The Social Mind & Conclusion

These two chapters were shorter than the others so maybe the 800 word limit won't be so hard.
Gee's interesting subtitle, How do You Get Your Corpse Back After You've Died?, is connected to the games EverQuest and World of Warcraft. These and many more games are socially oriented (It's interesting, in fact, that "reviewers tend to criticize games that can only be played in single-player mode" (180). If that was true in 2007, it is even more augmented in 2011, when a large complaint of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is its lack of split-screen capabilities, which is available in the now hugely popular Call of Duty: Black Ops. Games that also have no online multiplayer component fall in this category.)


He explains that games like World of Warcraft derive strength from offering players multitudes of choices. With several available races, professions, skills/ abilities, guilds, religions, etc., the player can create a unique character, and work together with a group of different players (with different abilities, professions and such) to conquer game objectives. The amount of choices and variety as well as the way players “level up” but can still find things to do within the game guarantees that these kinds of games “never end” (182).

A large portion of Chapter 7 is devoted to the idea of retrieving the player’s body/corpse after death. How do game developers handle this without making the process too difficult (seems like a punishment and can be overly frustrating) or too easy (there’s no repercussions so it’s really no big deal)?

Gee addresses in a small way some issues related to the social mind like “editing” or modifying games, cheat codes, strategy guides, hacking, forums, and more. All of these contain a social component that relates to but doesn’t necessarily take place inside the world of the game.

Play is inherently social, in many ways. Players can play in groups/ teams. Players can be members of a larger group (often called a guild). Players can communicate with other players within and outside a game. But beyond simply social thinking, knowledge is “distributed.” This distribution ranges from other players or the player him/herself, but also includes tools (strategy guides) and technologies (cheat codes) available to the player.

Gee asserts also that thinking is developed according to patterns, but these patterns are socially determined and governed. He proves this point using a bird-watching example. He returns to video games through Half-Life. Gee recounts his experience fighting the alien “boss” of Half-Life, going through the difficult process to get to that stage only to realize he did not have enough ammunition, and turning to chat rooms and forums to help him complete this task.

The next section of the text focuses on his lengthy parallel of video games to a science classroom. He borrows the theorist Jean Lave’s idea that learning is not just about gaining mechanisms (changing practices) but changing identity (203). Brown and Champiogne’s “communities of learners” exemplify this concept. Gee calls this form of learning as “the jigsaw method,” where there is no single leader or center, but roles and responsibilities are evenly distributed. Gee also briefly defines Vygotsky’s “zone of proximal development,” a concept used so often it was referred to as “ZPD” in my undergraduate education courses.
 

Here I’d like to take a second to explain 6 points Gee derived from this type of learning and affinity groups:

1. Members bond through a common endeavor, then affective ties.
2. This common endeavor revolves around a whole process.
3. Members have extensive, not just intensive, knowledge. (This can range from involvement in several stages of the process or overlapping functions.)
4. Members also have intensive knowledge, deep and specialized in one or more areas.
5. Knowledge within the affinity group (much of it) is often tacit (embodied within mental, social & physical coordinations between members) and distributed (spread across members, practices, tools and technologies) and dispersed (networked across several different sites).
6. Affinity group leaders should design the group, resource them and help members turn tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge.

The final topic of the chapter is entitled “Learners as Insiders & Producers,” and it discusses things like modifications. Players, after mastering the skills of a particular game, are often encouraged (although not in some cases) to participate more with the game by creating their own add-ons, sometimes leading to a different game altogether. Players move from consumers soaking in the game, playing through the campaign to game designers themselves, producing new material and joining the “elite” group of “insiders.” This chapter concludes with the final four learning principles Gee believes constitute or are included in a “good” video game.

Discussion Questions:

1. Gee talks about things like hex editors, cheat codes and strategy guides. We've already discussed "cheating" in class, but is it possible that video games are redefining the idea of 'cheating?' If Gee's method of using a cheat code just as a way to get to the boss isn't cheating, where is the line?
2. In a related note to the cheating idea, I was struck by the idea of modifying the game. (Like when Adrian changed the end credits to say that he created the game, then played through the whole game again. That's devotion.) Does allowing players a stake in the game, the ability to change/ modify the game create a bond between the producers and the players? (Don't know if that makes any sense.) 
3. The birdwatching example shows that thinking in patterns is social. Is there a video game that exemplifies this concept? (I ask this question because I'm struggling to apply it to a video game I've come in contact with.)