buy fewer games

It's a shame that I have to offer this advice, because I believe this year, like last year, will be a great year for games. But I care about you guys, so I'm going to say it.

Buy fewer games this year. Start saving more money.

Reports are coming out that the American Treasury has been printing currency these past months on a scale far beyond anything it has done in our nation's history. Printing was already unusually high over the past 10 years, but now it's skyrocketing at a dangerous pace. As a result, the American economy is very likely to suffer record-setting inflation. The dollar's value is about to plummet.

I'm sure there are many exaggerations floating around right now, but this is undeniably a very serious situation. For a certainty, the money you're already saving is not going to buy as much as it normally would. Most of us are already saving more money than usual because of the troubled economy. I'm saying this is an almost-certain indicator that things are going to get worse before they get better.

So take care of yourself. Be more frugal. Spend less money than you normally would. Unfortunately, that means letting some good games slip through the cracks this year. Hopefully, you'll be able to pick them up to enjoy later.

in favor of gore and violence

I have mixed feelings about graphic violence in war games.

On the one hand, if you intend for a war game to be educational and didactic, then your depiction of war should be as realistically graphic as possible. There's a limit to how much reality most game consumers will take, of course. The full horrors of our world are not shown even in schools or on TV because relatively few people are willing to face absolutely everything. But the more education that can be sneaked in, the better.

On the other hand, it's easy and wrong to relish the gore too much. Some enjoyment is benign, I think. Young boys cross-culturally play war games (not speaking of video games), and enjoyment of violence goes hand-in-hand with that instinct. A thrill from battle is natural, including gory signs of victory. But that, like any instinctual desire, has a proper place and manner. The appetite for violence can and should be directed, moderated, and bloodlust (gore) with it.

Enjoyment of gore is founded in a taste for victory, I believe. When you see the head of your sniper's victim explode like a watermelon, it can be more satisfying feedback than simply seeing the victim fall down. When your battleaxe hits home and you hear a pained cry mixed with the sound of flesh tearing and bone shattering, that's a taste of competitive success.

I have great respect for films in which bullet wounds are intentionally invisible or merely red stains (like John Wayne films, or The Hunt for Red October). Gore can be good feedback or good education, even integral to storytelling, but subtlety can also be good. The absence of gore can better focus the audience's attention on other elements. Game designers should always ask which way better suits their particular game.

Anyway! As usual, I'm getting off track.

That article made me think of the irony that the game restrictions intended to honor social concerns are very often in the way of serving those values.

For example, children cannot be killed in games. Children in games like Neverwinter Nights, Fable 2, and Fallout 3 are invulnerable (yes, it's sad that I know this). Bioshock allows the player to kill the child-like "Little Sisters", but the screen fades out when this happens. Truth-conscious war games have yet to represent the reality that combatants are commonly children (often teenagers, sometimes younger) or even include them as bystanders. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is getting a sequel, but what are the chances it will have kids with assault rifles, militants residing with their families, or terrorists stationing supplies and soldiers in schools and churches?

Yet what would push home the nature of urban combat to gamers better than having to face women and children with guns?

Rather than forbid gore and uncomfortable scenarios, those interested in socially productive gaming should encourage developers to include such things and provide intuitive commentary.

Intuitive commentary means unspoken commentary; gameworld consequences and reactions beyond dialogue. Soldiers visibly shaken by the deaths of their comrades. Non-player combatants being crippled, rather than slain. The dead abandoned, their corpses stripped by poor locals and nibbled on by crows and dogs. Wailing mothers and grandmothers. Lost, crying children.

Intuitive commentary means reward and punishment. Save an ally and he might watch your back a little more closely. Spare what enemies you can and you might receive valuable information, face softer resistance from noncombatants, or even make a friend. Kill too many noncombatants and your allies will turn against you (the game ends... restart). Kill some kid who's aiming a gun at you and expect the family to seek revenge. Place a landmine, and don't expect to be able to control who dies by it.

As I said earlier, I acknowledge that there is a limit to what consumers of entertainment are willing to endure. Films like Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, and Black Hawk Down have demonstrated that the average consumer will endure a great deal if the presentation of that uncomfortable content is artful and meaningful. Games, being interactive, can probably not push quite as far, but are still capable of much more than the industry has generally been willing to explore as of yet.

I'm not saying all war games should be seriously toned and educational. I'm just saying that if you're making a serious game, gore and other nasty elements can be used toward noble ends. They don't have to be about feeding immoderate impulses. The industry is currently bound by certain social restrictions, but designers will have more and more room to explore mature content if they can demonstrate to society how it might be done tastefully and productively.

Dante's Inferno: tread carefully

So the guys at EA Redwood Shores have announced their next project, and it's Dante's Inferno.



And that's great, but I hope they realize the importance of getting this one right.

Dead Space is a stellar game. I finally finished it a couple days ago -- great sci-fi, great horror, great gameplay. We can probably expect similar quality in the team's next project. And their recent experience with creating horror will undoubtedly aid them in recreating Hell.

But, still, I worry. At this point, you can't base a mainstream game on such a pivotal work of classic literature as Dante Alighieri's and not expect that to grab the attention of non-gamers. Mainstream news worldwide will take notice. How respectfully or carelessly the original work is adapted into gameplay will be widely reported on.

Those reviews, previews, and interviews could have a profound effect on how games and the industry is perceived for many years. If EA Redwood Shores impresses the greater public, it would be a big step forward. Otherwise, reasonable doubters and willful naysayers alike will have more fuel for their arguments.

I also worry because Dante's Divine Comedy is a faithful religious work, and game designers are not known for being pious or reverent. The only religion in Dead Space is wild and deadly fanaticism. Such fanaticism does exist and is scary, so I can only hopefully assume the lead designers don't perceive all religion to be so irrational.

The Judeo-Christian concept of good and evil is difficult to translate into gameplay. Evil is merely an absence or twisting of good, as darkness is an absence of light. Evil spirits, including Satan, are utterly powerless except as God allows (for the sake of our maturation and free will). Humans rarely battle demons directly, and even then (usually exorcisms) our power is prayer... appealing to and trusting in God's love for intervention. Angels and demons are far, far more powerful than humans. It is God and His love for us that protects and saves us. Prophecy, spontaneous healing, bilocution, stigmatas -- such powers come from God, not from us.

Dante's tale is more about viewing, hearing, and conversing than about interaction. So seeing Dante hacking and slashing his way through Hell raises concerns about sincere representation, though such gameplay could certainly be fun. Dialogue and prayer are difficult to translate into good gameplay.

Redwood Shores should also consider the meaning of Hell, the beliefs which shaped Dante's work. Hell is chosen by the damned. It is a willful separation from God's grace. We're all familiar with knowing what the right, loving action is and choosing to do differently. Many know God's love and reject it. Pain, sadness and anger occur when things aren't as they should be. When creatures made for love reject love, they embrace darkness and torment. Hell is punishment, but it is also self-punishment.

Part of the purpose of understanding Hell is fear. All parents know that toddlers can't be expected to always obey (to act justly, learn and grow) out of love and understanding. Fear is necessary. When children grow to be teenagers, they are more capable of love and understanding, but fear remains necessary as a fallback. Emotion and will often overpower reason, and in those moments we need fear. Even adults need fear of consequences, a fact which much of our legal system is founded on. God has revealed Hell to humanity because we need that fear to fall back on in those moments when we want to reject -- or merely postpone -- love.

Knowing Hell also illuminates God's grace and goodness. Hell is evil without a mask. In our world, evil usually take the form of corruption -- something good distorted into poison; slow death. If one can understand evil in its essence (Hell), and pure good as well (Heaven), then recognizing good and evil as they are entangled on our world is a more manageable task.

EA Redwood Shores is tackling one of the world's most respected works of literature, as well as a setting which is taken very seriously and believed to be real by billions of people worldwide. I'm very happy they're doing so. I hope they give the subjects adequate study and reflection, as well as respect in the finished product.

how will cyberwarfare affect gamers?

Bruce Everiss raised the question. Russia is surely only one of many countries who have engaged in cyberwarfare already. The internet is ever-more influential on the daily affairs of citizens, let alone governments and economies. So the right question is not if cyberwars will affect gamers; it's how.

We're gamers, but we're not just gamers. We use the internet for other activities (shopping, billing, registrations, etc). But that's not the only reason I say gamers will be affected. There are motives to target gamers directly.

Espionage
For one thing, intelligence and counter-intelligence organizations are sure to recognize eventually that online gaming is an excellent avenue for recruitment and misinformation. It's increasingly common for people to make deep personal connections with online acquaintances and extend their trust to those acquaintances, and the frequency of such connections crossing national boundaries is also growing.

At its most basic level, espionage in gaming communities can take the form of misinformation. We've all seen how easy it is to light the internet up like a firecracker with a simple, unsubstantiated rumor. Rumors about gaming are relatively harmless, but propoganda is a powerful element of warfare. Even if you place faith in the ability of online communities to dig for truth, you know how stubborn and close-minded people get when it comes to politics. Facts aren't everything in propoganda.

At the more sinister level, espionage in gaming can mean recruitment. Recruitment can be as simple as getting some immature 10-year-old excited about "fooling" all of his friends with misinformation, or it can be as complex as total conversion. Not everyone's careful in their doling of trust, and some people are yearning for a cause. Especially in today's world, there are plenty of individuals who rebel only for the sake of rebellion. And just like with software piracy, those participating in espionage often don't have to see or even hear about the people they hurt.


I was going to list some other motives, but that's already enough to get my point across, right? Gamers will be targeted, eventually. It's probably already happened.

anonymity gets the boot

Wow. Well, this one's a doozy! A Congressman's proposing a bill that would outlaw anonymous posting on the internet. You'd have to register your name with wherever you post and your full name would show alongside every post you make.

Once again, I find myself on the opposite side of the aisle as my fellow bloggers and gamers. No, I haven't read any rants about it yet. But, let's face it, the online gaming and game development community is a predictable bunch. I'll be very surprised if I hear as many as five people supporting this move online.

Anyway, I don't have a problem with the proposed bill, from what details that article provides.

The "right to privacy" is a modern invention, a legal "right" only... and even that invented imagined by a judge, rather than legislators. Those of us who were fortunate enough to grow up without it realize how unnecessary it is. The only act that has almost always been private cross-culturally is marital sex, and not even that at times. Christians once confessed their sins on the front steps of church, acknowledging that our every failure is a public failure. There is no private act without public relevance. And there is no righteous act that needs to be hidden (even if "no good deed goes unpunished").

One change I would make to the law, though, is that an IP tag should be included with the name, as well as middle names. There were three Aaron Miller's just in my one middle-school! I'd rather not catch hell for their stupidity again. =/

Let's face it... Killing anonymity on the internet wouldn't stop idiotic ranting, nor the mindless insults and "bullying" this Congressional bill is supposed to hinder, but it would inject just enough responsibility to make many folks a little more thoughtful and considerate online.

game politics

This is a repost of my response to Julian's post here:

The reason so many politicians take wild stances against video games is because they're never offered a tempered, realistic view from anybody. Nearly everyone takes an extreme viewpoint, meaning that those politicians never hear real sense. Politicians will back off from condemning all games when gamers and game developers are willing to recognize that some games really do merit censorship.

The recent Fox News - Mass Effect debacle is a great example. I admire Geoff Keighley, and I think he showed patient restraint in that roundtable. But he said exactly what they knew he'd say. Regardless of whether Mass Effect was innocent of the network's charge or not, of course a game journalist was going to claim it was harmless, right? They might have actually listened to him if he said something to the effect of, "Look, I realize there are games out there that are sensationalist and problematic, but Mass Effect isn't one of those games."

It's the lack of a middle ground in such discussions that keeps everyone yelling at each other from the far sides of the field. If someone reasonable and well-placed like Geoff would just step into that territory, a civil and realistic discussion could begin between gamers and politicians.