He concludes that point when he writes: “I wonder if our tolerance for virtual gore and bloodshed in games has numbed us to the mutilation and torture of children because they’re virtual characters…or, more disturbingly, maybe we’ve become so used to hearing about violence directed at kids that its depiction in video games is just another reflection of our culture.” Here he misses the point.  I believe the premise of this conversation should not be that the game narrative reflects culture.  It doesn’t. Games never have.  The point should be that in order for game content to mirror society then game characters must respond to and be held accountable for their actions.  In our society, there are consequences for abusing and killing children.  If real people killed hundreds of zombie children on this island, you can bet they will not emerged unscathed from the event.  Why is it that we accept that game protagonists have no emotions and can wade through untold numbers of zombies/terrorists/alien bad guys and not feel anything? The only game recent game character I can remember having any recriminations is Alan Wake, and then only briefly.

However the scariest part of the article is not Gallaga’s concerns about children, but rather the comments readers posted about his article.  I read through most of them and the reactions of gamers must also be taken into account because they change the nature of the conversation.  There were numerous deriding his views because Dead Island is “just a game” and that means the virtual characters are not real.  Well of course they are not “real” but our reactions to them are very real.  I like to test the “not real” theory by asking if those same players would enjoy a rape game.  I wonder if they would feel the same way if asked to play a Nazi guard in a concentration camp or perhaps the captain on ship full of slaves crossing the middle passage.  After all, you can’t really rape, burn, or enslave anyone, can you?  It’s just a game so the argument goes.

I suspect most of them would answer that they would never play something so distasteful and offensive.  But they are “just games” right?  If that is the case, then why do we draw a line between is acceptable and what is too much? If these characters are not real then why should we make a distinction between “killing” them and “raping” them? Neither scenario is real.  Yet we do and in doing so find justification for tossing zombie children out a window but not raping young virtual women.  How convenient.

We will have to wait and see what Dead Island has to offer.  It may turn out that Mr. Gallaga’s concerns about children find a larger platform with this release.  I find it more likely that the same attitude we find in the comments will mute the conversation or at least relegate it to “it’s just a game.”  That would be sad, though not unexpected.

NFS Most Wanted was my first gamer score victim. 1000 points earned.

It’s hard to remember now, but I believe my very first achievement came in November 2005 while playing Madden 06. Or perhaps it was Need For Speed Most Wanted.  2005 was a long time ago.  I do remember the joy of hearing the pop that meant an increase in gamer score.  Even though I have spent more than five years improving that score, I still get a thrill from hearing that sound.

For those who don’t know, achievements are in-game challenges that can be unlocked by reaching certain milestones. Each one is worth so many points and they are directly tied to your Xbox gamer score. Some of these achievements are quite easy while others require gamers to torture themselves as they tried repeatedly to unlock them.

There was time when I would look for games with easy achievements so that I could get a quick fix. Even now I will work long and hard to earn one just to know that I conquered  a challenge.  However five years of looking at my gamer score have reminded me that games are supposed to be about having fun.  Last night a friend of mine saw my status as playing Mass Effect 1 and asked if I had all the achievements.  (I do.  In fact I have unlocked everything for Mass Effect 1 & 2.) I really didn’t want to take the time to tell him that sometimes I play just for fun.  Yes, I worked for all those points in ME1 and 2, and yes I play NCAA Football 11 every day, but that is because I love those games.

And yet somewhere in the back of my mind, I still want to hear that pop.  So I will try out new modes and play games on the hardest difficulty settings to just increase my score.  I will spend weeks or even months trying to pop every achievement on the list.  I will even go so far as to help others unlock them, even if it means spending all night in a game session.

Something is wrong with me.

There was a time when playing a game meant satisfying that need to have fun.  ”Fun” could be beating the game or besting another player online. However when Microsoft (and later Sony) added achievements (trophies) to the game space something changed: the objectives.  No longer did I set the difficulty based on how challenging I wanted the game to be.  Now I had to make sure playing on normal or hard or insane or legendary unlocked “chievos” or it was all for nothing. There was now a reason to explore nooks and crannies during single player games because finding all or even half the collectables would bring achievement glory. So I would scour each level to increase my gamer score by ten or fifteen points.  I would find online guides to help secure every piece of intelligence sitting on table or under a tree in Modern Warfare 2.  And once that achievement popped, I could brag to my friends who didn’t have it that I was a master at exploration.

Blast you, Microsoft!

I’m at the point where I have to look at the achievement list before I start to play a game. Worse, I check it often to make sure I am not missing out on any.  And if I do miss some, I will go back and replay a chapter or even an entire game just to get 50 more points.  I’m not strong enough to ignore achievements.  They call to me from the other side of the television screen.

This announcement turned my gaming world upside down.

In doing this Microsoft and Sony not only fill a need in my gaming soul, but they actually create the need that they now seek to fill. Evil. Pure evil. My gaming habits are now forever and irrevocably altered to play the game as they see fit. For the “honor” of bragging to friends and comparing gamer scores, I have molded my game play to make sure I max all the classes in Bad Company 2 (achievement unlocked!), complete Halo Reach on legendary (achievement unlocked!), and find every single novel page in Alan Wake (2 achievements unlocked!).

Brilliant idea Microsoft. Evil, but brilliant.

This notion of having players test their gaming skill against present day enemies is nothing new.  Shooters from the last console generation (Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six, and others) allowed players to kill Russians, Mexican rebels, and of course terrorists.  There is something thrilling about taking a current headline and weaving it into an action game. For some reason, the excitement intensifies when you replace a fictional conflict in an imaginary country (Full Spectrum Warrior) or a speculative battle (Close Combat: First to Fight).  The idea that this is either happening now or that it could happen sometime in the near future adds the sense of authenticity to the conflict.

Operation Flashpoint Red River. US Marines and the PLA go to war.

Take Red River for example. Like it’s predecessor, Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising, Red River features the PLA as the enemy force.  Dragon Rising took place on the imaginary island of Skira after an elaborate tale that created a scenario where the US had to aid ally Russia against the Chinese.  In the trailer for Red River, the Chinese are again painted as aggressors who have their own agenda to fulfill by securing their border with Tajikistan.  The Chinese are to be feared because they field a large, modern army and the will to use it against the Americans. So like the latest Tom Clancy thriller, the player can now experience possible real-world events in foreign lands that allow the United States to combat a fierce and possibly real enemy.  In fact, the scenario in Red River does not seem all that plausible.  The same for Homefront, but given the condition of current US relations with both North Korea and China and the size of their respective armies, some clever writing can now produce a gaming thriller. Plus there is the added benefit of not telling the tale of a current US war and thus avoid the controversies that swirled around Six Days and Medal of Honor.

Old Communist foe North Korea invades South Korea and then the US.

The list of possible US enemies is short: North Korea, China, and Russia. Who else can field an army to match the United States? Recent titles Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and Battlefield Bad Company covered the Russian angle, including an invasion of the United States in Modern Warfare 2. It is interesting to see how a former Cold War enemy still appears threatening years after the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Old fears of communism live on as these three nations continue to present a military threat (at least in the game world).  The communist nature of China and Korea allows game publishers to skirt the race angle by reminding us that these nations are always aggressive against their enemies. However they do that because they are enemies of democracy and freedom, not because they are people of color. In a world where the main US adversary is a shadow network of terrorists, game developers and writers need to create enemies who are dangerous while at the same time somewhat realistic.  The easiest way to do that is to draw upon old fears of communism and the modern version of Yellow Peril (even if the writers do not voice this fear).  It serves as a reminder to that the United States does not entirely trust these other nations.  We know that while things are fine now but they can deteriorate at a moment’s notice. And because these countries are so powerful, to lose their good will means to invite armed conflict.

In the case of Russia, often times some old party member seeks to reinstate the Communists, while both Korea and China seek to settle old hatreds by securing their borders and the surrounding territories and thus present a launching point for war. All these scenarios become possible since these nations continue to be demonized by American government and media: Russia and North Korea for their aggressive political and military might and China for its economic power. In turn they become natural choices for virtual conflict.

Still, recently I have even begun to use them outside of communication classes, which presents special challenges. Those other media are fairly easy.  You can always record television programming on a digital video recorder, pull the program off of network website, use Hulu, YouTube, and so on.  Likewise you can rent or buy a DVD or use Netflix in order to play a film in class.

Games are no so easy.  Yes, you can find clips on YouTube. However those clips may or may not be what you need for the class. So what you could end up with is a selection of cut scenes from various games and some segments of game play.  Again, that may not be what you need. Likewise, you can search the Internet for other clips from games.  Good luck finding that part you need. There are, however, a few studious gamers who have recorded not only the cut scenes, but the play through sessions as well.  I found an entire play though of all episodes of Alan Wake on YouTube.  They were great quality with no player commentary. Sweet.

Compare that to movies. Last semester I showed most of Spike Lee’s Bamboozled from YouTube.  This semester YouTube pulled the clips due to copyright infringement. I have yet to see a video game clip removed for that reason, though publishers have every right to do so.

I digress.

The airport massacre is easy to find since it comes at the beginning of the scene "No Russian."

If a teacher wants to use game footage in the class room and cannot find what he or she needs on the web, then the alternative is to play the game (or have someone else play) and record the sessions, something I did for my dissertation. This presents another set of challenges.  If you wanted the class to watch the airport massacre scene in “No Russian” (Modern Warfare 2), then no problem, since that is at the beginning of a level.  However, what if the scene you want resides in the middle of the game? Are you willing to play for hours just to get to that section? Probably not.  If the scene footage were unlocked during game play, then perhaps you can go into the features section and play in again while recording. However, there are only a limited number of games that provide this feature (Alan Wake for example).

There has to be a better way.

Alan Wake now playing on YouTube and perhaps in a class room near you.

If consumers can buy or rent DVDs of their favorite films and television shows, why can’t they for games? Obviously the first hurdle is that except for PCs, most games contain a single disc that is not compatible with standard DVD players. They only play in game consoles. Publishers could sell a separate disc for cut scenes or it could be included with the limited or special edition sets that are frequently available.

It may seem like I am asking a lot, but games are texts that have just as much cultural value as television, radio, and film, yet the bulk of those texts are lost to the player after the game ends.  How can I go back and view a section of Alan Wake I played last night?  I can’t unless I replay it.  That’s not good enough. There is so much value to viewing cut scenes and game play.  For example, I played “No Russian” for my writing students this past week and asked them to free write about it. The week before that they wrote summaries of a YouTube clip about the controversy over Six Days in Fallujah. There is no reason even assignments such as summaries, synthesis, outlines, and essays cannot be based on video game texts.  Those texts just need to be available.

Karen Shepard, my character from ME1 & 2, has helped me explore the galaxy, humanity, and alien cultures.

(Warning: Mass Effect 1 & 2 spoilers follow).

January 26, 2011 marks the first anniversary of BioWare’s Mass Effect 2. It is hard to believe a year has passed since we first got to play the second installment of its epic space trilogy.  Mass Effect 2 continued the saga of humanity’s struggle for survival as well as its quest for political supremacy within the Citadel. It would be the biggest understatement to say I have enjoyed that game.  However having completed the games several times, I think I am in a better position to look at several areas of research available due to the volumes of content that come with the Mass Effect experience.  Some of them I have already touched on, yet there are other areas that cry out for exploration, including disability, body image, moral choices, and several mass communication theories to include framing (in-game media broadcasts), agenda setting (Cerebus network), and gatekeeping. To be honest, I have already dabbled into why Mass Effect 2 address the human condition and how some story elements represent cultural hegemony.  In fact I did that not once, but twice.  A few months later, I wrote we need more characters like Joker. Recently I explored how BioWare uses fictitious faith as an option to avoid the controversies of addressing real-world religions. I even argued that my beloved Karen Shepard should die again at the end of Mass Effect 3. In addition, other writers have brilliantly written about some of the political aspects of BioWare’s epic. Jorge Albor over at Experience Points penned “The Quarian Exiles,” “The Salarian Dilemna” and “Cultural Conflict.” One might think that because of the many articles about Mass Effect that we have sufficiently mined universe for cultural ideas.  Not so.

Mass Effect "Overlord" is an opportunity to study disability.

First, the added content (DLC) “Overlord” infused horror and oppression of the disabled into Mass Effect 2. The “ends justifies the means” mentality used by Cerebus to combat the mechanical Geth put the player in the position of leaving a disabled man in the hands of his oppressive brother or shipping him off to an academy for help and thereby putting humanity at a disadvantage in its war against the Geth’s masters, the Reapers. Anyone interested in exploring how the story unfolds must capture and study the flashbacks the player sees as well as the ending cut scene and in doing so will see how the character Daniel will shift from what Rosemarie Garland-Thomson calls wondrous (awe-inspiring) to exotic (dangerous, alien, strange) to sentimental (to be pitied and taken care of).

Grunt (foreground) and Tali help the gamer explore family issues in ME2.

Body image and gender issues are obvious avenues of exploration in ME2.  Critics will no doubt zero in on First Officer Miranda Lawson, whose tight outfits present the image of sex symbol even as she reminds Commander Shepard, and the player, that she has been genetically bred to be intelligent as well as a powerful biotic.  She therefore often times splits the male player’s focus on her since she is a possible love interest for MaleShep while catering to the Illusive Man’s interest as a Cerberus operative and first officer of the good ship Normandy. Her cool demeanor is offset by the fiery and sexual Jack/Subject Zero who presents the option of unattached sex. In contrast, Samara’s quest to kill her daughter provides room for those interested in the intersection of child rearing and employment and the consequences of being away from home too much.  Kasumi Goto quest reveals a love tale with some James Bond elements thrown in. Of all the characters, it is Tali’Zorah who provides the interesting political/familial/loyalty missions in the game (as does the Krogan Grunt).

The Mass Effect trilogy is well-known for its moral choices.  One of the big selling points was that choices made in the first game carry over into the second.  Likewise, choices made in ME2 will help shape the outcome of the series in ME3.

If you saved the Rachni in ME1 will they help defeat the Reapers in ME3?

I have read accounts of how Shepard’s actions with the Krogan, the Quarians, the Geth, and the Rachni will help to form an alliance against the Reapers in ME3. It will be interesting to see if certain options lead to success or if some kind of pluralism exists in ME (all roads lead to a good ending).

Another rich area of research is in-game media, ala the Cerberus Daily News and in-game news updates on different planets. The CBN ran for one year, providing daily updates from the ME Universe.  These short messages not only enhanced and expanded the canon, but also provide material for textual and content analyses. Just as interesting are the numerous in-game updates the player can listen to.  These quick announcements might provide some insight into how news reports are framed within the game.  What elements are emphasized and which ones are downplayed or even ignored? How do the interests of the Citadel play out against the public’s need to know? Do these news bursts, as I call them, in any way help to set the public agenda for conversation and reaction? This last item is difficult since we are only privy to the reactions of Shepard and those around her.

It seems that the anniversary of Mass Effect 2 raises nearly as many questions as it answers. The middle chapter of this trilogy has one final section of downloadable content due out this year.  BioWare has not revealed if this will be DLC that bridges ME2 and 3, ala “Lair of the Shadow Broker.”  If it does you can bet that researchers will add it to the healthy collection of ME content already available.