Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is our class blog. We'll store important links here, important info, and hopefully do some communicating.
About Me
- Hambone
- I have black hair and no tail. I recently lost my right eye while on patrol.
Links
- SLURL to Our Virtual Classroom in SL
- MLA Mini-guide from Purdue University's Online Writing Lab (OWL)
- A Game My Former Student Suggests
- A Horror Game Hambone Plays
- Wiki for Discussion Questions
- Evolution of Essay Structure
- An Example of a New Essay
- Some Visual Rhetoric Terms
- A Collection of Ads with Gender Analysis
14 comments:
I thought the stuff about Oregon Trail being racist and sexist was rediculous. Its a computer game for elementary school kids. It is accurate enough to teach yet fun and simple enough to play the game. If the programmers had included all the stuff about womens thoughts and realities and slavery and all that jazz, the game would take forever to play just because theres sooo much information being presented. It was accurate of a middle class males journey across the west. And if the game were used in a classroom, the teacher would be able to clarify that this is not an exact reality. The game is otherwise very educational and puts players into the mindset of trying to make a cross country trip.
I think that there were certain aspects of the article that contradicted itself, yet it somehow managed to make sense. I also think that we need to think about the limits imposed in making video games at the time. At the time this game was made, it was revolutionary. If it was such cutting-edge technology, is it reasonable to believe that so much more could have been added to make it historically accurate? It seems to me like the author of the article is almost asking for real-life conversations to be held with actual people that traveled the trail. While he wants us to have a historically accurate experience, that is simply not possible through a simulation and technology at the time would only allow a certain amount of complexity in the game. It would have been easier to relate to the article if we were playing the same version of the game as the author, but because the version he's referring to is the same that we played in elementary/middle school, I can recall a lot of what he is referring to. Overall I think that he brings up some good points that would be beneficial in a future version but cannot be critically applied to the version he played simply because of the limitations of gaming.
Dear Lord, I took a whole page of comments I wanted to say about this article. How dare they try to turn my favorite childhood game into an ethical battle field.
First of all, if they're going to condemn this game then they need to condemn the way elementary teachers teach. I don't think children are old enough to understand some of the "harsh realities" of Oregon Trail. That's the same reason teachers teach us that the first Thanksgiving was a happy occasion, and Christopher Columbus is a man to be admired.
Second of all, I played that game...and let me tell you, I never payed attention to the people I could "talk" to. I didn't really care about learning about them and their culture. If I needed to trade, I'd try to trade. If not I continued moving on. I was more concerned with reaching Oregon.
I actually think much of the history is correct. It wouldn't be logical to be able to pick the gender and race of your character. Because, for the most part, it was the White male that made all of the decisions. African Americans wouldn't be heading the caravans. Racial discrimination (as horrible as it is) is a part of our history.
These are just a few of my thoughts...I'll be sharing a lot more in the group discussion!
While some of the points were interesting to read, I don't know if the makers of the game were intentionally being discriminatory when creating the Oregon Trail series. By leaving out minorities from the game (i.e. women, African-Americans), I don't think it means the game is being sexist or racist. What would have been sexist or racist is if the game would have portrayed minorities in a bad way, but instead, they are just not shown at all. Playing Oregon Trail as a kid, I never really though, "wow, I wish I could be a girl" in the game. In fact, it really never crossed my mind. Plus, the game is just that - it's a game. It's not supposed to necessarily be realistic, it's just a fun learning tool. Plus, this game was made how many years ago? Most video games now do correctly represent their various different audiences. There are racing games for boys and fashion design games for girls. Would you call it sexist that there are no male characters in some Barbie computer and video games? No, I didn't think so.
Well I didn't know that the Oregon Trail had so much behind it. I thought it was just a game for middle school children to play to past time. Never thought teachers would try and use it for a teaching substitute. the way that the game is seen, you would never know anything about the race issues with men, women, Indians, rich, poor.
I think that if you are going to tell a story you should tell it all. This is how history get misinterpreted. If you thought that we should know certain parts (good)or how we dislike certain people because of what they have done (bad)I think it's know reason to know it all. to
I saw where he was coming from in the article but I thought that the author was being much to critical of the game. Obviously he has proof to back up his statements but it just seemed like his accusations were a little too much. It seemed as if he would pick out every little thing that was wrong about the game. I realize it is supposed to be a great tool for education and it should be as close to realistic as possible. However, it may have been too hard for the developers to do this or they may not have even realized they were leaving stuff out or it wasn't accurate. It seems to say how the developers were biased because the person can only be a white male and
that the game is centered around you and you don't see other interactions. These are things the developers may have never thought about. While I do agree with most of his arguments and think he has a good point, I think hes much too critical and negative because of it.
At first I thought that the author believed that the Oregon Trail game was being used without any supplemental material, or at least this is how he poses all of his points. He brings up various points throughout the game that are untrue and that are not historically correct. However, when he brings up all of these un-truths I think back to the Disney version of Pocahontas and think that the same things can be said of it. I believe that the game, as with the movie, are to enlighten children of events, show them that these things actually happened. People had trouble staying alive on the Oregon Trail, and it felt great arriving at the end (winning the game, if you will). Determining how much supplies to take, and leaving things behind (however it was only food/wasted bullets in the game). This game gives a glimpse into what happened in the past, but to believe that a video game can solely teach everything about the Oregon Trail/past is insane. Students have to read more than one primary source if they want to get the story about anything in history, everyone has a different point of view and this game is no different. This game is another source, but cannot be considered a sole source, based on the fact that it was written years later and the game works to accomplish far different goals. Programmers would have trouble understanding exactly Oregon Trailers felt and what they went through, that and they are also looking to make a fun game that sells.
I thought the Oregon Trail article was interesting. I know I played Oregon Trail when I was young and I find it a good teaching tool for young kids. I didn't play it as much as some other people, I think I've only played it a few times but I enjoyed it. I don't know about the article itself though because they were acting kind of like the game had just came out yesterday. I mean i don't know when it actually came out but it's been a while. What i got from the author was he didn't think the game was the same thing as the way things actually were back then. That to me is asking a little too much for a simulation meant for little kids, especially because it is so old and the makers of the game did not have access to the kinds of technology we have today. I don't know I just think the author was being too critical of the game.
Truthfully... my initial reaction= "This is a freaking long article... ugh.."
Second reaction.. "This guy is reading so much into this it's annoying." He brought up some true facts I had not really thought too much about while I was actually playing the game. For example: Native Americans are in the game but the creators were very careful not to portray them in the wrong way... they are brought up and talked about when the travelers begin to overhunt, that sort of thing. I also thought it was very interesting that Bigelow brings up the "You-centered" aspect of the game in contrast to the social and giving environment that actually happened while traveling.
At the same time... I was just super annoyed at how critical he was of violence and gender discrimination and everything else under the sun. People should just allow some grace for game creators. Finally we have a somewhat accurate journey in game form and he has to get all anal about it. Maybe I'm just tired of being so critical about video games or something.
I think it is very interesting to hear Bill Bigelow's opinion on the Oregon Trail game. From what i remember of the game, i thought it was a lot of fun and very enjoyable playtime during the school hours. But it seems like Bill took a lot of negative spins on this game because of all the things that the Oregon Trail programmers didn't include in the game that actually happened in real life.
I can understand from his view point that it seems inaccurate with all the things they didn't include, but at the same time would it be absolutely necessary to include all the things about how violent people were and all the things that happened with the Native Americans? The argument i do agree about is the lack of acknowledgment of women and race within the game. I find it very interesting like many other video games we have come across that it is a white male dominated first player game.
Overall i feel as if it wasn't the original intention of the creators to make such a huge bias in the game just to have something that would educate and be enjoyable for the kids without all the actual horrible things that happened on the trail in real life.
I thought that the article was extreme. Though his points were valid, I don't think that students come out of playing the game as ignorant or biased as he makes the reader believe. It is clearly just a games. Also, I don't see why The Oregon Trail was praised as much as it was. With so many choices to make and the appearance of different races, it seems all-inclusive, but it's really so simple and doesn't go in depth about important aspects of hiking the trail. Because the player just goes along, watching his wagon, it seems more like a tutorial that omits certain things. I thought it was interesting that the game assumes the player to be a white male. When I played the game, I didn't buy any bullets because I didn't want to shoot anything, but everyone in my wagon died sooner rather than later from illnesses anyway.
It is very interesting at how they created this user experience from their own perception. I would gather that in order to create a game that would actually be historically accurate, then it would rival most violent games today. I wonder why we don't include the other points of view? Is it too much for the white experience to handle?
Oregon Trail is just a game. Whether or not racist or sexist themes are present, I think it is accidental. It is just meant to make learning a bit more fun and involving, not teach kids some ideology.
Okay, unless kids are spending hour-upon-hour, day-upon-day playing this game, it in itself will not cause children to establish negative cultural bias. Yes, if a ton of such games were used continuously in classrooms, without any change to the demographics and such in the games, then, and only then do I think such game would really damage children. But playing the game, with the intent to learn about certain things (life of men on trail, etc), will not result in much. You can guess that if you surveyed children after playing this game, the points he makes would not have even crossed their minds.
I think he raises very good points that teachers, educators, and future game makers should be aware of. However, I think common sense and using the game in "non-abusive" ways will not allow too much to happen.
In general, however, I think his overall argument is an important one. He is trying to make his audience aware of what COULD happen and what they, as educators can do to prevent harmful effects from educational games.
Post a Comment