The social barrier that is Video Game Nerdom

           This is probably one of the more touchy topics I've taken on this blog and that's because I'm challenging a social aspect of the current gaming culture that has been accepted as the golden standard of the community. Since the beginning of video games the image of the "nerd" has been associated with the subset of avid gamers. Often it is assumed that  people who are into video games must be nerds to be legitimate. This is false in so many ways. We are a diverse community that allows so much more than the nerd caricature. Football players love video games. Artists love video games. Even a hipster or a frat boy can be a lover of video games. The notion that the only people who are "true" gamers are nerds, who spend their time looking at games through the same watered down technical lens, is simply untrue. And we see this stereotype continue to be perpetuated in pop culture. But why is this such an easy caricature to create? Well it's really because of people like this

Chief Landless is a self proclaimed Halo expert who comes out with videos concerning a myriad of technical topics within the Halo, Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed games. Some of his videos are actually quite informative and I'd suggest you check them out for basic information concerning Halo that you could have otherwise gotten from any major video game network. On top of that he makes "Let's play videos" where he plays the game and adds "witty banter" to create a unique viewing experience for his audience. Unfortunately, what Chief Landless doesn't know is that he's perpetuating the same uninspired approach to video games that currently exists in the media. Instead of asking what makes Halo Halo or why is a certain game mechanism so prevalent in a game, he merely compiles lists and facts that serve no purpose but to prove knowledge on the topic. He then presents this information as the only access point to the medium and game, completely shutting down any further conversation. 

    This is what we need to be getting away from. The idea that true gamers spend more time knowing things about games, than knowing about the game themselves. People like Chief Landless shouldn't be completely discounted, but they shouldn't be a majority either. Instead we need to be more supportive of a more critical tone in the community. People need to be willing to view video games through multiple lenses. If Chief Landless really wants to be a "Halo expert" he should have his own unique view and opinions on Halo that make his musings on Halo meaningful, not just a compilation of already know information about the game. I suggested this to Chief Landless on one of his videos, but instead of taking it as a serious suggestion he laughed it off and called me ignorant. 

     We need to stop this false deification of nerd culture in video games. Nerds are not the only ones who have a claim in video games. Everyone does. And the sooner we have more multifaceted voices in the community, the quicker you'll see the community grow into a more successful advocate for why video games are art. 

Note: Just because Chief Landless is ignorant and obnoxious doesn't mean you need to be. By all means comment on his pages, youtube video, etc, but don't deride him for being an idiot, it'll just make it two idiots bickering. 

Halo 4: A crash course on how to make an uninspired mutliplayer shooter

              I could explain why narratively it made no sense to add loadouts to Halo 4, but I'm not going to. Partially because I know that the people who keep asserting that Halo 4 is better with the addition of load outs tend to be the people who don't really care much for narrative. So to level with their stupidity I'm going to explain purely from  a gameplay perspective why the addition of load outs (which isn't a huge leap from the mistakes of halo reach) completely muddles Halo gameplay and changes the experience for the worse.
           Let's analyze what made Halo a successful shooter when it initially came out. One might argue it was the space marine setting that drew people to Halo. Others could claim the extensive weapon selection and multiplayer were the deal sealers. But I argue it's the limitations placed on master chief that made Halo a tension filled experience that allowed players to quickly negotiate different scenarios of their impending death. When ever one got into a conflict in Halo there was always a crucial decision to be made, engage or not engage. This same conflict and decision can be made several times in the matter of a few seconds within the game, creating a fast paced thrill of making decisions given the weapons you have, the weapons near you, and the strategic position of you and your enemies. Compare this to MW, where players either wait to catch the enemy or are caught by the enemy, usually ending with the imminent death of whoever is at the receiving end. MW is a game that is more preoccupied with technical skill, while Halo is a combination of technical skill and overall intuition.
       Now I can already here the cries of refutation. One might argue that the sniper in Halo serves a purely technical role. This is partially true, but since players can't choose to be a sniper (in the old Halo), then it was up to the player to decide how much technical skill they wanted to use when donning the sniper. Another argument is Modern Warfare requires a lot of intuition as well. This is false. Often Modern Warfare is a game determined by skill and luck. Sure there are plenty of dumb things you can do in a MW match, but if both teams have reasonably intelligent players, then the game usually devolves to who has the quickest and most accurate shot. Compare this to Halo, where team coordination and gun combinations can cause a myriad of scenarios that require players to constantly rely on intuition to make decisions. Now I don't want to get into nuts and bolts, but simply put there are far too many intangibles that go into play for a Halo shootout, compared to MW. What I mean by this is that the function of several different guns in halos, usually create particular advantages that can prove to be more useful depending on the situation. In Modern warfare it just seems like the guns are on  3 axis plane of reload time, accuracy and power. Also, let's take into consideration the introduction of shields versus no shields, which makes certain gun cycles much more useful than others.
     It all boils down to various cycling dichotomies: situational vs tactical, skill vs intuition, gun specs vs gun choice, etc. Now the question of which one is better is completely based on preference. Some people enjoy the test of skill and the element of luck that is involved in MW, while others enjoy the conflict negotiation that comes with Halo. Regardless of what camp you are in, it should be agreed upon that each game is contributing a unique experience to the genre. In this context, the push to become more like MW by Halo is an unwise one. Not only is Halo not a better MW than MW, it simply wasn't built to be like MW. So no, I don't like the new Halo because it destroys what players love about Halo and replaces it with this uninspired trend of copying the top selling game in the industry instead of creating actual new content.
           

Point of View in video games: An English major's interpretation of the function of voice in a game

      I touched upon this topic in an old post concerning the breaking of the fourth wall in the game Earthbound, but I thought it would be helpful to put my thoughts on how one should approach point of view and how it functions within a game. The purpose of this post is not to purport any authority over the subject matter. Instead I hope to create a theory base that can either be challenged or worked from. I encourage anyone reading this to chime in with your own "2 cents" about where my theory goes awry and where it really sheds some light on the function of point of view in video games. I am writing this to spark a conversation that needs to be had before we can critically look at how a narrative is being told through a story.
    First, let me begin with some background knowledge as to what "point of view" actually is. The point of view in a text is basically the vantage point from which the narrative is being told. This vantage point doesn't need to be static (for example, there are plenty of novels that switch between 1st and 3rd person), but many of our favorite stories have been told through one point of view. When classifying point of view English uses four categories to organize most tests. These four categories are first person, second person, third person limited, and third person omniscient. First person is when the narrative is told by a character within the story (i.e. the chief in One flew over the Cuckoos nest). Second person is usually marked by the evocation of "you" and is frequently associated with breaking of the fourth wall. Third person limited is when there is a detached narrator, who seems to be telling the story through the eyes of a certain character or characters. Third omniscient is when there is a detached narrator who has full knowledge of the entire universe of the text. Often these point of views ( excluding second) can be mapped out on a spectrum from narrator-character differentiation. On such a spectrum one end would lie a true first person text, where there is no difference between character and narrator, and on the other end there would be a true third person omniscient.
    Now what does any of this have to do with video games? A lot really because video games don't utilize a literature based take of point of view. Instead it takes after film, adopting the camera angle as the point of view. While this does have an effect on how the game is perceived, using this mode of classification elicits a lot of false assumptions concerning the nature between the player and the narrative. For example, usually first person camera angles give the player (or viewer) a feeling as if they are the character in the screen. This effect is useful for horror movies and shooters, because it allow the player feel the dread and danger these genres tend to create. But what does it tell us about how the player views the character in the screen? Does the player actually believe the character is an extension of them or do they simply view them as a character they're inhabiting for the time being. A camera angle doesn't answer these questions. However, when using literature's classification system these questions are given some context to work from. In a text, the way a character acts is perceived incredibly different when written in different points of views. The same could be said for video games. The player's relationship with the in game character or proxy is important because then the actions done in the game will be perceived differently according to that relationship.
    I'm not advocating for an adoption of the literary take on point of view nor am I asking for the complete abandonment of the camera angle classification system. Instead I want to take a critical look on how point of view functions in games, with some of the intuition from the literary system being kept in mind. Just as the point of views in Literature can be mapped on a spectrum of differentiation, a similar spectrum can be made for video games. However, this spectrum will focus on differentiation between the player and the in-game proxy as opposed to character and narrator. That's because the player in a way is the ultimate narrator of a game. Sure the developer decides a lot of the executive decisions, but the player is the entity that literally drives the plot of the game. It's important to know whether the player considers themselves the a puppet master or a marionette. An easy way to encompass this differentiation is by thinking of in game characters as either templates or developed characters. Templates are easily inhabited by the player, making differentiation very low, while developed characters tend to be much hard to inhabit.

    Template<------------------------------------------------------------------> Developed Character
    Wii Sports     Fable    Chrono Trigger    EB                 Master Chief     Solid Snake
                                                   L of Z

     Character<-----------------------------------------------------------------> Narrator
           1st person                                         3rd person- lim                              3rd person omniscient

     Why is this essential knowledge? Well it's because the developer needs to keep this perspective in mind when deciding how characters function and act within  the game. Fable is a game that's very close to being a blank template, so if the game forced you to act in a certain way, the player is more likely to get annoyed because the player feels like those actions are attributed to themselves. Compare this with the actions of Solid Snake, who is inconsiderate, smokes and a bit of a pervert, yet gets the moral dilemma pass, because you don't view him as an extension of you, but simply a character whose story you're experiencing. This perspective also works with archetypes and how archetypal characters can be filled with depth or left blank. Link is the archetypal hero, but we all imagine a certain personality for him. Some moments may have clued you in, but other for his heroic stature, little is actually known concerning who Link is and what his personality might be like. The game assumes you'll fill that part in.
           I really hope this starts new conversation concerning how people look at games. Ask yourself what is the developer allowing me to do with my in game proxy and what does it say about me. What does it say about the character? You'll find those questions are ones you've been answering all along inside you're head while playing.

Game over matter: what's plaguing our current competitive gaming culture

             I was in a game of League of Legends, where I found myself dealing with the normal slew of complete jerks. My teammates decided they both wanted to go mid, but instead of explaining this move to us they decided to just both call mid last minute and leave it at that. When the neglected lane started to be pushed, they began the normal barrage of harassment, making sure that everyone else but them in the game knew how much of noobs we were. Eventually I got tired of it and told them to shut up and suggested that we switch to a more conventional meta. But they insisted that we were "noobs" and continued to be complete assholes the entire game. When it became clear these guys were refusing to play the game in a way we could win, I started to feed in retaliation.
           To this reaction one of the players stated this, " I can forgive anything you say to me, but I can't forgive feeding, that's a no in the game." This is wrong. This is a clear example of how the culture of competitive gaming has its priorities mixed up. It doesn't matter what in game transgressions one does, the act of attacking a player as a person should always be weighed as the most grave offense. Someone who "feeds" or goes "AFK" or anything that isn't directly targeted to hurt a particular player cannot be considered worse than someone who is devaluing another person. That's because the game is ultimately a fantasy. Sure, high stake tournament matches might be different, but for the bulk of LoL games, a single game is a short 1hr instance, where a bad player or bad player behavior can ruin your game, but not your night. Hurtful language and discriminatory slang can successfully do both.
         Intentional feeding and other similar behavior are very rare in  a game like LoL because the time commitment one has to undergo when joining a game deters people from trying to troll games. Trolling only works when it can be done efficiently. If I have a horrible team I can troll 4 different people every 20 minutes in LoL, in the most efficient scenario. Compare this scenario to online games like Halo where a new trolling experience can be accessed within minutes, with little to no penalties for dropping matches. LoL makes it so that those who want to intentionally feed, won't get very much satisfaction for doing so. Yet players still hold this near deification of the game meta, while ignoring how they hurt actual people.
         One might say that the same deter for trolling exists in negative language (basically people who want to go around being rude can do so at the same rate as those who want to around intentionally feeding). This is true, but ignores the fact that while using this hurtful language players can still derive the benefit from playing the game and winning the game at the same time. If one intentionally feeds, chances are high that their team is going to lose.
        This culture of "game over people" needs to stop. When I look through Tribunal cases and see people being punished for horrible play and/or intentional feeding, while those in their chat ridiculed them a and belittled them, I see a huge example of injustice. It's time the video game community looked itself in the mirror and top sugarcoating the message. People matter more than games. It's that simple.

Scott Pilgrim: The Video game metaphor

          The classic mode for video games was stage-> boss battle. It then became more complicated with  barriers such as stage-> mini-boss-> boss battle. Then from this mode video games exploded into a million different directions, with some focusing on stages and others focusing on boss battles and others going to new horizons. But no matter what, many of us hold dear the old method of fighting several bosses to get to the final resolution. This is what drives the plot of Scott Pilgrim. Each ex boyfriend was a boss and with the defeat of each one Scott got closer to the resolution. When watching this movie as a gamer, every single classic game experience you ever had is activated and suddenly the movie becomes the interactive space where you used to dwell as a kid. It's great for gamers and gaming culture to be used in this light. This kind of inter-textual conversation is exactly what video games need.
       Scott Pilgrim is the beginning of a rich conversation about what role video games play in our lives. Clearly, with the success of the movie, video games play a huge role in many people's lives. The boss battle paradigm was adopted as a key plot driving mechanism. The movie wasn't in the business of throwing around random video game references, but instead linking these references to how people feel about particular game mechanics. The coin mechanism which always let us know we were making progress. The lives mechanism, which at times could be unforgiving or a savior. And the continue screen that always begged the question of "what is to come next". These things don't just hold nostalgic value, but intrinsic value to us. This intrinsic value comes in the form of personal anecdotes and experiences about people's favorite classic game. Scott Pilgrim brought these stories back to life.
           Now, I know that one might read this and think I'm bias. Of course the video game blog and video game blogger is going to have a video game centered viewing of the movie. To this criticism I have no retort. This is one lens that is hardly ever used and it makes me happy that I have found a movie that allows me to use it. I hope more movies look to video games for context in the future. 

Party Games: The infinite regression into boredom

               I don't know about anyone else but I grew up playing party games. I grew up a Nintendo kid, so Mario Party and Mario Kart and Super Smash Bros. were games that I was raised on. And even today I find myself going back home or into someone's room, just to pop in my old disc of Mario Party 4 and go to town against whoever was unlucky enough to play with me (I'm competitive). The point is that these games are integral parts of our childhood and yet whenever you think about them today, you can't really recall any modern gems coming up and taking their place. This could possibly be because we were idiots as kids and now that our standards are higher we don't find the same drivel fun anymore. But then why is it that it's still fun to play the mini-games in pokemon stadium? No amount of nostalgia could get me to play voltorb charge if I didn't find it a little fun. So, we're left with this gaping question of why has party games fallen off the edge and what can we do to get them back. Well let's delve in, shall we?
             
Low Risk, High barrier to Entry
                The first issue with party games is that fact that they are intended to be low risk options for publishers. Publishers expect a certain number of families to buy a given party game, according to the amount of families who bought the same game the year before. This leads to incredibly formulaic creation processes where creativity is stifled and similar mechanisms are being reinforced. For example, the repeatably press (insert button here) mini-game is one that has be reinvented for essentially every single Mario Party game. Whenever you come across this game it's usually to fill something up or to make you move. Sure the novelty of the game probably stuck around from Mario Party 1-5, but by the time I got to Mario Party 8 I was so tired of pressing the A button so fast my finger fell off. But the developers continue putting this game in because it's the low risk option and with the barrier to entry for video games being so high, developers can't afford to take anything but a low risk option.

Aggressive consumer feedback
               Since the barrier to entry is so high for video games, publishers would much rather take these risks on gamers they perceive to be more susceptible to new forms. These gamers tend to be teenagers (14-18) and more experienced, which developers hope will lend them to being more willing to pick up new game play. They perceive the bottom line audience of party games to be casual gamers, so they make sure the games keep the same formula.The reality of the matter is that there is a mix of casual gamers and hardcore gamers playing these party games. Hardcore gamers want to sit back and play mario kart too. But they don't enjoy playing the 5th rehash of rainbow road (ok sometimes nostalgia kicks in, but come on Mario Kart you essentially rehash every single stage you've ever made in your latest game). Also, even casual gamers can admit that party games have simply lagged in terms of innovation. They don't change. Every party game is just like every other party game. What happened to the ground breaking multi-vehicle races of Diddy Kong racing? Before Smash bros, Clay fighters showed you can take fun semi recognizable characters and toss them into a fighting game. These games were huge risks and given huge rewards through purchase. Consumers need to counteract this lag by refusing to buy these party game rehashes. That's the only way.

A Microcosm of the industry
           Party games represent the worst case scenario for video games, which I guess in retrospect isn't too bad. It highlights how the high barrier to entry prevents publishers from being willing to take risks, regardless of the potential profit. This leads us to keep recreating the same game, only applying comsetic changes to the game itself. Sometimes this works. Sometimes all people want to do is play a shooter in a recreation Jurassic park. But eventually even your own fantasy land gets tiring when the game play is the same thing being reused over and over. Some ways to combat this is by having an indy game sub publisher (ahem Sony) or by offering funding to flash games that earn a certain amount of viewership. Regardless, developers and publishers need to take these risks and we as consumers need to send them the message that we want some change. If publisher have a creative outlet, then the industry will see people being much more engaged every single time a new gem is created and marketed. 

The next step: Video games cementing themselves as mediums of art

         Just recently the video game show Extra Credits released their weekly video where they talk about a specific topic that is pertinent to the state of gaming. Today's topic was about fun and how the industry constantly feels the need to infuse fun into their games. The idea behind this is that games are made simply as forms of light hearted entertainment and when one wants to stray away from this formula of success they'd better pay homage to fun in some way, shape or form. This can come in the form of humorous jokes in Fallout 3 or the odd in level jokes on maps in Halo; the point is that these games, when put under close scrutiny, exhibit this conscious effort by developers to infuse "fun" into their game. Now do these things make their games worse off? No, definitely not, but that doesn't mean we should continue making every single game like this. That's because when a developer decides to force "fun" into their game they then have to make drawbacks in other aspects because there's nothing fun about someone making a joke concerning an incredibly serious situation. This limits the medium from ever gaining respect as an art form, because people assume whenever a game takes on a serious topic, at some point in time they'll have to trivialize it with fun. For video games to be able take a step forward they're going to need to shed the handicap of fun and begin to take on different more serious genres.
     Now I already can hear the criticism from a mile away. Keep your art out of my video games. This kind of behavior by gamers is exactly what keeps developers and publishers from ever trying to publish anything ,but fun. Gamers who want to see the medium progress need to accept that video games don't need to follow this creed of fun. Games can be made to depict different aspects of the human experience. In fact, many games do that today, but are always held back by the fun handicap. On  the site, many people were angry because they felt Extra Credits was making much ado about nothing, when in fact many of them probably just can't see how fun is infused in the most serious of games. Let's take Sim City  (NES) where you're able to summon Bowser to destroy your town whenever you feel your town is getting a bit too ungrateful. Sure, this is incredibly funny, but all it serves to do is remind you that you're playing a game and that the town that you tended for isn't real. This runs completely opposite to the purpose of the game, which is to help simulate what it's like to create and run your entire town from scratch. The fact that you are able to destroy all of that is fun, but ultimately counter productive to immersion. It's hard to feel accomplished of a world when Koopa can come down at any moment and destroy it all. The point is, that there are plenty of games where fun is just forced in, regardless of the serious context and tone of the game.
    Does this mean I want to get rid of the sim city's of the gaming industry? No. I just want another game that's completely serious to be able to be put out as well. No one is rejecting fun wholeheartedly, they're just giving some other human expressions some love. And I bet you'll find if the majority of gamers encouraged this switch, video games would begin to have far more influence and respect than it ever did before.