I’m not usually one to jump into the video games and violence debate, nor do I normally give two hoots about war games, but there’s an interesting piece up today at The Escapist by Shawn Williams called “Apocalypse Not” which discusses, from first-hand accounts, the vast differences between real-life warfare and game fighting.
It relates back in a lot of ways to what some people have been talking about here on the site recently, namely gaming as a reflection of reality, or gaming as fantasy. War games, it would seem, aim for realism on many levels; certainly war game players seem interested in an authentic experience. Yet, as Williams’ article points out, such games are not authentic. They too are a fantasy, a fantasy - unsettingly enough - shaped by our own image and desire for war, which lets us play out our lust for destruction through the veil of historic accuracy.
December 7th, 2005 at 2:11 pm
All games are, at best, an abstraction of reality: attempts to impose a system of rules to govern interactions which are too complex to model with true verisimilitude. I.e., games fake their own reality, using a relatively limited set of rules, which may or may not be designed to reflect the real world. [Anyone who disagrees: kindly tell me what your hit point gauge says right now.]
And the choices game designers make about what rules to impose define the game-world and our interactions in them - and, not coincidentally, our perception of that game world. Take any FPS: ignore obvious elements, like damage modeling, non-interactive environments, and so forth, which are clearly unrealistic. Look instead at other game design decisions: e.g., no matter how “realistic” a game purports to be, how many of them include unarmed civilians? How often are their serious consequences for killing or harming those civilians? In a military-themed FPS, how often is a player punished for “conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman?” What mindset does this reinforce in gamers?
Or look at Allen Varney’s piece about diehard wargamers: what compels them to take such an avid interest in these meticulous recreations of warfare? And can such an abstraction of war really give one an appreciation for war’s complexities and horrors? When the lives of men are literally reduced to cardboard pieces on some general’s map, how does that affect one’s viewpoint?
Or look at a non-violent game like the Sims: what do the assumptions it makes about human interactions and what makes us happy say about the real world? Sims are, curiously, quite willing to be bisexual polys - as in “-amorous,” not “-gon” - yet insanely jealous of their companions showing affection towards others. Meanwhile, they are avaricious little buggers, are they not? Only the most expensive of luxuries make them “truly” happy. What “fantasy” of domestic life does the Sims portray - and is it at all accurate compared to the real world? For that matter, how does the fantasy world of the Sims compare to the fantasy world of, say, Desperate Housewives?
December 7th, 2005 at 5:33 pm
I wonder though, in the case of The Sims, if the fantasy is in the lifestyle or in the ability to so thoroughly control the lifestyle. I would argue that, to a certain extent, what makes The Sims enjoyable isn’t the vicarious satisfaction of buying expensive things, or causing in-house drama by sleeping around - it’s the rush of power that comes from controlling somewhat realistic lives. It allows your gamer consciousness to dominate other human identities in a way we could only accomplish in real life through fantasy (or the real-life realization of fantasies, such as 24/7 BDSM relationships).
December 9th, 2005 at 1:04 pm
As with your most recent post, I would say it varies from player to player: whether they project themselves into the game-world as the onscreen player(s) or whether they see themselves as outside of it, influencing the game-world from afar.
Take, e.g., chess: does the player see himself as the king, ordering his minions to fight on his behalf; or is the player the unseen hand of God, shaping events on the game board; or does the player see chess purely as a mental exercise in abstract game mechanics, and the names and shapes of the pieces are purely arbitrary - one could call the pieces “widgets,” “gizmos,” and “whirly-things” for all that it matters. [A large part of the appeal of the Battle Chess games was that they made the game much more visually engaging - and yet, in the end, it was still just chess.]
Now apply that to other strategy games. Now apply that to RPGs. And so forth. How far removed from the game world does the player feel? In the case of the Sims, are you role-playing a domestic-life fantasy scenario; or are you the director guiding his or her actors through their parts? In the Movies, this is taken a step further literally, as you are the director of your movie studio.
Of course some games - especially first-person games - are deliberately geared towards immersing the player in the game-world and making them feel as though they are vicariously experiencing it (as much as existing technology will allow, at any rate). And some games have a novel take on the issue: e.g., in Fire Emblem, the characters directly address you through the screen, breaking the fourth wall by acknowledging you as their leader. But even in these cases, the inherent artificiality of the experience (e.g., the use of saves and continues) may be sufficient to break the illusion for some - maybe all - players.
This is just one small aspect of gaming which is part of what makes it so intriguing to me: no two people have the exact same experience with the same game, because no two gamers approach the same game in exactly the same way.
A lot like…ooohhh, what’s it called again? Oh right! Art.
Roger Ebert can kiss my ass.
December 9th, 2005 at 3:37 pm
Yeah, what is that whole Ebert thing about. Ignorant. Simply ignorant. I hear you though. I think one of the things that makes game and cultural analysis fun (Yes, I’m a dork; this is my idea of fun:-).) is that there’s no one answer - but can look at things from an infinite number of sides and find something meaningful there. I guess, personally, what I like about The Sims is exercising my own personal dominance/sadism (as a sub, it doesn’t happen much in real life) - the ability to tell people what to do, to see their somewhat realistic lives change at my command. But like you said, everyone’s different.
December 11th, 2005 at 2:02 pm
Ol’ Roger is anything but ignorant, folks. He is simply pointing out that games cannot be “art” the way a painting or story can because there is no fixed form of the experience.
This doesn’t mean they can’t be smart, clever, beautiful, instructional, moving and all the rest of it… but Ebert’s got a point.
PS - Chess bores the shit out of me.
PPS - No wargame will ever capture the essence of actual combat so long as the player is not in physical danger - just as there’s a world of difference between virtual boxing and really being socked in the jaw.
PPPS - There is a similar problem with “strategic” wargames, where you command a bunch of tanks or infantry formations ot whatnot. Players in these games enjoy a knowledge of enemy positions, accurate battlefield feedback and eagle-eye perspectives such as no historical general ever had.
That’s why, during the 80s, I got in the habit of smacking grognards who made disparaging remarks about roleplaying and what a crock it was.
Yeah, buddy, you’re SO much more cool than some kid with a “Frodo” tshirt casting a spell. Tell me again how you would’ve done a better job than Rommel in North Africa…
December 11th, 2005 at 9:27 pm
A friend of mine (also Jewish) dated Rommel’s grandson once. True story. She freaked out and broke up with him when she found out who he was.
Anyways, as for Ebert’s ignorance and games as art… well, that’s a whole different subject that’s probably better for a more fluid conversational medium (So that we can all go yu-huh, nu-uh over and over again :-)), but for the most part my take is that games can indeed be viewed as traditional art: Though, in the most literal, no two players experience is exactly alike, every element they’ll encounter in the game has been premedidated, thought out by the artist. Really, personal interactivity is just a literalization of a process that happens (call it what you will, reader response in lit.) whenever any viewer regards, interacts with, a piece of art. Looking at art, if done correctly, is never a one-sided thing. Art changes viewers. Viewing changes art.
December 12th, 2005 at 4:53 pm
Brummbar, thought this might be helpful, though perhaps you’ve already seen it:
http://www.soomahn.ca/?p=32
My take is a little different, but in the overall he makes good, solid points in response.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:45 am
free shipping phentermine guarantee low cost
euthanasia!blisters bridged Barrymore,champions
October 30th, 2007 at 8:26 am
dallas mavericks odds game 5…
resented auto appraiser triggering….