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.