Games Grown up

[Anonymous]

Games Grown Up
by Amos Parker

I've watched video games grow up. In a way I feel like a parent. It's a strange parenthood though. There are lots of other parents out there, and not just one woman. You're all parent in the same sense that I am. The dominance of video games was born of that willingness to pay for the entertainment they offer. So in that sense it's our offspring.

I remember playing "Asteroids" as a child whenever I could in a nearby market. It was a physics class well before I hit high school, judging x and y forces on the fly in a great space dance around the rocks of the Universe. Games were younger then. So young and innocent. "Asteroids" was set up near the door, as games usually seem to be. Maybe that's where they were because the owners wanted them visible immediately. Maybe they were there so that they were separated from the "real" business of the store. Maybe "Pong" just wasn't supposed to create a traffic jam in between the dried rice and breakfast cereals.

There was also a game at the local laundrotmat, the name of which I still don't remember. (After writing this, I was happily informed that it's called "Rock 'n' Rope") I was a mountain climber, and I shot grappling hooks from one side of the screen to the other trying to reach some kind of bird at the top. There were monsters at every ledge. They shook the cables when I was on them. I had to stop when they did, and hope the cables didn't break. The game had my imagination by the throat. Something similar, if not the same, seems, from the description, to be out on a Konami classics CD for the Playstation.

But I digress.

I felt like talking about my spin on the growing importance of violence in video games. The adolescence of video games brings this on. Puberty, if you will. Our child has too much power now to be an innocuous sideshow in a supermarket. "Mortal Kombat" is too much for shopping housewives.

"Asteroids" doesn't have much in its form beyond some connected lines representing an almost abstract intergalactic destruction. I don't imagine that anyone worried, when they walked into the market looking for the golden peanut butter, about how the depiction of an occupied spacecraft being destroyed by rocks of a fearful size was too greusome and needed censorship. If we imagine that, graphics aside, there's a person in that little wire-frame ship screaming in agony when you clumsily guide him into the nearest hurtling rock, it's still not an image conjured up by the disinterested passerby. You have to work to imagine that buried reality.

And the disinterested passerby may gladly admit that brain power was better spent on something different... perhaps which brand of baking powder was the bigger value, or whether the generic ibuprofin was really as good as Advil. So the bulk of the danger in games when they were young may have been in how people who played didn't want to do anything else, how they forgot about their homework, zoned out; not in the images they portrayed and how that could seep into reality.

In a way, those were the days. The lost innocence of youth. Games took up time, and people complained a little, but the connection to reality was tenuous. Shaking me from my grappling hook in that climbing game seemed about as tragic as an eviction in Monopoly. Maybe that was one of the problems as well as one of the benefits. It was an escape from reality, not a terrifying version of it like we might find in "Carmageddon". But now that we have systems like the Dreamcast (almost), the realism of fleshed-out designer mainstays can start to look like a terrifying and vulgar reality, rather than an abstract time-waster. It's leaving it's childhood home. It's intruding on reality. Call to mind "Kingpin".

What do we get now, with the Dreamcast? We have the capacity for games that are easily mistaken for reality. Even the Saturn and Playstation could do it on occasion. I remember having an aunt walk into the house when I was playing "International Track and Field" once. I saw her later, and when she began with the chit-chat, she mentioned the sporting event I'd been watching earlier. Go figure.

"NFL 2000" looked nearly photo-realistic when I saw videos filter down from the E3 and into the Net. And the console market is bigger than the PC market, more mainstream, closer to reality, because unlike the PC, it's a living room passtime. The world of the PC is further from the core of a family, where the living room may be more of a sanctuary. Seeing near photo-realistic imagery in that so-called place of living (unlike straight television, which isn't controlled), could easily be much more disturbing to a parent that's worried about having to release her child into the big bad world of reality every day. Maybe video games as an escape from reality were better. If video games can now be as disturbing as reality, where's the sanctuary from reality?

You have the possibility of children controlling and obliterating characters that look nearly real. And maybe in one of the few places that parents have time to be a good influence in a dangerous world.

Facial expressions are a big part of this reality. The "Emotion Engine" in the Playstation 2 accepts this as a given. I have a hard time empathizing with the blocky polygonal characters of today, with their painted and immobile faces. "Metal Gear: Solid" is great, but.... Still, it surpasses the Master System. Bodily movement is a part of this too. Characters on current systems look like a bunch of rectangles masquerading as a person, and without much practice. Games like "NFL 2000" have a close tie to this issue. Clarity alone wouldn't be enough if the animation were only as detailed as the latest "Gameday". In "NFL 2000", the characters won't just be as clear as people, they might move like them, too. My mountain climber didn't look real

A facial expression or a tiny twitch in the body can make a beautiful human moment. As an example, I'll mention the film "Liar Liar". In general I wish that movie hadn't tried to touch touching. But the face, body, and voice of the judge near the end of the film when he said "I see...." in response to the fact that there would be a custody battle, was genuinely moving. If I shut the movie off then, I can almost forget the sugar that comes after. If such a moment were in an interactive world of Playstation-quality visuals, much of the power would've been inevitably lost. The Dreamcast might do it.

And with games, often so intent on destruction, the capacity to build "real" people with as powerful a face and body as that judge will necessarily bring the capacity to destroy "real" people. No more imaginary space men in wire-frame space ships that only the fascinated gamer would bother to picture. A cornered enemy in a first person shooter can give you the most human look of fear, and then have the face that made it splattered all over the wall. By you. It should happen. Or could. Couple this with what the Game Boy Camera can do for enemies in "Perfect Dark" and it's easy to see how more people could get close to killing those that anger them. Maybe at times that could be a healthy venting. I don't know.

Again, this could be good... sometimes. Like I said, "a healthy venting"? A "reality simulator" could be used for good or ill. Just as easily as someone could destroy a character that seemed strikingly real, that same player could see the look of fear in a cornered foe and realize a way to have unforced sympathy for a kind of human pain. And maybe he or she could have an epiphany about the human condition. Maybe the player could spare the enemy.

I mentioned that anything from the greatest good to the worst evil could be done. That's with anything, not just a video game-like reality simulator. There's a spectrum between them. Spectrums are everywhere. More power broadens the available spectrum of good and bad, distances the two extremes. The arrival of the Dreamcast means we have a great big spectrum now.

Two examples for a good/bad spectrum, influenced by power: Hitler may not have been as "evil" as some. But the ability that the power he had gave to him made him stand out more than any hellish recluse. Someone who doesn't have the charisma to lead a country, even though he may want to kill billions, won't make a huge mark. Infinite unknown evil that doesn't kill billions won't be remembered or matter as much as Hitler did. And Anthony Hopkins may not be as "good" an actor as some. Maybe those with more talent will be undiscovered forever. Maybe they never get lucky enough to hit it big. Maybe they don't have the political talent necessary to get ones self to a place where acting talent can be fully utilized. Maybe they'd rather be game designers. But if they don't get a break and gain some acting power, their talent will never show to any but their closest friends.

My point is that the power of the Dreamcast means that if bad has been done by games in the past, greater bad is now possible. If good has been done by games, more good is now possible. A better "murder simulator" can be programed, a bigger artistic epiphany can be programed.

The Dreamcast has power. Not ultimate power, but a great deal of power none-the-less. Enough to get "close enough" to reality in many regards. The limits of reality in games will no longer be near the grainy yet somehow grand compromise that constituted "Metal Gear Solid". Only the sound and voice acting in that had no obvious technical boundaries.

The rest of the boundaries are fading now. I should mention the FMV or CG cut scenes that can come on any CD system. Those mimic, and even out-pace the movies, quite well, as I mentioned a few weeks ago. Any camera movement and set is possible with animation. Yet they remain frustratingly non-interactive. Sometimes spectacular non-interactivity is what I want, but I'm not writing this piece for a film site. And the Dreamcast can do near-CG quality real-time interactivity.

So yet again I say "Long live the Dreamcast". My love makes me feel like a parent of it, too. I hope it grows up well.

-------------

Discuss.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:542, old post ID:4736

[manadren]

A video game system is not a tool of possible good or evil. It cannot make people do things. Just like any movie, tv show, book, song, or piece of art work, it can only present ideas. No matter how realistically it may represent an idea, it is still an idea, and it's up to the viewer as to what to do with them.

[and may I say if a parent wants to try to keep their children from being exposed to ideas they don't like, that's the parent's responsibility]



Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:542, old post ID:4768

[MrSelf]

[and may I say if a parent wants to try to keep their children from being exposed to ideas they don't like, that's the parent's responsibility]

+1

It's a parents job got get their child ready for 'real life', to take a lump of clay, and mold it into a masterpiece. Different children progress at different rates (and some parents don't even make an attempt and shaping their children...) and it's a parents job to judge where that child is and where they need to go; what they can handle. If your parent's have done their job, video games shouldn't be a problem, but some people do need to be monitored.

As far as the subject, yeah, anything can be used to further you. A pre-determined length of a piece of string could be used to discover many geometry truths, to educate yourself. Almost anything can be. I believe the fact I played with legos extensively as a child gave me an insight on how to build structures and view them in a 3-d image in my mind, some people have a much harder time visualizing things like this. A general computer with internet access is one of the greatest tools for learning and pushing your intellegence around currently, or for that matter, ever.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:542, old post ID:4773

[OLKMED]

Video games have grown up in a few different ways over the years.
After the new 3d games started to arrive games started to get more in depth stories and into situations people can actually relate to (versus you are the red dot shooting all the green squares).
Some companies used this to make very immature video games. ex: tomb raider, the idea of having a heroine instead is great but she doesn't need boobs the size of her head either.

With the generation of consoles we have now things are becoming so realistic and graphic that you sometimes can't believe this isn't real. And the new games are much more mature (with a few exceptions ).

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:542, old post ID:5069

[Anonymous]

: tomb raider, the idea of having a heroine instead is great but she doesn't need boobs the size of her head either.

Yeah, but it's fun.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:542, old post ID:5687

[Chyse]

: tomb raider, the idea of having a heroine instead is great but she doesn't need boobs the size of her head either.

Yeah, but it's fun.

i agree, the boobs the size of her head is why most guys buy that game. the distributors make a killing on that game just because of her gigantic boobs that bounce when she jumps.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:542, old post ID:5796

[sintekk]

i agree, the boobs the size of her head is why most guys buy that game. the distributors make a killing on that game just because of her gigantic boobs that bounce when she jumps.

You're mistaken. The first game was actually considered a quite good adventure game. The rest went downhill, simply because Eidos banked on her boobs

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:542, old post ID:5844

[Bookworm]

I know that video games are not real, but don't the emotions you invest in those games become a part of your reality? Years ago, I played a role-playing game called Gamma World, and after my character was kicked out of his village for being a mutant, I used my chameleon mutation to sneak back in, and then I life-leached 25 of the villagers to death. Granted, it was just a game, but wouldn't the habitual playing of a game that allows you to do that lessen your regard for the value of life? Especially with the graphic nature of death on some video games.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:542, old post ID:12661

[MrSelf]

I know that video games are not real, but don't the emotions you invest in those games become a part of your reality? Years ago, I played a role-playing game called Gamma World, and after my character was kicked out of his village for being a mutant, I used my chameleon mutation to sneak back in, and then I life-leached 25 of the villagers to death. Granted, it was just a game, but wouldn't the habitual playing of a game that allows you to do that lessen your regard for the value of life? Especially with the graphic nature of death on some video games.

To be fair, wouldn't any game that allowed multiple lives do the same, allow you to lessen your regard for the value of life. Doesn't having a second, third, fourth, etc... chance(life) alter the basic way you approach a problem and its solution? The world is full of thing that allow you to distort your perspective on any given subject, isn't the point of life to see these things and still overcome? I mean ultimately, you are responsible for yourself, things like this are going to happen and you have to know where your limits are and when to stop.

It's much like the basic concept of religion (at least christian religions): God gave us everything, good and bad, and we have to choose the right way. Free will. You are responsible for yourself. If something is likely to make you feel to do something, you need to take that into account and adjust your actions accordingly.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:542, old post ID:12665

[Bookworm]

I wouldn't say that having multiple chances at a solution is the same as being able to murder someone as an element of a game. If every time you failed at Pac-man you saw a bloody scene of a head being slowly chewed up and swallowed, then I would say the graphic imagery in that game has gone too far. You cannot witness horrific things on a regular basis without becoming somewhat desensitized to them. And the more you become desensitized, the more you think you are able to handle, and all the while it is affecting you in a detrimental way.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:542, old post ID:12680

[Anonymous]

All human Beings have an insatiable lust for blood. Video games sate that.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:542, old post ID:12704

[MrSelf]

I wouldn't say that having multiple chances at a solution is the same as being able to murder someone as an element of a game. If every time you failed at Pac-man you saw a bloody scene of a head being slowly chewed up and swallowed, then I would say the graphic imagery in that game has gone too far. You cannot witness horrific things on a regular basis without becoming somewhat desensitized to them. And the more you become desensitized, the more you think you are able to handle, and all the while it is affecting you in a detrimental way.

I understand what you are saying, but let me ask you this. When you saw Pacman die, it is completely fake in every way. It looks fake, feels fake, and you don't associate with it in any way. Mainly because pac-man looks nothing like a human. Anytime you create a game with a human character, your subconsious associate whatever information it can. So in my example, seeing a human die and come back is just as bad, imo, as the excessively graphic violence. Your brains says, 'look, I get multiply chances, I can even be in a death-related situation and have more than one chance', which is never the case in reality. So this is only really relevent in games with characters that look human. Nonetheless, I agree with your general statement. Anytime you do anything often or excessively you become desensitized; whether it is repetitive violence, excessive alcohol, loving, or simply eating the same meal. Repetitive motion in any area desensitizes one if you are not watching out for it.



Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:542, old post ID:12781

[Bookworm]

You need to disagree with me a little more strongly for this to be a Debate and HEATED Discussion. haha.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:542, old post ID:12795

[MrSelf]

You need to disagree with me a little more strongly for this to be a Debate and HEATED Discussion. haha.

Haha Bookworm, I'm glad you joined.., you're a great addition to this forum.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:542, old post ID:12800

[Bookworm]

All human Beings have an insatiable lust for blood.  Video games sate that.

If it is insatiable, how can video games sate it?

(I understand your point, I just couldn't resist reponding to the way you said it.)

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:542, old post ID:12830

[Anonymous]

All human Beings have an insatiable lust for blood. Video games sate that.

If it is insatiable, how can video games sate it?

(I understand your point, I just couldn't resist reponding to the way you said it.)

Har har. Amusing.

It sates the bloodlust in the same way that food sates your appetite, but it pops back up. It can never be satisfied.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:542, old post ID:12838

[Bookworm]

Here's a question worth considering: If humans actually have a bloodlust, can games actually satisfy it, or might they increase one's appetite for it?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:542, old post ID:12839

[Anonymous]

Here's a question worth considering: If humans actually have a bloodlust, can games actually satisfy it, or might they increase one's appetite for it?

It all depends. From what I know off my friends, constant bloody games get tiresome, and simple games like Mario Bros. look like heaven.

Giving an 8 year old Doom 3 is wrong however.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:542, old post ID:12881

[Stasi]

Yeah, I can play shooters for a while, but then I need something more mentally engaging like a strategy or simulation game or even an RPG.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:542, old post ID:12905

[sintekk]

Yeah, I got Doom 3 and got bored of it real fast. City of Heroes or Freelancer multiplayer is more my cup of tea just due to the social element

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:542, old post ID:12907