The Gamer’s Quagmire #28: Proper Role Playing Etiquitte
The Gamer’s Quagmire: 28th Edition
- Jamison DeLorenzo
Crossing the line is a lot of fun when you can get away with it. The gaming world provides the opportunity to do such things, much like your own imagination (which is much more powerful and evocative if you think about it… heh heh heh). Every time gaming makes the news for crossing the line it always makes me laugh because we are breaking old ground in a newer field. We’ve already gone through our social revolutions in comedy, television, art, and music. The time for video games to take that step is definitely here.
What’s always needed is a perfect example that tests the mindset of people and challenges them to think about the situation as a whole. GTA has definitely stirred the pot and it should as the game is meant to be controversial. When a role playing games affords the opportunity and allows players to do it then the blame starts shifting from the game to the players.
Thank you, World of Warcraft. A game is inflaming people’s sense of morality once again.
In the latest act inside the game to make gaming headlines is a guild raiding an online funeral held by another guild. Translating this act to the real world is unconscionable. Imagine a funeral being broken up with a bunch of violence (and try to do it outside a cartoon setting or with circus music as otherwise it sort of deters the thought off point). The whole situation should at least bring you to pause and make you question why someone would do this in the first place.
Now I’m one who doesn’t even want a ceremony for when I die (I plan on being a hermit by then anyway) so I’m more removed from this than most, but bear with me. A guild had one of its members die so they decided to pay tribute to that person in game with a quick little ceremony. This is one more example of a guild you want to be in because they have a closeness that doesn’t get ripped apart by some stupid argument over loot. Word got out that they would be doing this and it was all in a sense of goodwill. This should bring a sense of warmness to your heart.
Oh, and they held the service in an area of the game where PvP was always flagged.
Those of you not familiar with online games need to know that PvP is player versus player, and in the case of this funeral there is absolutely no way to prevent someone from being attacked once they enter one of these areas. You may question the wisdom of why an area such as this would be picked. I know I did. Before we start down that road let’s take the kneejerk reaction side of the argument to this situation.
The guild whose members did this promptly started to sever and split because some members found the act distasteful. But because those in the ceremony made note of which players were involved in this attack some of these members have not been able to get into a new guild because a lot of people are strongly against what they did. From the morality standpoint it is hard to argue with them. The intent of what they were doing was pretty clear. Just let them run a peaceful little ceremony. How much more simple can it be?
But the reality of the situation is, which is ironic considering we’re talking about an online game whose universe technically doesn’t exist, that this homage to a dead guild member happened in an area which is designed for PvP. If the ceremony were scheduled in an area where attacking another player wasn’t possible then this couldn’t possibly have happened. When you get right down to it this is what some consider to be the beauty of natural selection. It’s hard to blame people for even being tempted to disrupt such a ceremony.
Especially inside a game.
I know, this makes me sounds like a horrible person. Truly it is the thought that counts- a guild was honoring a member. Fundamentally it’s no different than planning a boss fight in a dungeon only to have a stray patrolling mob come in and destroy the entire plan. Are we to curse a server GM every time this happens? Plans go awry sometimes, and when you afford the opportunity, such as by planning an event in a hostile area, sometimes you get what you ask for.
Of course there’s a reason why I interjected the notion of not wanting to be buried or even remembered (and it has nothing to do with some deep social commentary). I mentioned it because it should give you a clear idea as to where I stand on the matter. I do respect others who find value in these types of ceremonies but the rest of the world should not bend to these wishes. This should hold true especially in a video game. I honestly feel this point can’t be stressed enough. I get a little irritated every time city traffic has to slow down to let a funeral procession parade through part of town. For me the thought is enough. The way I see it anyone who objects to the attack is simply imposing their own set of morals as what they feel the law should be.
Did I mention this is just a game?
The main basis of the game is two opposing factions which are at war with each other. In a certain sense not attacking the other group would be the characters in the game ignoring role playing- they are supposed to attack opposing characters. These online RPG’s don’t have nearly enough role playing as it is. Factions that supposedly hate each other work together. Everyone has access to the same quests, and in many cases choosing to dislike a faction and warring with them prevents you from getting anywhere near a decent endgame. So when a group of characters waltzes into an area that is marked as an open battleground they are subject to the same rules as everyone else… and they all have targets on their backs.
People need to put themselves into the mindset of actual role playing. RPG’s create a universe where your character is supposed to play a specific role and react to the laws that are present inside that universe. Having the players impose their own laws on the game defeats the whole premise behind role playing. Role playing has never been about getting the best equipment, spells, or becoming famous. Role playing is about exploring a universe as a character. Maybe that’s what most so-called online RPG’s are missing the most- that players aren’t necessarily given a system where they’re allowed to role play.
In this case that’s all that happened- characters decided to role play… in a game. Bravo for them- they played the game the way a game based on war should be played.
This article is written and copyrighted by Jamison DeLorenzo and all thoughts are solely his and do not necessarily represent anyone else’s including anyone else at this site. This is a weekly article which deals with anything and almost everything gaming. Feel free to post comments or e-mail. Thanks for reading.
Post your comments in the Forum!
July 5, 2006
The Gamer’s Quagmire #27: Console Sanity Double-Check
The Gamer’s Quagmire: 26th Edition
- Jamison DeLorenzo
I feel as though I may have been a little too cynical last week in my ramblings and musings. Okay, I can probably have this reaction from almost anything I write. I am certainly not going to apologize for my style of writing. What I mean is that after studying all of the points made the cynicism turned out to be far too one-sided. My intent was to slam every system and almost every line of thinking that I could find by scouring my snippets from articles that have achieved target status on my dartboard. Somehow I managed to skew my article against Nintendo while leaving Sony and Mictosoft relatively unscathed. While I still feel it is justified because most of the press has been coming from Nintendo and its fans, that needs to undergo some repair.
First of all, I received an interesting number of e-mails regarding Resident Evil. Okay, maybe it isn’t the poster child for franchise evolvement. It’s not even the poster third cousin. I crossed the line with that statement and I apologize. The way I see it Capcom has kept the storyline relatively fresh and tweaked enough of the environment and gameplay to make me want to see what they do next. From that point I see the games and overall universe evolving. To be perfectly honest I cannot think of a perfect example of how a franchise can constantly evolve and change to keep it completely fresh. Final Fantasy is a pretty solid choice. Even GTA has done some evolving but there are signs of stagnation. Prince of Persia is another interesting choice if you can look past your personal tastes. I appreciate it more that a gaming franchise attempts to evolve with its sequels rather than simply spewing out patch updates (something Madden fans simply can’t seem to notice).
I am the way I am on the matter for two reasons: Castlevania and Mega Man. These franchises began on the NES and their first few titles were boatloads (on the order of a Troy invasion) of fun. I would replay these games constantly because I enjoyed them so much. Once I knew you could find the games online I sought them out and played them again, mostly because I could. The Super Nintendo era brought an air of freshness to both franchises that I still say was their pinnacle. Mega Man X and Castlevania IV are in my top 15 of favorite games, and ever since then the franchises have had a somewhat lackluster quality about them. Castlevania on the Gameboy just doesn’t feel the same at all (and the weapons are a joke compared to IV) and Mega Man games have fallen to the realm of incredibly cheesy anime. It’s like comparing the Transformers from 1983 to 2003- you just want to throw up.
This is why I don’t cut franchises slack and why I will stick to my guns on Mario. The characters and the Mario universe itself all feel completely stale to me. There have been many styles of games that involve Mario and while some have been entertaining I still see Mario as a barrier. The Mario Kart games are very fun but I honestly think the game has more exposure than its gameplay merits simply because the Mario name is attached. Should I blame Nintendo for taking advantage of its primary character? Kart is an interesting spin on the typical Mario game and I like it when characters aren’t in the same game every time so I can’t simply rubber stamp a negative on every non-adventure game Mario is in. It’s an interesting exercise where to draw the line and be comfortable with it. I guess I know where I’ve drawn mine, because anybody who defends Mario Golf or Baseball I can’t possibly agree with. The appeal of Smash Brothers still greatly eludes me also, but at this point it’s simply beating a dead horse.
Next I should state that I firmly believe that Nintendo’s console feels like it is the most promising of the three consoles. It’s a hard decision to come to, but here is my line of thinking. All three contenders are improving the hardware’s horsepower, so it’s a matter of what you value most. Microsoft is digging its heels in with its online component. Sony is going after HD, technical superiority, and gadgetry. Nintendo is fortifying its position with gameplay. It’s easy to see why gamers are backing Nintendo more than any other system because of the three major angles only one has an overt effort in making games fun rather than shiny. Let’s look at each company’s position to understand why they’re taking these angles.
Microsoft is still attempting to grab footing in the gaming industry. A lot of people thought they were nuts when they announced they were entering the field. They have a noticeable payroll advantage and a willingness to spend it to make a powerful gaming engine. They look at Sony’s position as the gaming industry leader and attempt to outdo them in every facet. They accomplished this with their first console and they are sticking to it. The problem is that Sony didn’t gain its power with horsepower. They owe a large part of their dominance simply to Square and, more specifically, Final Fantasy VII. The PS1 offered a CD and a development kit that empowered developers to deliver for it. Halo is a symbol of what the Xbox line will need in order to gain footing- a powerhouse name (why people drool over it is a story for another day).
Sony is trying to hold onto its top position in the gaming market and is using its capital from the PS franchise to develop the most powerful gaming console. Sony is banking the HD technology, along with BluRay, to achieve the ‘wow’ factor as the reason to buy their console. The PS1 and PS2 both were hosts of a solid lineup of great games and Sony has kept all of its developers on board for its third console. They used a similar formula with their last console but the price was good enough to not make people shudder over the price. The upcoming PS console, however, is not an affordable gaming machine. At this point it’s not even a gaming machine anymore, but we’ll get to that later. If Sony was smart they would sell the PS with and without the BluRay drive to provide a cheap option for people that are more interesting in games than the next generation of DVD technology.
Sony would also be smart if they didn’t jack up the price of games, but anyone who owns an Xbox 360 knows that the price jump has already happened. There is always a pricing saturation point for every product and games have them too (in case you wondered why each console has a Greatest Hits lineup). I think $49 is a good ceiling for prices in games because it allows teenagers the option of working for a week and being able to go out and get a game when the weekend rolls around. Games are the adult version of kids and baseball cards. Packs of cards for under $1 meant that I could run to the store after my chores were done and have plenty of cash for cards, some jaw-cracking gum and even some sugary snacks. When you make the adult gamers pause over the price of games with your console you immediately lose the average free-spending high school and college student.
Not that I would ever advocate gaming over education.
Nintendo is still happy turning a profit and is perfectly willing to make an affordable console without breaking its own bank. That is something they understand better than anyone else up to this point- they have yet to build a console that they take a loss on (to my knowledge anyway) and they never make horsepower their primary concern. Gaming is also at their core and not hardware. Better games do come naturally to them and they are more willing to take chances with new devices. I’m firmly in the innovation boat for new gaming ideas, but I also see that not everything Nintendo tries to do differently is a winner. As far as I can tell they don’t seem to care deeply about being the #1 gaming company and they are perfectly content providing a gaming environment that is low-cost and easy to pick up.
Now what you see from Nintendo as good or bad is entirely subjective. Their new console is not going to match the shiny factor that either of the other consoles has and as I have yet to see movies of any games from the Wii I have to hope that the power improvements are enough to at least be noticeable. That’s just fine with me. What I dearly hope is that their new tilt-controller will be a success. In my eyes there hasn’t been a decent Nintendo controller since the SNES controller. The Gamecube buttons were big and in the oddest places. The N64 Z-button was extraordinarily awkward along with the analog being extraordinarily flimsy and in a place where holding the controller and using the buttons was no simple task. I want their controller to be a weapon for their console and not a hindrance as it has been for me for a long time.
Overall there is a disturbing trend involving consoles and I hope it’s just my paranoia. Part of the major appeal with consoles over the past 20 years was that they have been incredibly cheap gaming devices. You could hook them up to your television and play games on them. PC gaming and console gaming have been almost separate ideals for a long time. Console gamers have relied on the fact that the games would work on them better because all of the hardware is standardized. Oh yeah, and it was also orders of magnitude cheaper to play games on a console as opposed to a desktop computer. Our major advancements in technology have pushed the boundaries of console gaming to the point where Sony and Microsoft are basically saying consoles should be more like desktop computers.
Want something to think about that will really irritate you? Both Microsoft and Sony are in the PC business, so pushing this trend only helps their businesses that much more. They toss in more powerful machines to attract the gamers and soon you start blending the PC and console into something that perhaps it shouldn’t be. I’d be lying if I told you I didn’t want my gaming console to be more powerful, but should consoles evolve this way? Consoles pretty much made the idea of a gamepad and a joystick popular so maybe the true reason for a console’s existence isn’t in the graphics but in how you interact with the game. Maybe that’s Nintendo’s line of thinking or maybe I just made that up to try and sell the concept of the Wii to me a little more (not that I’d be the first person to make excuses for a company).
The more I think about this the more I start to wonder about the evolution of a console to a home media center. I think about gaming overall and what’s been going on in the world of gaming over the past couple of years and I start to wonder what the correct evolutionary step is for a console or if it’s simply time for it to stagnate for a while. Consoles are starting to catch PC’s in performance which is one problem, but I have a bigger problem. Adding the power to a console to control music throughout the home, surf the web, play movies, and a host of other possibilities is turning the console into a PC and legitimizing the console. Part of me doesn’t want this acceptance of the console to happen despite my constant bickering about the rest of the world simply not getting video games.
Hear me out on this one and you’ll understand why I say this. Anybody who has played video games on consoles, especially for as long as I have, enjoys it for many reasons including the fact that it puts you into a club that you don’t want a lot of members in. Part of me enjoys the fact that politicians can’t stand the fact that we enjoy games like GTA and God of War and can then turn around and play Mario Kart. I certainly don’t see myself as a rebel but I like knowing that something I enjoy so much is loathed and despised by so many people. The console is getting closer and closer to something that can be marketed as a need for every modern home setup. I want consoles to be for gaming and anything else added to it to be gravy. I like powerful consoles for certain, but I want the content to be focused on games. This sentiment directly reflects why there are a lot of people getting Nintendo’s back at this point. I understand that perfectly; I’m just scared of the games selection based on what we saw from the last generation.
I say this because I firmly believe that the trump card for each of these consoles will always be which one has the best games. The Gamecube was the first console from Nintendo that simply didn’t provide the games I wanted to play the most so I am more than willing to cut them some slack and be ready for an onslaught of entertainment the next time around. Their pricing strategy also makes the Wii the easiest console to lay the money down for. Through a gamer’s eyes Nintendo could have the best thing going right now, but it’s only speculation. Sony may just have something with their console and it will make me the happiest. Microsoft may be ready to unleash an irresistible set of games. We don’t get past Spring Training for a while yet, so until then we just won’t know.
Until I get my interest back into seeing the next generation of console gaming what I know now just fine with me. The PC has plenty to offer in the meantime.
This article is written and copyrighted by Jamison DeLorenzo and all thoughts are solely his and do not necessarily represent anyone else’s including anyone else at this site. This is a weekly article which deals with anything and almost everything gaming. Feel free to post comments or e-mail. Thanks for reading.
Post your comments in the Forum!
StillontheShelf.com - no frills, just content. Powered by WordPress
©2003-2010 Craig Reade and Mad Cow Disease