A brief note on double standards

Observe the image below:

Katamario

Let’s make some quick notes. Firstly, the characters displayed are from the Namco / Sony game Katamari Damacy. This game won a bunch of awards for its design and innovation. It has absolutely no affiliation or association with anything Nintendo. Now, note how Mario, Yoshi and Toad features (red cap, Yoshi’s head, Toad’s.. erm.. whatever) have been added ontop of the original Katamari characters and the iconic ‘Nintendo’ logo placed across the bottom of the image.

Got all that? Good.

So, what we’ve got is a deliberate rebranding of an innovative, original concept so that, to the casual observer it looks like a Nintendo product. Needless to say, this was not produced by Nintendo but by an individual.

Now, the thing that gets me is that typically I’ve seen this image get a big fat thumbs up from the type of people that I would describe as Nintendo fans. These same people think it’s an awfully clever idea to do this and give reasons like “Well, it’s the kind of idea that Nintendo would do, so it makes sense!”. Except they didn’t do it did they? So it doesn’t make sense, does it?

So, can someone tell me why these same folk are the ones that get so upset when they see something like Burnout or Timesplitters with an EA logo on it and say “Well, now that EA are publishing it, it’ll be rubbish”. Or when they cry when their exclusives like Resident Evil 4 get ported to other machines? That last one gets my goat the most. I mean, there they are, crowing about how you can ONLY do this on a Gamecube and that “Look at you sad PS2, Xbox owners without the amazing RE4!!!!” and then, OH NO, it gets ported to PS2 and the little kiddies get upset because they don’t want to share their toys. Ah diddums! You’ve still got your RE4, is it any worse now that it’s not an exclusive? Does it affect you? No. Well, yes – but only if you’re one of those fanboys that was winding everyone up in the first place, in which case, you deserve it (but not Burnout 3).

You’ll hear this more and more from me and others – gamers are responsible for the image of gaming. And it’s cases like the ones described above that will keep the culture in the dark ages and scoffed at by the non-gamers. Think before you open your mouths otherwise you’ll kill Nintendo faster than anyone else will.

The Digital Jihad

Last night I had a good chat with an old gaming buddy. It was one of those really enjoyable conversations that just coasts along with you both on the same wavelength and, before you know it, hours have passed by. Being gaming buddies we found ourselves talking about games and the current hot potato the Revolution.

During the course of the conversation we both hit upon a realisation. A truth. An epiphany.

Now, some might argue that I take games too seriously. That I’m too critical about what is just a hobby or pastime for many. I’d argue that I’m a huge fan of games and gaming culture and that my interest is so acute due to the 15 years I spent working in many different areas of the industry. Trash talking a company or dismissing a game means more to me because I understand exactly what was involved in getting it from the concept onto the shelf. So, I admit, I take gaming seriously, but I have very good reason to.

However devoted to gaming I am I generally don’t choose sides. I hold no loyalty to the manufacturer of a plastic box of circuits. Compared to some, my attitude towards games is mild. And it was this train of thought that led me to the realisation: gaming is a religion for many.

Words like ‘devotion’, ‘fanatic’, ‘worship’ and ‘faith’ leap into my head when I think of religion. Those same words can very easily be assigned to that very vocal and outspoken minority of gamers. Not being religious in the slightest and favouring facts and logic over faith and belief I’m not convinced of miracles or the ‘hand of God’. A problem I have with religious thinking is how those who practice it can eschew all logic and believe a totally unsubstantiated version of events. The most dedicated of believers are comitted to this type of thought and no application of logic or science will shift them from their perspective. Of course, games are not religion. After all, the very thing that drives a game – it’s programming – is written in purest logic! The industry is a scientifcally explainable entity. Trends can be plotted and every event in the history of gaming has a totally understandable explanation that can be backed up by facts. Games are a distraction, not a code by which a life can be lived or a set of standards than can be followed. Games are not religion.

But gamers have often demonstrated all the traits of the worst of religious fundamentalists. There are those, devoted to one of three Gods, worshiping their electronic idols and praying in the names of St. Miyamoto and others. As in the worst aspects of religion, their chosen path is the only path to true enlightenment. They are right in their belief as they have been promised entrance to gaming heaven, a digital nirvana. They don’t care if their God has let them down in the past – they may not even acknowledge any such fallacy can exist in their chosen belief. Opposing views or even the mention of other Gods will be met with outright hostility. Your logic and reason have no place in this discussion.

The degree to which this devotion is applied appears to be increasing. The timing of this isn’t a mystery – we’re on the verge of a new chapter and people are convinced that they’re going to be one step closer to the Holy Land. But the worst aspects of religious fervour are destroying the sense of community that gamers inhabit. Sides are clearly being taken and the zealots are preparing themselves for the digital jihad. Would they die for their cause? It seems so, yes. Their online presence is expendable. Let them go out a martyr or in a blaze of flaming glory as they rampage through their chosen community starting fights, stamping their feet and cutting down those who might dare to challenge their beliefs. If their online presence, their forum account gets banned as part of this cause then so be it. Sacrifices have to be made and if they must die for their cause then they can be reborn, their belief stronger than ever!

Ok, so maybe that’s over-dramatising the situation in some cases (and in some cases, it isn’t) but the parallels are plain to see. Obsessing over something at the expense of logic, facts, history and reason is as unhealthy as carrying out the actions in Doom or Quake in real life. I’m seeing more and more of this behaviour these days, so much so that I’m totally put off from participating in gaming communities. I don’t post in them and I now rarely read them due to the disdain I feel when I see topic after topic fuelled by unthinking and unreasoned fervour.

I don’t belong to the cult of Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft. But I see evidence that they exist.

Can videogames make you cry?

This article is based on that very question. More specifically it asks about gaming and whether it can bring a sense of emotion to the person playing.

I suppose that things like work, commuting and other things that truly fail to bring emotion to our lives are those which we find most bland. Games that make you feel nothing, not even anger, are probably the least successful.

The feeling of heroism, the obsession of most 14-year-old boys, is the basis of most games. […] In videogames, we often fight the bad guys and feel good about it. Whatever our critics may say, I think that’s worthy.

Unsurprisingly the results of a survey upon which the article is based shows Final Fantasy to be one of the most emotive games that gamers have experienced. Who can fail to have felt some sort of emotion at the end of Final Fantasy VII’s first CD? Or, for the more hardcore amongst you, how about when Palom and Porom sacrificed themselves in Final Fantasy II/IV?

The list of most affecting videogames from the article says plenty about what a crucial element emotion can be in making your game a success: Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, Halo, Silent Hill. Those are some heavyweight names.

Of course, you can apply a chicken and egg scenario to this. What about the smaller, less ‘popular with the casuals’ style games? Ico certainly makes the grade!

It’s clear that games that make you feel something are the ones you remember and are the ones that make their mark. Most recently for me, God of War made me feel something in games that I’ve not felt that many times since I first started playing. That of the sheer visceral thrill of power and literally feeling superhuman. The cunningness of the design in that this was a fallen character that you didn’t feel you cared for juxtaposed the fact that, as the gamer, it was your job to see him succeed in his quest. The gaming anti-hero.

Games haven’t made me cry. I’ve been elated, confused, angered, exhilerated, scared and determined by them though. I guess it’s that kind of emotional connection with a game that I always seek. Games that make that connection with me are the ones that elevate themselves above the normal and stand out.

Whilst writing this I’m trying to think of any ‘quick fix’, simple, shallow games that make that essential connection for me. Even the eternal Tetris doesn’t really offer that for me which is why I would probably play it less than any RPG I own even though my limited free time would lend itself far better to shifting abstract blocks than completing quests.

As the article indicates, Walt Disney wondered if animation could make an emotional connection with it’s audience. I think that, in the better animations, there is no question that it does. Today’s society will readily admit to that. In many respects, I think gaming finds itself being asked the same question today. I hope that in the future everyone will realise that it does – and not just in bad ways.