LEEEEERRRROOOYYYYY JEEENNNKIIIINNNNSSSS!!!

So, I'm meant to be talking about online gaming communities. The problem is, despite the fact that I have a lot of experience of online communities and I've studied them before, I have little to no experience of them in a gaming context. I don't play anything like World of Warcraft or Ultima Online. I don't play games anywhere near enough to justify investing the amount of time a subscription based game would require (not to mention the cost involved). Also, of the games I do play, I don't really play online. However, I do know people who have been involved in these games. I even have a friend who met her partner through WoW.

The attraction of these games is obviously the fact that they offer an experience that a single player game can't. The experience of playing with humans. In its simplest form, this is just the fact that, no matter how well a game is written, your opponents can never be as interesting as a real human opponent. The simplest example I can think of is playing Worms. The AI was rather uninventive, so while it could place a shot with almost pinpoint accuracy at times, and deliver maximum damage, it couldn't compare to the destructive power I could wield by using fairly suicidal tactics. Playing against people changes this. You get that inventiveness and unpredictability in your opponent.

And then there are the community games. Where the allure isn't that you're playing against people, but that you're playing with people. The co-operation element. That inventiveness and unpredictability is now on your side. And not only that, but the other players have to decide how co-operative they wish to be. In a normal online community, peace and harmony and working together doesn't have any reward other than itself. In a game, that co-operation is key. You have to work towards that common goal. But there can still be those of a mischievous or vindictive nature who decide to work against this. How the community then deals with this is another interesting facet of the experience.

Then there's the other layers of the interaction between the members of the community. You have the option within the game of merely keeping interaction to game-related things or you can take it further. A game community could become something very much outside of the game, where it's a community of its own, merely brought together because of the game. So another attraction is the idea that these communities can transcend what the game offers. Relationships are not limited to what is beneficial to progress in the game but can encompass whatever the members enjoy.

Then, there's the other side of an online community. The darker side. Antagonism and a lack of co-operation. In these instances, the game allows players to be more active in their reactions to these things. If someone antagonises their community, they aren't just given the option to ignore them or block what they say, they're able to fight them off. To counter antagonism with (at least simulated) physical repercussions. They allow you to actually punch a loudmouth in the face.

Gaming communities offer what other online communities do, but with attractive extras that the environment of a game allows. The players are engaging in a simulation and that simulation brings them together through shared ideals. But it can also cause them to clash as opposing ideals are inflamed by the ability to simulate conflicts as real engagements.

08/05/08 - 15/05/08

Haze: An interesting game. I've said before that I'm not a big fan of first person shooters and this hasn't really changed that. The concept is good and makes for an interesting experience, but it doesn't change the feel of the game enough that it stops being an FPS. I think I may have enjoyed the game more if the demo I played had allowed me to play the rebel missions as I found the way I could attack my allies much more interesting. Shooting a rebel while under the influence of nectar is nowhere near as fun and shooting out another soldier's nectar injector and watching them go crazy.

I don't want to talk about Lara Croft

[UltimateMetroid] who here plays metroid?
[Daishi] I only play it cause you gotta know samus is hot under that suit
[UltimateMetroid] fag
[Daishi] dumbass

I just looked through my collection of games to see which had female protagonists. Discarding any games that allowed you to select from a number of characters (such as Soulcalibur or Mortal Kombat), I was left with one. It's a game that came with my PS2 called "Red Ninja: End of Honour". I've barely played it as I found even the tutorial mode frustrating. Looking through the manual, one of your options is to use your power of "seduction". Thinking practically, if I were a ninja, I wouldn't dress the way she does. I think it might be hard to concentrate on sneaking up on people when you're worried about your breasts falling out.

There are two different gender issues in gaming. The gender of characters and the gender of players. And then of course there's the third issue of how these two interact. Of course, when I say "gender", I don't just mean whether a character or player is male or female, but the entire spectrum of gender. You can take this to the extreme and you'll end up with a character like Birdo, but that's unnecessary. A character like Samus Aran, doesn't sit definitely at one end of the gender spectrum. She's a very masculine character. She runs around in a big suit, shooting a big gun at big monsters. But take that away and she's very much (physically) an attractive, athletic, woman. Who can contort into a ball.

From a player perspective, when I have a choice, I tend to choose female characters. I will admit that this is usually from an aesthetic standpoint. Extended watching of a character such as Sophitia appeals to me far more than one like Astaroth. But looking deeper into things, female characters appeal to me more as they have more depth. In a male-dominated genre (especially in things like fighting games) the female characters have to be made more appealing in some way. They can't simply be made infeasibly strong and powerful, so more inventive routes are taken, resulting in better characters. Once again looking at Soulcalibur, the appeal of a character like Ivy is not just aesthetic, but in how her weaponry works and can be utilised in interesting ways.

Playing Fahrenheit gave me the opportunity to alternate between playing a male main character and a female one. I quite often chose to play as Carla when given the choice as I enjoyed the nature of the character and the possibilities I was given when playing her. However, as well written as the character was, the narration fell down at the end. For some reason it's decided that she needed a relationship plotline. This results in her telling Lucas she loves him (and subsequently having sex with him and becoming pregnant with his child) after only knowing him for a few days. This becomes even more preposterous if you factor in various other elements of the story, such as how she was previously pursuing him as a murder suspect. Not to mention the fact that Lucas' (ex-)girlfriend recently died and that (arguably) Lucas himself is actually dead!

This isn't so much just a symptom of games though. In every form of narrative media, a female protaganist, no matter how strong, will more often than not need a male counterpart. In the Fifth Element, Corben needs to tell Leeloo he loves her before she can destroy the evil entity. Ann Veronica's rebellion is only catalysed by her attraction to Capes (and is subsequently quelled by her marriage to him). Silk Spectre is nothing without Dr. Manhattan or Nite Owl. In a world where things are designed to sell, social norms are perpetuated. Fantasies are reinforced. You'd be surprised just how often this is the case. If you're a female character, you're going to end up sleeping with a dead guy.

So what about the issue of male players playing female characters and vice versa? Is this situation a real exploration of gender roles? Is the player using it as a tool to experiences alternate facets of their personality in a "safe" virtual environment? For some, this may be the case. Games are largely simulations. They are fantasy and wish fulfilment. The opportunity to be another character and to do things you can't do yourself. Whether this goes as far as gender crossing depends on the individual. For a game like Fahrenheit, the opportunity is to be a detective (as well as a fugitive), whether the fact that you're a female detective matters, is up to you. In a game like Metroid, for much of it the character isn't even identifiably female. There's not even the aesthetic differences that male and female characters usually have.

And there you have it. Gender representation in games works just the same as it does in other media. Games are made to sell and so they will follow along with what is wanted by who they're selling to. Gender is something personal to everyone, so how they experience the representations of it in games is just as personal. Extreme representations of gender in gaming will always happen as these work best in a fantastical scenario. No one wants to save the princess who could fight her own way out. No one wants to be the little girl with reasonable fighting skills, facing a huge monster.

And I did all that without once mentioning Lara Croft. Oh, damn.

25/04/08 - 02/05/08

Games I've been playing this week:

This week, I borrowed a couple of games from the IOCT. As I'd just studied violence in video games, I decided to choose a couple that were overtly violent.

Fahrenheit: Before I borrowed it from the IOCT, I'd never even heard of this game before. I have to say that I was very pleasantly surprised. I ended up somewhat addicted to it and after only borrowing it last Thursday, I've already completed it (in the sense that the story of the game is over, there's still a fair amount that I can still do with the game). Due to the fact that you control both the killer and the detectives trying to catch him, it makes for an interesting game, as you're essentially playing against yourself. You have to make decisions about how well you play each character in order to help yourself in the other roles you play. The game is fairly open in the style of play. You're taken through a story in quite a linear fashion (though the order in which you experience certain parts is up to you) but you still have a lot of freedom of choice about what exactly happens in the game. It's not as open as a game like GTA, but it's nowhere near as restrictive as a game like FFX.

The story is good, though there are certain parts where you have to suspend disbelief greatly as they can be rather fantastical. Where it really stands up is the characters. I found myself liking them and choosing what scenes to play first by which character I liked best. Another great part of the game is the atmospherics. Certain parts of the game I found very unnerving and I was genuinely unsettled, which made for a very immersive gaming experience.

The control system of the game is also very interesting. I've never encountered a game with a similar system. The way it forces you to do certain things that make it so that when your character has to make a physical effort, so do you, really adds to how you're sucked into the game. I found myself feeling slightly exhausted after prolonged sections where I had to do a lot of these challenges.

Overall, it's been a very enjoyable experience and I think it's likely I'll replay parts of the game even though I've finished the story. I've got the game for another week, but I may have to buy a copy of my own at some point.

True Crime: New York City: This game I didn't enjoy quite as much. It struck me as basically an alternate take on GTA, where you're a cop instead of a criminal. While the game can be enjoyable, it doesn't really add anything to the concept of GTA. Instead it loses something as the missions don't work well with causing mayhem, which is the most enjoyable part of the game. Also, it lacks the humour of GTA, which is really an integral part of the enjoyment of the game. One major criticism is the physics engine when you're driving. The cars are sometimes rather bouncy. I found myself bounced across a road into a pile of pedestrians when I hit a lamppost! One very good part of the game is the soundtrack, it provides a great range and has some great tracks available to listen to. It also allows you to decide which tracks you want to hear more of and which ones you don't want to hear at all. All in all, I'd still rather play any of the GTA series.

17/04/08 - 24/04/08

So, I don't have as many new games to play recently, so these posts are gonna be somewhat irregular. Anyway, here goes:

Games I've been playing this week:

Mario Kart Wii: This is the first Mario Kart title I've properly played. Others, I've done about one race and then given up. Since I've been playing Burnout, I've got much better at racing games, so I gave this one much more of a go. However, my skills at Burnout don't quite translate to Mario Kart. Using the Wii remote in the wheel accessory is very different from using an analogue joystick on a PS2. There's no real limit to how far you can turn the wheel, so it can be hard to judge how much to turn it when taking a corner. Despite this, it's a highly enjoyable game. The nature of the game of course makes it fun, but, as with most Wii games, it's the physicality of playing that really makes it. Also, the vast selection of tracks, covering every Mario Kart game, means you can have an extended session, over a variety of tracks, without it getting repetitive.

Capitalism is cannibalism, violence is violence

So, first post after Easter and I'm talking about violence in video games. Talk about starting with a bang! I'm gonna start things off with a recent video from G4TV's X-play. It features Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl Olson talking about their new book, "Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do".



So, as you can probably tell from my previous posts talking about what games I play, I have no problem playing violent games. I'm no psychologist, so really I can only have an insight into my own experiences and the experiences of people I know. Quite obviously I'm not going to prove anything about the nature of violence in games and what it may or may not cause, but I can still give my views.

There seems to be two main sides to the violence debate, that either playing violent games encourages people to be violent, or that playing violent games discourages violent tendencies as it acts as a way to "blow off steam". As is mentioned in the video, most studies seem to be inconclusive. Any that apparently prove a causal link between playing games and being violent either ignores that the "resulting violent tendencies" are not actual violence or that short-term results don't necessarily translate to a long-term effect.

In my personal experience, I play violent games and I'm not a violent person. In the same way I can play Burnout and make my way around a circuit at blistering speed but don't think it would be a good idea for me to go out and get behind the wheel of a car. So, obviously violent games don't make everyone violent (and I'm sure I could go out and find a very large group of people who would say the same is true). But that doesn't rule out the possibility that violent games could be the trigger for someone's violence.

But then, if it's not the case for every single person, then surely it's not the fault of the games. In the same way that just because some people don't like cherries but cherries are still sold to those who do. Some people are horrible drivers, but cars are still available to those who aren't.

It's an age-old debate where people try to blame an inanimate something in order to relieve themselves from personal responsibility. Personally, if there were some real reasoning behind removing violence from games, I wouldn't care. But right now, every argument given is hugely flawed. If your child plays a violent game intended for an adult and they decide to emulate something in the game, then blaming the game is the wrong way to go. There's a gap between games and reality and it's not up to a game developer to teach people that.

20/03/08 - 03/03/08

So, due to the fact I haven't had exposure to any new games recently (due to not buying them, among other things), I thought I'd use the past two weeks to reflect on games that I've spent a large amount of time on. Games I keep returning to.

PC:

Total Annihilation: I've spoken before about Total Annihilation. It's a game I've always loved, even from before I had a computer that could actually run it properly. I have fond memories of playing skirmish battles and only building air units and just bombing everything I could find. I've recently discovered there's a fully 3D remake called "Spring" available (it even runs on Linux!), so I shall be looking into that soon.

Worms 2: A game I will definitely never get tired of. I even have a version of it on my old phone. The humour and the fun of the damage you can cause when using suicidal tactics is great. Also one of the few games I've ever completed, though with only 17 short missions, this is no great feat.

Dreamcast:

Shenmue: Now almost 9 years old, this game still stands up as excellent. Games like GTA might have made the idea of a fully explorable environment somewhat commonplace, but Shenmue is still great, thanks to an excellent storyline and great characters. It really saddens me that Shenmue 3 (and thus the end of the Shenmue saga) will likely never see the light of day.

Soulcalibur: Like driving games, I've always enjoyed fighting games on a basic level, but I've never been that good at them. While I'm still not exactly great at Soulcalibur (I still get beaten in multi-player games fairly often), I've managed to complete a fair amount of the missions (though they are fairly one-dimensional, you're fighting someone, just the why or how changes) and I've made it through arcade mode a few times. I mostly play for enjoyment, rather than because I feel the need to complete and unlock everything.

Playstation 2:

Canis Canem Edit: Another of the few games I've actually completed (storyline-wise, at least). The storyline and the humour of this game just make it insanely fun to play and quite addictive to boot. One of the best parts of the game is how the richness of the environment really encourages you to explore and do things your way. This definitely ties into my post on narratives as while there is a definite pre-defined story but it allows you to explore that story with a great degree of freedom.

Kingdom Hearts: Again, a game where the story and the characters are the draw. The great part is that while most of the characters are familiar, they're used in interesting and new ways and the story of the game is still very strong.

Burnout 3: I think I've said enough about this game before. Definitely another game I've become addicted to. The lure of just doing one more race is something that can easily eat away at my time...