Nachlese. Wieder im VDVC-Forum: ‚It’s not a question about what to do with certain „raw data“, but what’s actually the content of this data. How the data was retrieved.
And it’s not a question of form, like putting out meta studies on existing ones, but methods. It’s like someone is questioning nuclear energy and then the same people who, in respect of public interest worked on those „dangers“, are analyzing exactly the one person who’s (still) against it. None other than a supposed to be minority.
Of course this person is articulating more or less ridiculous stances against such science, because the person does not know better. Yet the researchers themselves also do not know better, when they are even not trying to understand the person’s interests and feelings, the emotional sphere that surrounds not only its subject matter, the games, but also the researcher’s empirical efforts.
Otherwhise it’s like in „Gamer’s World“ by Huber: it’s only a certain „reality“ and „truth“ that matters, and „constructivism“ just another accusation. By putting out notions of health and capable bodies that withstand in nature, like Huber at one time was presenting himself on his homepage.
In gear on a mountain. As a strong, muscular, capable body.
One example is the use of „fascination“ in many usage studies. They are always wondering if „violence“ is „dangerous“, by maybe looking into its supposed to be „fascination“. Yet regarding other expression, it’s clearly not.
A more „authentic“ one, in Adorno’s* sense, like Wagner’s „Tristan“ subject for example: there is no science that looks into a matter where, let’s say, there are concerns why the Bayreuth public, like Bavarian Minister-president Seehofer, might have a „fascination for incest“. And if Seehofer would be offended by such studies, about him or perhaps also regarding certain „risk groups“ he may or may not belong to, it’s probably hardly suprising.
The political implications about why these studies are made in the first place, are the ones that should be in question. Why should media not be „harmful“?
What should be the purpose of media that does not stir public concern? The researchers functionalistic world views should be studied and put in question.
*Adorno and his views of „full“, „undamaged“ lives in contradiction to everyone who does not agree to his circle of values and fulfillments is really the unexpected problem at the center of it all, every societal relation: in today’s world, efficiency is really at the heart of many cultural studies too – in spite the fact that those should actually deconstruct notions of reality, they are putting their own constructions – regarding gender, race, sexuality, capabilities and so on – center and front. Even regarding representation itself, easily recognizable when looking at Sarkeesian et al.
Because of that, regarding „use“ and „outcome“, „pro“ and „contra“, a certain „critique“ of things, simple standpoints seem to be the only thing the public understands anymore. Unfortunately, their first and foremost concern is also to question how representation can be more efficient – regardless what exactly, which fulfilled „normality“, they actually want to represent and what diversity their notions of „inclusion“ actually do exclude.‘
Nachtrag bei IDG zu Greg Zeschuck: ‚“Ziel ist es, den Nachwuchs durch entsprechende Mobile-Apps wieder zu Outdoor-Aktivitäten zu animieren.“
Beschäftigt sich die „Games-Branche“ bei ihrer „kritischen“ Haltung, Nützlichkeit und angeblichen Ambition für Vielfalt denn mittlerweile selbst mit dem Herstellen der Schaufeln für ihr eigenes Grab? „Dieser Kommentar wurde ausgeblendet, da er nicht den Kommentar-Richtlinien entspricht.“‚