2010: The Year of Religion & Video Games?

I’ve been meaning to post about this for awhile, so here it goes. Recently, there have not been a lot of new games released that have really caught my attention, but I have a list of games that I am planning to pick up as soon as 2010 rolls around. The first few months of the new year have some of the most highly anticipated action/adventure ever released for the PS3. Ironically enough, I noticed that pretty much all of the games I plan on picking up have pretty strong religious themes. Here are just a few to give an overview:

Darksiders (summary from GameStop website): Deceived by the forces of evil into prematurely bringing about the end of the world, War – the first Horseman of the Apocalypse – stands accused of breaking the sacred law by inciting a war between Heaven and Hell. Dishonored and stripped of his powers, War must return to Earth to search for the truth and punish those responsible. Hunted by a vengeful group of Angels, War must take on the forces of Hell, forge uneasy alliances with the very demons he hunts, and journey across the ravaged remains of the Earth on his quest for vindication. But the answers he seeks will reveal a deep conspiracy in which War is just a pawn in the eternal battle between Heaven and Hell.

Game Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdHZqmrhb3Y

-I’m pretty curious how Christians will feel about this game. I can’t imagine it will go over too well considering the game kind of insinuates that God screwed up by letting the Apocalypse start prematurely. Likewise, it’ll be really interesting to see a messenger of God forging alliances with demons just to get back into Heaven. The game has a mature rating, for “intense violence” and “blood and gore,” so I also wonder how that will play into the big picture of religious themes in video games.

Bayonetta: The game focuses around a “witch” named Bayonetta, who awoke from a 500 year slumber with no memories. As the character you must fight angels, who are trying to destroy you for unknown reasons, and you can summon demons to protect yourself.

Game Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdMr-uVzxuU

-While the game does not sound overtly religious in nature it definitely has a lot of religious references and symbolism in the trailers. For example, the trailer above begins with someone praying…it sounds like Bayonetta. I think it is really interesting that the roles of good and evil are switched. Players take on the role of a witch (typically a villain-like character) who uses demons to fight against angels. Details of the game are still a little vague at this point, but I think this game is going to be a really interesting to analyze from a religion and ritual perspective.

Dante’s Inferno (summary from GameStop website): An abducted soul. A lifetime of sins. A journey to the depths of despair. Based on the immensely influential classic poem, Dante’s Inferno takes you on an epic quest of vengeance and redemption through the Nine Circles of Hell. You are Dante, a veteran of the Crusades who must chase his beloved Beatrice and try to free her soul from Lucifer’s grasp. As your pursuit takes you deeper into the pits of Hell, you must battle ever more fierce and hideous monsters—while also facing your own sins, a dark family past, and your unforgivable war crimes.

Game Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdqY2a9iRXw

-This will be one of the biggest games of 2010 and, interestingly enough, it is a game that revolves around almost nothing but religious references. I can’t even imagine what it is going to be like traveling through the 9 circles of hell and killing demons that represent that different deadly sins. It is going to be a pretty wild ride. It’ll be interesting to see how this game is going to be received by the religious community. There are so many elements that can be analyzed. The main character being a warrior from the Crusades, his ability to use a giant cross to purify/kill demons, etc. I also wonder what will be said about the violence. The rating is still pending for this game, but based on the trailers and teasers I have seen I would not hesitate to say that this is one of the most violent and gory games that I have ever come across. It definitely rates up in the ranks with the God of War series, which it has already frequently been compared to. One boss battle that has been leaked online shows Dante piercing the boss’s head on a wheel of spikes and the blood not only flows from the monster, but it splatters onto the game screen. It’s very intense violence, but I wonder if the religious context of the game will cancel that out. After all, demons need to be killed in the name of good.

12/7 Class Response

In class yesterday we primarily reviewed the issue of games and violence. One thing that we did not get to talk too much about before was how the study of religion and rituals could potentially help justify the issues gaming violence; I really enjoyed discussing this idea because I do think it is possible for religious studies to help out gamers.

I think it a double-edged sword to say Christians can dwell on such a morbid and horribly violent event such as the crucifixion but gamers can’t play violent video games. Why is it okay for Christians to constantly reflect on such a violent death and not be considered violent themselves while gamers are constantly criticized for playing violent games? Whenever a shooting occurs somewhere in the world, people start analyzing the kind of media that was part of the shooter’s life. Why don’t they look at other aspects of a person’s life? I bet a few of the well-known shooters of the world have been Christians, but I doubt you will ever hear the argument, “this person went on a violent rampage because they were obsessed with Jesus’ violent death.” Reflecting on the crucifixion is a ritual and so is gaming, so why is it that one thing supposedly makes people violent while the other just makes a person religiously devout?

It is a well-known fact that most of the wars in the world have some religious basis, yet most people still associate religion with peaceful means. It amazes me that so many people are focused on banning violent video games while thousands of people are dying and killing each other every day in the name of God. I’m not condemning religion, I actually believe religion can serve in infinitely positive ways, but I think people need to look at the bigger world picture when they are talking about violence instead of just putting all the blame on video games.

Computer Graphics Imaging Technology Summary

The article I chose to summarize for our section on violence was “Extreme Sex, Death, and Computer Graphics Imaging Technology” by Claudia Herbst. The article focuses on how CGI technology has primarily been used in the past to bring “realistic” violence to life through our computers and film. More recently CGI has been used to make women unrealistically and overly sexualized; the author uses the example of Lara Croft’s impossible body proportions.

Herbst brings up the argument that CGI technology is and always has been a very gendered industry. It is an industry that relies on math and science, two disciplines in which women are drastically unrepresented. She also discusses how there have been some strong female characters created and represented by CGI technology, but there is an obvious trend of these women only maintaining statuses of power because of their violent nature. A few examples that are brought up are Sarah Connor from the Terminator series, Ripley from the Alien series, and GI Jane. All of these women are extremely strong figures, but they are not viewed this way because they are smart or cunning (which they are) but because they can beat up guys and use guns. Herbst mentions that it is an improvement that there are some strong female characters being created by the CGI industry, but these characters are not necessarily represented in a way that women would portray them if they were in charge of the industry.

The article reflects on ways that the CGI industry is primarily focused on violence and women’s sexuality and how it could potentially be something very different if the industry weren’t so gendered.

12/2 Class Response

In class on Wednesday we primarily talked about violence in games and the impact they can have in the real world. Specifically, we talked about the case of the Manchester Cathedral being portrayed in the war video game “Resistance: Fall of Man.” The representatives and officials of the Anglican church were appalled that this game would portray the cathedral in such a violent setting even though the game play is focused around fighting the enemies inside the church instead of just desecrating the monument itself. In essence, the player character is actually trying to save the cathedral and not destroy it. When I first heard about the officials getting upset about it I just kind of blew it off because I figured they just needed some new way of putting down video games. I still think the Anglican officials’ argument is a little bit overzealous, but the more I learned about the issue the more I understood their standpoint. Since the area around the cathedral has had a lot of violence around it in real life I’m sure it would be kind of disturbing to see this well-known monument being part of a war zone. I don’t think the producers of the Resistance game did anything wrong, but at the same time I believe I can see the concern that the Anglican officials had. I suppose if I saw an area of my town under fire in a game I may feel differently, as well. The weird thing is, I’m not sure why it would bother me. It is just a game. Maybe it’s the fact that I have worked in the development of serious games and know that games can be used for more than just pure entertainment.

Before the end of class we attempted to start playing Brutal Legend as an illustration of a game that has “gratuitous violence.” Since I had to leave before we got to the game play I watched a few clips of the game online. It basically looked like any other game to me. I suppose it does have more senseless violence than some games, but I have certainly seen much worse. I don’t think this game sparked controversy because it is pretty much purely fantasy. It takes place in a fictional world with fictional characters while Resistance has fictional characters in settings that are real. I think people get upset when games blur the line between fiction and reality, especially when it touches on the subject of violence. That’s probably a big reason the Columbine game was such an issue. People who play the game may act out things a tiny bit different from how they happened in real life, but that doesn’t change that the event and the setting is based in the real-world. Bringing the real-world into the gaming world brings up some serious issues.

11/30 Class Response

In class on Monday we mainly continued to watch the film that we had completed before break. The film finished up with a lot of the same points it began with, but I think it did a really nice job tying everything together. One thing that really struck me at the end was the generational gaps that were so prominent throughout the film. Yeah, there were a few older people defending Danny’s game and there were a few younger people condemning the game, but for the most part there was a pretty prominent divide: older generation found the game offensive, younger generation found the game thought provoking. In class I had mentioned that this probably had something to do with adults only growing up with simplistic games like Pong and Pac-man while my generation has grown up with much more sophisticated games that have tackled a large variety of subjects. The more I thought about it the more I realized that “pioneer” video games were much more about reflex while today’s games involve thought process. There are a few exceptions, but even early 90′s games like Doom and Duke Nukem required a certain amount of strategic thinking. You couldn’t just run into a room completed infested with monsters start shooting and expect to come out with enough health to finish the level; it’s just not practical. Anyway, the point I’m getting at is that I believe a large number of individuals in the older generation who haven’t kept up with gaming still probably think of video games as a reflexive entertainment activity instead of an activity that actually involves thinking. I suppose if I thought of video games as being strictly reflexive then I would probably find SCMRPG to be extremely offensive.

My generation grew up playing not only games like Doom and Duke Nukem, but games that taught us educational things, as well. I remember spending a couple days a week down in my school’s computer lab playing games like Number Munchers and Math Blasters that considerably helped me improve my math skills. Likewise, I wouldn’t have learned how to properly type if it weren’t for some typing game software that my parents got me when I was young. From a very early age I knew that games could be used for educational purposes; without the game aspect of many of those softwares I doubt I would have gotten much out of them. It’s too bad that a lot of people outside my generation did not have the privilege of seeing how much can be learned through games.

11/18 Class Response

I just realized that my last class reflection apparently didn’t post before break. During our last class together we watched a documentary about the Super Columbine Massacre RPG! game that caused such a controversy a few years back. I was quite impressed with the documentary, especially with the variety of people that were interviewed. I was impressed that Ledonne would have the guts to feature people in his documentary that could potentially make him look very bad. At the same time, I think this gave the film more credibility. Showing such a variety of people gives the film’s audience a really interesting look into how different people view video games. Most of the game developers defended Columbine RPG! because they believed video games could be used as a platform for learning while most of the politicians condemned the game because they could only see video games as frivolous, and in this case, offensive entertainment.

I was really shocked to hear that the head of the Slamdance Festival first accepted the game and then pulled it without giving a reason. Whether it was a publicity stunt or cowardice I think it really set back the serious games industry. If a significant game festival can’t even recognize the importance of acknowledging groundbreaking serious games like Columbine RPG! then how are everyday people going to take games like this seriously? I was happy to see that the judges and many of the people organizing the event supported the game, but it was highly disappointing that the head of the festival could not understand how important this game was to the serious games industry. His lack of support insinuated that games can only be used for entertainment purposes and game developers have no right to tackle serious issues.

I really hope we are able to finish the film at some point in time because I thoroughly enjoyed it and am really curious how it will end.

Game Grrlz Talk Back Summary

For today I read an article which was a compilation of thoughts about women and gaming. The article was compiled by editor Henry Jenkins. The article was composed of several women’s thoughts about how the gaming industry is so unbelievably gendered. Many of the women were flat out pissed off, as I can easily understand, about the issue of male-centricism in the gaming world. The authors bring up the point that there are whole game design companies dedicated to games for girls, but these games are based almost purely in female-stereotypes like fashion, cooking, etc. What about the girls and women who like to play shoot em up games along with the guys? The point is brought up that the majority of female gamers enjoy the same types of games that males do, but game designers, at least the well-known game designers, rarely try to appeal to women. They just create games with the pure assumption that only men will play them and then the “female-oriented” gaming corporations will take care of creating “womanly games” like Barbie, etc. Many of the authors ask, why aren’t games just being created for people? Why do they have to be created for men or women? Who care if a girl wants to play Duke Nukem and a guy wants to play a Barbie game? The gaming industry would make a hell of a lot more money if they just marketed their games towards people and not one gender or the other.

Another interesting point that is brought up in the article is that a number of women who play an active part in the gaming industry tend to be gendering video games just as much as their male counterparts. There are several quotes from female game designers etc. that basically allude to the idea that women only like to play games that are linked to stereotypical female roles. It seems that the video game industry is so gendered that many women within it don’t even realize that they are just making the situation even worse. If women think that the industry should remain gendered then why would men have any reason to think otherwise?

11/16 Class Response

In class on Monday we got into a pretty deep conversation about virtual rape and the kind of problems and questions that arise because of this issue. I was pretty shocked to find out that virtual rape has been an issue since the early 90′s. I never would have thought that anyone could or would use strictly text to violate another user in such a disgusting way. This class discussion really struck a nerve with me because I have been an active advocate for survivors of sexual violence for the past few years and I was shocked by the fact that I had never thought of such violation happening over the Internet.

My mind was racing during class because I was thinking how there are really no laws that can protect people from sexual violence in a virtual context. I mean, there’s no doubt in my mind that virtual rape and physical rape are two very different things, but I would imagine that virtual rape can leave a person feeling extremely violated and disturbed. I have worked on committees to help organizations revise their sexual assault policies and I can only briefly recall talking about harassment in a virtual sense, and that one conversation strictly dealt with AIM chats. We didn’t even touch on things like Second Life, etc. What would happen in this kind of situation? There aren’t any policies to protect people from virtual rape and this really disturbs me.

Talking about Rapelay also made my mind race. Why the hell would anyone want to play this game? Why would a person create this game? Should people be allowed to buy this game? Does it some way violate freedom speech or freedom of expression? All these simultaneous questions just about made my head explode. I have known about Rapelay for sometime and every time I hear it ever mentioned I get a little bit nauseous. I would really be curious to know why people play this game or why someone had the desire to create it. I would think that only individuals who have the desire to rape or have raped in the past would want to play something like this, but I’m just not sure. I guess argument could be made for Border Patrol; only people who want to kill Mexicans play this game. But, I know several individuals who have played it in attempt to analyze the procedural rhetoric behind the game and not because they want to kill Mexicans. As much as my gut tells me to assume all people who play Rapelay are rapists, I know I can’t make that assumption based on how many individuals’ identities change when they are in a virtual context. All I know is the game makes me sick and I could never play it even if it was just as a way to analyze procedural rhetoric.

11/11 Class Response

Although it deviated a bit from our identity section of the course, one of the most interesting things I believe we talked about in class on Wednesday had to do with the subject of tackling hard issues through video games. I know I’ve blogged about this before, but it is a topic that keeps coming up and I still have a hard time deciding where I stand on the subject matter.

The “fag” asteroids game was especially interesting and baffling all at the same time. I was really kind of disturbed by the idea that someone turned the complex issue of homophobia into an overly simplistic game like asteroids. At the same time, I couldn’t help thinking that maybe a simplistic game like this could make a pretty profound statement about homophobia if it had some kind of scholarly text or commentary to accompany it. I get what the creator of game was trying to say through the game, but I think a big reason for that is because I have a pretty strong background in serious games’ design and rhetoric. I just believe that by making the game overly simplistic and not explaining its point, homophobic people could twist the game and make it look as though itwas actually an attempt to promote homophobia.

It’s the same with games like Columbine RPG. While I know the creator of the game had the intention of educating people about the incident, most individuals just see this as a game that makes a mockery of the incident and promotes terrorism. I would argue that the reason for this is because of the games over-simplified visuals and lack of explanation to go along with the game. Part of the point of serious games is to make people search for the games’ rhetoric, but in sensitive situations like these I think it is necessary to have supplemental material to go with the game. I guess this is where I stand in general when it comes to serious games that illustrate very touchy subject matters.

11/4 Class Response

In class on Wednesday we began discussing the subject of how people can view themselves in a virtual context. We started class by watching a video that illustrated a variety of virtual avatars. This was an interesting video and I’m glad we watched it, but the author of the video obviously wanted to leave it up to his audience to decide what he was saying by making such a video. I believe that by morphing the avatars into one another he was trying to make a point about the fluidity about “virtual selves.” It’s funny, right after I started at college, a bunch of my friends told me they loved college because “it is a fresh new start and I can be whoever I want to be.” Well, you really only have one chance at a fresh new start in college, but this avatar video made me realize that the Internet and other virtual world give people unlimited “fresh new starts.” If you get a bad reputation in a virtual world you can completely change your username, appearance, etc. and start over from scratch. It’s possible to get new starts in the real world, but it’s a hell of a lot more time consuming, complicated and it probably wouldn’t be cheap either. I think this avatar video made me really conceptualize just how easy it is to start from scratch and fix things in a virtual context.

After watching the video we got into the discussion of how there are different ways to define how people see themselves in a virtual context. There seem to be a million different names for virtual selves these days (avatars, personas, characters, etc.), so it definitely is not an easy task for individuals to define how their “virtual selves” relate to their lives. Some people really do feel as though they do lead a second existence through their virtual selves, but others just see it as a way to escape and/or have fun. Personally, I have always thought of my virtual selves, which most commonly consist of video game figures, as just being characters that I control. I have never thought of these figures as being an extended existence of my being; more like puppets I control in order to play in certain scenarios that I cannot take enact in the real world. Yet, when I am manipulating these puppet-like beings and accomplishing certain tasks in a game I refer to the characters as “I.” Like we said in class, if we are playing a game and we defeat a boss character we are going to say, “hey, look, *I* just defeated that boss!” not “hey, look, *my character* just defeated that boss!” So, does this language make a difference in how I compare myself to my virtual selves? At this point in time, I have absolutely no idea. I think it’s something interesting to think about, though, and I hope next week I can maybe get a better idea of how individuals relate themselves to their virtual selves.