The general subject I will be researching in Projects 2 and 3 is video games. I have spent considerable time playing video games, and I am enthusiastic about understanding the medium’s wider significance from a thorough, academic perspective instead of simply a personal one. Video games are underappreciated as cultural and rhetorical texts, and I think there is great merit in investigating topics that have been dismissed as lowbrow or frivolous. I am specifically interested in the Metal Gear franchise, a highly influential and critically acclaimed series which combines genre-pioneering stealth gameplay with elaborate, over-the-top narrative and surprisingly complex, frequently self-aware rhetorical arguments. In my research, I am asking how the Metal Gear franchise both participates in and challenges the United States’s digital military-entertainment complex. There are three questions that arise from this line of inquiry: what arguments does Metal Gear make about the intersection of digital information and the military-entertainment complex, how does it convey/present these arguments, and what are the impacts and wider implications of these arguments? Metal Gear heavily explores its own connections to the military-entertainment complex, which is a focus of much of the existing literature surrounding the series and a clear place to start research on the series’ wider implications. However, it also engages with other topics, which in some cases intersect with sources from the class course reader. One antagonist monologues about memes (using the original meaning, i.e. a unit of culture that spreads between people) spreading hateful ideologies, which brought to mind Mark Fisher’s article “From memes to race war: How extremists use popular culture to lure recruits.” Additionally, the ending of Metal Gear Solid 2 involves an AI embodiment of American morality attempting to control human thought and behavior by censoring huge swathes of digital information (especially the internet) in order to prevent a future where “[everyone] withdraws into their own small gated community, afraid of a larger forum” and “stay[s] inside their little ponds, leaking whatever "truth" suits them into the growing cesspool of society at large.” The game came out in 2001, yet its words are eerily similar to Phillips and Milner’s concept of “information silos” (3) in You Are Here. My working thesis is that Metal Gear exists in liminal tension with the digital military-entertainment complex, not fully breaking away yet still challenging and subverting it with techniques like breaking the fourth wall. In their book The Military-Entertainment Complex, Lenoir and Caldwell describe characteristic traits of games within the military-entertainment complex, many of which Metal Gear reverses or subverts. For example, Lenoir and Caldwell say narrative in military genre games is limited and exists mainly as a vehicle to the next adrenaline rush, which leaves no room to question wider implications (33); Metal Gear, by contrast, is (in)famous for lengthy cutscenes and dialogue, and the unveiling and interrogation of wider implications is often central to the games’ plots. However, it still features (mostly) heroic, usually military-affiliated protagonists whose primary method of interacting with the world is the ever-present paradigm of violence. As much as the series heavily and overtly criticizes the game industry’s relationship with the military-entertainment complex, this criticism is complicated by its active participation in that relationship, however subversive it aims to be. This makes it an interesting point of study. [Add Stamenković et al. analysis?] I will begin by introducing the military-entertainment complex, providing a short overview of its history to build context on its relationship with the video game industry. I will then examine Metal Gear within this context and analyze specific persuasive techniques it uses to make statements about its position within the increasingly digital military-entertainment complex, drawing on both broad sources (e.g. Lenoir and Caldwell) and more specific case studies (e.g. Higgin, Stamenković et al.). From this analysis, I will draw conclusions about the series’ rhetorical goals and how effectively it achieves them, which I can then connect to wider implications. My audience for this paper is primarily academic, particularly within the still-coalescing field of video game scholarship. I would also like this work to be reasonably accessible for people who are interested in video games and want to consume them more critically. I will use the historical lens in my paper to provide context about the military-entertainment complex and how it has changed with the rise of digital information. I am also broadly using Metal Gear as a case study for subversive games within the military-entertainment complex; I will likely draw most heavily on Metal Gear Solid 2 because there is a reasonable body of relevant research centered around it. Additionally, I may use Spec Ops: The Line as a point of comparison, as it is the other prominent example of a wargame challenging the military-entertainment complex. Works Cited Higgin, Tanner. “'Turn the Game Console off Right Now!': War, Subjectivity, and Control in Metal Gear Solid 2." Joystick Soldiers: The Politics of Play in Military Video Games, 2009. RedEnvelopeMedia. “Memes The DNA Of The Soul.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TDC9s-Kt-8. Accessed 21 October 2022. Stamenković, Dušan et al.. "The persuasive aims of Metal Gear Solid: A discourse theoretical approach to the study of argumentation in video games." Discourse, Context & Media, Volume 15, 2017, Pages 11-23, ISSN 2211-6958, doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2016.12.002. Lenoir, Tim and Caldwell, Luke. The Military-Entertainment Complex. Harvard University Press, 2018. Annotated Bibliography Higgin, Tanner. “'Turn the Game Console off Right Now!': War, Subjectivity, and Control in Metal Gear Solid 2." Joystick Soldiers: The Politics of Play in Military Video Games, 2009. Who: From https://www.tannerhiggin.com/: “I have a PhD from the University of California, Riverside. While my degree is from an English department, my work primarily resides in media studies with a focus on cultural theory. My dissertation, Gamic Race: Logics of Difference in Videogame Culture, was one of the first book length theoretical explorations of race in videogames. I’m currently Editorial Director, Learning Content at Common Sense Education, a non-profit that reaches one million educators every month.” What’s going on here (summary, analysis and critique of arguments): This article draws on a wide range of topics, including biomedia and posthumanism, to analyze the central persuasive goals of Metal Gear Solid 2 with a focus on purposeful manipulation/deception of the player. Relevance to research: Higgin explicitly acknowledges the complexity of Metal Gear’s position within and yet critical of the military-entertainment complex, which is a key area I am investigating with my research. It also delves deep into the theories underlying MGS2’s arguments about war and the manipulation of digital information—again, two key areas of my research. It also discusses many of the most thematically and rhetorically significant scenes of the game, which helps narrow my focus. This is a fantastic source. Connections: Higgin is directly analyzing Metal Gear Solid 2, which is a straightforward connection. I believe Higgin would disagree with Lenoir and Caldwell’s characterization of Metal Gear, although there is certainly some validity to their claim. I can also compare the analysis techniques and findings with those of Stamencović et al. since both texts performed analysis of a specific Metal Gear Solid game. Kojima, Hideo. Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty. Konami Digital Entertainment Co. Ltd, 2001. Who: Hideo Kojima is widely known within the video game industry as a writer, director, producer, and game designer. He is best known for the Metal Gear Solid series (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hideo_Kojima). The game was published by Konami, an entertainment conglomerate based in Japan that both develops and publishes video games. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konami#Konami_Digital_Entertainment). What’s going on here (summary, analysis and critique of arguments): The second Metal Gear Solid game. It addresses themes such as genetics, censorship, gamified military training, and how the internet breaks the shared understanding of truth within a society. Relevance to research: This game deals heavily in ideas about technology and information, such as how the overwhelming amount of information made accessible by the internet changes creates ruptures in a shared concept of truth and what it means to be human—which fit well with this class’ themes and are interesting to investigate. It also criticizes the military-entertainment complex extremely directly. The player character Raiden is a military operative who trained in VR, and the plot of the game involved him being manipulated into both doing soldier stuff and becoming a more effective soldier for the benefit of various factions, most notably the AI embodiment of the force behind the US government. As the game continues, characters break the fourth wall more and more frequently to intentionally blur the line between Raiden and the player, implying that the player is also being manipulated (particularly in the direction of the military). Connections: As part of the game series I am researching, MGS2 has connections in some form to every other source. The most relevant is Higgin, which is an analysis of its manipulation of digital information and thus has a lot of useful insights. Its ideas about how the mass of information on the internet creates different perceptions of “truth” are also extremely similar to what Phillips and Milner describe in You Are Here as “information silos” (4)—and the predictions about how controlling the flow of that information could influence people and societies, as Phillips and Milner also discuss, were eerily accurate for a game that came out in 2001. Lenoir, Tim and Caldwell, Luke. The Military-Entertainment Complex. Harvard University Press, 2018. Who: From end flap of book: “Tim Lenoir is Distinguished Professor in the Department of Cinema and Digital Media and Science and Technology Studies at the University of California, Davis. “Luke Caldwell is a Ph.D. candidate in the Program in Literature and Media Arts + Sciences at Duke University.” What’s going on here (summary, analysis and critique of arguments): This book is a broad overview of the military-entertainment complex that focuses on the relationship, both direct and indirect, between the games industry and the US military, and how this relationship is heavily intertwined with the advance of technology in the digital age. It includes a considerable amount of historical context. With a focus on “franchise wargames” like Call of Duty and Battlefield, Lenoir and Caldwell examine how games contribute to (and in some ways benefit from) normalizing a specific kind of modern American warfare. Relevance to research: This book is invaluable as an assessment of the wider context in which Metal Gear resides: the military-entertainment complex of the 21st century. It also identifies many aspects of games that conform to the military-entertainment complex, which is useful to assess those aspects’ presence or absence in Metal Gear. It makes only passing mention of Metal Gear; its main analysis of the game is that, while it does offer nuanced criticism of the m-e complex, “[it contains] plots so lengthy and convoluted that their effect is limited to hardcore audiences” (232). This is not an unreasonable claim, but I would argue the issue is considerably more nuanced. Connections: Several of my other sources with research specifically on Metal Gear disagree with Lenoir and Caldwell’s characterization of the series as too confusing to create widespread impact (see Higgin, Stamencović et al.), and while—as evidenced by my chosen subject of research—I generally agree with these other sources, I also think Lenoir and Caldwell’s criticism is reasonable. This creates an interesting site of nuanced conversation between several sources. SourceSpy91. “Metal Gear Solid 2 - Normal Difficulty Walkthrough - No Commentary.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qsHbwpvHcA. Accessed 14 October 2022.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TDC9s-Kt-8. Accessed 21 October 2022. Who: Youtuber who posts playthroughs of games. What’s going on here (summary, analysis and critique of arguments): Full playthrough of Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty. Does not 100% the game (i.e., does not finish all content, just the main storyline). Relevance to research: see Kojima. Connections: see Kojima. Stamenković, Dušan et al.. "The persuasive aims of Metal Gear Solid: A discourse theoretical approach to the study of argumentation in video games." Discourse, Context & Media, Volume 15, 2017, Pages 11-23, ISSN 2211-6958, doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2016.12.002. Who: Stamenković, Dušan: Department of English, Faculty of Philosophy and Center for Cognitive Sciences – University of Niš. Jaćević, Milan: IT University of Copenhagen, Rued Langgaards Vej 7. Wildfeuer, Janina: Bremen Institute for Transmedial Textuality, Bremen University, FB10 – Linguistics and Literary Science What’s going on here (summary, analysis and critique of arguments): This paper examines Metal Gear Solid as a case study of video games as persuasive texts and argues they "are likely to possess a great persuasive power, as they are both multimodal and highly interactive” (abstract). It uses a multimodal approach and finds that many aspects of the game—including verbal cues, user interface, and specific game design choices—guide the player to avoid killing enemies, which emphasizes the game’s overall anti-war message. Relevance to research: This is a great source for my Projects 2 and 3 because it argues for the persuasive power of video games as a medium and focuses specifically on Metal Gear Solid. It offers analysis of different techniques the game uses, which will be helpful in identifying and evaluating rhetorical techniques, and I can also compare its readings of the game’s scenes to other sources’, particularly those with a broader perspective of the digital-age military-entertainment complex. Connections: This text disagrees with Lenoir and Caldwell’s assessment of the Metal Gear Solid franchise as too “lengthy and convoluted” (232) to impact meaningful arguments to players. Yager. Spec Ops: The Line. 2K Games, 2012.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TDC9s-Kt-8. Accessed 21 October 2022. Who: independent video game developer located in Berlin, Germany (from https://www.yager.de/#about). What’s going on here (summary, analysis and critique of arguments): A military shooter game that subverts its genre to heavily criticize the US’s military-entertainment complex and the complicity of the games industry in sanitizing war. It begins in a genre-typical fashion with a US military operative on a special mission, then takes a hard turn into unflinchingly depicting the horrors of war and forcing the player to participate. I have played most of the way through the campaign. Relevance to research: Among mainstream games (i.e. not indie), Spec Ops is probably the one that most heavily criticizes the military-entertainment complex. It is an incredibly well-designed game; it seems to have been created with the laser-focused goal of deconstructing its genre, which makes it an interesting contrast to Metal Gear, a franchise that deals in a wide range of themes within near-incomprehensible layers of frequently ridiculous plot. Connections: Spec Ops is discussed in detail as an example par excellence of wargames subverting and challenging the military-entertainment complex in Lenoir and Caldwell’s final chapter, a chapter I have not yet read more than a few pages of because I want to finish the game with minimal spoilers. There are also many comparisons to be made between it and Metal Gear, as both are wargames interested in deconstructing the role of games in the military-entertainment complex. Peer Review Notes How well do I provide context for my topic?
Do my annotated bibliographies have all the required information?
What do I need to work on the most?
To spite my perfectionist tendencies, I also agree—if somewhat grudgingly—that my writing is strong, clear, and appropriately academic without becoming confusing. I was also excited to hear that my reviewer found the connections I made to the course reader sources interesting and relevant because the strength of those connections was a significant reason I wanted to research Metal Gear in this class; it’s nice to know I’m not pulling at straws. There were only a few areas where I disagreed with my reviewer. I do think I have some strong topic sentences, but not all my paragraphs are clearly introduced. I also think I might be missing some analysis in my annotated bibliographies—specifically, analysis of the sources’ methods/arguments/etc.. Plan for current revision:
0 Comments
“Memes. The DNA of the soul.”: The military-entertainment complex, information in the digital age, and the soul of Metal Gear
If you want to understand the place of video games in American culture, look no further than the latest Call of Duty game. Modern Warfare II (2022) released on October 28, 2022 and, including presales, made $800 million in its first three days—more than twice the record-holding opening weekend of Avengers: Endgame (Hume). Mike Hume, editor of The Washington Post’s video games and esports department Launcher, writes that “it’s well worth thinking of Call of Duty beyond a mere ‘video game’ and more as a cultural touchstone,” as much a part of American culture as the NFL. Modern Warfare II (2022) exemplifies the modern military video game and its cultural prominence—so it is troubling that its campaign thoughtlessly coopts real-world events under a thin veneer of fictionalization and presents them stripped of context to ferry players from one cinematic setpiece to another, using brotherly battlefield camaraderie to brush aside uncomfortable or complex questions. This is archetypical of works within the military-entertainment complex: a reciprocal and mutually beneficial, though not necessarily direct, relationship between the U.S. military and the entertainment industry. In their book The Military-Entertainment Complex, Lenoir and Caldwell describe how video games and especially “franchise wargames,” exemplified by Call of Duty, are significant components of this relationship (Lenoir and Caldwell 31). Considering the massive cultural impact of wargames, it is important to understand them as part of a wider pattern of militarized entertainment. The relationship between video games and the military is further complicated by modern systems of digital information. Hume describes how modern games like Call of Duty also function as social media platforms where players can meet and talk with friends, meaning they incorporate the complex dynamics and social ramifications of a digital technology that researchers and the public alike are only recently realizing has serious implications on a societal scale. What does it mean that such a wide-reaching “cultural touchstone,” as Hume says, exists so deeply in the shadow of the U.S. military? These digital systems of the modern age, built around information and connectivity, shape how we see the world—not by violence-inducing brainwashing, as some have simplistically and baselessly claimed, but in a more subtle normalization of a certain perspective of war as “just the way things are.” Video games don’t intersect so much as crash head-on into these issues, and it is in the context of this collision that I am conducting my research. More specifically, it is in this context that I am examining a rare example of a wargame franchise that does not advance an uncritical portrayal of the U.S. military and its role in war, instead drawing attention to its own position at the messy intersection of gaming, militarism, and information in the digital age. Metal Gear, created by Hideo Kojima and published by Konami, is a primarily stealth-focused action/adventure franchise that includes 23 games across 31 years, most prominently the Metal Gear Solid series. The franchise pioneered the stealth genre, was one of the earliest action series to heavily feature narrative, and is often counted among the best games of all time (Perry et al., Wikipedia). Metal Gear is hardly the only video game to be critical of the military-entertainment complex—another widely cited example is Spec Ops: The Line—but its influence and popularity makes it especially notable. Metal Gear also discusses the military-entertainment complex alongside and often in relation to a broad range of topics that intersect with this class’ course reader, including questions about how digital systems are changing society. One antagonist monologues about how memes (using the original meaning, i.e. a unit of culture that spreads between people) spread hateful ideologies (RedEnvelopeMedia), which brought to mind Mark Fisher’s article “From memes to race war: How extremists use popular culture to lure recruits.” Additionally, the ending of Metal Gear Solid 2 involves an AI embodiment of American values attempting to control human thought and behavior by censoring huge swathes of digital information (especially the internet) in order to prevent a future where “[everyone] withdraws into their own small gated community, afraid of a larger forum” and “stay[s] inside their little ponds, leaking whatever ‘truth’ suits them into the growing cesspool of society at large.” The game came out in 2001, yet its words are eerily similar to Phillips and Milner’s concept of “information silos” (3) in 2021’s You Are Here. In my research, I am asking what rhetorical tools Metal Gear uses to discuss the military-entertainment complex in the context of digital information systems, what arguments it makes about these subjects, and what the wider implications of those arguments are. My working thesis is that Metal Gear purposefully induces negative affect and actively blurs the line between game and reality in order to argue that military video games—including itself—show a false, sanitized version of war that warps players’ ability to conceptualize the real version; ultimately, it urges players to question the (American) systems of information they exist within and find their own memes (in the word’s original sense). I will begin by introducing the military-entertainment complex and briefly examining its relationship with the video game industry through a historical lens, contextualizing the cultural significance of wargames and establishing their importance as subjects of serious inquiry. I will then examine Metal Gear within this context and analyze the rhetorical techniques it uses to present arguments. In this section, I will draw on both broad sources (e.g. Lenoir and Caldwell) and more specific case studies (e.g. Higgin, Stamenković et al.), most likely with a particular emphasis on Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty, to reach conclusions about the franchise’s rhetoric and arguments about the military-entertainment complex in relation to digital information systems. I can then assess how effectively Metal Gear conveys its arguments and connect this analysis to wider implications. I will be writing primarily for an academic audience, particularly within the field of video game studies, and I would also like this work to be reasonably accessible for people who are interested in video games and want to consume them more critically. Works Cited Higgin, Tanner. “'Turn the Game Console off Right Now!': War, Subjectivity, and Control in Metal Gear Solid 2." Joystick Soldiers: The Politics of Play in Military Video Games, 2009. Perry, Douglass C. et al. “Top 25 Games of All Time: Complete List.” IGN. https://www.ign.com/articles/2002/01/23/top-25-games-of-all-time-complete-list. Accessed 7 November 2022. RedEnvelopeMedia. “Memes The DNA Of The Soul.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TDC9s-Kt-8. Accessed 21 October 2022. Stamenković, Dušan et al.. "The persuasive aims of Metal Gear Solid: A discourse theoretical approach to the study of argumentation in video games." Discourse, Context & Media, Volume 15, 2017, Pages 11-23, ISSN 2211-6958, doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2016.12.002. Lenoir, Tim and Caldwell, Luke. The Military-Entertainment Complex. Harvard University Press, 2018. Wikipedia. “List of video games considered the best.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_considered_the_best. Accessed 7 November 2022. Annotated Bibliography Higgin, Tanner. “'Turn the Game Console off Right Now!': War, Subjectivity, and Control in Metal Gear Solid 2." Joystick Soldiers: The Politics of Play in Military Video Games, 2009. Who: From https://www.tannerhiggin.com/: “I have a PhD from the University of California, Riverside. While my degree is from an English department, my work primarily resides in media studies with a focus on cultural theory. My dissertation, Gamic Race: Logics of Difference in Videogame Culture, was one of the first book length theoretical explorations of race in videogames. I’m currently Editorial Director, Learning Content at Common Sense Education, a non-profit that reaches one million educators every month.” What’s going on here (summary, analysis and critique of arguments): This article draws on a wide range of topics, including biomedia and posthumanism, to analyze the central persuasive goals of Metal Gear Solid 2 with a focus on purposeful manipulation/deception of the player. Relevance to research: Higgin explicitly acknowledges the complexity of Metal Gear’s position within and yet critical of the military-entertainment complex, which is a key area I am investigating with my research. It also delves deep into the theories underlying MGS2’s arguments about war and the manipulation of digital information—again, two key areas of my research. It also discusses many of the most thematically and rhetorically significant scenes of the game, which helps narrow my focus. This is a fantastic source. Connections: Higgin is directly analyzing Metal Gear Solid 2, which is a straightforward connection. I believe Higgin would disagree with Lenoir and Caldwell’s characterization of Metal Gear, although there is certainly some validity to their claim. I can also compare the analysis techniques and findings with those of Stamencović et al. since both texts performed analysis of a specific Metal Gear Solid game. Kojima, Hideo. Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty. Konami Digital Entertainment Co. Ltd, 2001. Who: Hideo Kojima is widely known within the video game industry as a writer, director, producer, and game designer. He is best known for the Metal Gear Solid series (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hideo_Kojima). The game was published by Konami, an entertainment conglomerate based in Japan that both develops and publishes video games. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konami#Konami_Digital_Entertainment). What’s going on here (summary, analysis and critique of arguments): The second Metal Gear Solid game. It addresses themes such as genetics, censorship, gamified military training, and how the internet breaks the shared understanding of truth within a society. Relevance to research: This game deals heavily in ideas about technology and information, such as how the overwhelming amount of information made accessible by the internet changes creates ruptures in a shared concept of truth and what it means to be human—which fit well with this class’ themes and are interesting to investigate. It also criticizes the military-entertainment complex extremely directly. The player character Raiden is a military operative who trained in VR, and the plot of the game involved him being manipulated into both doing soldier stuff and becoming a more effective soldier for the benefit of various factions, most notably the AI embodiment of the force behind the US government. As the game continues, characters break the fourth wall more and more frequently to intentionally blur the line between Raiden and the player, implying that the player is also being manipulated (particularly in the direction of the military). Connections: As part of the game series I am researching, MGS2 has connections in some form to every other source. The most relevant is Higgin, which is an analysis of its manipulation of digital information and thus has a lot of useful insights. Its ideas about how the mass of information on the internet creates different perceptions of “truth” are also extremely similar to what Phillips and Milner describe in You Are Here as “information silos” (4)—and the predictions about how controlling the flow of that information could influence people and societies, as Phillips and Milner also discuss, were eerily accurate for a game that came out in 2001. Lenoir, Tim and Caldwell, Luke. The Military-Entertainment Complex. Harvard University Press, 2018. Who: From end flap of book: “Tim Lenoir is Distinguished Professor in the Department of Cinema and Digital Media and Science and Technology Studies at the University of California, Davis. “Luke Caldwell is a Ph.D. candidate in the Program in Literature and Media Arts + Sciences at Duke University.” What’s going on here (summary, analysis and critique of arguments): This book is a broad overview of the military-entertainment complex that focuses on the relationship, both direct and indirect, between the games industry and the US military, and how this relationship is heavily intertwined with the advance of technology in the digital age. It includes a considerable amount of historical context. With a focus on “franchise wargames” like Call of Duty and Battlefield, Lenoir and Caldwell examine how games contribute to (and in some ways benefit from) normalizing a specific kind of modern American warfare. Relevance to research: This book is invaluable as an assessment of the wider context in which Metal Gear resides: the military-entertainment complex of the 21st century. It also identifies many aspects of games that conform to the military-entertainment complex, which is useful to assess those aspects’ presence or absence in Metal Gear. It makes only passing mention of Metal Gear; its main analysis of the game is that, while it does offer nuanced criticism of the m-e complex, “[it contains] plots so lengthy and convoluted that their effect is limited to hardcore audiences” (232). This is not an unreasonable claim, but I would argue the issue is considerably more nuanced. Connections: Several of my other sources with research specifically on Metal Gear disagree with Lenoir and Caldwell’s characterization of the series as too confusing to create widespread impact (see Higgin, Stamencović et al.), and while—as evidenced by my chosen subject of research—I generally agree with these other sources, I also think Lenoir and Caldwell’s criticism is reasonable. This creates an interesting site of nuanced conversation between several sources. SourceSpy91. “Metal Gear Solid 2 - Normal Difficulty Walkthrough - No Commentary.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qsHbwpvHcA. Accessed 14 October 2022.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TDC9s-Kt-8. Accessed 21 October 2022. Who: Youtuber who posts playthroughs of games. What’s going on here (summary, analysis and critique of arguments): Full playthrough of Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty. Does not 100% the game (i.e., does not finish all content, just the main storyline). Relevance to research: This video and other like it are invaluable references because they allow me to examine the contents of a game without needing to play through all of it myself and easily search for and rewatch relevant sections. For the relevance of the game itself, see Kojima. Connections: see Kojima. Stamenković, Dušan et al.. "The persuasive aims of Metal Gear Solid: A discourse theoretical approach to the study of argumentation in video games." Discourse, Context & Media, Volume 15, 2017, Pages 11-23, ISSN 2211-6958, doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2016.12.002. Who: Stamenković, Dušan: Department of English, Faculty of Philosophy and Center for Cognitive Sciences – University of Niš. Jaćević, Milan: IT University of Copenhagen, Rued Langgaards Vej 7. Wildfeuer, Janina: Bremen Institute for Transmedial Textuality, Bremen University, FB10 – Linguistics and Literary Science What’s going on here (summary, analysis and critique of arguments): This paper examines Metal Gear Solid as a case study of video games as persuasive texts and argues they "are likely to possess a great persuasive power, as they are both multimodal and highly interactive” (abstract). It uses a multimodal approach and finds that many aspects of the game—including verbal cues, user interface, and specific game design choices—guide the player to avoid killing enemies, which emphasizes the game’s overall anti-war message. Relevance to research: This is a great source for my Projects 2 and 3 because it argues for the persuasive power of video games as a medium and focuses specifically on Metal Gear Solid. It offers analysis of different techniques the game uses, which will be helpful in identifying and evaluating rhetorical techniques, and I can also compare its readings of the game’s scenes to other sources’, particularly those with a broader perspective of the digital-age military-entertainment complex. Connections: This text disagrees with Lenoir and Caldwell’s assessment of the Metal Gear Solid franchise as too “lengthy and convoluted” (232) to impact meaningful arguments to players. Yager. Spec Ops: The Line. 2K Games, 2012.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TDC9s-Kt-8. Accessed 21 October 2022. Who: independent video game developer located in Berlin, Germany (from https://www.yager.de/#about). What’s going on here (summary, analysis and critique of arguments): A military shooter game that subverts its genre to heavily criticize the US’s military-entertainment complex and the complicity of the games industry in sanitizing war. It begins in a genre-typical fashion with a US military operative on a special mission, then takes a hard turn into unflinchingly depicting the horrors of war and forcing the player to participate. I have played most of the way through the campaign. Relevance to research: Among mainstream games (i.e. not indie), Spec Ops is probably the one that most heavily criticizes the military-entertainment complex. It is an incredibly well-designed game; it seems to have been created with the laser-focused goal of deconstructing its genre, which makes it an interesting contrast to Metal Gear, a franchise that deals in a wide range of themes within near-incomprehensible layers of frequently ridiculous plot. Connections: Spec Ops is discussed in detail as an example par excellence of wargames subverting and challenging the military-entertainment complex in Lenoir and Caldwell’s final chapter, a chapter I have not yet read more than a few pages of because I want to finish the game with minimal spoilers. There are also many comparisons to be made between it and Metal Gear, as both are wargames interested in deconstructing the role of games in the military-entertainment complex. Exercise 1: Prospective Brainstorming on Weebly Site 1. I want to explore the relationship between Metal Gear, digital information systems (and their manipulation), and the military-entertainment complex. After I decided I was interested in researching Metal Gear, its anti-war stance was one of the first themes I saw emerge in existing literature, and that led me to the military-entertainment complex. Metal Gear has a complicated relationship with the m-e complex; the franchise is undeniably in the military genre and centers on (mostly) heroic protagonists solving their problems (at least partially) with violence, yet it is also heavily critical of war (especially nuclear warfare), highlights the exploitation of soldiers as fodder in a for-profit cycle of violence, and explores how new technology (such as video games) creates increasing detachment from the act of killing. I don’t think it can be reasonably argued that Metal Gear fully supports or opposes the military-entertainment complex, which means there is interesting tension between those sides of the game. There is less of a direct line from Metal Gear to modern digital information systems, at least in the academic literature. Compared to war, it is a less prominent theme of the franchise, but it manifests in ways I found intriguing (and entertaining). An antagonist of one game, for example, calls memes “the DNA of the soul.” He was using the original meaning of “meme,” as coined by Richard Dawkins, but the line was generally interpreted on the internet as referring to internet memes and—in a turn of events I find ironic, intriguing, and immensely entertaining—became an internet meme itself. In this and other places, I saw Metal Gear asking many of the same questions we ask in this class about what it means to be human in a digital age. I want a deep, academically-informed understanding of what these questions are, what answers Metal Gear offers, and what it means in a wider context for the games to be grappling with these issues. I also recently discovered Foucault’s concept of “biopower” while reading some sources, which seems like a potentially useful avenue of investigation. Historical Lens: I’ve found some sources that trace the current state of the military-entertainment complex, particularly video games, back through a history of simulating war through gamified scenarios that became prominent in the US military around the Cold War. I hadn’t anticipated finding historical precedent so far back since video games are a relatively new technology. I don’t know how much this information will be relevant to my research or if I’ll include it in my paper, but at the very least, it can provide context for the current situation. I’ve also learned about the historical connections between the US military and the video games industry, which are both older and more robust than I knew. Those are definitely relevant to my research; I’ll probably discuss them in the beginning of my paper to provide background. Conceptual lens: the relationship between the US military and the video game industry, both direct and indirect. How new digital technology in the military intersects with video games. How systems of digital information change what it means to be human, and what happens when those systems are manipulated. Rhetorical stance of video games (specifically Metal Gear) on these issues, and how the games influence them (if at all). (“How” here meaning both: What mechanisms, rhetorical devices, etc. do the games use to convey their messages? and What changes do those mechanisms/etc. and messages enact?)
Case Study Lens: Outside of Metal Gear, the only game I can find that directly challenges the m-e complex is Spec Ops: The Line. Spec Ops is much more aggressive with its criticism—the Metal Gear franchise engages with a wide range of issues and is infamous for containing “lengthy and convoluted” plots (Lenoir and Caldwell), which means some parts of the game are not directly related to the m-e complex—but Spec Ops is a game made to deliberately, thoroughly condemn the video game industry’s sanitization of war for the sake of entertainment. It’s a fantastically made game that does one thing extremely well; speaking from personal experience, however, it’s also deeply unpleasant to play (which is a strong rhetorical choice!), and it was never incredibly popular. Spec Ops has ~770k sales to Metal Gear’s ~56 million (based on a quick google search), which is why I’m primarily focusing on Metal Gear instead. I think this case illuminates the complex tension military games face when critiquing the military-entertainment complex. I plan to spend the next stage of the project becoming deeply familiar with a handful of key sources, including many of the ones below. A lot of them use dense technical terminology, so I want to make sure I fully understand their ideas and arguments in order to most effectively put them in conversation and begin drawing my own conclusions. Exercise 2: Searching for Scholarly Sources Stamenković, Dušan et al.. "The persuasive aims of Metal Gear Solid: A discourse theoretical approach to the study of argumentation in video games." Discourse, Context & Media, Volume 15, 2017, Pages 11-23, ISSN 2211-6958, doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2016.12.002. Ng, Carman. “War and will: a multisemiotic analysis of Metal Gear Solid 4.” 2017. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, PhD thesis. PolyU Electronic Theses, https://theses.lib.polyu.edu.hk/handle/200/9297. Kurniawan, Muhammad Hafiz. “What Can Genre Tell Us? Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain.” International Seminar on Language, Education, and Culture, Volume 2020, KnE Social Sciences, pages 178–188. DOI 10.18502/kss.v4i4.6481. Exercise 3: Digital Searches for Primary Sources Kojima, Hideo.* Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty. Konami Digital Entertainment Co. Ltd, 2001. Description: The second Metal Gear Solid game. It addresses themes such as genetics, censorship, gamified military training, and how the internet breaks the shared understanding of truth within a society. Implications: This game deals heavily in ideas about technology and information, such as the connectivity of the internet, changing what it means to be human—which fit well with the class’ themes and are interesting to investigate. It also criticizes the military-entertainment complex extremely directly. The player character Raiden is a military operative who trained in VR, and the plot of the game involved him being manipulated into both doing soldier stuff and becoming a more effective soldier for the benefit of various factions, most notably the AI embodiment of the force behind the US government. As the game continues, characters break the fourth wall more and more frequently to intentionally blur the line between Raiden and the player, implying that the player is also being manipulated (particularly in the direction of the military). All that to say that this game has a lot of interesting stuff going on related to information, control, and the military-entertainment complex, and I can analyze its content through the perspective of those ideas (and look for other scholarly work that’s done the same). RedEnvelopeMedia. “Memes The DNA Of The Soul.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TDC9s-Kt-8. Accessed 21 October 2022. Description: A clip from Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance where an antagonist monologues about memes (in the original meaning of the word, i.e. the one coined by Dawkins). The line “Memes. The DNA of the soul.” itself became an internet meme, probably because it was assumed by most internet users as referring to internet memes when taken out of context. Implications: First, the strange recursivity of the multiple layers of memes is interesting and points to… well, honestly, I’m not sure. It’s unclear what implications this has on a broader scale, but this is an example of how Metal Gear deals with unexpectedly complex topics around information and its manipulation, such as the spread of hateful ideology. SourceSpy91. “Metal Gear Solid 2 - Normal Difficulty Walkthrough - No Commentary.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qsHbwpvHcA. Accessed 14 October 2022. Description: Full playthrough of Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty. Does not 100% the game (i.e., does not finish all content, just the main storyline). Implications: See Kojima. Yager. Spec Ops: The Line. 2K Games, 2012. Description: A military shooter game that subverts its genre to heavily criticize the US’s military-entertainment complex and the complicity of the games industry in sanitizing war. It begins in a genre-typical fashion with a US military operative on a special mission, then takes a hard turn into unflinchingly depicting the horrors of war and forcing the player to participate. I have played most of the way through the campaign. Implications: Among mainstream games (i.e. not indie), Spec Ops is probably the one that most heavily criticizes the military-entertainment complex. It is an incredibly well-designed game; it seems to have been created with the singular goal of deconstructing its genre, which makes it an interesting contrast to Metal Gear, a franchise that deals in a wide range of themes within a near-incomprehensible, frequently ridiculous plot. *The sources I looked at had conflicting formatting between putting Hideo Kojima or the publisher(developer?) Konami as the author. I also haven’t played this game directly since, to my knowledge, it’s only available on the Playstation 3 (which I do not own). I also wasn’t sure about whether to cite the game as well as the recording I used, so I included it to be on the safe side. SECTION 1
***I am researching the rhetorics of the Metal Gear series in regards to the military-entertainment complex and/or the manipulation of information in the digital age.* (*I haven’t decided between choosing one of these ideas or figuring out how to connect them, so I’ve focused on both in this notebook since I figured it would be easier to leave out extra sources than find entirely new ones.) ***Because I want to find out how video games convey rhetorical arguments and/or what Metal Gear reflects about how modern culture is grappling with these issues [m-e complex/digital info]. ***List any important people, places, time periods, concepts, movements, etc. related to your topic. What key words are beginning to emerge? General: Metal Gear, Metal Gear Solid, Hideo Kojima, video games M-E Complex: military-entertainment complex, games industry, war on terror?, FPS/first-person shooter Digital info: misinformation, disinformation, fake news, propaganda, internet, networked propaganda ***Explain how doing this research will inspire you and be relevant to your time at Cal and to your quality of life now and in the future, how it will contribute to the Common Good, and/or how your research in R4B can benefit you in your future career. In other words, are you passionate about this topic? Is it relevant to you? If so, why? If not, what meaningful, relevant-to-you research topic might you pick that you can invest yourself in wholeheartedly and benefit from both now and later? I love video games, and I find them fascinating as not just entertainment but cultural artifacts and rhetorical texts. Metal Gear is a series I’m particularly interested in right now for its bizarre mix of baffling plot/setting and legitimately insightful thoughts on war, technology, and what it means to be human. I think my research on it will contribute to the common good because I can use Metal Gear as a way to examine the hidden power structures that underlie society, particularly those in the United States. Understanding these structures is the first step to changing them to be less harmful to those living in them. I’m also having an absolute blast with this topic, and pursuing what makes me feel not just happy but energized is a way to practice self-care. Research Question: What do the rhetorics of the Metal Gear series in regards to the military-entertainment complex and/or the manipulation of information in the digital age tell us about how video games convey rhetorical arguments and/or how modern culture is grappling with these issues? SECTION 2 ***Condense your research question or thesis statement into a brief statement of 6-8 words: Metal Gear’s rhetoric on military-entertainment complex, digital information ***Identify some core concepts in your statement and any related concepts that come to mind (topics, issues, ideas, people, places, time periods, films, tv shows, news, media, things, objects, etc.): Metal Gear Metal Gear Solid Metal Gear Rising? Video games US military Military-entertainment complex Dis/Mis/Malinformation Rhetoric Hideo Kojima Propaganda Shooter genre/FPS War on terror? Memes (internet and general) Post-9/11 US SECTION 3 ***What is one thing you learned about your topic from this entry you selected? Source: “WAR PROPAGANDA AND POPULAR CULTURE, AMERICAN” from The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Military and Diplomatic History. I learned that military propaganda is often quick to adapt to new mediums, particularly film. ***What terms from the entry could you use as keywords when you search other databases? Militainment, (American) national identity, patriotism, civil liberties, American exceptionalism, Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, Operation Iraqi Freedom, America’s Army, ***Look at the bibliography in the source you just chose. Write down the title of one book that might further propel your project. *Seriously. Write title and author down in your notebook - you're going to want to remember this. If you don't see a bibliography for your entry, try clicking on another source.
SECTION 4 ***Stop to look at this cool view of UC Library Search, and in 1 sentence explain what you can access through UC Library Search (see https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/c.php?g=383822&p=2601778) for help: You can access the library catalogs of the UC schools, which includes resources like academic papers, books, and primary sources. ***What resources does UC Berkeley Library offer you here?–explain in 1 sentence. See https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/c.php?g=383822&p=2666393 The library offers guides on research, writing, and academic style. ***What is a scholarly (also called “refereed”) journal article?–explain in 1 sentence. See https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/c.php?g=83917&p=3747680 A scholarly journal article is written by experts on the subject and is reviewed by other scholars in the field before publication. SECTION 5 ***Briefly explain how a (scholarly or other) book differs from a (scholarly/refereed or other) journal article (see above). A book has a longer publication time and investigates a subject with both depth and breadth, as opposed to the typically narrow deep-dives of journal articles. ***Briefly explain how a scholarly work (book or journal/refereed article) differs from a popular one; see again: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/c.php?g=83917&p=3747680 A scholarly work is written by experts, verified by others in the field, and is written mainly for an academic audience with considerable knowledge of the topic. A popular one could be written by anyone or even be unattributed, does not go through an outside review process (if it’s reviewed at all), and is written mainly for the purpose of entertaining or informing the general public. ***Find a Book. Remember how I asked you to find a book in the encyclopedia bibliography before? Well we're coming back to that now! Try to find that book in UC Library Search! If you can't find it, try to find another book on your topic using the search terms you generated. Write down the call number of the book you found! U 310.2 L46 2018 (MAIN) ***Below you see the section "Virtual Browse" and the selections I found from putting in call # PN1995.9.S695 S76 2005 for Star Wars and Philosophy by Decker and Eberl. Do your own Virtual Browse using your research topic / selected book, and then after virtual browsing, write below the titles, locations, and call #s of the 2 other books you found from Virtual Browsing: War Games. U 310 A491 1987 (MAIN) From Sun Tsu to Xbox: War and Video Games SECTION 6 ***What are peer-reviewed articles and why are citations important? Sum up in 1 sentence after watching video (See Video by Marisa Méndez-Brady) Peer reviewed articles are published in scholarly journals and are reviewed by experts who check for inaccuracies. Citations are important because they prove the idea in a research paper is addressing a gap in the field, allow readers to follow the author’s reasoning and research process, and show respect to people whose ideas the paper builds on by acknowledging their contributions. ***What database did you choose? Under "Film Studies," I chose "Film and Television Literature Index with Full Text." Give yours here: Project MUSE ***Search the database using the keywords you generated earlier, and find a relevant article. Copy paste a citation for an article on your topic: Ruberg, Bonnie and Adrienne Shaw. ““I Wouldn’t Even Know the Real Me Myself”: Queering Failure in Metal Gear Solid 2.” Queer Game Studies. University of Minnesota Press, 2017. Project MUSE muse.jhu.edu/book/51275. ***Download the article if full text is available. I chose "Return of the Jedi: Epic Graffiti" by Todd H. Sammons, as my peer-reviewed article. ***Find an Article from the Bibliography. Open the article you just found. (If it isn't available through Berkeley, browse your results again for a full text article on your topic.) Scroll through your article until you reach the bibliography. Browse the bibliography for another article on your topic. Write down the title and author below. Also remember to search footnotes for new sources! Give yours here! Higgin, Tanner. “‘Turn the Game Console off Right Now!’: War, Subjectivity, and Control in Metal Gear Solid 2.” ***New Keywords? Scan the titles, abstracts, and subjects of your search results. Have you come across any new keywords as you've searched? Write them down here: war, Metal Gear Solid [2, 3, 4, V] SECTION 8 ***Browse all research guides at https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/ Click on a subject related to your topic and select a guide link that you might use. Give it here. https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/information-studies https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/subject-guide/complit#s-lg-box-12891611 https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/subject-guide/133-Media-Studies ***Find a Database or Digital Collection Useful for You. Look through the Research Guide you choose above. Write down the name of a database or digital collection that might be useful to you as you continue to research. Give that here: Project MUSE JSTOR What other sources might be helpful to answer your research question? Gaming journalism sites like Kotaku and Polygon could have general information about the Metal Gear series’ reception in popular culture. They also sometimes have deep dives on specific studios and/or games, so I could check if there are any about Metal Gear or Hideo Kojima. ***Write down ways that you have sought help already and/or ways that you will seek help, including the possibilities listed right above and asterisked: I can seek help by attending a research help appointment, emailing librarians or my professor for guidance, and reading guides on research (especially ones related to the field of my subject). ***Write down 3 other sources that may help you. These could include newspapers, other databases, other books, other peer-reviewed articles, images, recordings such as at the Library of Congress, podcasts, original photos, etc. Give these here: Recorded playthroughs of the Metal Gear Solid games. The video game Spec Ops: The Line. On Video Games: The Visual Politics of Race, Gender, and Space by Soraya Murray. ***What's something you want the librarian to cover during your library workshop or what is a question you have for a librarian? Write it down. I am curious about how to incorporate video games as a source because they are long, interactive, and varying degrees of non-linear. Feedback for Our Amazing Librarians ***I am a second year. ***What is one thing that worked well about this notebook? I like how it led me to take a source from a database/the library system and find new, often highly relevant sources in the bibliography and around it on the shelf. I’ve also genuinely been having a blast with this research. ***How long did this take you to complete? The work specifically for this document probably took me somewhere around 2.5 to 3 hours. However, I got sidetracked a lot, which probably added several hours on top of that. Browsing through the physical shelves, for example, took at least half an hour because I kept finding interesting sources, thinking about Metal Gear, and feeling increasingly concerned about the US military-entertainment complex. I still haven’t fully narrowed in on my research question yet, which probably contributed. ***What is one way this notebook could be improved? I think it would be neat to see more guidance on finding sources outside the library, especially primary and/or multimedia ones, and how to handle them in relation to the library’s (usually more academic) sources. For example, a lot of the sources I found mentioned a video game called America’s Army, so I might want to find screenshots or recordings of it. |
|