Video Game Villains

I've always had a love for the villains in video games. Not particularly that I root for them to win, but there's something that draws me to them.

For my final project, I'd like to explore this and find out why the villains are getting almost as much attention as the heroes. I think part of it is due to the way characters are developed. I plan to choose a handful of Final Fantasy villains to discuss, ranging from Kefka to Sephiroth. I'd like to look at what makes them tick, as well as what change has taken place to give us reason to see them as more than an obstacle to be overcome.

Sex in Videogames, or Lack Thereof

What’s the difference between sexuality in video games and sexuality in real life? Not very much. What I mean is that although you’ll see more ass on screen than during the Democratic Convention, the whole topic is still a big social phobia in general. Video games mirror our own social fears of exposing younger people to any form of sex or sexual themes, mostly in lieu of violence that is somehow much more acceptable.
It’s rather confusing that nearly every strong female protagonist (or antagonist, really) is measured not only by the power of her arsenal, but her comparative lack of clothing. The best example of this is the Dead or Alive series of fighters. Every female fighter in the game is cartoonishly top heavy, and even moreso the game gives players the option of turning the bounce function off or on. While off, the fighters fight as normal, focusing mostly on the technique and strategy of defeating the opponent. While on, the women’s breasts bounce with a physics engine of their own, leading most players to wonder if it’s designed to be an innovative feature, or a way of playing dirty with distractions.
Oddly enough, these same characters were redrawn as something along the lines of Sports Illustrated’s swim suit edition and parents were up in arms about the videogame magazine showing borderline pornography. What’s the difference between the game and the magazine versions? The images were designed to be like photographs with a few of the women in mildly suggestive poses, more like pin-up girls than actual pornographic material like Playboy. Alternatively, I doubt the parents were exposed to the game before or after buying it. Parents can easily enough pick up a magazine and flip through the pages than figure out how to not only start the console but to actually have the motivation to play the game that their child is so drawn into.
The game makes a joke out of playing with the programming. It’s comical how the woman can be relatively still and their breasts are still bouncing like they were in a zero gravity chamber. But the people who play the games and are old enough to know what true pornography is probably looked at the magazine pictures as an interesting piece of art, since the art was very well developed and the pictures were actually really pretty to look at.
Other games, however, take the idea of sex and expand on it as part of the game’s mechanics. In this day and age, no retail level videogame store will sell Adult Only titles. Adult Only can refer to either excessive sexual themes or extreme depictions of violence. Publishers will bend over backwards to push the limits of what the ratings board will let them get away with without sliding into that Adults Only category. Manhunt 2 was originally intended to be much more visceral in how it portrayed the murders in the game. The violence level was pushed to the breaking point in both its brutality as well as its realism. The ratings board recommended that they make changes in order to drop their rating from Adults Only, to Mature with a warning label.
Rockstar had this same dilemma when they were developing Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Luckily, they had the foresight to disable the coding for the notorious Hot Coffee mini-game before they released it as a Mature title. The game had garnered enough mutterings from conservatives due in part from the violence, but mainly because you get the option to date a few women throughout the story. If the date ends favorably, CJ is invited into their house for a cup of coffee along with suggestive invitations from the women.
Consequently, some kid was playing around in the coding of one of the versions and found this disabled mini-game coding. Through contorting oneself and jumping through enough hoops, he’d developed a way to unlock this mini-game, which allows the player to play an interactive mini-game of CJ having sex with his given girlfriend at the time. Suddenly there was a massive backlash about how Rockstar was at fault for creating such a game and going so far as to leave this length of coding (which was never meant to be accessed by the general public) available for the customers. Parents went into hysterics about the horrible game and how it was even worse now than before because it was somehow finally accepted that killing cops was part of a game, but sex is completely over the line.
How this mini-game is somehow unacceptable while few people whined about the ability for the player to pick up a prostitute off the street, take her to a secluded area to have sex with her – which includes the car shaking, the controller vibrating, simulated moans and groans – will forever escape me. On top of it, the more heartless of players finish the deed, climb out of the car, and proceed to murder the woman in order to get your money back, in addition to the complimentary health increase. This part is relatively acceptable, but the mini-game of two consenting adults performing an entirely natural and arguably healthy part of a relationship is so horrible that the entire company should be boycotted.
Yet a few years later, we get a new Grand Theft Auto clone in the way of Saints Row 2 for both the Xbox360 and the PlayStation 3. Focused more on violence and the gang lifestyle, the game does have a mini-game where at certain locations, you can take a prostitute into a truck stop bathroom to have sex with her. The goal behind this is to use both analog sticks to find the ‘sweet spot’ and pleasure the woman. There’s a number of levels and the higher the level you get to, the more of a reward you get.
Incidentally, my friend found this mini-game while standing on an apartment building and shooting the cops that came to find him. At a certain point, after about a dozen cop cars were immobilized in the parking lot, he grew bored and ventured down to figure out what to do next. The entire police force was stuck behind a building just waiting for him to come around which sent him running towards the truck stop. He had three wanted levels and decided to kill some time with this nice new mini-game. By the time the novelty wore off, the police had forgotten about him and he was free to do whatever he wanted.
I have to wonder if the whole thing revolves around our social idea of sex being acceptable as long as it’s hidden away. In the prostitute missions of GTA, or the bathroom game in Saints Row 2, nothing is shown aside from either a (rocking) parked car, or a bathroom door. True, some people had a problem with the fact that that was in a game, but for the most part people ignored it. The Hot Coffee scene, which was never intended to be played by the public, caused an uproar in the media and across the internet that some people bought the game before the company could release versions without the coding in the files.
I’m not advocating full blown sex simulators as freely accessible, but why is it that sexuality is so shunned in videogames almost more so than real life? We can see sexual themes, women dressed in nearly her underwear as a heroine, sexual innuendo in voiceovers and dialogue. It seems silly to me that people are so caught up on accepting sexual images without admitting the sexuality part behind it. I don’t know if the comfort level will change in terms of videogames or in terms of social acceptance first, but I do hope that we can come to some sort of cautious understanding that one cannot stand without the other. Just because it’s not plastered across a computer monitor or television set, doesn’t mean that it’s completely gone. It merely means that programmers will get more creative about how to introduce these themes to the public.

Off Topic Rant

Why is it that it feels like I always have to choose between 'quality' projects and playing video games? Sure there are times where the projects can be put on hold and it's not that big of an issue, but it's entirely frustrating to have to choose between doing something that others deem as useful and playing a video game to relax to.

Case in point, I constantly have to keep thinking about assignments that are due anywhere from 24 hours to a few weeks away. If I end up playing a game, I still feel the stigma that I'm somehow wasting time. How is this different from hobbies that other people have like scrapbooking or reading novels? Granted, I miss reading novels and really should get back to them before my own writing starts suffering, but are videogames that much lower on the totem pole of useful hobbies?

I'm working on my hand eye coordination, or my reflex time in FPS. Maybe I'm working on character development in more of the open ended games and have a vested interest in how that turns out.

Is it because we get into that 'one more level' mentality? When we should be doing something else and something more pertinent, we always fall into that mode of thinking that one more level wont' hurt. The problem is that it turns into hours and one level turns into fifteen by the time we realize that laundry should've been put in the dryer three hours ago and the cat still hasn't been fed.

I'm not defending the people who get so lost in the game that they can't function on a normal basis of going to work and having some sort of actual life. What I'm defending is a system where videogames are held to the same quality as working on a classic car, or scrapbooking the fifth birthday party of the month that your kid went to. Where's the acknowledgement that finishing a game is something to be proud of and not something to be ashamed of while talking with family members?

Racism in RE5

The article http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2009/03/16/how-my-opinion-about-race-in-resident-evil-5-has-changed/ bothered me a little bit. I wasn't bothered because it's another discussion about how racism is portrayed or how the author felt unnerved with the game's demo.

What bothered me is that her solution to why she felt better about the actual full scale game was that it was somehow less realistic. The game is set in Africa, which means that most of the zombies will be African. The problem seems to be that Africans are black and therefore killing them is a racist motive somehow. The focus seems to overshadow the setting of the game.

Games have specific settings, and gamers get upset if the setting isn't true to the reality, some people get frustrated about the situation. If we're playing a hunting game and it's set in Alaska, most people would roll their eyes if you were suddenly hunting a crocodile. If the game is set in a specific place on the globe, then how much would we expect the vast majority of the inhabitants to be of African descent?

Do we get annoyed because the game is focused on killing the natives, or do we get annoyed if the realities of the game don't link up with what we know of the real Africa? Nobody seems to be offended if the zombies are white and it's set in midwest America. As long as the zombies and enemies are white guys, nobody seems bothered. The minute the nationality changes, we start talking about race and racism.

I totally understand the background for making an argument for racism for a number of cultures and minorities. However, sometimes it's not racially motivated, it's necessary to keep true to the game.

Business Casual

I really like the idea of a casual game for hardcore gamers. The problem, as far as I can see, is that if a game is considered 'casual', most hardcore gamers aren't going to bother with it for a variety of reasons. One of which is that a casual game tends to be too simple and almost sissy to a lot of people.

One good example is the entire Wii console. A good portion of the console is geared towards these casual games that can be played for a few minutes at a time. Whether it is a game like Raving Rabbids or Wii Fit, they're geared towards the people who prefer to play shorter pieces of games over a period of time. You can play Raving Rabbids for hours to unlock all sorts of accessories and the different mini games, or you can play a mini game or two with a friend to have a giggle.

And what's happened with the Wii? It's become a bit of a laughing stock among 'hardcore' gamers. The announcement that the Grand Theft Auto series would make its move to release a title was met with snickers and something of an "aw, look at the Wii trying to be a real console".

The closest we have to such games are those on the handhelds. They're designed for quick play - not so much because it's an acceptable form, but because the nature of handhelds are to be used when you have spare time while you're out someplace.

How do we respond to the idea of a casual game, without referring to it as some kind of sissy attempt at a game?

All Wet

Perfectly Adequate


These two words are what I use to describe the new game, Wet, for the Xbox 360. It’s a game that makes enough attempts at being new and novel to be fun to play, but it’s not really a huge step up from other games of its style. The game mirrors a combination of the old Kung Fu movies and games like God of War. What I mean by that is that the fighting style and feel of the game are very much like the cheesy old movies, partly because it’s set up like a movie. At chapter breaks, they advertise for different concessions and movies. When you get to a point that breaks the flow (like a game over) the scene comes apart as if a reel of film was being destroyed or broken in some fashion.
The story of Wet revolves around Rubi, who is an Americanized version of a martial arts master mixed with a cowboy sense of purpose and dress. She’s met by a businessman who shows up on her Texas ‘home’ and asks her to retrieve his son from the underbelly of Hong Kong. It’s shallow enough to keep out of the way of the action, but vaguely intriguing enough to keep the player moving through each level to find out another small piece of the puzzle.
The action varies between novel and overly frustrating. Rubi’s expertise is in shooting while doing acrobatic maneuvers. If she leaps into the air, runs along a wall, or slides across the floor, a touch to the right trigger initiates a slow motion mode where her firing rate increases and the player can take partial control over her aiming. A circle on a given enemy reveals where her primary target is at and where one of her revolvers will be aimed, while the player has control of the secondary fire in order to help take out two enemies at once. The slow motion keeps the action flowing and gives the player a sense of something extraordinary as Rubi takes far less damage in this mode while dealing a great deal more.
The problem with the mode, though, is that your regular running and gunning attacks are pointless. Her rate of fire is horribly slow and difficult to aim while running, which means that most of your time will be spent making pointless leaps and slides just to gain the effect of actually damaging enemies. The only useful attack outside of the slow motion is the sword attack, which actually does more damage than the guns. Most early enemies fall with one or two swipes from the sword, where the guns can take five or six shots per enemy to drop them.
In addition, her jumping ability is as accurate as my ability to balance a check book – which means it’s basically a hit and miss attempt. No matter where she tries to jump, whether it’s up a six inch step or over a four foot gap, she makes a dramatic flailing leap of faith. Unfortunately, Rubi also lacks enough common sense to grab a ledge while the player is still focused on shooting. More than once, I attempted to leap across a gap and gun the men down before catching the ledge. Sad to say, she failed go grab hold of the ledge, and instead she did a nose dive into the ground. Normally this would be a little damage if she landed on her feet and she’d get right back up and keep going. If she lands face first while still shooting at the wall she failed to grab, she dies and you’re left to start the section over.
Another area where the game breaks a good flow of action is with quick time events. There’s little warning when a cut scene will suddenly prompt you to hit a button. If you miss the prompt because you thought that you could grab a quick drink, you get to start over. They’re not horribly difficult, but the fact that they forget to give you some warning, tends to throw off the flow of what you’re trying to accomplish.
Despite the problems, the game is still not horrible by any means. The graphics are nice enough but don’t quite meet what the machine is capable of. The shooting and action is functional in that enemies fall if you hit them and the more dramatic you make your motions, the more bonus points you get to power up Rubi and her weapons. The game is linear, usually herding the player through a series of alleys, underground pathways, and the occasional open room of sorts with most of the exits blocked off.
The other novel idea is what they call Wet mode, being the namesake of the game. While traveling through the story, Rubi will occasionally make an attack on an enemy and be covered in blood. The first time this happens, she shoots an oncoming enemy in the head at point blank range, splattering her face red. She gets a borderline insane grin on her face and as play resumes, the entire world is colored in black, white, and shades of red. Killed enemies leave a hanging cloud of blood material, jumping off points are colored in a bright pinkish color, directing the player where to go next. She gains significant speed and agility while in this mode, which makes killing enemies simple and interestingly fun.
Is this enough to make the game really worthwhile? Not entirely. It’s novel and fun, but it’s a rather standard run and gun, get from point A to point B game. There’s not really a lot of exploration to be had and the few hidden collectables aren’t really challenging to find. It is fun for a while to make leaps and slides to kill enemies while tumbling through the air. It feeds on our desires for the old west style cowboy justice, and the Asian martial arts style of fighting. As I said in the beginning, this game is perfectly adequate for what it was made for. However, for the attempts at doing new novel things with it, they aren’t always helpful improvements.
I would highly recommend people who enjoy these styles of games to rent it and try it for a while. It has its merits, and its unique points. The trouble is that the game feels very shallow and lacking if people are looking for more in the way of stronger storyline and cohesive fighting style.

New Journalism?

Is this new discourse really new? or is it an extension and formal presentation of discussions going on between people? I tend to think that there's always been varied levels of discussion between people. The conversations I have with my best friend about videogames and the conversations I have with my boyfriend's gamer friends are totally different. It's not so much because the level of maturity isn't there, but there's a difference in how they approach games.
For instance, there's not much I have to explain to Jeff about videogames (Jeff being the boyfriend's friend). He's one of those people that you hand the controller to when you get frustrated and stuck. Unfortunately he's also the same person who will tell you how much you suck for not being able to get past it. Many times, our answer to any problem goes something like "Well, Jeff can do it" "well yea, he's Jeff".
When talking about games, Jeff and I can start from a better understanding and skip a lot of the overview about what's happening and the mechanics of it all. I don't have to explain Bowser's Inside Story, because he's already played it and beat it. So we jump right into the problems and merits of a particular game with an advanced vocabulary about what we think and how the other one is wrong.
On the other hand, my best friend doesn't play much. I helped her beat Scooby Doo once for the PS2 by finding a jump point she hadn't seen in her months of playing it. Whenever we try to talk about other games, the discussion is completely different because she probably hasn't played it, and if she has it hasn't been at the same level. She's not worried about graphics and sometimes worried about the lag between when you ask the character to jump and when he actually does jump. Because of this, our discussions seem to start at a much lower level and revolve around the "I like it" or "I don't like it" discussions.
Does that mean all this new journalism about videogames is 'new'? No, it just means that people are finding out that there are others out there who can start at that later stage in the discussion. If they refer to Sephiroth, then there are a lot of other gamers out there who will know exactly what they mean and they can skip all the dumbing down of the writing.