Good Grief

While having lunch with friend, we came upon the subject of "griefing" in videogames. He had mentioned an article he read in the Times about online griefers and Craigslist harassment spilling outside of the Internet space. In response, I bought up an old Computer Gaming World article I had read called "Confessions of a Online Hitman" (I believe that was the title) of a gamer who was hired, almost like a mercenary, to purposefully go online to games such as Halo or Counter-Strike to annoy a particular player whether it is closing in specifically from the opposing team or just hindering and irritating the player as a teammate. The extent that this gamer would follow the gamer from match to match is outrageous and frightening.


I'm sure we are all aware of the funeral raid in World of Warcraft from the clan Serenity Now. There is the humorous Team Fortress 2 videos from Team Roomba. And of course, VentertainMe whom Shawn Elliot had introduced to me takes Ventrillo harassment to genius levels. The best griefing comes from creative individuals that know the limits of their victims psyche and capitalize on their annoyance. These griefers think intensely outside the box and to their credit it can produce hilarious results. But there is also the presence of the psychotic in these individuals. They show little remorse and purposefully hinder the enjoyment of others. This is not Internet trolling. This is bullying. And yet the majority of gamers condone these actions. I myself am guilty of such an act. I make no qualms with the fact that I utterly enjoy these videos. It is strange how much entertainment we can partake in from another persons' suffering. Of course we can rationalize it believing that because this is merely a game the stakes are so low they become inconsequential. We also admire the thought and methodical nature that goes into how there griefers approach their prey.


Kieren Gillen had interviewed Team Roomba months ago in The Escapist. In the article, FLOOR_MASTER (aka Ryan) makes one of the most telling statements about griefing and our enjoyment of the practice.

"The move to griefing videos was prompted by the most dangerous of influences: plain boredom. 'You run out of things to do and start looking for unconventional ways to have fun with a game."

"Boredom" is probably one of the most telling facets in all media. I remember a discussion I had with one of my professors about the French New Wave and avante-garde. When it comes down to it, boredom is probably the most important element in creation of the new, the different, and groundbreaking. It can be the foundation for the divorce from everything in the previous movement. This sentiment of boredom can easily be found in games with its repetitive and rudimentary design to the routine of multiplayer matches. And that may be why we appreciate griefing of this kind so easily. It lets us view the game in a different light- at a different angle. I have recently come across commentators claiming that griefing is becoming an art-form. But we must tread lightly to how we respond whether it is enjoyment or disdain because the further we go down the rabbit hole we may not like who we see when we reach the end.

Push it to the limit

It has been almost five years since I have upgraded my PC. Sure I have replaced parts on occasion because I would need a new motherboard or CPU, but essentially I have been using the same PC for half a decade. My graphics card is nearly five years of age, an Nvidia GeForce 6600GT 128MB. And though I have pondered the idea of upgrading I keep convincing myself to wait until the next big thing is released whether it is a cheaper duo core, Intel motherboards, or even a Direct X 11 Graphics cards. Sure, I have come across comparable deals for $20 GeForce 8600 cards after MRI (Mail-in Rebate) but even deals that are a steal have me at hesitation. I am the PC gamer that refuses the upgrade until every part of his rig is obsolete.

Thankfully Dead Space ran like a dream on my PC, albeit with above average original Xbox graphics. But optimal graphics can be over-rated. Just like the Nintendo acolyte, I too believe that graphics are not the end all be all of this console generation or the next. Which explains my disappointment with the current growth of game design these last few years. For the past year, I have told myself that Fallout 3 will be the game that makes me purchase a new rig. Well, the release date has passed and still I am content with my current PC situation. I often joke that when Half-Life 3 arrives in 2014 it will the be year I finally upgrade.


But perhaps I am reaching my limit. Currently, I am playing two extremely graphics intensive games on an unsupported graphics card, Far Cry 2 and Fallout 3. Both can run the game fairly smoothly but of course everything is on low settings. All of the textures in Far Cry 2 are merely solid colors and whenever I am in the heat of battle the frame-rate drops exponentially and Fallout 3 crashes if I play more than an hour. Plus, the fog of war makes me feel like I am playing Turok for the N64. Often I will get shot at by invisible enemies until I walk close enough for the models to pop-up into my view. It is not the most convenient way to game nor is it what the developer intended the experience to be.

And though I do own the next-gen consoles (my first time owning a console in more than a decade) I am unwilling to move away from my PC loyalties. Playing Bioshock on the Xbox360 verified my suspicions that the console FPS just isn't for me and while playing Valve games on my PC online remains adequate, it does not convince me that I have any need to upgrade just yet. This is the diatribe of a stubborn gamer and also a good argument against PC gaming though I will fight you to the death if you claim such a farce.


The same argument can be said to those not playing games on an HDTV. In fact, the reason I have not upgraded my PC is because I am investing in an HDTV. Gaming's relationship with technology and entertainment is a fickle one. Unlike any other medium where technology is often combatant with music and film, games have blossomed under business models such as subscriptions and digital distribution. And the relationship between Nvidia, ATI, Intel, and AMD with the gaming world is fascination. But I digress as this is probably an entirely separate blog post in itself.

The fact of the matter is, perhaps I have finally reached my limit to hardcore PC gaming at the moment. Though I will attempt to trudge through Fallout 3 with my diplorable minimal settings and I am certain I will definitely be playing Left4Dead on my PC, I doubt that I can keep up with the majority of the PC games that are released an longer. But despite this fact, I sure as hell will try. The Witcher and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. were amazing two titles releases the past year and I am sure that many more PC games will be released in 2009 that I will definitely attempt to test out with this old PC. Unofficially supported be damned, I am a masochist gamer and PC fanboy. And though I am sure it would visually and optimally make sense to purchase multiplatform games on the console, old habits die hard. It is funny how much a platform of choice allows a gamer to rationalize and tolerate at obscene limits. And though my experiences with my inconsistent frame-rate, model popping, solid texture, limited field of vision, and game crashing will definitely hinder the intended enjoyment of these games, it is small potatoes compared to the ability to play on a machine that I built and love to play on--warts and all.

Reveling in the splatterfest

Elephant in the room: Game violence. Since the arrival and passing of 1992's Mortal Kombat, game violence has become a notorious topic and often combated with immediate aversion from gamers. If some one brings up the issue they are instantly viewed as some sort of prude. Nowadays the hot topic is sex in games, but glorified violence is still ripe with discussion especially as games reach another milestone of graphical prowess approaching the uncanny valley.


I had just finished Dead Space and though I adore the entire absent HUD aesthetic of the game, I was taken aback by how pornographic the death scenes in the game are (my favorite clip is at 3:28). I would not go so far as to say that I was offended or disturbed by having the protagonist Isaac being ripped in half or eaten. But I do have to say that the gore in combination with the rag doll animation was strangely both bothersome and visceral. There is an extremely voyeuristic quality that goes along with the splatter film that is not only disturbing but compelling. Just as with a car accident on the road we a drawn to this unseemly horror in horror games as well. But Dead Space has the luxury of escaping this sort of violence in gaming argument. Instead the game can be categorized as violence in media because the violence confronts the player as a consequence as opposed to being conducted by the player.

This glorified violence is just as gruesome in other games as well. But the reception and connotation of violence takes on a different meaning when performed by the player. In Fallout 3 using the V.A.T.S. system to finish off enemies will change the camera angle to view to third person and then jump to the enemy in slow-motion to augment the violence. This is amplified even more if the player has the Bloody Mess perk which enhances the violence to satiric degrees with heads exploding and limbs flying. It is not wrong to assert that violence is the reward to the player for using V.A.T.S. in the game. Fallout has always been an ultra-violent series, but the violence in the previous game was itself confrontational whereas the violence in Fallout 3 becomes confrontational moreso because it purposefully highlighted rather than merely violent. Personally, I gain a huge sense of accomplishment when I shoot a nail-gun at a person's head only to have the particular anatomy nailed onto the wall behind the limp body that is feet away from the limb.

In an era where Gears of War curb stomping is acceptable and No More Heroes and Mad World can be considered the saving grace for the hardcore to the Nintendo Wii it is interesting how we intake our violence. But what is fascinating is how subjective we are in how it disturbs us in a case by case basis. David Ellis of Gamevideos.com has been particular vocal in how appalled he was with Fallout 3's violence. But he did not give a second thought to Gears of War whose dismemberment is just as glorified. That is not to say that he is wrong, but something in that game's depiction of that violence was disturbing particular to him. And maybe, that is one of the successes of Fallout. Developer Bethesda intended Fallout 3 to become a game with consequences, and by accentuating the violence it reveals itself as a consequences. The world of Fallout 3 is a detrimental dystopia to live in and there is an atmosphere of desperation, sadness, and loneliness that marries itself well with the game's explicit gore. This may be a cheap cop-out and giving Bethesda too much credit. But if a gamer can begin to confront violence as a consequence of his actions, it not only vindicates the philosphy of this game, but adds another element of player response that is underplayed and ignored in interactive media within the community.

A seasonal overload

Happy Halloween. Now that midterms are over I can finally get down to some hardcore gaming. Or so I thought as there is an array of other papers and articles write as well as research to do. Looking at my previous post I see that using the term “credible gamers” should actually be replaced with “enthusiast gamers.” It is a problem me and my fellow bloggers are facing today, which is finding the time not only to play video games but also keep up with games released—especially during the fourth quarter rush. Because I have missed a week of posting, this will be an especially longer post than usual so please bare with me.

The sentiment of many game journalists and commentators is that the developer means for the player not to rush through games. Games such as Fallout 3 or Fable 2 are meant to be digested in slow spurts. That is not to say that they discourage the opinions of reviewers and other gamers that go into marathon play sessions. But it is discerning that games seem to have such a short window of attention only lasting for a week or two if they are lucky.

Again, I must compare to different mediums as books and movies also require such slow digestion. For any kind of intellectual reflection there needs to be duration during and afterwards of the experience. I personally believe, that much of the appreciation for games comes post-gameplay rather than during. This allows for more in depth investigation and pondering of the product. A lot of what my fellow commentators seem to touch upon is the experience while playing the game and the criticism is that because of this October rush of games we are unable to give the time of day to examine a game before we must move on to the next one.

Of course, the average consumer does not care about looking at games in this manner. They just want the next blockbuster to take up their time. And of course, it is rare that reviews can review every game as their extensive backlog library indicates.

I believe we are asking too much. Looking at reviews and criticism in other media there is a vast division between the two. Comparing reviews of books, television, or film to criticisms months and years afterwards there is a multitude of difference in the approach and topics brought upon in reach. We should not expect the same from reviews and I believe it is unfair to expect as such. The criticism that developers mean for a game to be played a certain way is erroneous as a major aspect of interactive media is that the player gains control of the gameplay. Especially for such open world games, it is insane to believe game experience and personal play can be judged in a numerical ratings system.

Not having the luxury of time (and especially money) to play every game that is released the best we can do is savor what we have. My confession is that I have never owned a 3d graphics console until this current generation. I have since been retreading many of the PS2 gems that I had missed on my PS3 and my appreciation for design and artistry has me in awe in the past console generation compared to our current one. Surprisingly, little has changed which is one of the reasons I started this blog. Because there is so much more where interactive media can go from where it is now apart from the boom of social interaction games.

All great things come in retrospect. Though we may be or may not be blowing through the numerous AAA games that are coming out this season, it does not mean that they are no appreciated. I would argue that the best season for gamers is the summer drought allowing time to not only backtrack on games missed but also reflect and replay games that we had back in the Fall. And, of course, we become disassociated with the hype machine that often plagues games that we criticize and idolize.

So while you are trying to play and buy games during this period of global economic downturn, do not feel pressured to play every game this season. Because more often than not, the current discussion of the game is superficial and it is only months afterwards when we revisit out experience do we realize the impact and importance of these games. However, I do have to say that marathon gaming itself is a fascination topic of player experience. Just as watching a season of television at once rather than an entire year can put a series into perspective that we may not have experienced by watching a series in how it was “meant” to be seen. Intentions can be overrated and we must discover ourselves how much we value our time and the experience we want as opposed to what the developer wants.

Credible Gamers in the Blogosphere

So if you haven't noticed, it has been a week since I have posted. This is mainly because it is midterm season and I have not had the time to game nor blog. It is a popular sentiment that is being discussed about gaming in the blogosphere. Expect a post tomorrow on my own take on this topic and the obstacles of remaining a gamer as well as a graduate student.

Nondescript region of concern

Far Cry 2 looks absolutely gorgeous and I am tempted to upgrade my PC to take advantage of the visual orgasm. Now with that out of the way, I want to talk about the plot of the game. No, I won't delve into the specifics of its mercenary structure or parallelisms into Heart of Darkness. I want to address an issue that I believe a lot of war games have: the nondescript, nonspecific, undisclosed location of the game's setting. Far Cry 2 takes place in an unstable African state. That may suffice for a typical action game, but if the developer intended to place a greater effort into the story-which they have spoken that it was a major concern-then I don't believe having a nondescript location helps their efforts.

Now, a fair argument can be made that this just isn't necessary. Africa is simply enough. The player does not need any more specifics for an FPS "action game." But I believe, that this mentality hinders the genre to grow because it takes away from what could be a very mature narrative and the impression gamers have with playing this genre. What this mindset does do is boils it down to basically a dumb-action movie. But action movies can be very stimulating-look at the Terminator series or even the Bourne series. There is no reason that video games need to be dumbed-down to the player. I even find it slightly offensive that Africa can be considered a setting that is representational of all the regions in the continent. No one would set a game simply in Europe with a single environmental backdrop and expect it to represent the entire continent. It is absolutely ludicrous.

This is highly controversial in the case of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare where it is set in an unnamed Middle East country. What the hell is that? Now before I go further, I do want to give credit that the game does have an amazingly well constructed narrative and simply one of the most memorable gaming moments of last year. But I don't believe the game went far enough in its responsibility for depicting the consequences of modern warfare. For a game set in modern warfare, the reality of it is totally disassociated when players can bomb areas from a computer screen within the game. It is both beautiful and shocking in the amount of time, care, and detail Infinity Ward put into the game. And though I applaud COD4 as a great game, I wish they gave the player the benefit of the doubt that they can process their actions with a specific setting that purveys much more social and political intertext than simply placing it in the Middle East.

And now we come to the topic of censorship. I am sure if COD4 were to set it in a specific nation there would be huge uproar. But I believe that is a very ignorant sentiment from dissenters. By not placing the game more grounding into the current reality, players have an easier time to disconnect with it. If COD4 were set in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan (which it might as well be) I believe the narrative would become much stronger and have a larger impact on the player.

But do not confuse my intentions to have all games become overly serious. Video games are entertainment and they are an escape. Grand Theft Auto would not be what it is today if it didn't give the player the ability for free reign. Game narratives are not required to present the players with social conniptions or epiphanies. However, they should try to push the medium in some facet whether it is narrative, game play, design, or simply perfection of certain mechanics. All I am saying is it would be nice to know where the hell and who the hell I am taking head shots at.

How am I not myself?

It was bound to happen as my current graduate curriculum has converged into my blog. Luckily, it is a subject I am completely immersed in and intellectually stimulated with at this point in the semester. It is the notion of transference between the identity of the player and the identity of the avatar, where the two subjects do not collide but exist in tangent parallels to one another. I apologize to fellow students that are currently reading my blog, but it is the "Lacanian" sense of the internal gaze where one is aware himself as himself as the other peering at himself.

This idea was sparked by the most recent post by the Brainy Gamer, Michael Abbott, who references a link from Iroquois Pliskin's experience with the game Fallout. One particular passage caught my interest:

"You feel like you share an experience with your character, this experience of being thrust into a world you barely understand, one that is unpredictable and promising at once; and sharing an experience is the beginning of a relationship."

What grabbed me was this shared instance with the character when the character actually is yourself. Essentially, when you a playing single-player games it is a very intimate, personal experience the player has with himself. This fits especially well with an RPG such as Fallout where the sense of loneliness is imperative to the gameplay experience. Another good example is Half-Life 2. I am, of course, ignoring the dialog that occurs between the player and the designer in this particular instance and I am sure if I were writing some sort of dissertation this element would most definitely be addressed.

But I find this aura of simultaneous separation and identification fascinating. It is the moment where the player thrusts himself onto the avatar, creating his own identity, yet remaining distant to the character in the game space unbeknown that that character is, in fact, himself. There is a kind of aloofness to the relationship someone has to an avatar that is extremely familiar and artificial, which I believe, Pliskin touches upon in her experience with the game.

So what does this all mean? Well, it is an experience that can be comparable to the idea audience identification within film. Where the viewer begins to not only fell empathy but identify himself as the character on screen. But, I believe, the division becomes even more blurred in video games because the player is shaping the character as himself or as whom he unconsciously wishes himself to be in the game space. While at the same time, this construction of pixels is inherently not himself and artificial. This is an experience that video games, in particular, provide almost exclusively. When this relationship becomes aware to the player, for example in a game cinematic, it disrupts the channel between the player, himself, his avatar, and the game. And that is why the video game cinematic has come under such recent contention.

I do not want to delve too deep into this dynamic relationship between the player and the avatar, but it is definitely an avenue of intellectual curiosity that I hope to revisit in the future.