"ZOMBIES, RUN!" or "Why do we not feel so fat?"

About a year ago, Six to Start and Naomi Alderman decided to launch a Kickstarter campaign to create a unique iPhone/Android application that combines a fitness tracking app with a unique audio-adventure video game. Developers described the game to be "about making the thrill of runing even better with a game and a story delivered through your headphones."

"Zombies, Run! is an ultra-immersive game for the iPhone, iPod Touch, and Android where you help rebuild civilisation after a zombie apocalypse. By going out and running in the real world, you can collect medicine, ammo, batteries, and spare parts that you can use to build up and expand your base - all while getting orders, clues, and story through your headphones." - Kickstarter

The game, titled "ZOMBIES, RUN!" received immense support within months of launching the funding campaign, and to date, has received 581% of its requested funds (June 23, 2012). More than 3,400 people have backed this project, and (according to Google Play on my Android phone) it has been downloaded over 5,000 times on Android phones alone.

So... what is it about this game that has garnered such attention? Obviously, people are pretty psyched about having an app that not only tracks your running/walking/biking progress (overweight moms, tech-savvy bodybuilders, and self-conscious teenage girls are all jumping on the tech+fitness bandwagon), but there's something else going on here. It's not just that the app lets you track your fitness progress, and it's not just that you get to allocate resources to your virtual base play a video game after you run. I argue that this app, aside from combining gaming with fitness, convinces the public of its "playablility" more than any fitness app ever before. Why? Because it's semi-immersive, and grabs at narrative structure like we haven't seen ever before.

This is kind of a big claim. There are several extremely popular tech+fitness games out there (Dance Central, Just Dance, Dance Dance Revolution, YourShape Fitness Evolved, WiiFit/Sports, Fruit Ninja Kinect, and the list goes on). But out of any of the games I just listed, did you feel attached, sympathetic, or angry towards any of the characters? Did you want to come back and play because you wanted to know what's next in the story? Did you truly become the protagonist? I doubt it.

ZOMBIES, RUN! is semi-immersive. I will define immersion as a decreased awareness of the physical self by being surrounded in an engrossing total environment. That is, ZOMBIES places the user in an environment where their own identity is lost, and replaced by someone elses' (the character "Runner Five"). As they run through their seemingly familiar neighborhood, a story unfolds through headphones that contradicts what they are seeing around them: "". This is something unheard of with tech+fitness games before now. In nearly all of the games listed above, your identity is solidified: you see your shadow representing you or a trainer in front of you on the screen.


I believe that users are drawn to this immersion because it further displaces the concept of fitness from gaming while simultaneously pushing the user to come back for more. The concept of objective self-awareness is hard at work, here. In short, private self-awareness refers to what we think about ourselves when we must reflect on our image (e.g.: seeing oneself in a mirror). Generally, when there is a perceived difference between "ideal" self and actual self, we react negatively (Phillips and Silvia, 2005). In several studies conducted to show the impact of exercising in a mirrored environment, it was found that sedentary people are less motivated to exercise in a mirrored environment, presumably because mirrors "evoke... negative affect[s] during exercises" (Song et. al, 3) due to high body image dissatisfaction. In many fitness video games, "most of them either include avatars to represent the players in the virtual exercise environments (e.g., Wii Fit) or enable them to see their virtual selves on the screen (e.g., EyeToy)" ( Song et. al, 5).


However, we don't see that in ZOMBIES. This game allows the user to ignore preconceptions about themselves and their self-image. Their body (or an idyllized form of their body) isn't getting projected on a screen. They have become Runner Five. In this pretend world, they not only are allowed to neglect viewing themselves in a negative light, but they are assigned a role that attributes positive qualities to their self-image. THIS is why I believe ZOMBIES, RUN has taken off and achieved such popularity in less than a year.


Sources:
1. Phillips, A.G., & Silvia, P.J. (2005). Self-awareness and the emotional consequences of self-discrepancies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(5), 703-713.
2.Song, H., Peng, Wei, & Lee, Kwan (2009). Promoting exercise self-efficacy with an exergame: The effect of seeing oneself on screen among individuals with high vs. low body image dissatisfaction. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Annual Meeting.

--------

Note from the Writer: I have totally played this game. I have been using it rather obsessively for the last week. I love it dearly. Forgive me for sounding like I'm being paid to write this, but you should seriously check it out if you enjoy running, walking, jogging, or zombies. In the future, I will try not to sound as much like a scumbag advertising fiend. Forgive me!

Lions, Tigers, and --Zombies?!?! Oh my!

Conspiracy rhetoric and Zombies from me to you:

So we all know that the popularity of zombies in our media-television shows, movies, and books-is prominent. There have recently been a rash of stories about people eating people or gnawing the face off of a homeless man.

The following are some links to these stories to get you up to speed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/07/cannibalism-addiction-karen-hylen-psychopaths_n_1570470.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/30/bath-salts-health-cannibal-rudy-eugene_n_1555493.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/alexander-kinyua-cannibal-mental-hospital_n_1609056.html

But what got people extra riled up was the fact that the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) showed up. This occurrence is a common marker of a zombie film. The military and the CDC are generally mentioned as having been ineffective or attempted to cover up what was really happening in the initial scenes of the outbreak. These institutions are even mentioned in how the Government will cover up a Zombie outbreak in Max Brooks' book The Zombie Survival Guide. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/01/cdc-denies-zombies-existence_n_1562141.html

So this, and having read the Zombie Survival Guide recently, got me thinking: Do people really believe in the possibility or happenings of prior Zombie outbreaks? Is this simply mistaken cannibalism?  

Google the phrase "The Lawson Tapes" and you'll find this link:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=138506

There seems to be some debate out there on the inter webs at least and there are a slew of [what I'd call] fake, low budget "authentic" zombie footage reels on the You Tubes. There are debates about authenticity in the comment sections of a few of the videos I checked out there. 

Richard Hofstadter argues that mass media has influenced and aided in the success of paranoid style discourse, which I believe is at the root of what is happening here in the internet forum (6).He says, "It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant" (Hofstadter, p. 1). I am intrigued by the anxieties exemplified in the zombie culture and suspicions. Especially the suspicions that the Government is hiding something from the American people. Instead of preparing them or allowing them to know the truth so they could better prepare for the inevitable zombie outbreak, the American people are being left in the dark. 

So we have stories about zombies instead of preparedness. Walter Fisher call humans "homos narrans" and claims that "Humans are essentially story tellers" (p. 6). What story are we telling with these zombie tales from Hollywood and from amateur film makers on line? Are they the same stories? In a post-9/11 world these anxieties may be a way to fixate on something. A buoy to attach our fears to in the storm and chaos of an unsure destiny amidst the War on Terror. 

Tiara has bias too! So much...

Here is my list of biases that I know I will exhibit in my writing and comments on rhetoric i see. I am a perspectival creature and have many quirks. My list of why I have these particular biases is too long so hang with me. Patience please but do feel free to alert me if I am incorrect or have said something out of turn.

1) I have mixed political views and I am rather naive about proper terms. My education is lightly political so I know a tiny fraction of what a politics major would know. I will certainly misspeak about this at some point but I try to look terms up before commenting/using them.

2) I am not religious and, like the political stuff, I try to look things up before I comment. I may not be sensitive about it so apologies in advance. Also, I may miss references in the text or shiny rhetorical thing I am commenting on. Please feel free to point them out if I leave them unnoticed as they are culturally relevant and assist in deeper understanding. 

3) I was raised from humble beginnings and as a grad student I am still not even remotely affluent. I will likely rail against really rich politicians making out of touch statements with almost no grounds but my own boot straps. 

4) Morally flexible-you'll find me taking the side of the opposition on things to feel out their arguments and "walk a mile in their shoes," if you'll allow me the expression. I am not hard and fast about "good" or "evil" because I realize that most of my leanings are arbitrarily based and rooted more in my socialization rather than any deeply pondered and/or committed stance. 

5) As a side note: I have made up words that I put into practice from time to time. They tend to be hyperbolic or completely made up so I will try to add a definition or a feel for what it means if used. 

I am a rhetoric nerd through and through. I hope I can say something that will make you think or at least make you believe that rhetoric is cool. 'Cause it is my bread and butter.

Cheers!

Hi, there. I'm Dani. And this is why I'm biased.

Why, hello there. First of all, I'm going to gush about how excited I am to blog about rhetoric. I've been a serious rhetoric student for going on three years, and am about to write my thesis in a couple of months. So, I'm brimming with ideas and thoughts on rhetoric, and can't wait to share them with you all.

However, before I even start posting, I should probably introduce myself and explain what sort of background I come from. I'm Dani, and I'm a senior at Willamette University. My degree is in Rhetoric & Media Studies (surprise?), and my minor is in Economics.

This post is mainly going to be about why I talk about the things I talk about, and why they might be occasionally skewed, biased, or (even more infrequently, I hope) incorrect. So, I'mma lay down a beat for you. Or a list of potential biases that could appear in my writing. Probably a list:

1) For the most part, I am a social determinist (of technology). This boils down to meaning that I tend to think that society determines how technology is used, NOT that technology determines it's own use. This is a little awkward to explain here--I'll probably end up doing a related post about it.

2) I am relatively uninformed about scripture and religion. I was raised without any strong religious push in my household, and eventually decided to label myself as an apathetic atheist. I will admit that I'm fairly biased against organized religion, and tend to rant about it when I feel like religion gets in the way of rational thought.

3) I'm an awkward mix of political views. I am liberal on many social issues, but have a couple of sticking points that make hardcore liberals look at me a little weird. I tend to view political polarization as a bad thing, and (like the Portland hipster I unavoidably have to be) tend to think twice about a view if "everyone is doing/thinking it." For example, I love the idea of socialism in healthcare, but am a loose advocate of the death penalty. See? Kind of weird.

4) I tend to take on big projects, which leads me to over-generalize at times. I try to compensate for this as much as I can, but I get really excited about some subjects and want to analyze it all. It sucks, because I can't do that. But if you can tell me an efficient yet complete way of analyzing apocalypse rhetoric in pop culture, PLEASE let me know. I would pay you back in amusing pterodactyl noises.

On Social Networks and How Marketers Don't Get Them

I regularly receive free ebooks and webinar invites from a company called Hubspot. Hubspot is an online social media marketing platform and marketing consulting agency. Generally speaking, I find their stuff interesting and educational (I would say useful, but I honestly have no use for it right now).

This morning, however, I received an ebook whose title alone was enough to make me believe that they really don't know anything about social networks and how the average person interacts with them. The title was, "Google+ vs. Pinterest: Battle of the New Social Networks." Now, most people wouldn't necessarily see this as problematic. So lets follow my logic here.

How many social networks do you have profiles on? More than one right?
I have a profile on pretty much all of them.So, lets say I have 6, just for the sake of simplicity.

How many do you actually use?
Well, I spend the most time on Facebook, but I also use Twitter, G+ and Pinterest regularly.

If the assumption the above entitled ebook makes is correct (That all social networks provide exactly the same service and are in exact competition with one another) then why would I use all of these? Everyone I know uses Facebook, why do I need the others?

The answer is that I use them all for different things. Each does one thing better than another or is designed to fucntion in a certain way that the others do not. They have carved their own niches. People go to Pinterest AND Google +, not one over the other. Pinterest, for one, isn't as socially heavy. Google + is this weird blend between Facebook and Twitter that I haven't yet mastered, Pinterest is tumblr with less 13 year old and more housewife, less blog and more content. You go to pinterest to find cool things on the internet. You go to G+ to see if anyone posted anything interesting there that isn't on Facebook or Twitter already, and because that's where your friend's blog posts to. I use G+ because it's integrated with the rest of my Google things, and I can one click a post, while posting to Facebook from Google can sometimes be a hassle.These reasons, for Pinterest and G+, are not the same. They have no similarities in fact. So, G+ and Pinterest are not in a "Battle" of any sort.

And this is why I think I want to go into internet marketing. Clearly, these people need some advice from some digital natives.