Shanahan’s article with the dicey name is definitely interesting. He retells a story of an encounter with a toxic player in Jedi Knights II. He talks about the unofficial “rules” of the duel matches that take place, where players will usually bow to one another as a sign of respect. However, this toxic player showed no respect and took the opportunity to take a cheap shot in order to gain an advantage. Shanahan then tells the story in the perspective of a good and evil narrative, where in the end, good triumphed over evil despite the unfair advantage.
In the telling of this story, Shanahan didn’t reinforce a disconnect between the player and the avatar they were controlling. He described the conflict as if the players were actually dueling, face to face. He expressed the shock his adversary may have had on his face after the battle swung against him.
I thought this article was interesting after having the narratology vs. Ludology debate. The duel in and of itself didn’t tell a cohesive story. However, the story that Shanahan told of his experience during his play session was definitely a narrative. It had an introduction, a problem faced by a protagonist, rising action, climax and a resolution. On top of this, he isn’t telling the story from the perspective of his avatar in the game, he told it as if HE was really there facing against this evil doer. It makes the whole story more invigorating and exciting.
Game Studies 
I agree with the fact that the story was interesting. Shanahan almost took the role of his character, not in a literal sense, but in a way that helps the reader view the actual situation as a dual. The post made me think of it as if Shanahan’s situation was taking place in Ready Player One, where all of the players know the rules, but you have the few that try to cheat/swindle their way through situations to evade the test of character in order to win.
LikeLike
I agree with you that him not actually telling the perspective of the story from his avatar but in a standing that could maybe help the players understand on a different level that would maybe seem more surreal is maybe the most interesting thing about this reading itself. And personally im glad that the good triumphed over evil in the end after the unfair advantage of this toxic player.
LikeLike
I definitely agree with you in that I think it’s very interesting how he was describing the situation as if it were real life. I really think this strengthens his point about unfairness in games much more because it almost draws the concept out of the game and applies it to real life as well. He believes games being unfair is good because it gives us a challenge the opportunity to be virtuous. In real life, challenges and “bad behavior” directed towards us are the main reasons why we are the people we are today. As his character develops his moral compass in his game, so too does he explore his morality in the real world.
LikeLike