Casual Cogitations

I can still vaguely remember the first time this controversy ever stood in front of me and slap me right in the face. If my memory serves me right, it all blew up on me when I was into a heated debate on "who's ass can kick ass better" with a good friend of mine when all of a sudden he paused, leaned over, stared blankly into space and uttered "You know, a better name for our little hobby would be 'violence gaming.' "

I flinched, of course. But he had a point: hobby games then consisted mainly of war games -- war is certainly violent -- and role-playing games, whose players spend much of their time in combat against fantastic monsters or comic-book supervillains and such.

Violence is intrinsic to many, many games. Even as abstract a game as chess can be seen as a form of military conflict.

When I was still growing up, "gaming" meant the mass-market boardgame industry and a small hobby-game appendage that together grossed perhaps a few hundred million dollars at retail. Today, it includes computer, console and arcade gaming and is a $7 billion industry in the U.S. alone -- the second largest entertainment industry in the world, after film and television.

As McLuhan would have it, every medium has a message. If violence is intrinsic to gaming, and if gaming is an increasingly predominant form of entertainment, is the likely consequence to our society an increase in violence?

Are the critics who attack gaming in the wake of the Littleton massacre correct on the fundamentals? Should Congress ask the surgeon general to prepare a report on how video games spur youth violence, as it is considering? Do games stoke our violent instincts -- or sublimate them? Is there such a thing as "good violence" and "bad violence" in games?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Let's step back a moment. What is a game?

A game is an interactive structure that requires players to struggle toward a goal.

If there's no interaction, it isn't a game; it's a puzzle. If there's no goal, then the players have no reason to choose one option over another, to undertake one task instead of something else; there's no structure. If achieving the goal isn't a struggle, if winning is easy, the game is dull; winning's no thrill.

Struggle implies conflict. Just as conflict is at the core of every story, conflict is at the core of every game. That doesn't mean all conflict must be violent; in a story, the central conflict can be the protagonist's own feelings of inadequacy, or the obduracy of her in-laws, or the inequities of society. But violent conflict has its uses; otherwise, we wouldn't have horror stories and mysteries and thrillers. Not to mention "Hamlet" and "Henry V."

There are as many ways to create conflict in a game as in a story. Adventure games like Myst use puzzles. Games like Diplomacy require negotiation. Builder games like Civilization require you to overcome economic and technological obstacles.

But there's no way to avoid conflict entirely. No conflict, no struggle. No struggle, no obstacles. No obstacles, no work. No work, no fun.

Where does violence come into the picture? Violence is an easy out. It's the simplest, most obvious way to make a game a struggle. If achieving your goal requires you to get through a horde of ravenous, flesh-eating monsters, the conflict is clear -- and the way to win is equally clear. You kill them.

Obstacles-of-violence, to coin a term, are compelling; the kill-or-be-killed instinct is wired into our hind-brain, part of our vertebrate heritage. Games like Quake II trigger a visceral, edge-of-the-seat response. Precisely because you can be killed at any moment by strange and nasty creatures, because only quick reactions can defeat them, Quake is a compelling experience.

Quake uses violence well. By that, I mean that it achieves precisely the effect its designers wished to achieve, and succeeds in delivering a compelling, stimulating, entertaining, intense experience to the player. It is a fine game.

But still: Violence is not the only way to achieve struggle in games. It is merely the easiest, the simplest, the most obvious tool in the game designer's "armamentarium."

So -- are games fundamentally violent and therefore bad? No. He was wrong; games are not about violence. Games are about struggle. Because violence is the easiest way to create struggle, many games are violent -- but far from all.

Much like the argument over gun control and the gun rights with assertion that "guns don't kill people, people kill people", video gamers are saying the same thing in the latest onslaught after a school massacre in Germany. Of course, meddling politicians are using the attack as to ban or severely restrict video games. Expect this event to help push further tightening of controls on "violent" video games all over Europe.

Daniel Finklestein has written an excellent retort to the claims about video games causing violence that is well worth reading.

One sometimes wonders if the anti-game/gun/etc. politicians have letters or statements pre-written in case something useful comes along in the news. Its amazing they can make a case for such legislation based on one awful occurrence. One bad apple out of the millions of people who play video games does not make a case for anything in a sensible mind.

Video games don't kill people, deranged lunatics do.

But perhaps a more sophisticated argument still holds water? Perhaps game designers have unconsciously awoken the beast, cavalierly creating entertainment so violently compelling that it teaches violence, desensitizes us, spurs increased violence in our society?

During my trawls through a local mall, a certain magazine caught my attention. At foresight, it seems to be a new copy of G.A.M.E. But that cant be right, I just bought this months copy, so I went closer and investigated, only to find out that it wasnt G.A.M.E. It was PLAYGROUND.

Of all the mixed emotions I had, bliss is the most dominant of them all. After all, you cant have too many local gaming mag, well at least until you find out that its unimaginative, dull and poorly written. Just like G.A.M.E.

Of course I just dont bash out of the blue, I smack dab on the middle of the blue.

I carefully read each page with somewhat low expectation but high hopes. Times passed, and I finally gotten through the whole thing. Unfortunately, all I saw was blog-liked half-assed opinions of 20 year old self-proclaimed gaming critics who do are in dire need of a remedial course in "creative" writing.

Simply put:

• Their editorial Box looks familiar with old friends manning some of the posts.
• Cover fails miserably, so bleak and boring
• I like the thickness and size
• Layout is horrible, reminds me of a PDF download
• Console gaming is well represented, but I’d still rather get my updated news via online sources
• Quite a bit of advertisers sprinkled throughout
• No strategy guide of any kind, mostly opinions

Game Master, a local multi-gaming mag that I've long regard with the utmost esteem since its release, has departed. It has for a long time now. Due to some publishing and financial reasons, Game Master was taken out of the business, thus began my sinkhole. Who is to accompany me on those long defecating breaks on the comfort room? Those long dragging lines? Those solitary morning breakfasts?

Enter G.A.M.E.

G.A.M.E is the new Game Master, it seems. Aside from G.A.M.E being more online-oriented, they're basically two peas in a pod. Oh and instead of getting long two-page reviews plastered with screen shots and caustic one liners, you get two-paragraph irksome reviews. I have nothing against laconic reviews, so long its handled efficiently.

Anyway, here's my take:

• White space - the layout looks too simplistic for me (that’s just me, guys). A gaming magazine has to have more spunk and manly guffaw. It has to provide “shock and awe”.
• More screenshots - don’t just use the hi-res and boring jpegs provided for in the press kits. Players want more screenshots of ACTUAL IN-GAME FOOTAGE. Trust me, that’s what PC Gamer and other mags do.
• Sidebars - include little bits of game trivia or information in the sidebars such as difficulty settings, HD or widescreen options or cool NPCs and other knick-knacks. It makes for a better review.
• Official logos - use the official logos of the games or the brand/company in the reviews. The marketing managers will be more happy that you did. And it builds upon the game’s brand equity.
• Have a website - I know they’re already planning for this. Can’t wait to see how it will look like. I do hope that it’s a blog and contains some stuff not found in the mag. A mag and its site have to work in tandem to promote each other. Synergy is the key word here.

Game developers must always tread a fine line between their artistic vision and the reality of what makes a good game as opposed to a desktop science experiment. Sure, the idea of an ultra-detailed space sim (for example) where you can literally control every aspect of the game might sound great in theory (just like Communism or car jousting); in practice, unfortunately, you might wind up with Battlecruiser 3000AD: A Derek Smart Pile of Steaming Monkey Feces, or whatever that bug-ridden mess was actually called. Games must remain games, but in the last 5-7 years there has been a growing dichotomy between how developers and marketing departments define what that really means. While developers realize that there are certain consumer accessibility requirements that games must meet, they also generally assume that their games can nonetheless exhibit a certain degree of complexity. Marketing departments, on the other hand, come from a long history of treating consumers of video games like 10-year old children, despite the fact that the demographics of this particular market have long moved into much more mature age groups.

It then becomes a tug of war between the developers (or more precisely, game designers), who want the game to be as rich and detailed as reasonably possible (exception to this rule: EA), and the publishers, who just want a game that's 'good enough for the kids' to be released at some point during this millennium...assumedly so that they can cackle evilly while rubbing their glistening, naked bodies with 100 dollar bills and the blood of the innocent, or whatever it is that game publishers actually do.

The root of this problem, of course, is that there is a rather large amount of moolah to be made in the games biz these days. And while the marketing people have obviously seen the statistics indicating that the average console gamer is now in their 20s and 30s, they are clearly refusing to actually respond to this shift. This leads me to believe that they therefore simply assume that most console gamers are blithering idiots as compared to their PC-playing brethren (definitely NOT an exception to this rule: EA). Among other things, this means that the battle for 'user friendliness' is slowly turning console gaming into a form of entertainment slightly less challenging (and certainly less interesting) than scratching yourself with rusty pruning shears (try it some time). Ok, please don't actually try it some time, or at the very least film it and put it on YouTube so we can all enjoy it.

One of the most obvious recent examples of this "Gaming for Dummies" philosophy is Assassin's Creed. Now please don't get me wrong, I quite liked the game: the gorgeous visuals, sublime setting, and almost meditative gameplay ensured that it was an impressive experience. What a shame, then, that it also single-handedly led to the creation of the phrase "Press X to Win." There is just no challenge to this game at all, no punishment for failure, and certainly no need to do anything in a fight but block and tap X to counter and instantly kill your opponent ad infinitum, until you've eventually finished the game or worn that little blue button down to the point that you need a new controller.

Devil May Cry 4 is another example of oversimplification damaging the challenge in games (and thus fun and replayability). Once upon a time fighting games and beat'em ups used to require an 82 button combo just to walk forward a step; DMC4, on the other hand, could be considered exceedingly complex only in a parallel universe where you have a great deal of difficulty remembering to press Y or feed yourself. Examples of the stunningly difficult to master, advanced combat manoeuvres that DMC4 forces you to learn include Tap Y - Y - Y; or maybe Tap Y and then hold Y; and of course, the dreaded Tap Y five times in a row.

I' m all for not having to master ridiculously long combos in games, but seriously, Capcom, one freaking button? As though that wasn't going to get old super fast! Combine it with the fact that all the cool fights happen in cutscenes, and it's a wonder that they didn't just release this as an anime and cut out the middleman completely.

Then, of course, there's Army of Two: a game which so fails to live up to its potential that it's actually kind of heartbreaking. This was meant to be a complex, enjoyable co-op experience with legitimate tactics, genuine teamwork-based moves, and a slick, modern storyline chock full of bad-assery and more machismo than a Village People song. The sad part is that a fair bit of this stuff was in the game initially, but was then stripped out due to the fact that half the features didn't work properly, and the other half might have required a modicum of intelligence on the part of the player. What we got instead was a game so hacked up and crippled by a desire to be more palatable to Joe Dumb Consolegamer that it is now just a buggy, repetitive mess that is half unplayable and half too boring to bother playing anyway.


I guess I just love the irony (if crying, wailing, and much gnashing of teeth can be classified as 'love') of the idea that while modern games are supposed to be all about freedom - bigger worlds, more expansive ideas, and emergent gameplay - the people in charge of the cash get scared and think that gamers can't handle this freedom with their fragile, pea-sized brains and thus won't spend money on it unless there's a tutorial window every 30 seconds, or an incredibly irritating "guide" character like Burnout Paradise's DJ Atomica - may he die a horribly slow and infinitely painful death.

The really absurd thing is the fact that numerous titles in recent times have been highly successful, despite requiring the player to occasionally exercise their brain matter and think for themselves. Titles like Oblivion, for example, or the Orange Box, do not feel the need to mollycoddle the player and thus actually manage to encourage creativity and immersion. How popular do you think the GTA series would be if every aspect of the game not directly related to the storyline was removed due to being too difficult?

When that ridiculous thought has finished percolating, take a look over at the PC gaming shelf in your local GameStop and consider why it is that genres like 4X games, turn-based strategy, RTS, or hardcore RPGs are still considered "inappropriate" for consoles? Sure, once upon a time digital control methods and lackluster system specs might have made these styles of game a no-no, but why couldn't Neverwinter Nights 2 or the phenomenal Sins of a Solar Empire be ported over these days? If it's a matter of controls, it's already been shown that RTS can be pretty decent on console (see Tiberium Wars), plus there is always the option of hooking a keyboard into a USB slot (which all the next-gen consoles should be taking advantage of anyway) and enjoying all those sexy beige function keys.

I don't think anyone really looks back on the dark old days of keyboard overlays and 600 page manuals with much in the way of teary-eyed nostalgia, but the sheer contempt exhibited toward console gamers through today's stupidly simple design is more than a little insulting. If a game like Army of Two is sold specifically to adults (as an MA rating and more swearing than a Tarantino flick would seem to indicate), shouldn't it be assumed that the adults playing it are in possession of enough adult intelligence to comprehend the finer points of play?

It's a scary thought, but maybe we'll eventually get to the stage where "Press X to Win" will be more than just a facetious little comment made by a particularly witty forum goer. Imagine, if you will, the public relations department's wet dream of the perfect game: every jump will land, every race will be won, every damsel will be rescued (and/or ravished, depending on whether you're playing as Conan or Mario), and every enemy will fall before your unintentionally hilarious, but undeniably phallic blade. Best of all it will all be so incredibly intuitive and user friendly that you won't actually have to even touch the controller. Oh wait, looks like we just invented cinema!

In all seriousness, though, the only way this alarming trend toward assumed console gamer idiocy can be stopped is by making a stand for our rights as people who somehow manage to both play games and not be morons. We are the generation of the information age - not only can we operate the microwave and program the VCR, we can also perform financial analysis, create complex websites, and program the very presentation software that marketing folk use to try to prove that the video game consumer of the internet generation is still the mental equivalent of the snotty 10 year old that was the primary consumer of games in the 80s and 90s. And yes, we also play games.

So if you are sick to death of annoying tutorials; if you've had enough of awesome gameplay features being cut right before release due to 'complexity' issues; if you are ready to murder the next PR drone that talks about "accessibility" or "user-friendliness" as a substitute for good old fashioned fun, then do something about it! Jump onto a forum, send off an angry email, and most of all, refuse to buy condescending, oversimplified games if that is what it takes to let them know that we resent being treated like the children that are no longer the primary audience of consoles (and have not been for a damn long time). If the software giants are rocked by enough consumer pressure to get rid of this ridiculous "Gaming for Dummies" design ethos, then maybe, just maybe, they will realize that their target audience deserves to be treated like the adults they know we are.