a. My final thesis |||| Video games have changed the world for the better, allowing players to meet new people and do activities they would never be able to do, some extremely controversial, thus creating an entire economic system inside and outside of the game.
b. the necessary steps in your arguments |||| I will first have to identify video games so the reader can relate as to why they are selling so well. The fact that games like Grand Theft Auto are selling so well is the other topic for controversy. Why the media yearns for such games is also a topic for discussion.
c. the type of sources you are looking at |||| Books and the such. Mostly sources that have to do with the benefits of video games on society and the economy.
d. My favorite source is the article by Madison, Mike. entitled "Are video games good for you?" when he makes a comparison with videogames to books regarding WHEN they were released. If games had come out first, BOOKS would be the ones with all of the criticism and controversy around them.
e. one interesting fact or thing you learned about your topic: |||| The game Halo 2 sold 2.4 million copies and earned up to 125 million US dollars in its first 24 hours on store shelves, thus out-grossing the film Pirates of the Carribean as the highest grossing release in entertainment history.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Friday, November 2, 2007
Intensity = Research
Focus/Final Topic: The ultimate effect of video games on all facets of society; the media, the masses and the economy.
Thesis 1: Video games have changed the world for the better, allowing people to do activities they would never be able to do, meet new people and has even created an entire economy system.
(Other side of the spectrum)
Thesis 2: Video games are the cause of what is wrong in this world due to the violence portrayed, corruption in China involving sweatshop-based videogaming and the cause of obesity in children.
(Crazy)
Thesis 3: Japan is trying to take over America by causing our children to become fat and lazy through videogames so we don't really have an army to defend ourselves.
Thesis 1: Video games have changed the world for the better, allowing people to do activities they would never be able to do, meet new people and has even created an entire economy system.
(Other side of the spectrum)
Thesis 2: Video games are the cause of what is wrong in this world due to the violence portrayed, corruption in China involving sweatshop-based videogaming and the cause of obesity in children.
(Crazy)
Thesis 3: Japan is trying to take over America by causing our children to become fat and lazy through videogames so we don't really have an army to defend ourselves.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Reality TV! Huzzah!
1. TWO HOURS REMAINING ACK! ACK ACK ACK!
So yeah, Reality TV is wonderful, it gives good insight on other peoples lives, experiments and social outcroppings that could not readily be available to the general public. It's fun to watch and see when drama occurs because of a problem that arises or when someone does something stupid, causing arguments. This brings me to the formal part of the Blog.
2. Reality TV is a genre of television that people are meant to enjoy, learn form or relate personal experiences with. If a television show has no appeal to an audience of some sort, then that program will surely fail and be canceled. Survivor has lasted this long because of the conflicts that the media enjoys witnessing. When a fight or argument breaks out, we love when fists fly. It is human nature to take pleasure in the pain of others, whether you want to believe it or not.
Shows like Survivorman and Man Vs. Wild show how to survive in given parts of the world, having to feed off of grubs, fish and off the fruit of the land. Wikipedia even states through cited sources that Bear Grylls (host of Man Vs. Wild) did in fact have some help in certain episodes, that it was in fact, not entirely reality. Producers may have had to step in at certain points to stop bear from dying in the arctic or in the wilderness.
Hogan Knows Best wouldnt be as great a show if Nick hadn't been the hothead he is, running off with his incredibly expensive car, causing drama. Brooke's singing career also builds off of how humanity likes seeing people better than them, in hopes to achieve such a goal. Who is to say that producers didn't tell Nick to run off, or to suggest Brooke start a singing career?
However, the most ludicrous show I have ever seen has to be the MTV dating show "Next"
For anyone who has watched this show, this is the epitome of stupidity. I have never seen worse acting in my life. Nobody talks the way the kids on this show do, it's all a huge fake ploy to bring teenagers in with terrible one-liner jokes and hot looking girls/boys. If you watch this show, the evidence of tampering is completely evident, and the urge to kill yourself will rise one notch per episode.
So yeah, Reality TV is wonderful, it gives good insight on other peoples lives, experiments and social outcroppings that could not readily be available to the general public. It's fun to watch and see when drama occurs because of a problem that arises or when someone does something stupid, causing arguments. This brings me to the formal part of the Blog.
2. Reality TV is a genre of television that people are meant to enjoy, learn form or relate personal experiences with. If a television show has no appeal to an audience of some sort, then that program will surely fail and be canceled. Survivor has lasted this long because of the conflicts that the media enjoys witnessing. When a fight or argument breaks out, we love when fists fly. It is human nature to take pleasure in the pain of others, whether you want to believe it or not.
Shows like Survivorman and Man Vs. Wild show how to survive in given parts of the world, having to feed off of grubs, fish and off the fruit of the land. Wikipedia even states through cited sources that Bear Grylls (host of Man Vs. Wild) did in fact have some help in certain episodes, that it was in fact, not entirely reality. Producers may have had to step in at certain points to stop bear from dying in the arctic or in the wilderness.
Hogan Knows Best wouldnt be as great a show if Nick hadn't been the hothead he is, running off with his incredibly expensive car, causing drama. Brooke's singing career also builds off of how humanity likes seeing people better than them, in hopes to achieve such a goal. Who is to say that producers didn't tell Nick to run off, or to suggest Brooke start a singing career?
However, the most ludicrous show I have ever seen has to be the MTV dating show "Next"
For anyone who has watched this show, this is the epitome of stupidity. I have never seen worse acting in my life. Nobody talks the way the kids on this show do, it's all a huge fake ploy to bring teenagers in with terrible one-liner jokes and hot looking girls/boys. If you watch this show, the evidence of tampering is completely evident, and the urge to kill yourself will rise one notch per episode.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Taking Charge / GOING MY WAY
1. I fear that speaking about the subject of my taking charge assignment may blow my cover as anonymous. If you know me in real life, and know what I like and dislike (more along the lines of what i like), you should know who I am. If you do discover who I am, please don't tell anyone.
(=3)
2. It's a pretty general topic, one that has been going on for around three decades now, after the technological revolution. I'm talking about the video game revolution, of course, and the controversy around video games released in the 90's and 00's like Wolfenstein 3-D, Doom and Grand Theft Auto. The basic problem with how videogames are viewed today are that they are the cause of violence in school systems, school shootings and general society. Unfortunately, for the naysayers like Jack Thompson, an attorney that is extremely anti-videogame, there is no proof as to these allegations. People arguing for the claim that videogames are the cause of school shootings cite Columbine and the two children involved in the incident, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who both played the DOOM series frequently. Even more try to show that they made a custom level that pertained to their school, which has been proved to be untrue, as shown on this website, showing all levels that Harris created before the massacre
http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/doom.asp
Nonetheless, just because a game is violent does not give the reason to create a sweeping generalization about all video games. Some games are incredibly pacifistic, like Super Mario Bros. or Pokemon, enjoyable by all ages. Video games like Manhunt, or Grand Theft Auto are labeled M (for Mature) because developers assume those who play the games are mature enough not to take the game for a reality-based situation. Those who DO go on shootings that have some sort of video-game related past should not first have the assumption that video games caused what they did. After the Virginia Tech shooting, the first question toward the shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, that I heard on the news was to whether or not the person in question played video games. This was later proved untrue, but shows exactly what kind of mentality people have about a simple electronic toy; video games.
(=3)
2. It's a pretty general topic, one that has been going on for around three decades now, after the technological revolution. I'm talking about the video game revolution, of course, and the controversy around video games released in the 90's and 00's like Wolfenstein 3-D, Doom and Grand Theft Auto. The basic problem with how videogames are viewed today are that they are the cause of violence in school systems, school shootings and general society. Unfortunately, for the naysayers like Jack Thompson, an attorney that is extremely anti-videogame, there is no proof as to these allegations. People arguing for the claim that videogames are the cause of school shootings cite Columbine and the two children involved in the incident, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who both played the DOOM series frequently. Even more try to show that they made a custom level that pertained to their school, which has been proved to be untrue, as shown on this website, showing all levels that Harris created before the massacre
http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/doom.asp
Nonetheless, just because a game is violent does not give the reason to create a sweeping generalization about all video games. Some games are incredibly pacifistic, like Super Mario Bros. or Pokemon, enjoyable by all ages. Video games like Manhunt, or Grand Theft Auto are labeled M (for Mature) because developers assume those who play the games are mature enough not to take the game for a reality-based situation. Those who DO go on shootings that have some sort of video-game related past should not first have the assumption that video games caused what they did. After the Virginia Tech shooting, the first question toward the shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, that I heard on the news was to whether or not the person in question played video games. This was later proved untrue, but shows exactly what kind of mentality people have about a simple electronic toy; video games.
Cutting Close Redux
Again, the blog is due in less that 5 hours.
Man I need to stop procrastinating like this.
I don't even have time for lunch now, class in in 3 hours.
I read other peoples blogs and they haven't updated yet either.
This should be interesting.
Man I need to stop procrastinating like this.
I don't even have time for lunch now, class in in 3 hours.
I read other peoples blogs and they haven't updated yet either.
This should be interesting.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
ddoouubbllee lleetttteerrss
If anyone sees double letterss, like what happened in the word "letters", it's because of the new keyboard I have. The keys are membrane sensitive, so if I don't press down hard enough, it counts each letter twice, one for the push down and one for the pop-up. I will use spell check, but I may miss a few letters if I'm laazy. I dooubt thaat will happen, howwever.
Transparency Begets Trust in the Ever Expanding Blogosphere
Part1:
Dear God what have I gotten myself into. To begin I must give a disclaimer. I am completely cross as to the way that I explain myself in part 1. The ability to be random will show itself to great extent, whether you want it to or not. I tend not to curse. Hooray. (=3)
->Basically what my article, named in the title above, is about how blogs are becoming more of a common "interest" then those of actual brand-name news websites, such as the New York and Los Angeles Times. I believe that this is entirely true, however, due to the nature of the assignment I have been given, I must instead find some small part of it to argue, whether or not it is entirely a very large portion of the mentioned article. I plan to do so (argue) with what seems to be some pretty basic point-outs that may actually have a very large impact. We'll see.
Part 2:
When a person looks at a blog, they see an area where information has been posted and/or published. This information may or may not be true. Say the Blog poster has not taken the time to cite his sources or give any background information. There could be many reasons as to why he/she has not. If the blog poster was an eyewitness to a murder or even that happened not but a few minutes ago, then obviously, citing sources would be impossible. However, if the poster simply did not cite sources to an event that happened around a month ago, who is not to say the person reading the post can't do a small amount of research himself? If a blog post looks fishy, as if it may be fake, the first thing to logically do is to make sure it isn't, through personal research.
J.D. Lascia also wrote in his/her article "Why do many readers find bloggers more believable than mainstream news organizations?" I believe the reason for this is because blog posts are from normal people, like most of the population. Therefore, the masses feel a sort of relation to the poster, understanding what they have to say, and thus accepting what they have to say for granted. Of course, if the blog is completely incapable of being read, using words in "leetspeek"or a failure of capitalization and punctuation, one can assume that the post itself is not to be trusted. After all, how is *my* post to be trusted more than anybody else's?
Dear God what have I gotten myself into. To begin I must give a disclaimer. I am completely cross as to the way that I explain myself in part 1. The ability to be random will show itself to great extent, whether you want it to or not. I tend not to curse. Hooray. (=3)
->Basically what my article, named in the title above, is about how blogs are becoming more of a common "interest" then those of actual brand-name news websites, such as the New York and Los Angeles Times. I believe that this is entirely true, however, due to the nature of the assignment I have been given, I must instead find some small part of it to argue, whether or not it is entirely a very large portion of the mentioned article. I plan to do so (argue) with what seems to be some pretty basic point-outs that may actually have a very large impact. We'll see.
Part 2:
When a person looks at a blog, they see an area where information has been posted and/or published. This information may or may not be true. Say the Blog poster has not taken the time to cite his sources or give any background information. There could be many reasons as to why he/she has not. If the blog poster was an eyewitness to a murder or even that happened not but a few minutes ago, then obviously, citing sources would be impossible. However, if the poster simply did not cite sources to an event that happened around a month ago, who is not to say the person reading the post can't do a small amount of research himself? If a blog post looks fishy, as if it may be fake, the first thing to logically do is to make sure it isn't, through personal research.
J.D. Lascia also wrote in his/her article "Why do many readers find bloggers more believable than mainstream news organizations?" I believe the reason for this is because blog posts are from normal people, like most of the population. Therefore, the masses feel a sort of relation to the poster, understanding what they have to say, and thus accepting what they have to say for granted. Of course, if the blog is completely incapable of being read, using words in "leetspeek"or a failure of capitalization and punctuation, one can assume that the post itself is not to be trusted. After all, how is *my* post to be trusted more than anybody else's?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
