially in dire economic times as these. We certainly couldn't do this to any existing cities, and there is a real question whether that city layout could actually work. The implication behind the Venus Project being that if we test this out, that city design could create the social change desired. (admittedly Zeitgeist was all over the place about their concept of human psychology and how to motivate it differently) Even if you create the test city and somehow achieve a complete reformatting of the economy, people will still game the system. There is way to much trust in human nature on behalf of the project, and a bit of naiveté about the complexity of human behavior.