What I'm Listening To -- April Edition

  

  

Reading like a book, album covers for We the Common, Lightning, Cerulean, and Hair Guitar 

In order to avoid some cognitive overload, and to make sure I'm selecting quality bands each month, I'm going to limit these posts to four bands at a time. Could be three, maybe even two, but no more than four. I have had plenty to listen to this month, continuing my electronic trend but also delving into the folk new-ness of Thao & The Get Down Stay Down's We the Common. In addition, I finally got around to picking up Matt & Kim's fourth album -- Lightning -- and it's yet another great record for the upbeat, punky duo. I'm including one of many delicious tracks from the band Baths who's quickly becoming one of my favorites. Rounding it off is an older, square-toned and groovy electronic band I discovered on Pandora called Copy. I hope you enjoy these tracks as much as I do. Again, I'll list them in their order on the playlist.

"We the Common (For Valerie Bolden)" by Thao & The Get Down Stay Down on We the Common

"Overexposed" by Matt & Kim on Lightning

"Apologetic Shoulder Blades" by Baths on Cerulean

"Fist" by Copy on Hair Guitar

The playlist:

What I'm Listening To--Apr

Some Thoughts On Games Part 3: Sexualization in Games

I'm going to discuss another problematic trend in games that needs to be toned down if not eliminated: sexualization. What I mean by that is how many video games unrealistically and inappropriately depict females in order to attract gamers.

Fair Warning: This post will have some NFSW (Not Safe For Work) images that "illustrate" what I'm talking about so prepare your mind and environment accordingly.

I'll start us off by asking you guys a question: What thing sells better than anything else in the world?

If you answered "sex", you are correct.

According to TopTen Reviews, in 2006 the porn industry made $13.33 billion dollars -- this revenue exceeded the combined revenues of ABC, CBS, and NBC that year.

Television, magazines, TV shows, movies, books, advertising...what do all these industries have in common? They make loads of money by selling sex. How else would such...literature...as Fifty Shades of Grey ever become a bestseller?

Sex increasingly permeates our world. It may be the single greatest motivator for someone to do something. I don't necessarily mean sex as "intercourse" but as "sexy", "glamorous", "hunky", or "the promise of nudity." I literally have friends who would go to see a movie just because they may see some "tits".

The gaming industry is not immune to sex. Far from it. Developers know sex sells and often throw voluptuous, useless females into their games just to sex it up. These titillating vixens (sadly) attract flocks of boy-gamers to the game, and as games become more realistic and immersive, I fear this trend will only heighten in the future -- just as it has progressed in the 15 years that I've been an active gamer. Disgusting.

This screen from God of War shows a scene where Kratos (the dude on the right) is beckoned by two seductive women. He enters the bed to have sex with them, though the sex is not shown in the game. This scene has no purpose other than for the player to have sex.

The biggest problem (or biggest advantage, depending on how you look at it) with video games is that they don't use real people; there are no female actors cast and put directly into the game. Sure, some women can serve as character models -- where the developers create a game character in the image of the woman -- but these in-game females are not subject to the constrains of human anatomy. Artists make sketches and animators render these sketches in 3-D. The women can be altered, enhanced, and sculpted to be as curvy as possible, which they almost often are.

This troubles me. It gives young adult men (and increasingly women, as more and more pick up game controllers each year) the absolute wrong idea of what the ideal woman should look like. Also, the way developers incorporate women into games give these gamers the wrong impression of women in general -- as submissive and seductive, only meant to attract the eye and appease the main male character. It's wrong, it's wrong, it's so wrong.

Even in the games that you play as heroines, such as Tomb Raider or Bayonetta, the female is a curvy, busty, flexible and capable hero that takes down bad guys and monsters, often times in various promiscuous ways.

Above is a screen from the game BloodRayne, where you play as a sexy half-human, half-vampire names Rayne, going around and slaying any vampire that might cross your path. Take note of the massive cleavage. Below, Catwoman from Batman: Arkham City takes out a bad guy with her legs.

In my creative writing class, people often decide to write sex scenes into their stories as a way to spice things up. These scenes do little to develop characters, complicate plots, or enhance conflicts. Essentially they add nothing to the story. The professor sees this and always emphasizes an important story-crafting lesson: in literature, sex never means just sex, it always means something else. Too few practice this rule, and that extends to video games. But some do, and they do it well.

Try and recall my discussion on BioShock Infinite and in particular, the character of Elizabeth -- a young, innocent woman trapped in a luxurious cell centrally located amidst a floating city, oblivious to the outside world. Elizabeth may be one of the strongest female characters I've seen in game, and her transformation from a "damsel in distress" to a more than capable woman that demands the player's respect is one of the most powerful moments I've ever experienced in a game.

Liz goes from a youthful, adventurous girl, constantly inquiring about the wonders around her...

...to this -- a grave, mature woman who is questions the world and its morality, its violent nature.

Notice from the above pictures that "mature" Elizabeth has a fair amount of cleavage showing from that dress. You might say then, "but, Seth, isn't this what you're talking about? Just adding boobs to attract the gamer?" I say no, this is actually a great example of how sex can be used to have a deeper meaning.

The cleavage in this game doesn't serve to lure the gamer's eye; it symbolizes Elizabeth's evolution into womanhood. She shed her innocence and naivety when she put on that dress, realizing that life is not like the stories in her books; the world is not full of good people; it's hateful, prejudiced, racist, discriminatory, sexist, and full of death and destruction. The cleavage is not just another set of boobs, it stands a symbol of maturity.  

Other games strive to include women as meaningful characters to games, often using them as emotional attachments to the main character. In the Uncharted series, you play a charismatic treasure hunter (think Indiana Jones) named Nathan Drake. Being the handsome and charming individual he is, Nate develops strong ties to women in his games. These women -- particularly Elena Fisher, an ambitious journalist, and Chloe Frazer, a sultry Austrialian treasure hunter -- are strong characters that impose themselves onto Nate and change his devil-may-care attitude. The influence of these women shows not only in the narrative, but the player in turn develops a bond with the women, hoping to God that they don't die in the game.

In the series Mass Effect, the player can choose to play as either a male or female version of the protagonist, Commander Shepard. This heavy sci-fi experience has as much dialogue and character interactions as it does shooting sequences. As the Commander, the player is given the ability to approach their crew members and talk about missions, each others' pasts, hobbies, and other things. Deep conversations throughout the game allow the player to emotionally attach his/herself to each of these secondary characters -- the same characters you go into battle with. What's more, the player can flirt with some of the crew members and eventually make love to one of them, be they man or woman, alien or human. Mass Effect was one of the first games to have such complex intimate encounters, but again they did not incorporate these sex scenes just to have some sex in their games; these scenes signify the special bond the player forms with characters and makes going into potentially deadly missions that much harder because the player has characters around him/her that he/she cares about. Although, some gamers just pick the "hottest" character to "bang" and become aroused by it -- such is the way of young men...

This is Miranda Lawson from Mass Effect 2. She's genetically engineered to be the perfect human female specimen, with lightning reflexes, graceful athleticism, superior intelligence...and perfectly hourglass curves. Unfortunately, even character-driven games like Mass Effect find a way to include impossibly busty women.

These games, and several others, do sex in games right. Just like film and books incorporate sex into their narrative to further conflict, character development and plot, so, too, should video games. Especially video games, since developers can literally create the image of women they want in their games and potentially give the gamer a skewed view of women with impossible physiques and unequal gender roles.

However, some things are beyond the American gaming industry. Japan and other East Asian countries have an equally large gaming market...and a much different view on women and sex. The games Japan produces probably have the highest disregard for female anatomy and women in general. But, that's their culture, and we should not pass judgement on them for it just because it's different from our own. Instead, we should focus on what developers are doing here in America. 

In my opinion -- and I think many others' -- having these voluptuous (I'm running out of adjectives) characters in games is disgusting, unnecessary, and honestly it's getting old -- it seems like I can't play an immersive single player game without encountering at least one scantly clad woman. But does playing as a "sexualized" female character really give young men the wrong idea of women? I mean, is this really a problem or just my opinion?

Well in a study brought to my attention by roommate (bless him), indeed these portrayals of women can have negative effects on young men's perception of women. In the study, conducted by Elizabeth Behm-Morawitz of the University of Missouri-Columbia and Dana Mastro from the University of Arizona (2009), 328 students of a university were randomly assigned to play a game as either a "non-sexualized" heroine or a "sexualized" heroine, and some were assigned no game at all. After playing the game for thirty minutes (which was way too short of time in my opinion) the students filled out an online questionnaire. The results "cautiously suggest" that those students who played as a sexualized character had unfavorable views of women in the real world, including thinking women have lower self-efficacy and mental capability than men do.

I'm sure if you did some digging you would find several other studies such as these, and more are published everyday as video games become increasingly polarized, realistic, and interactive. However, video games alone are not the culprit for such negative beliefs. Television, film, advertisements and any other medium that relies on sex for popularity also greatly contribute to these inaccurate perceptions. 

Just watch any episode of the hit HBO show Entourage and you'll see what I mean.

Games provide the most unique and interactive experiences of any other medium, and some of these experiences include sexed-up women. Many games include these objectified women just for the sake of having "tits" and "ass" to entice and arouse gamers -- just like many films and TV shows do. But more and more, as technology advances and allows developers to do more with story and character, games include sex as a symbol for something else or as a tool for character development -- again, just like film or literature.

I guess I have no suggestions on a solution or final inspiring words that can combat this trend, but I do hope that reading this has raised your awareness and knowledge on how sex is used in video games. I just ask that you and yours think before you start pointing fingers at games for being a "corrupting influence" or "vile abominations" not fit for the eyes of youngsters. Violence and sex is all around us, not just in games, and it's our responsibility as sensible adults to educate the youthful masses on how the world really is; how absolutely different real life is compared to what you see or watch or play or read. 

Thanks for reading (and waiting for) this post and if you haven't read the previous installments in the series "Some Thoughts On Games" I encourage you to do so. 

Bear with me, I beg.

Sooooo, school has devoured my time for the past two weeks. Heading into this weekend, however, I'm finally in the clear. That means I will deliver the last post in the video game series later today, and I will try and get ahead for next week's post. I'll also post my 'What I'm Listening To' April Edition either today or tomorrow, so prepare your ears accordingly.

I thank you all for your great patience and loyalty. Just be patient a bit longer...

Note on this week's post

So, I have two tests on Friday in my two most important classes (there is no coincidence that both of those classes are math classes.) These exams take place at 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Friday afternoon, thus my post for this week, Some Thoughts On Games Part 3, probably won't be up until either later in the evening Friday or midday Saturday. I know you all anxiously await the conclusion of this blog series so I will try my best to get it posted as soon as possible. Thanks for the patience.

A bad math meme I just thought of.

PS: My blog went over 700 views this week so I just want to say thanks to all of you readers for giving me and my thoughts the time of day. I find blogging to be quite enjoyable.

Some Thoughts On Games Part 2: Violence In Games

Saddle up, this shall be as long as it is informative.

So last week I discussed the game BioShock Infinite in-depth (though I dared not go as deep as I could, for that well is seemingly infinite, pun intended) and I hope I shed some light on just how artistic games can be.

However, that's not to say all games strive for that accomplishment. Indeed, in most cases a developer/publisher's goal is to sell games and consequently make money. Lots of money, if possible. How does one sell loads of games and make bills upon bills? Violence, bro, violence. (And sex but we'll talk about that next week.)

Consider the most popular (and by that I mean the one that has sold the most games) franchise for the past four years by a large margin: Call of Duty. Call of Duty initially became popular with the 2007 installment Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare.

This was a great game in its own right, pioneering a console engine that ran at 60 frames per second (twice as fast as normal engines) to simulate life-like soldier movements and give the player a very real "modern warfare" experience. Aside from the technical achievements, Infinity Ward (the developers who made the game) wrote a terrific script for the "Campaign Mode" (the one with a story and plot) that was all at once engaging, thrilling, action-packed, and also morally inquisitive--a surprising touch for war-time FPS.

This screen is from the most refreshingly unique missions I've ever had the pleasure of playing. The player is dressed in a ghillie suit and must stealth his way through enemy lines, taking care not raise any alarms and leaving live witnesses. The strategy and tactics that went into completing this mission were incredible.

Modern Warfare  also had a spectacular, innovative, simplistic yet in-depth online multiplayer system that reinvented console FPS multiplayer. I won't bore you with details, but something of the ideas they pioneered have changed the multiplayer landscape so now even games like Halo 4 (a far cry from CoD) use these elements in some way, shape, or form.

Modern Warfare redefined the war FPS genre in a good way and its unexpected success led to large demand from the gaming community for a sequel. Welp, Infinity Ward delivered and thus started a chain reaction that led to what I think is the bane of gaming: annual releases of Call of Duty games intended only to attract the "bro gamer" crowd and sell assloads of games.

These yearly installments do nothing to try and innovate the genre like the original Modern Warfare did, instead they focus on ideas that will sell as many games as possible while offering minute upgrades in the multiplayer experience. The "changes" they make year-to-year center around different stories in the Campaign mode and these "stories" consist largely of bombastic, action-packed, "Dude that's f@&$ing awesome", Michael Bay-esque missions that have these incredibly violent, epically-scoped moments of death, destruction, and chaos. The player goes through these missions killing countless enemies with no regard for the morality of their actions; they are just trying to reach their objective to get to the next jaw-dropping moment. These moments are not included for art--they don't have a theme or a purpose or a deeper meaning--they are intended only to "wow" the player and make those 19-year-old dorm dwellers high five each other and say, "Bro, that  was awesome."

This is what I'm talking about. The screen above is from MW3, in which the Eiffel Tower is blown up and the screen below is from MW2, showing a desecrated Washing Monument. "Woah, bro, they f&$#ing blew up D.C.! Sick!"

 

This is not what video games should be about.

Think about successful action movies like Fast and Furious, Transformers, and Avatar. These movies have little to offer in terms of art and they do not in any way exemplify what the medium of film can accomplish in terms of art. However, these movies are action-packed, visually stunning, and most of all, they make money. This is similar to formula games like CoD follow; empty yet thrilling action intended to wow people into buying and playing the game. Again, this is not what games should be about and it's certainly not how violence should be handled in games. But sadly, this is the way of the world.

Don't get me wrong; CoD games are well-made, finely-tuned products and they are loads of fun, much like how action movies are entertaining and pulse-pounding (albeit implausible). But, being the most popular and polarized, these games give people the wrong impression of violence in games.

In the case of BioShock Infinite, violence is almost instantly regarded as a tool--a means of survival. The first time you have to kill an enemy is right after the "raffle" scene I described last week. The player is confronted with a choice to either throw the ball at the bound interracial couple or throw instead at the announcer onstage. After the player chooses (and 99.9% of players choose the announcer), he winds to throw the ball but his arm is caught by one of the constables (policemen) nearby and the player (Booker Dewitt) is recognized as an enemy of Comstock (the prophet guy that's ruling Columbia). The player escapes the constable's clutches, grabs hold of a weapon and fights his way out of the predicament in order to avoid being captured.

Once the player rescues Elizabeth, violence becomes a lot harder to commit. The first time Elizabeth sees you kill a group of enemies, she runs away and hides from you, calling you a monster and shuddering at your touch. Booker, the player, then explains that violence is a necessary evil, saying something like "If I didn't kill those guys, they would take you back into custody and kill me." Elizabeth hesitantly agrees but still loathes the idea of killing. This adds a weight to killing after that, which is made heavier by emotional reactions from certain enemies who sometimes display fear and express their desire to live.

These enemies in Infinite are called Handymen. They are handicapped people augmented with these over-sized suits in order to overcome their physical limitations. However, from the things they say throughout the game, it's obvious that they live in great pain and suffering. Very heart-breaking. Very hard to kill.

Call of Duty and BioShock Infinite constitute a tiny sample of the video game industry, however. And, unfortunately, the majority of games do what CoD does and add violence for the sake of violence, coercing "gamers" into buying their game by showing off all of the "cool ways" you can kill enemies. Thus, the average citizen perceives games as these killing-simulators that teach kids it's alright to use violence to solve problems and promote the use of guns and other weapons.

With all of the tragic mass shootings taking place in America recently, video games have come under particular scrutiny for "celebrating" this kind of violence. As someone who is about as passive and non-confrontational as one can get, I strongly disagree with the stereotype of "violent video games lead to violence."

Research has been done on this topic in the past, although it is still fairly limited. However, an ambitious study conducted by Craig Anderson et al. at Iowa State University in 2003, 2004, showed solid evidence that playing violent video games, more than playing nonviolent video games, increases arousal (that is, it elevates your heart rate and blood pressure), increases aggressive thinking (subjects became more likely to predict a man's reaction to being rear-ended as aggressive), increases aggressive feelings (i.e. frustration, hostility), increases aggressive behaviors (after playing the game, children and youth played more aggressively with friends, got into more arguments, and participated in more fights), and decreases prosocial behaviors (after playing they were slower to help peers in need).

This all sounds pretty incriminating; clearly kids who play violent video games become more aggressive, right? Well, I agree, all of these things will probably happen in the short-term for most players, while the player is still physiologically aroused and images from the game are fresh in his/her head, but findings on long-term effects of play remain elusive. Also, most studies only a show a correlation to aggressive acts, meaning that playing violent video is related  to aggression, but playing them does not cause aggression. Correlation does not equal causation and again this is a common misconception in America. But still, parents will be parents...

"So, clearly from that study, playing violent video games increases the chances my son will do something aggressive."

True, kids will likely become more hostile and aggressive after playing a game, but I would argue they would become just as hostile, if not more so, after participating in any other sort of intense and arousing competition, such as a sport. What a lot of people don't realize is that these violent video games are, at their core, a competition: you are competing against the computerized enemies (or other players online); it's you versus hundreds of bad guys and the only way to win is to kill them all and complete your objective. This competition, just like any competition, instills frustration in the player if the player fails to achieve their goal. It's not the acts of killing that increase arousal, it's the thrill of the competition. Believe me, guys I play basketball with get frustrated on the court, and this frustration often leads them to swear, trash-talk, yell at the refs, slam their fists against something, and play more aggressively. Let's not pretend violent games are the only thing that can increase aggression.

After getting an and-one, Carlos Boozer of the Chicago Bulls aggressively fist-pumped and hit this poor referee square in the balls. Owie. Sorry, this is the best picture I could find of it.

Also, violent games aren't the only source of this competition. In many types of  nonviolent games, you are competing at some activity against the computer, racing against the clock (or other racers), presented with a myriad of obstacles with which you need to overcome, or tasked with solving a complex puzzle. Any game that incorporates these kinds of elements opens the door for frustration. If players repeatedly fail at the game, they will most likely become frustrated, ill-tempered, or have lower self-esteem because their lack of ability. Obviously, frustration can lead to anger, anger can lead to aggression, and aggression can lead to violence.

"Okay, well that still doesn't dismiss the fact that violent games glorify killing."

Again, this is my opinion (the opinion of an avid gamer who's been gaming since '97, mind you), but one that I know a lot of gamers share (at least the ones I interact with in my life and online share it): the violence is only a fun means to an end. We gamers realize that violence needs to be included in games like BioShock Infinite because it wouldn't make sense to progress any other way and also because the game needs to sell copies. Games need violence like Hulu and Pandora need commercials. The violence is only a fun middle-man that leads us to the next portion of the story--the real attraction to the game and the part that keeps us playing.

We also don't see violence as acts of killing, we see it as a puzzle; a challenge; we have to strategize our plan of attack, decide which resources (like special guns and powerful abilities that are both rare to the player) to use on which enemies, figure out the best path to take, decide on a stealth approach or a guns-blazing one, among other choices. Game developers often include a myriad of guns to choose from and abilities to use, and these require resources, which are scarce, thus forcing the player to plan accordingly and experiment with weapons to find what they believe to be the most effective.

Completing the violent sequences is a welcome challenge to us gamers; they test our skill with the game as well as our cognitive ability to attack the scenario. In a lot of cases, games also test our mental fortitude; if we keep failing an incredibly difficult sequence we have to keep replaying and trial-and-error-ing until we get it right and move on with the game. We don't see violence as violence, we see it as the element of the game that tests our prowess, ability, and ingenuity.

This game, called Dark Souls is known for being incredibly hard. The game tells you up front that you will die a lot, and it forces you to become very skilled and also learn the weaknesses of each enemy so you can figure out a strategy for defeating them.  It is not for that faint of heart but it is the most gratifying game I've ever played. 

These type of games make the player feel powerful, something a lot of us don't feel in everyday situations. That power comes through our hard-earned skill and practice at the game and leads to feelings of immense gratification at our accomplishments, again, something we don't feel everyday. There may be no greater feeling of satisfaction, relief, and achievement than completing super hard sequences in games, like beating Sif in Dark Souls.

"Well, not all games are artsy, like BioShock, and they put very brutal violence in their games just to awe the player."

I agree, some games like the God of War franchise take violence too far, putting in especially graphic and gory acts of violence that are over-the-top and almost silly. These games usually are seen as silly and rarely taken seriously by gamers. It's like watching Kill Bill or any other Tarantino film; the violence is purposely, almost satirically, over-the-top because some people just like to see blood and guts. Strangely, people are attracted to gore.

However, I am making a big assumption: when I say "we" I mean mature gamers 17 and up. I definitely do not mean impressionable kids and teenagers.

"There you go, violent games glorify killing to young people. Ha! Checkmate, gamers!"

This is something I can't argue with. I know that kids are like clay and tend to replicate what their parents do, what people on TV and in movies do, and even what people in their games do.

I recently discussed this issue with my roommate (a Psychology major who's as avid a gamer as I) and he brought up an interesting point about adolescents and how they might view games.

"My thought is that a true intellectual appreciation of gameplay escapes most adolescents. They should only be exposed to violent games when they have sufficient emotional maturity and game experience to see through the violence as many other gamers do." --Ken McGurran, Roommate. 

Essentially he's saying that adolescents don't/can't truly understand what the developer is trying to say with the game's violence beacuse mostadolescents aren't that advanced in their stages of thinking, thus any exposure to unnecessarily violent games can lead them to misconstrue the meaning of violence in games and also get the wrong impression of video games as a whole, not to mention they may try and reproduce their onscreen antics in real life.

But, for all of these parents voicing how awful, horrifying, and detrimentally influencing games can be, I have one thing to say.

DO NOT LET YOUR CHILD PLAY VIOLENT GAMES.

It's really as simple as that. You're worried that your kid might be turning into a monster because of the games he/she is playing? Then don't buy him/her games rated 17 and up!

"But video game retailers will let them buy that stuff anyway."

Not even close, dude. Now more than ever retailers are cracking down and carding potential buyers of Mature games. I would never have been able to buy an M-rated game as a kid--believe me, I tried.

"But my son/daughter has friends and I can't control what games those friends have."

True. You can't. And that's life. You can't control everything your kid is going to do; all you can do as a parent is educate your kid on what is the right thing to do and what is the wrong thing to do and hope he/she chooses the do the right thing a lot more often than the wrong thing.

Violence in games is a becoming a big issue, but very few people who are against them actually play them, thus the common perceptions of games are unfortunately skewed. Most games do not promote acts of violence and most gamers do not perceive this violence as glorified. We play to enjoy the game and we enjoy feeling powerful and skilled. Violence in games allows us to do that by challenging our aptitude and fortitude. Yes, games can have an impression on kids, but kids should not be playing games that are clearly intended for adult audiences. It is the parent's responsibility to control what they can control (whether it be video games, television, movies, internet or anything else that can "corrupt") and raise their child in the most nurturing and educational environment possible. Games can be super violent and sell a lot of copies because of that, but so do action-packed movies, just like both games and film can give violence a deeper meaning and use that to create a piece of art.

I hope you have a different perspective on video games after reading this. Video games are awesome.

Headshot. Courtesy of Fallout 3. 

OHMYGODOHMYGODOHMYGODOHMYGODOHMYGODOHMY--

It's here, finally here.
What was so far,
now so near.
I'm talking, of course,
of the Mad Men premiere.

Yes, Mad Men's sixth season airs tonight in a 2-hour special starting at 8 p.m. on AMC. The anticipation has me giddy. If I were a dog, I would be waving my tail incessantly while barking ruffs of joy to all within earshot. If I were a cat, I'd probably just take a super long nap in order to pass the time before 8.

The Game of Thrones premiere last week had me equally excited, but due to my enthrallment with tournament basketball that day, I neglected to post my feelings as I am now.

Honestly though, you guys should really be watching these shows. If not Game of Thrones at least try and get into Mad Men. Not only does the show entrance you with its writing, it also gives an accurate historical representation (at least, it seems pretty accurate) of the 1960's, a time period in which, I'm guessing, zero of you readers lived through. Gender roles, racism and ethnic prejudice serve as recurring themes and the show conveys the prevailing thoughts and feelings of our grandparents' generation on those issues.

I'm confident tonight's show will disappoint. Exciting times.

Tune in!

Also, check out my super-long post on BioShock Infinite that I posted earlier today. Have a good Sunday.

Some Thoughts on Games Part 1: Let's Talk BioShock

I understand many of you may not play video games and the games you do play may not be as deep or "hardcore" as the games I play. That's why I've decided to create this post as sort of an introduction to games as art and give you guys a better, more accurate perception of games and their purpose, as well as the creative process of games and why these developers make the games they do. I hope this will be an adequate setup for the posts to come and gives you a better understanding of games as a whole.

In my opinion, the prototypical example of "games as art" is BioShock Infinite, which came out last Tuesday (March 26th). This game is incredible. In every way.

The game thrusts the player into Columbia, a utopian (but really dystopian) city in the sky. Really, the city floats in the clouds. This aerial metropolis is under the leadership of a charismatic, self-proclaimed prophet named Zachary Comstock. Comstock--a veteran of the Battle of Wounded Knee and a very idealistic, fascist/racist who literally worships the founding fathers of Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin--gains a following in 1892, preaching his beliefs of extreme patriotism, along with White and American ultra-supremacy, eventually convincing Congress to fund the construction of Columbia, and by 1900, Columbia is up and floating with Comstock reigning over it.

Fast forward to 1912, where the player assumes control of the main character, Booker DeWitt, who's tasked with finding a girl, Elizabeth, who's apparently being held in Columbia against her will. Comstock hails Elizabeth as the "Lamb of the Prophet", one who will take up where Comstock leaves off and fulfill Columbia's destiny--to bring their supremacist ideals to the mainland with force and fire.

Priests worshiping G-dubb.

One of the first things you do once reaching Columbia is pass through a garden that serves as a tranquil memorial for the founding fathers. Consequently, one of the first things you see is a trio of statues, one of Franklin, Washington, and Jefferson, bending at the knee (see right). Priest-like figures solemnly pray to and worship these "deities", as well as offer glory and thanks to their prophet, Comstock.

This opening sets up one of the main themes of the game,:religion. Yes, games have themes and plots that aren't about killing every bad guy and blowing everything up. Comstock seems to have formed his own religion devoted to Wash, Frank, and Jeff and the idea of American Exceptionalism. He claims to be a central figure as well, a prophet chosen by God; a shepherd leading his flock; a modern day Noah who guided his people to the clouds and closer to God, away from the corruption, integration, and sinful mainland.

Once you get into the city proper, you are almost overwhelmed by the scale, serenity, and beauty of Columbia. Brightly colored building facades, clean, paved boardwalks, quaint shops filled with welcoming and cheery citizens enjoying a new purchase, cafes with patrons laughing over wine and many other peaceful encounters give you the sense that maybe this city is a utopia. As you walk around, you notice the ground slowly bob up and down, making you feel like you're on some sort of wacky cruise ship for the sky. Off in the distance, other sections of city float in stolid peace among soft clouds.

This is the first image you see once you step foot  in the city. The statue is of Comstock.

As you are still grasping your bearings during this introductory segment, an airship suddenly floats into view off the edge of one the boardwalks and a quartet of African-American singers serenade you with an a cappella version of The Beach Boys' "God Only Knows". This is one of the first unexpected and beautiful  moments in the game, and certainly not the last.

You keep exploring the city and all its magnificent and seemingly innocent glory until you come upon a park. In the park a raffle is being held in front of a stage. The announcer onstage encourages everyone to enter the raffle by choosing a baseball with a number on it. If their number is chosen, they win. But what do they win?

Our player chooses to participate in the raffle and picks a baseball out of the basket. Of course, his number is chosen. His prize: he gets to be the first person to throw his baseball at an interracial couple that is slowly wheeled on stage. The couple screams frantically, imploring the announcer, the nearby constables, and the player to free them and have mercy. They aim their pleas specifically at the player, trying to convince him not to throw the ball. The shrill, frightened, and urgent tone of their voices is both heart-breaking and terrifying and that point this city that seemed so serene, almost angelic, horrifies you with extreme racism.

This is the scene. Horrific and incredibly racist.

This sets up a second major theme in the game: racism/prejudice, a theme that is probably more prevalent than religion and reflects the segregated nature of the early 1900's. Posters show women in elegant dress shopping as servants--one Chinese, one African-American, and one Hispanic--struggle to carry her overflowing shopping bags. There are bathrooms dedicated for Blacks and Irish only. Short, silent movies detail how to deal people of different race. They even hate Abraham Lincoln and depict him as a devil with horns because of what he did for African-Americans. One sect of anti-Lincoln extremists actually built a house of worship dedicated to John Wilkes Booth, complete with 20-foot-tall memorial statue of Booth aiming his gun.

As I was saying...

Before the player has a chance to throw his ball at the "raffle", he's recognized as the "False Shepherd", a man Comstock prophesied would one day come to Columbia to steal the Lamb (Elizabeth) and lead her astray. The police then try to apprehend the player but he escapes and becomes liberated to progress the story and explore the city, eventually making his way to the building where Elizabeth is being held.

It's not really a building though, more like the Columbian equivalent to the Statue of Liberty. Inside this monument is a multilevel compound, the top two/three floors of which are dedicated to housing Elizabeth.

For me, this is when the game really starts. The narrative at least.

Many video games incorporate a companion in their story. These companions can have any number of purposes, but mostly they are there to help you kill the bad guys and progress through levels. In most games, companions are quite one-dimensional; they don't add much to the story aside from some color commentary and bits of advice on how to progress.When the companion is a woman and unarmed, like Elizabeth, the game becomes an "escort mission"--you have to both eliminate enemies and protect the girl until you bring her to safety.

Escort missions blow. Thankfully, this is far from an escort mission.

At first, Liz thinks you're an intruder and she screams and throws books at you. Her accomodations contain hundreds of books, many of which she has read in her 18-20 years of being here.

Immediately upon meeting Elizabeth, I knew she would be no ordinary "damsel in distress".  When the player manages to escape the monument with her, they set back out into the heart of Columbia. This is the first time Elizabeth has ever actually set foot on the city proper, so naturally she's fascinated by everything she sees. And she's not afraid to speak her mind about what she sees.

I've played many games that feature companions but I've never seen a companion so developed, lively, animated, complicated, reactive and perceptive as Elizabeth. She comments on everything from the racist propaganda posters--voicing her displeasure and confusion on the unequal treatment--to the actual violence. The first time she sees the player kill someone, she runs and hides from the player, marking him as a heartless killer (I'll discuss this more next week).

Elizabeth is also very knowledgeable and she often gives the player history lessons and scientific principles that help explain the world they travel through.

Elizabeth adds so much more to this game. Ken Levine (the creator/director of the game) and his team of artists did an absolutely fantastic job of bringing her to life, giving her Pixar-esque animations and having her interact in the environment in ways that are surprising, touching, emotional, innocent, and somber, sometimes all at once. Her voice actor, Courtney Draper, is as good as it gets, some of the best voicing I've ever heard.

One of the great moments in the game and one that sets up Liz's character well. The player momentarily loses Liz and finds her here, on a pier of a mock beach, dancing her heart out as a clapping circle looks on. Look how happy she is!

I was amazed at how quickly I formed an attachment with Elizabeth, as quick as any character I had met in a film, TV series, or book. The moment above is really what did it for me.

As the story progresses and the plot becomes more complex (both emotionally and and in the more traditional sense) the bond with Elizabeth becomes even stronger. There were times where I wanted my player to go and hug Elizabeth or comfort her or say something encouraging; I've never experienced that in a game. I ended up caring more about what happened to her than my own character.

I think I might talk more about Elizabeth two weeks from now, in my blog about sexualization in video games. I could spend an entire post (or two) talking just about her. My point is, Ken Levine added so much more to this game by making Elizabeth what she was and without her, this game is lifeless and nowhere near as evocative.

As you near the end, the focus of the game shifts more to the science and brain-bending aspect of the plot and the twists and turns that come with it. I don't want to give anything away obviously, but by the end, the third biggest theme, and perhaps the one with the most lasting impact, is forgiveness/atonement. This theme comes to a head during the very last sequence of the game, but as I watched the credits roll and reflected on the game, I realized just how much Levine incorporated the theme throughout the narrative.

They also had this during the credits: a video of Courtney Draper (Elizabeth) and  Troy Baker (Booker) performing  all five verses of the hymn "Will the Circle Be Unbroken". This song appears in the game, which (in my opinion) is the most touching moment possibly in all of gaming. Levine appears in the video, directing these two, and it shows you just how much he cares about his work and how far he's willing to go to make the game perfect.

All in all, Bioshock Infinite is a crowning achievement in gaming and perhaps Ken Levine's masterpiece, a true work of art. Not just aesthetically stunning, the game constantly keeps the player guessing and thinking while at the same time developing real emotional attachments to the characters and the world. It also makes the player experience a heavy sense of morality and gives insight into the almost casual racism of the time period. I've never played a game like it and it's instantly one of, if not the best game I've ever had the privilege of playing.

My limited ability in writing cannot possibly do this game justice. I encourage you to go out and play this game if you are at all interested in games. To me, this is the epitome of what games are all about: not just a fun romp through an imaginative world but a real, grounded, complex piece of art that sticks with you well after completion. The most highly rated video games all incorporate these elements of dense plot and narrative, character complexity, weighty morality, and stunning visuals--Infinite accomplishes all of these and then some. It may be in the same genre, but Infinite is the opposite Call of Duty.

This post is super long (and super late, due to the fact that I wanted to beat the game before I blogged about it) and maybe slightly dizzying (like I said, my writing is not good enough to give you an adequate picture of this game and everything it's about) but I hope I've opened your eyes a little to just how amazing games can be, rivaling novels and film in terms of character complexity, symbolism, and thematic undertones.

Be sure to check out next week's post, in which I will voice my opinion on violence in video games, using Infinite as a reference point. Thanks for making it all the way to the end.

Liz will be so sad if you don't read next week's post!

Meanwhile, in Seth's Brain...

OK, so I'm having trouble (again) deciding on what I want to write about this week. I've been gaming a lot lately (thanks to BioShock Infinite) so I feel inspired to write something that deals with gaming, in particular either violence in video games or objectification of women in games.

I love gaming and (for the most part) I love the direction games are headed in. The immersion in games becomes more vast with each passing year and with new technology comes more capability for stunning works of art (such as BioShock Infinite).

But there are some legitimate concerns with games that the media loves to blow out of proportion and talk about, based on absolutely zero experience with playing games. The two issues I listed above, violence and women, headline the media's blind, headlong plunge into debating gaming's effect on society.

Violence in games is getting overblown, especially with the increasing realism and interactivity of games. Recently released was God of War: Ascension, a prequel to blockbuster trilogy that's well known for its gratuitous, over-the-top, almost sadistic violence and gore. Indeed I could create a whole blog post discussing God of War alone and its ethics but I will just say that this newest game, Ascension, seems to put violence in just for the sake of having violence (and making money), without any moral or thematic undertones (which the previous installments of the game certainly did).

Maybe Kratos has some remorse for all his killing? Doubtful.

Same goes for sex: I'm perfectly fine with having sex in a video game--it's a great way to enrich the emotional bond formed between the protagonist and a secondary character--but when developers throw in sex scenes just for the sake of showing gamers (a predominantly male community) "tits" and "ass" without any real justification other than "this will sell games", that's problematic and incredibly disrespectful to women.

This is already going longer than I expected but I guess what I'm trying to say is that I have an idea to get all these topics down in a series of  two/three posts, starting tomorrow. I might use a similar structure for other topics that have a lot of depth to them. But I think for tomorrow/Saturday, expect a blog about video game violence, the first one in a series. I'll try to do my homework and lay both side of the argument on the table, but I think most of you will see my point and agree that video games are not inherently evil.

Check back tomorrow!