Saturday, December 30, 2006
Polemic Games
Video games, more than any other medium of expression we have ever created, simulate the world around us. As we become better and better at making these not quite real, not quite imaginary worlds we give rise to deeper and deeper simulations. The effect of information in these worlds is assimilated into the human brain in a unique manner, and people are learning to use this to get their message across.
Armies tell children how just their cause is, tell them stories of brotherhood and camaraderie in the face of battle. Christians tell us of rapture and ascension. Concerned citizens talk about the daily struggle of refugees, stories of persecution and survival at all costs.
I don’t trust anyone who sends me messages in video games. The messages may be worthy or not, but no one sending them is unbiased in their reporting. I trust, for a given value of trust admittedly, what is said in the papers because it is accountable. Stories may be written by a two-bit hack, but there has to be a grain of truth to the story for it to be printed and there are regulations and checks on the information printed. Not so with America’s Army or Left Behind. This is a medium totally un-policed in its use of political content, even though it may potentially be one of the most persuasive methods of information distribution that exists.
Why is there no option for discussion in these games? Why can’t we stop and ask the enemy “Why are you fighting me? Do you believe I am culpable for the actions of my government? What is your experience of my country’s army?” Why are we not treated to a tour of Abhu-Graibe so that we can see the ugly side of the Military. Why can’t we have all the information?
It’s because the people to make an experience deep enough to change a mind needs a lot of money to do it, and people with lots of money do not often like open debate. Christians, charities, military forces, all these groups tend to stick to their own personal truth like glue. I am someone who avoids one-side-story arguments; they make me feel like I need a shower.
In time perhaps these opposing groups will give rise to a broad medium from which we will be able to pick out different games for each side of a story. But at the moment then I will get my news and form my opinions from sources that remain unbiased, and play games that stay out of these kinds of polarised cultural spaces.
Video games, more than any other medium of expression we have ever created, simulate the world around us. As we become better and better at making these not quite real, not quite imaginary worlds we give rise to deeper and deeper simulations. The effect of information in these worlds is assimilated into the human brain in a unique manner, and people are learning to use this to get their message across.
Armies tell children how just their cause is, tell them stories of brotherhood and camaraderie in the face of battle. Christians tell us of rapture and ascension. Concerned citizens talk about the daily struggle of refugees, stories of persecution and survival at all costs.
I don’t trust anyone who sends me messages in video games. The messages may be worthy or not, but no one sending them is unbiased in their reporting. I trust, for a given value of trust admittedly, what is said in the papers because it is accountable. Stories may be written by a two-bit hack, but there has to be a grain of truth to the story for it to be printed and there are regulations and checks on the information printed. Not so with America’s Army or Left Behind. This is a medium totally un-policed in its use of political content, even though it may potentially be one of the most persuasive methods of information distribution that exists.
Why is there no option for discussion in these games? Why can’t we stop and ask the enemy “Why are you fighting me? Do you believe I am culpable for the actions of my government? What is your experience of my country’s army?” Why are we not treated to a tour of Abhu-Graibe so that we can see the ugly side of the Military. Why can’t we have all the information?
It’s because the people to make an experience deep enough to change a mind needs a lot of money to do it, and people with lots of money do not often like open debate. Christians, charities, military forces, all these groups tend to stick to their own personal truth like glue. I am someone who avoids one-side-story arguments; they make me feel like I need a shower.
In time perhaps these opposing groups will give rise to a broad medium from which we will be able to pick out different games for each side of a story. But at the moment then I will get my news and form my opinions from sources that remain unbiased, and play games that stay out of these kinds of polarised cultural spaces.
Darfur is Dying
Developed by the University of Southern California, Darfur is dying is a short game made to highlight the plight of refugees in the war torn country.
Relatively simple in its production and execution, the game has a kind of charm none the less. Beginning as a villager hiding from jeeps filled with soldiers and then graduating to helping to run a refugee camp for seven days, each aspect of the game tries to examine what life is like for these people. This is not a game that can really be won, as you are reminded that whatever you have just done, people are still dying for real.
The game itself is a little clumsy, whatever its goals are. Hiding from a jeep is fine, but when it runs you over, no one notices and you don’t get hurt. The camp simulation suffers from bad signposting and poor navigation. These kinds of fault are to be expected in this level of game production though.
Darfur is Dying is not really about gameplay, though. It is a way of trying to open people’s eyes to a situation that is largely neglected in the mainstream media due to coverage of Iraq, political scandal and football. It does, in a way, give people who play it an idea of what life is in Darfur. But I do feel it has a major problem. Who is going to play it?
Anyone who seeks out the game on purpose must have an idea of what is going on in Darfur, and anyone who comes across it by accident will likely ignore it. It may be of use as an educational tool, but I don’t see much else it could truly accomplish.
This is not a fault of the game, but of its distribution and planning. As noble as it is the effort put into developing it could perhaps have been used more constructively.
Developed by the University of Southern California, Darfur is dying is a short game made to highlight the plight of refugees in the war torn country.
Relatively simple in its production and execution, the game has a kind of charm none the less. Beginning as a villager hiding from jeeps filled with soldiers and then graduating to helping to run a refugee camp for seven days, each aspect of the game tries to examine what life is like for these people. This is not a game that can really be won, as you are reminded that whatever you have just done, people are still dying for real.
The game itself is a little clumsy, whatever its goals are. Hiding from a jeep is fine, but when it runs you over, no one notices and you don’t get hurt. The camp simulation suffers from bad signposting and poor navigation. These kinds of fault are to be expected in this level of game production though.
Darfur is Dying is not really about gameplay, though. It is a way of trying to open people’s eyes to a situation that is largely neglected in the mainstream media due to coverage of Iraq, political scandal and football. It does, in a way, give people who play it an idea of what life is in Darfur. But I do feel it has a major problem. Who is going to play it?
Anyone who seeks out the game on purpose must have an idea of what is going on in Darfur, and anyone who comes across it by accident will likely ignore it. It may be of use as an educational tool, but I don’t see much else it could truly accomplish.
This is not a fault of the game, but of its distribution and planning. As noble as it is the effort put into developing it could perhaps have been used more constructively.
America’s Army
The US is much more protective of its armed forces than we here in Britain are. Perhaps this is why there has been no public outcry towards America’s Army, a video game released by the U.S. military as a way to reach out to America’s youth and hopefully persuade them to join up.
It’s a first person shooter, dressed up with full military paraphernalia. A console version was released with a tag line, meant to underscore the realism of the experience, “Our developers don’t NEED imagination.” This sentence may well tell you everything you need to know about Americans.
America’s army plays very similar to Counter-Strike; unsurprisingly it was the level of obsession of Counter-Strike players which inspired the military to design this game. It was the key demographic of young males with split second reflexes that Military officials wanted to attract. America’s Army focuses on the same style of team based, strategic, unforgiving gameplay, designed to mimic real-world combat situations.
For a game that aspires to realism, America’s Army is extremely tame. A bullet will make a small tasteful hole in a player, with very minimal blood or gore. Maybe the army thinks that showing potential candidates for military service what it looks like to loose an arm or a leg would be detrimental to their goal. The game also lacks any frame of reference for the combat it simulates. Who these enemies are and why you should kill them is not explored, except to say that they are bad and should be shot at.
I can’t imagine many people would have the patience for such an unrewarding experience. Then again, a pretty small percentage of people would consider joining the military anyway. Those who do play the game are tracked and recorded constantly, so that if they should decide to enlist the military can profile them according to their actions, determining what job they may be suited too. Personally I find this Big Brother method of information gathering extremely worrying. However since 9/11 America has shown little regard for its own civil liberties, so I doubt they care that much.
The success of America’s army as a recruiting tool will not be effectively measured for some time to come. There is very little in the game that makes me feel like enlisting. It omits so much of the reality of war that it feels hollow and plastic in comparison to even mild television coverage of conflicts. Perhaps I’m just thinking too much to enjoy the game, but then America has never wanted its solders to think to hard, has it?
Matt Stone
The US is much more protective of its armed forces than we here in Britain are. Perhaps this is why there has been no public outcry towards America’s Army, a video game released by the U.S. military as a way to reach out to America’s youth and hopefully persuade them to join up.
It’s a first person shooter, dressed up with full military paraphernalia. A console version was released with a tag line, meant to underscore the realism of the experience, “Our developers don’t NEED imagination.” This sentence may well tell you everything you need to know about Americans.
America’s army plays very similar to Counter-Strike; unsurprisingly it was the level of obsession of Counter-Strike players which inspired the military to design this game. It was the key demographic of young males with split second reflexes that Military officials wanted to attract. America’s Army focuses on the same style of team based, strategic, unforgiving gameplay, designed to mimic real-world combat situations.
For a game that aspires to realism, America’s Army is extremely tame. A bullet will make a small tasteful hole in a player, with very minimal blood or gore. Maybe the army thinks that showing potential candidates for military service what it looks like to loose an arm or a leg would be detrimental to their goal. The game also lacks any frame of reference for the combat it simulates. Who these enemies are and why you should kill them is not explored, except to say that they are bad and should be shot at.
I can’t imagine many people would have the patience for such an unrewarding experience. Then again, a pretty small percentage of people would consider joining the military anyway. Those who do play the game are tracked and recorded constantly, so that if they should decide to enlist the military can profile them according to their actions, determining what job they may be suited too. Personally I find this Big Brother method of information gathering extremely worrying. However since 9/11 America has shown little regard for its own civil liberties, so I doubt they care that much.
The success of America’s army as a recruiting tool will not be effectively measured for some time to come. There is very little in the game that makes me feel like enlisting. It omits so much of the reality of war that it feels hollow and plastic in comparison to even mild television coverage of conflicts. Perhaps I’m just thinking too much to enjoy the game, but then America has never wanted its solders to think to hard, has it?
Matt Stone
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
World of Warcraft
WoW has many followers who talk about what a fantastic game it is, with its wealth of content, experience of playing with others and epic story. However I have played the game and experienced these elements first hand. When they say wealth of content, they mean is the same tired game mechanics repeated constantly. The story has less involvement than a Mr Man book, and about the same complexity. Also, the experience of playing alongside other people will quickly make you question the value of ever playing again.
I won’t deny the initial appeal of World of Warcraft. On paper it boasts a huge array of character options, vast worlds and exciting gameplay. When you play the game it is easy to believe this is the case.
Take, for instance, the character system. Eight races, nine character classes and twelve professions. You can equip your character with thousands of different pieces of weapons and armour. But once you’ve been playing for a while the cracks start to show. I can be an orc, a gnome, a zombie or a giant cow/person and it has almost no effect on the way the game plays besides a few different quests and a few different abilities. The game feels no different. You’re still forced to follow the same pattern of linear progression.
Character classes are also surprisingly similar. Either you attack or cast spells, and because of the startlingly regularity with which you find yourself in combat this dissolves into an abstract keyboard mashing exercise which alienates you from the action. The differences to class are highlighted by their absence. Other than the brief and uninteresting spell animations they offer little deviation from central models.
While the game insists upon its involving story, I can’t say I felt involved once. Besides its hackneyed, clichéd setting, the methods employed to relate the plot are totally pedestrian and unconvincing. Having spent hours killing giant scarecrows in the Wastelands, you can return ten minutes later and find that they are back terrorising the citizenry. So why did I kill them? Was I really these people’s saviour? Or was I, in fact, looking for items and trying to gain experience? The game does little to combat these holes in its suspension of disbelief.
The reason, we are told, that WoW is so popular is because it offers so many different things to its audience. If you don’t want to spend all your time fighting, spend your time making money at the auction house. If you want to obsess over getting the best armour you’re free to do so. People come to World of Warcraft because there is so much content on the surface of the game.
Once again I feel that this is a misrepresentation perpetuated by the game’s developers. The content is always limited by the player’s level and the amount of in game money they have. You are compelled to spend your time grinding levels by killing some of the endless supply of monsters and enemies. Every other aspect is supplementary to this central purpose and just as repetitive. All WoW does is pay lip-service to the idea of expanded gameplay, something you will understand after trying to make one useful item through blacksmithing.
Another thing often cited as one of World of Warcraft’s strongest element is its player base. Millions of people play this game, and to progress beyond the first twenty levels or so you will need their help. Most people will end up joining guilds or forming circles of, if not friends, at least acquaintances. This allows you to form strong enough groups to progress through the game
I don’t feel that this is a helpful structure. It leads to what many people wrongly term “addiction”. It is, in fact, practicality. Any guild or group has to progress at a similar level, or those who are lacking will be left behind. This means that the pace of levelling is usually set by the player who plays the most. Maintaining your place in a group is what drives most people to spend far more time on the game than might otherwise. If you choose to avoid guilds or building relationships you will have to rely on teams you don’t know, or trust, which won’t help your success rate.
As well as the need for teaming, there is the community of each server. The hierarchy of this community is decided purely by the achievements that players can claim to. You may be a doctor with a beautiful wife, two wonderful children and a Porsche, but if you’re three levels lower than that acne ridden thirteen year old child he may well act as if you are something he has scrapped off his shoe. I know that not many players take it to this extreme, but the implied superiority of someone who has been playing for two weeks longer than you is something that prevails throughout the game. Even people who try to help often come across as condescending, telling you how you should be playing.
If you crave this kind of false accomplishment then you may wish to open your door to World of Warcraft. But when you step back from the game you will see just how hollow these victories are.
The medium of massively multiplayer games is one with huge potential. It is a genuinely new genre in videogames, something very rare. But World of Warcraft fails to deliver on many, perhaps all of its promises. Online communities such as Second Life are already surpassing it in terms of content, interaction and opportunities for expansion. For the same price as the game and your fist few months’ subscription, you could buy several interesting games that would provide far more entertainment. I would recommend that this would be a better use of your money.
Matt Stone
WoW has many followers who talk about what a fantastic game it is, with its wealth of content, experience of playing with others and epic story. However I have played the game and experienced these elements first hand. When they say wealth of content, they mean is the same tired game mechanics repeated constantly. The story has less involvement than a Mr Man book, and about the same complexity. Also, the experience of playing alongside other people will quickly make you question the value of ever playing again.
I won’t deny the initial appeal of World of Warcraft. On paper it boasts a huge array of character options, vast worlds and exciting gameplay. When you play the game it is easy to believe this is the case.
Take, for instance, the character system. Eight races, nine character classes and twelve professions. You can equip your character with thousands of different pieces of weapons and armour. But once you’ve been playing for a while the cracks start to show. I can be an orc, a gnome, a zombie or a giant cow/person and it has almost no effect on the way the game plays besides a few different quests and a few different abilities. The game feels no different. You’re still forced to follow the same pattern of linear progression.
Character classes are also surprisingly similar. Either you attack or cast spells, and because of the startlingly regularity with which you find yourself in combat this dissolves into an abstract keyboard mashing exercise which alienates you from the action. The differences to class are highlighted by their absence. Other than the brief and uninteresting spell animations they offer little deviation from central models.
While the game insists upon its involving story, I can’t say I felt involved once. Besides its hackneyed, clichéd setting, the methods employed to relate the plot are totally pedestrian and unconvincing. Having spent hours killing giant scarecrows in the Wastelands, you can return ten minutes later and find that they are back terrorising the citizenry. So why did I kill them? Was I really these people’s saviour? Or was I, in fact, looking for items and trying to gain experience? The game does little to combat these holes in its suspension of disbelief.
The reason, we are told, that WoW is so popular is because it offers so many different things to its audience. If you don’t want to spend all your time fighting, spend your time making money at the auction house. If you want to obsess over getting the best armour you’re free to do so. People come to World of Warcraft because there is so much content on the surface of the game.
Once again I feel that this is a misrepresentation perpetuated by the game’s developers. The content is always limited by the player’s level and the amount of in game money they have. You are compelled to spend your time grinding levels by killing some of the endless supply of monsters and enemies. Every other aspect is supplementary to this central purpose and just as repetitive. All WoW does is pay lip-service to the idea of expanded gameplay, something you will understand after trying to make one useful item through blacksmithing.
Another thing often cited as one of World of Warcraft’s strongest element is its player base. Millions of people play this game, and to progress beyond the first twenty levels or so you will need their help. Most people will end up joining guilds or forming circles of, if not friends, at least acquaintances. This allows you to form strong enough groups to progress through the game
I don’t feel that this is a helpful structure. It leads to what many people wrongly term “addiction”. It is, in fact, practicality. Any guild or group has to progress at a similar level, or those who are lacking will be left behind. This means that the pace of levelling is usually set by the player who plays the most. Maintaining your place in a group is what drives most people to spend far more time on the game than might otherwise. If you choose to avoid guilds or building relationships you will have to rely on teams you don’t know, or trust, which won’t help your success rate.
As well as the need for teaming, there is the community of each server. The hierarchy of this community is decided purely by the achievements that players can claim to. You may be a doctor with a beautiful wife, two wonderful children and a Porsche, but if you’re three levels lower than that acne ridden thirteen year old child he may well act as if you are something he has scrapped off his shoe. I know that not many players take it to this extreme, but the implied superiority of someone who has been playing for two weeks longer than you is something that prevails throughout the game. Even people who try to help often come across as condescending, telling you how you should be playing.
If you crave this kind of false accomplishment then you may wish to open your door to World of Warcraft. But when you step back from the game you will see just how hollow these victories are.
The medium of massively multiplayer games is one with huge potential. It is a genuinely new genre in videogames, something very rare. But World of Warcraft fails to deliver on many, perhaps all of its promises. Online communities such as Second Life are already surpassing it in terms of content, interaction and opportunities for expansion. For the same price as the game and your fist few months’ subscription, you could buy several interesting games that would provide far more entertainment. I would recommend that this would be a better use of your money.
Matt Stone
