Improvements highlighted.
The use of violence in video games is becoming increasingly popular and the thing that's worrying about it - is how the violence can influence people, causing them to become violent themselves.
An example of this is Anders Breivik. He killed teenagers in a camp in Norway dressed as a police man and said that playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and World of Warcraft for over a year, "trained" him to use a gun (X).
Since then and even before this incident, there have been complaints about the game being too graphic about the fact that it's possible for gamers to "learn" how to physically use a gun by playing the game and it's worrying that anyone can do so.
Another example is when 17 year old Warren Leblanc stabbed a 14 year old in February of 2004 (X). He armed himself with a claw hammer and attacked him in the woods. The attack is similar to the structure in a video game, now banned in some countries including New Zealand called Manhunt. In court the father of the victim said "there is some connection between the game and what he has done."
Complaints of this game include people saying there need to be some boundaries when it comes to material like this, and that it isn't something they see as harmless fun - but encouraging brutal killing of people.
These articles in a way do prove that the effects model is more of a fact than an idea because those in the stories have allowed the game to have an affect on them. Whether they played it to pass time because they were bored or because they were obsessed with the game, they still let it influence them and made them behave in a negative way.
All of the stories were linked in someway to a violent video game and I don't think it's a coincidence that they all were violent after playing a violent video game for a certain amount of time, so I do think that the effects model can be considered as a fact.
I think those in the articles reacted in a violent way because they became so obsessed with playing the game and the story lines that they wanted to make it reality. I also blame whoever sold the game as in the case of Warren Leblanc, he was 17 but played a game that was a PEGI 18 so he shouldn't really have been allowed to play it. His parents are partically to blame in my opinion because the would have known the stuff he was playing or even if they bought it for it - he wasn't old enough to play it.
With games that include extensive violence you need to be a mature kind of person because they do contain explicit content and I don't think that these in the stories are because they went out and copied the behaviour in the games.
A lot of people have an opposition to the extent of violence used in video games, some being;
Written by parents, they make it clear that they want to protect their children from seeing the kind of scenes that feature in modern day video games. They feel like they can have a big influence on gamers - especially if they're young and can put dangerous ideas into their heads. They are more against first shooter mode games where you are the one killing people -
"Interactive first-person shooter and assault games raise the greatest alarm. The stream of mass attacks and commando tactics have become too familiar in real life to be dismissed."
Another is by •http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2013/01/17/video-games-ethan-gilsdorf
This website tells us how we have become desensitised to violence in video games. They claim it's so common that we either don't take much notice of how gory something can be or we laugh at it.
They say that parents and the media have made game violence scapegoats for the motive of some murders - including the Sandy Hook massacre - "Parents and media have jumped on video game violence as a possible scapegoat."
The website raises a point that maybe video games are a way for people to let out their aggression in a way that isn't harmful to themselves or others, but is contradictive as this can fuel some people into putting violence they see in Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty etc, into practice.
On the other side of people slamming video games for having negative impacts - good can actually come from them. Some are created purely for education purposes and have positive outcomes, for example games like Big Brain Academy and Mine Craft have been credited for making us have to apply thought and strategy to advance in the same. Also games like Zumba Fitness and Just Dance encourage us to get up and be active and have fun with it.
The Nintendo Wii has been very popular and successful in making games have positive affects on people. It's created a new world of virtual sports and a way for children and teens to play games that don't involve the mass murder of people and it allows them to play against each other and against people all over the world.
I think audiences will have reacted well to the video games that have positive affects because it's a change from the normal shooting people left right and centre and blowing places up. It would have made parents feel more reassured that they can leave their children to play video games as there are some that will teach them something and they aren't making their behaviour deteriorate like some violent video game can.
Parents naturally want to protect their children, especially when they're younger so giving them games like Big Brain Academy will educate and can inform them. They're also having fun playing it so it's also for entertainment purposes so they're still getting all the gratifications out of it.
I'd say I have an oppositional and preferred reading when it comes to video games. In my opinion, I don't think that video games make people violent. Those that have been linked to violent attacks because of video games are part of a minority and we find stories like that so shocking because we don't hear of them very often, so it's very rare.
Just like this story where an 8 year old boy killed his grandma after playing Grand Theft Auto, I think this was more a fault of whoever was looking after him as they let him play the game that has an age certificate of 18.
A report by IGN says that games don't cause harm to children, "A decade-long study of over 11,000 children in the UK has found no association between playing video games from as young as five, and mood or behavioural problems in later life."
I think that you have to be a very vulnerable to let animated violence have an affect on you or you have to be mentally insane.
But on the other hand I do think that some games are quite twisted and I'm not sure on the creators' logic. There's a line between harmless fun and a bit of violence to make it interesting and being brutal with the mass killing of people. An example of this is in Call of Duty, Modern Warfare 2 in the level where you're in the point of view of a gun man in an airport. I thought it was quite disturbing how they included the screams of children throughout it yet they carried on shooting.
I think the effects model does have a small relevance to video games and there is proof of it. The idea of a media product having a "see it, do it" affect and that it influences how we behave is true - from the stories of people killing/injuring others by being "inspired" by the violent content in video games happens but really shouldn't.
It's sad that the effects model relates to society as well, I think audiences should be more active when watching something. Like in the uses and gratifications theory it says that an audience watches something to get a gratification out of it, whether that be for education or entertainment. Either way you're actively choosing to watch something and have a reason for wanting to watch it rather than watching it for the sake of it. I agree with the uses and gratifications model because I don't know anyone who would watch something for no reason, you would watch it to get something out of it - for example to be entertained. I think that audiences do actively choose to watch a programme or play a game which is why I agree with it.
But audiences can be passive, where they just sit and watch something and let it have an influence on them. Although they may not realise it, watching something and hearing other peoples' opinions can often change your own, the idea of being passive relates to being a "couch potato" where you just sit there and pretty much just let the media change your perspective on something.
Video games can make people violent, and there's proof from news reports. There aren't many people though and I don't think it's good at all that in the past decade there are more and more stories about people being violent from playing video games.
However I don't think they should be banned, it's not as simple as that and it will only create more of a demand for them and people will start to sell them illegally. In my opinion I think there should be more restrictions on who can buy violent video games - for example proof of ID when buying 18 rated games so that under age people can't play them. Also even if parents had a closer eye on what their children play as most of those in the articles were underage the games age restriction and those cases could possibly have been prevented had someone known how serious they were about playing them.
Friday 28 February 2014
Friday 14 February 2014
Wednesday 12 February 2014
Oppositional reading to violent video games
Summary
This article is written by parents who are all about protecting their children from extensive use of violence in video games. They believe that violence in the media has influenced others and put ideas into their heads - they use the example of the Sandy Hook shootings where the man already had mental problems but seeing how to virtually use a gun affected him and he went on a shooting spree. This website says that in games where we are the first person shooter are worse and raise the greatest alarm.
Summary
This article is all about keeping violence that is so common in video games, in our imaginations. It says that the media use video game developers as the scapegoats for some gamers being extremely violent in real life and that the adrenaline and excitement we get from playing video games that include violence can be the cause for changes in behaviour after playing. They also mention that violent games are a way for us to let out our aggression and flipping cars over and shooting people isn't a proper or healthy way to do so.
Summary
This article talks about the affects that the violence has on children, it says how they have become passive to it and less sensitive to seeing people being in pain/suffering. It also says how exposure to violence has desensitized us and we no longer find it as shocking, some can even find it humorous in games such as Grand Theft Auto, this is becoming increasingly more common. The article tells us how in an experiment, those observed going into adulthood and had watched violent TV programmes from as young as 8 were more likely to be arrested for criminal acts when an adult due to the stuff they had watched having such an influence on them.
This article is written by parents who are all about protecting their children from extensive use of violence in video games. They believe that violence in the media has influenced others and put ideas into their heads - they use the example of the Sandy Hook shootings where the man already had mental problems but seeing how to virtually use a gun affected him and he went on a shooting spree. This website says that in games where we are the first person shooter are worse and raise the greatest alarm.
Summary
This article is all about keeping violence that is so common in video games, in our imaginations. It says that the media use video game developers as the scapegoats for some gamers being extremely violent in real life and that the adrenaline and excitement we get from playing video games that include violence can be the cause for changes in behaviour after playing. They also mention that violent games are a way for us to let out our aggression and flipping cars over and shooting people isn't a proper or healthy way to do so.
Summary
This article talks about the affects that the violence has on children, it says how they have become passive to it and less sensitive to seeing people being in pain/suffering. It also says how exposure to violence has desensitized us and we no longer find it as shocking, some can even find it humorous in games such as Grand Theft Auto, this is becoming increasingly more common. The article tells us how in an experiment, those observed going into adulthood and had watched violent TV programmes from as young as 8 were more likely to be arrested for criminal acts when an adult due to the stuff they had watched having such an influence on them.
Monday 10 February 2014
Unit 6 Assignment 3 Notes
Why do you play video games?
Because i'm bored and it passes time.
Some people play video games to be competitive and be virtually social, also to get a virtual reality and to have experiences that you can't have in real life. So that you feel accomplished when you complete a level
Brief notes
Assignment is about how video games affect the audience
Need an opinionated article on what we think - use research to have an opinion
Talk about the effects model
First bullet point is a work sheet in class.
List video games that have been linked to violent behaviour, find out some complaints.
Find some oppositional readings - negative opinions from news articles, politicians, parents.
Research about the positive effects of video games - educational ones like brain training .
Explain whether I have a preferred or oppositional reading to video games. (can have both)
Debate about the effects model - if it has relevance to society or video games.
Effects model is a theory (idea) - therefore it can be wrong. The media can affect how the audience behave, the effects model is sometimes called the hypodermic needle/syringe theory as it "injects" you with ideas from the media.
Passive - somethings happens to you, just sat there.
For some people who are vulnerable, they might be more prone to using the violent behaviour seen in video games in real life.
Crime linked to a video game
Video games are good; Call of Duty - helps eyesight, Big Brain Academy - helps your memory, Nintendogs - teaches you how to look after a dog, Wii Fit - gets you up and moving, Starcraft - you have to apply strategy, Super Mario - increases motor skills, Minecraft - you have to apply strategy and thought, Zumba Fitness - it gets you active.
Nintendo Wii - use this in research.
Link all websites used throughout.
Due in 28th Feb.
Negative effects - Call of Duty
- you're being included in a terrorist group
- hear mainly women screaming and they still carry on shooting
- killing innocent people
- showing peoples' corpses
- blood on the screen
- shooting people twice " double tap "
Last violent act I saw
What do you define as a violent act?
Hurting someone - punching, kicking, using guns/knife
Killing someone
Lots of blood
Informative - teaches us something, inform us in some way.
Gratuitous - there for us to enjoy it, there for our entertainment.
Desensitisation - when you stop caring about something. You see that much violence it doesn't bother you anymore.
White House Down
Because i'm bored and it passes time.
Some people play video games to be competitive and be virtually social, also to get a virtual reality and to have experiences that you can't have in real life. So that you feel accomplished when you complete a level
Brief notes
Assignment is about how video games affect the audience
Need an opinionated article on what we think - use research to have an opinion
Talk about the effects model
First bullet point is a work sheet in class.
List video games that have been linked to violent behaviour, find out some complaints.
Find some oppositional readings - negative opinions from news articles, politicians, parents.
Research about the positive effects of video games - educational ones like brain training .
Explain whether I have a preferred or oppositional reading to video games. (can have both)
Debate about the effects model - if it has relevance to society or video games.
Effects model is a theory (idea) - therefore it can be wrong. The media can affect how the audience behave, the effects model is sometimes called the hypodermic needle/syringe theory as it "injects" you with ideas from the media.
Passive - somethings happens to you, just sat there.
For some people who are vulnerable, they might be more prone to using the violent behaviour seen in video games in real life.
Crime linked to a video game
Video games are good; Call of Duty - helps eyesight, Big Brain Academy - helps your memory, Nintendogs - teaches you how to look after a dog, Wii Fit - gets you up and moving, Starcraft - you have to apply strategy, Super Mario - increases motor skills, Minecraft - you have to apply strategy and thought, Zumba Fitness - it gets you active.
Nintendo Wii - use this in research.
Link all websites used throughout.
Due in 28th Feb.
Negative effects - Call of Duty
- you're being included in a terrorist group
- hear mainly women screaming and they still carry on shooting
- killing innocent people
- showing peoples' corpses
- blood on the screen
- shooting people twice " double tap "
Last violent act I saw
What do you define as a violent act?
Hurting someone - punching, kicking, using guns/knife
Killing someone
Lots of blood
Informative - teaches us something, inform us in some way.
Gratuitous - there for us to enjoy it, there for our entertainment.
Desensitisation - when you stop caring about something. You see that much violence it doesn't bother you anymore.
White House Down
Makes us feel entertained, lots of action going on
Shocked because it's blowing up the white house and causing mass destruction
Sunday 9 February 2014
Unit 29, Assignment 2
Lorde - Royals
Style of the video could be narrative with a bit of the surrealist because when you listen to the lyrics they're telling us a story a bit about growing up in a run down place and appreciating the little that she has.
The style of the artist is quite mature considering she's 17, but all her music is a reflection of her personality which is quite imaginative. Her music style is quirky and niche, not many other artists are similar to her which is why she has a big following.
I want the video to be quite simplistic so not too much going on at once as the pace of the song is quite slow, different camera shots to be included close ups and mid shots mainly of the artist throughout the song. Because the song is talking about appreciating what she has I would want to show her where she lives her getting around so the audience can see the meaning behind the song.
Techniques i'll use are using camera shots to tell the story and probably using lyric interpretation so that what is happing in the video relates to the lyrics in the song. Because it could be made in the surrealist style, chroma keying could be used to create the dream like element and this is where I can use the lyric interpretation.
Thursday 6 February 2014
Unit 6, Assignment 2
Improvements are highlighted.
.png)
.png)
I think that focus groups are more useful to the gaming industry because you can get detailed opinions from those who first hand play the game so you know that those who are giving you answers know what they're talking about and you can use their response to back up any point that you have and it will be accurate.
Also answers from focus groups can be used for reviews, it will be helpful for those researching a game before buying to read relevant reviews so they can get an honest feel for the game so they can know whether it's worth the money or not. The feedback can also help promote a game because if you get someone well known - a youtuber or blogger for example to review it, more people will hear about it because of them and if they give a good review they will make others want to buy it so they can help boost sales for a game.
The differences between these websites are that the scoring average dips on metacritic. On the majority of the websites the average is around 8 or 4/5 stars but on Metacritic the average is 4.4 as the reviews aren't very favourable towards Fifa. Game spot is a lot more detailed because it's a website dedicated to games whereas on websites such as Metacritic is focussed on TV, film and music as well so Gamespot is much more reliable for gamers trying to find reviews.
IGN is the most reliable and it's a well known website that is popular so reviews must be good, it targets gamers directly and it has a big following. Expert Reviews was quite a vague website so it isn't as reliable due to the fact the website has to much content.
T3 is probably the least helpful as compared to all the other websites it has the least amount of information for reviewers, I personally wouldn't rely on this website as I think it's all a bit too vague, it's only one opinion and it's more a synopsis of the games rather than what they think about it.
The scores are useful because it can persuade a person to buy the product. If it's been given a really high rating then you're guaranteed for more people to buy it. Another reason they're useful is for the audience to see the pros and cons of the game, if it has any glitches for example then you'd rather read about it before hand than go and buy it and find out later.
People might prefer to look up a game and not have to read paragraphs to get an answer to their question, the average score is quick and easy to understand so having the reviews and score out of 10/the number of stars is more convenient for some people.
Gamer Profile
Fifa 14 has been given an age gate between 3-25 years of age, as Pegi has certificated the game a 3 X, This age bracket would be interested in many sports and action games, 80% of this ave gate have access to digital gaming and media, weeknight viewing is very hight, and this age gate will be more active at the weekend especially when sports are normally held.
Fifa 14 is a very popular game across the globe, but it is a niche, this game targets young male football fans across the globe, and it only targets the target audience that would buy the game, but the game is also a mainstream, the game is very popular as there has been 21 versions of this game and all have been successful with sports fans. Fifa 13 Came out in November 2012 and sold 4.5 million copies of the game in just 5 days. 3 Days after Fifa 13 came out it now holds the record for the most online users online Simultaneously (810,000)
Fifa is designed for a male gender as the game is played by the majority of men. The reason this game is aimed at men is because the game is about football which a modern male sport. The majority of men worldwide either play or watch football so they would like to play it more than women as it is something they enjoy which women wouldn't. Also, all the players in the game are male. https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Because it's usually men who play football they will find games like this interesting and the fact that they're set in major stadiums will add to the excitement of playing for them. It's not to say that women don't play it but the majority of gamers who play are men, it wouldn't appeal to some women because it is male orientated and you would have to have an interest in football to tolerate playing.
The game features well known teams and favourite players so it will appeal to the target audience of males more as they all back a certain team - for example a fan of Manchester City might be more inclined to play if they know that they can "play" for that team and have their favourite players from the squad on their team. Young teenagers, around 13 - 17 will play football and will idolise certain players and aspire to play like them so having big name footballers in the game, like Ronaldo and Messi will make their fans want to play along side them so the younger audience will want to play it.
The psychographics of this game would be explorers, aspirers and reformers as the game targets a younger audience, likes to explore ideas and likes to be challenged. This game offers all these styles as there is no strong language in the game and ca educated young people about football. Each game that Fifa bring out has improvements and new additions so it explores new ideas for fans and the game is all revolved around winning and the player is challenged either by the computer or other people to win a match.
Because teenagers like to be challenged and get into new games, it hits the psychographics because young guys who play football will have a favourite footballer who they want to be like and chances are they will feature in the game somewhere so they get the aspirers. Also because the games involves you going onto new levels and seeing how stuff works - you're getting the explorers as they're playing, seeing how the game works and getting better at it.
On the socio economic scale, those who play this game would be around C2 up to B. Fifa appeals to a wide audience so a range of people will play it, it's priced at around £40 which isn't cheap but you can get 2nd hand copies and other low budget companies will sell it for cheaper which is why i'd say it targets those nearer to the bottom of the scale. I thought it would target those who are around B on the scale because those who have the status of a manager within a company probably would have the money to spend and would have a bit of spare time to play it.
This is an example of how Fifa is targeted at those nearer the bottom of the scale, legitimate companies like Argos sell the game for cheaper, the price depends on the company and console that the game is for, but whether it's 2nd hand or not you're getting a good quality copy of the game for just over half the price so those who can't afford the £40 game can still get it, widening the target audience to people at both ends of the socio economic scale.
Stereotypically, men are more involved with football so the game will appeal more to men. It targets them because their favourite players in real life feature in the game so they can choose them.
Because it's usually men who play football they will find games like this interesting and the fact that they're set in major stadiums will add to the excitement of playing for them. It's not to say that women don't play it but the majority of gamers who play are men, it wouldn't appeal to some women because it is male orientated and you would have to have an interest in football to tolerate playing.
The game features well known teams and favourite players so it will appeal to the target audience of males more as they all back a certain team - for example a fan of Manchester City might be more inclined to play if they know that they can "play" for that team and have their favourite players from the squad on their team. Young teenagers, around 13 - 17 will play football and will idolise certain players and aspire to play like them so having big name footballers in the game, like Ronaldo and Messi will make their fans want to play along side them so the younger audience will want to play it.
The psychographics of this game would be explorers, aspirers and reformers as the game targets a younger audience, likes to explore ideas and likes to be challenged. This game offers all these styles as there is no strong language in the game and ca educated young people about football. Each game that Fifa bring out has improvements and new additions so it explores new ideas for fans and the game is all revolved around winning and the player is challenged either by the computer or other people to win a match.
On the socio economic scale, those who play this game would be around C2 up to B. Fifa appeals to a wide audience so a range of people will play it, it's priced at around £40 which isn't cheap but you can get 2nd hand copies and other low budget companies will sell it for cheaper which is why i'd say it targets those nearer to the bottom of the scale. I thought it would target those who are around B on the scale because those who have the status of a manager within a company probably would have the money to spend and would have a bit of spare time to play it.
Although released at the end of 2013, Fifa was still top of the gaming charts at the end of January according to this website. It sold 28,088 on all formats - Xbox 360, Play Station etc and was well in front of other game such as Call of Duty: Ghosts which sold 18,872 copies.
Bloggers have praised the new addition of Fifa as an improvement from the 2013 version because the game is more realistic and the features are much better. X
I think the best way to describe an audience is by using psychographics, it's useful because the producers of a media product can aim it at a certain group of people and they can be confident that they've done a good job at targeting them because they know what category they fall under and they will know the kind of shows/games they watch/play.
It's also useful for the audience so they know what kind of shows they will like which ones will be for them. For me i'd like to know if a show is recommended for me and if it has a similar structure to other programmes I watch. I think you can only do this by using psychographics - grouping people together and making something that will successfully be aimed at them which is why I think it's the most useful.
Focus Group Sound Recordings
https://soundcloud.com/will-wraylang/matts-recording
https://soundcloud.com/will-wraylang/jacks-recording
https://soundcloud.com/will-wraylang/alexs-recording
https://soundcloud.com/will-wraylang/callums-recording
Summary of our focus group.
From the focus groups I've found that 3 out of the 4 people we asked all owned it and played it for up to 6 hours over a week, one would play it for about an hour or so to fill time and a lot said that one of the main reason they play it is so that they can be compete against their friends and wind them up if they win. 3 out of 4 said that it can be challenging, one said he doesn't take it seriously and it isn't much of a challenge whereas the others said it is and it can be more of one if you're playing against your friends. When it came to "what's the best or worst you've reacted to the game?" they were all along the lines of either taking the mick out of their friends for losing/taking it in their stride or throwing their controller at the wall because they were the ones that lost. 2 that we asked said they don't take winning or losing that seriously and that they don't always play to be competitive. They agreed it was an improvement on older Fifas as the graphics are a lot better and you got a lot more freedom within in the game - you can play by yourself or with your friends. Again 3 out of 4 said that they played it quite often so they couldn't really go more than a week without playing it, one said he could go a few weeks as it isn't his top favourite game. When asked if they would recommend it they all said yes, especially to those who play football/follow it and they gave it around a 6 or 7 out of 10 but most said that it isn't worth £40 as it's quite expensive for what it is. They all agreed that it was the best game to virtually play football and it's the most common footballing game that people play.
The negatives of our focus groups were that we got a lot of the same answers, we could have possibly found a girl who plays Fifa and spoke to her as the majority of players are male and we could have seen if her opinion was different. We asked a good amount of questions but if I could do it again i'd maybe change them a bit to get more structured answers as some were quite short and they used the same answer for different questions as they were quite similar.
To me, a typical gamer is aged anywhere from 13 up to mid 20s, a lot of teenagers don't have jobs so they have the time to stay at home and play video games like this. When I think of a gamer I mainly think of males as males on average play more, a lot of women do play it and there actually isn't a big difference in the percentage. I think they would have to have a bit of money to buy the games/console or they would be very dependant on family to buy it for them. Most gamers in my opinion will have a fairly active or a lazy life style, they either sit and play all day or will play for a bit but still have a social life so I think a gamer could be any of the two. The majority do play it to be competitive with their friends or just to pass the time and this is something that I found to be true in the focus groups.
A lot of people stereotypically think a typical gamer is someone who is obese and has acne which I found out on this website. It also says that typically, gamers tend to be minors as violence appeals more to younger people and they have more time to play it and it's becoming more common now for families to play together on consoles like xbox and Wii. It says that within gaming there are names you get depending on how long you play for/how good you are at it. Those being; casual gamer - those who play every now and again, don't get too into it and are decent players. Hardcore gamers - who take it more seriously, devote more time to playing so quite a lot of hours in the day. Finally, Pro gamers - who know the ins and outs of games and play through the night and top of the leaderboards.
This wesbite's statistics surprised me as it says that in a survey in New Zealand 47% of gamers are female as I would associate gaming more with males. The website is saying that a lot of people are now only playing games to fill time, for example on the train/bus to work on their smartphone or tablets so if you think you fall under the category of a typical gamer, you might not because the idea of one is changing. I wouldn't think that games can be used to educate people, that's it's more for fun or to pass time - but 92% of adults who play video games actually use them to educate their children. This also tells us how from 2011 to 2012 they have seen a growth in the amount of people who play internet gaming, which I don't find surprising as now more and more people are using their phones for everything.
Individual Write Up
In my opinion, qualitative data is more useful to those in the gaming industry. I think this because before I go to buy a game, I will read reviews to see if it's worth the money and if it's any good, which is what other people will do so that they don't end up wasting their money. Also because when you do focus groups and you get all the feedback, I think it's a lot more reliable because you will get mixed opinions rather than an average of numbers. Personally I'd trust someone's opinion or review more than a rating out of 10 because I don't think it's very accurate and it's vague whereas qualitative information has much more detail.
The focus groups were more valuable to me because I found out the research myself and I knew that the feedback I was getting was true and related to my work. Audience profiling is more general and I think the grouping is very stereotypical, focus groups are a better way for me to back up my arguments but with audience profiling it wasn't as relevant.
Bloggers have praised the new addition of Fifa as an improvement from the 2013 version because the game is more realistic and the features are much better. X
I think the best way to describe an audience is by using psychographics, it's useful because the producers of a media product can aim it at a certain group of people and they can be confident that they've done a good job at targeting them because they know what category they fall under and they will know the kind of shows/games they watch/play.
It's also useful for the audience so they know what kind of shows they will like which ones will be for them. For me i'd like to know if a show is recommended for me and if it has a similar structure to other programmes I watch. I think you can only do this by using psychographics - grouping people together and making something that will successfully be aimed at them which is why I think it's the most useful.
Focus Group Sound Recordings
https://soundcloud.com/will-wraylang/matts-recording
https://soundcloud.com/will-wraylang/jacks-recording
https://soundcloud.com/will-wraylang/alexs-recording
https://soundcloud.com/will-wraylang/callums-recording
Summary of our focus group.
From the focus groups I've found that 3 out of the 4 people we asked all owned it and played it for up to 6 hours over a week, one would play it for about an hour or so to fill time and a lot said that one of the main reason they play it is so that they can be compete against their friends and wind them up if they win. 3 out of 4 said that it can be challenging, one said he doesn't take it seriously and it isn't much of a challenge whereas the others said it is and it can be more of one if you're playing against your friends. When it came to "what's the best or worst you've reacted to the game?" they were all along the lines of either taking the mick out of their friends for losing/taking it in their stride or throwing their controller at the wall because they were the ones that lost. 2 that we asked said they don't take winning or losing that seriously and that they don't always play to be competitive. They agreed it was an improvement on older Fifas as the graphics are a lot better and you got a lot more freedom within in the game - you can play by yourself or with your friends. Again 3 out of 4 said that they played it quite often so they couldn't really go more than a week without playing it, one said he could go a few weeks as it isn't his top favourite game. When asked if they would recommend it they all said yes, especially to those who play football/follow it and they gave it around a 6 or 7 out of 10 but most said that it isn't worth £40 as it's quite expensive for what it is. They all agreed that it was the best game to virtually play football and it's the most common footballing game that people play.
The negatives of our focus groups were that we got a lot of the same answers, we could have possibly found a girl who plays Fifa and spoke to her as the majority of players are male and we could have seen if her opinion was different. We asked a good amount of questions but if I could do it again i'd maybe change them a bit to get more structured answers as some were quite short and they used the same answer for different questions as they were quite similar.
To me, a typical gamer is aged anywhere from 13 up to mid 20s, a lot of teenagers don't have jobs so they have the time to stay at home and play video games like this. When I think of a gamer I mainly think of males as males on average play more, a lot of women do play it and there actually isn't a big difference in the percentage. I think they would have to have a bit of money to buy the games/console or they would be very dependant on family to buy it for them. Most gamers in my opinion will have a fairly active or a lazy life style, they either sit and play all day or will play for a bit but still have a social life so I think a gamer could be any of the two. The majority do play it to be competitive with their friends or just to pass the time and this is something that I found to be true in the focus groups.
A lot of people stereotypically think a typical gamer is someone who is obese and has acne which I found out on this website. It also says that typically, gamers tend to be minors as violence appeals more to younger people and they have more time to play it and it's becoming more common now for families to play together on consoles like xbox and Wii. It says that within gaming there are names you get depending on how long you play for/how good you are at it. Those being; casual gamer - those who play every now and again, don't get too into it and are decent players. Hardcore gamers - who take it more seriously, devote more time to playing so quite a lot of hours in the day. Finally, Pro gamers - who know the ins and outs of games and play through the night and top of the leaderboards.
This wesbite's statistics surprised me as it says that in a survey in New Zealand 47% of gamers are female as I would associate gaming more with males. The website is saying that a lot of people are now only playing games to fill time, for example on the train/bus to work on their smartphone or tablets so if you think you fall under the category of a typical gamer, you might not because the idea of one is changing. I wouldn't think that games can be used to educate people, that's it's more for fun or to pass time - but 92% of adults who play video games actually use them to educate their children. This also tells us how from 2011 to 2012 they have seen a growth in the amount of people who play internet gaming, which I don't find surprising as now more and more people are using their phones for everything.
Individual Write Up
In my opinion, qualitative data is more useful to those in the gaming industry. I think this because before I go to buy a game, I will read reviews to see if it's worth the money and if it's any good, which is what other people will do so that they don't end up wasting their money. Also because when you do focus groups and you get all the feedback, I think it's a lot more reliable because you will get mixed opinions rather than an average of numbers. Personally I'd trust someone's opinion or review more than a rating out of 10 because I don't think it's very accurate and it's vague whereas qualitative information has much more detail.
The focus groups were more valuable to me because I found out the research myself and I knew that the feedback I was getting was true and related to my work. Audience profiling is more general and I think the grouping is very stereotypical, focus groups are a better way for me to back up my arguments but with audience profiling it wasn't as relevant.
I think that focus groups are more useful to the gaming industry because you can get detailed opinions from those who first hand play the game so you know that those who are giving you answers know what they're talking about and you can use their response to back up any point that you have and it will be accurate.
Also answers from focus groups can be used for reviews, it will be helpful for those researching a game before buying to read relevant reviews so they can get an honest feel for the game so they can know whether it's worth the money or not. The feedback can also help promote a game because if you get someone well known - a youtuber or blogger for example to review it, more people will hear about it because of them and if they give a good review they will make others want to buy it so they can help boost sales for a game.
Wednesday 5 February 2014
Unit 6 Assignment 2
Our group decided to use the 2014 Fifa, it's a football associated video game developed by EA Canada and published by EA Sports. It's available on Play Station, 2, 3, 4 and Play Station portable/vita as well as Xbox 360, Wii, Nintendo 3DS and Microsoft windows.
Megacritic
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fifa-14
This website was reliable because it's one of the main wesbites that gamers go to for reviews. It's quite well known and for it to be so popular, it must be good and give accurate reviews. The website is useful because it isn't just for gamers, it accommodates for those looking for movie, TV and music reviews so it doesn't just stick to one topic.
IGN
http://uk.ign.com/games/fifa-soccer-14/xbox-360-166236
IGN again is a favourite because at the the top you can search for things by the console - Xbox 360, Play Station etc so you can search thoroughly and find what you're looking for easy. It's a reliable website because along with the ratings, you can read peoples' reviews so you know what you're reading is legitimate and you get a mixture of opinions.
Game Spot
http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/fifa-2014-review/1900-6415568/
Game spot is a reliable website because it is specifically a gaming website so everything on it is dedicated to reviewing games and there's even an option to talk to other people on the website on the "community" tab so you know that the people who give reviews and who use the website know what they're talking about when they give opinions of games.
The scores are useful because it means that you get a lot of mixed opinions. Everyones individual scores make an average for the rate that we see out of 10. Also because judging at scoring you can decide whether or not a game is worth buying, for example if the game had an overall rating of 3/10, chances are it won't be good and not worth the money whereas on the IGN website it had a score of 9.2 and the word "amazing" which would make you want to consider buying it so the scoring can increase sales.
Megacritic
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fifa-14
This website was reliable because it's one of the main wesbites that gamers go to for reviews. It's quite well known and for it to be so popular, it must be good and give accurate reviews. The website is useful because it isn't just for gamers, it accommodates for those looking for movie, TV and music reviews so it doesn't just stick to one topic.
IGN
http://uk.ign.com/games/fifa-soccer-14/xbox-360-166236
IGN again is a favourite because at the the top you can search for things by the console - Xbox 360, Play Station etc so you can search thoroughly and find what you're looking for easy. It's a reliable website because along with the ratings, you can read peoples' reviews so you know what you're reading is legitimate and you get a mixture of opinions.
Game Spot
http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/fifa-2014-review/1900-6415568/
Game spot is a reliable website because it is specifically a gaming website so everything on it is dedicated to reviewing games and there's even an option to talk to other people on the website on the "community" tab so you know that the people who give reviews and who use the website know what they're talking about when they give opinions of games.
The scores are useful because it means that you get a lot of mixed opinions. Everyones individual scores make an average for the rate that we see out of 10. Also because judging at scoring you can decide whether or not a game is worth buying, for example if the game had an overall rating of 3/10, chances are it won't be good and not worth the money whereas on the IGN website it had a score of 9.2 and the word "amazing" which would make you want to consider buying it so the scoring can increase sales.
Monday 3 February 2014
Assignment 2
Quantitative - sales figures
Industry sources - IGN, game informer, metacritic
Gamer profile - who are they? Age, gender, socio economic ranking (find out what the scale is), psychographics - niche = small / select group. Research. Prove it.
Industry sources - IGN, game informer, metacritic
Gamer profile - who are they? Age, gender, socio economic ranking (find out what the scale is), psychographics - niche = small / select group. Research. Prove it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)