Computer Games

Gaming has always provided a dissociative reprieve from the rigours of social or political infringement. Its escapism at its most embellished. In the early days things were much simpler: vague, blob like pixels could be manipulated from one side of the screen to the other, perhaps strafing over nebulous blurs that gradually lurch towards you. But with the advancements in technology and pursuit of mature orientated narratives, game’s have exceeded these primitive facilities, becoming much more influential means of entertainment. With games focused on historical conflicts like World War II for instance, you have to be mindful of balancing the real world themes with the engaging, almost glamorised depiction of it.

Whether we want to admit it or not, game’s have an obligation to convey cultures, social issues, ethnicity and historic periods in a considerate and equitable manner. Sure, the fundamental priority is to entertain. If you have a game like Tetris, I don’t believe the “L” shaped blocks stance on abortion is really a required narrative attachment. Game’s provide a fertile ground to explore all manner of themes that television and especially movies are too creatively sterile to represent.

Take the last of Us II for instance, a game that has garnered a coalesce of virulent controversy that I have ever seen against a computer game. A lingering resentment that still reverberates across social media as a way of gauging the comparable quality of another forum of entertainment and the subjective views surrounding them. For instance measuring the egregious standard of the final season of Game Of Thrones to that of the Last Of Us II. For the longest time I avoided NaughtyDogs much maligned sequel because of the the verbal convulsions instigated by those berating the game as either “woke” or “progressive”. Having played it though, it’s difficult to identify the anything related to either of these statements.

Is it the lesbian relationship? Is it swift, brutal execution of a main character? The buff physique of a Abby? I’m not sure where the outrage lies, but a game that deals with themes of abandonment, paternal loss and sexuality, having openly gay character pitted against someone justified in their lust for vengeance is to me, representation done right. That’s not to say the story doesn’t have issues, I certainly don’t think it’s as cohesive as the first. And Neil Druckmann does comes across as a pandering narcissist, preaching ineffective moralising for the purpose of sounding profound. And someone that believes he is a auteur of gaming story telling. He is a competent story teller, encompassing a great many talent that bolster his “vision”. But in my opinion, there’s very little here that warrants such universal vitriol.

I’m not in any position to demand what developers should do. To dictate the message, if any, they are attempting to present. I’d rather play a game that is inclusive, and not be bludgeoned over the head with it. But just because such social issue’s aren’t prevalent concerns for me, shouldn’t negate there significance to others. Representation matters and it’s hard to feel aggrieved or persecuted by the “prejudice” of being a straight white male. If you can weave these themes into a story without out it feeling forced, then why shouldn’t you?

Attempting to explain the compulsive nature of gaming, as well as vindicating its very existence in this spherical plain to a lehman, is akin to trying to explain the theory of relativity to spaniel; as they sit and stare vacantly as if I’ve just told a joke without a punchline. Head tilted in a confused manner before licking their own testicles…the dog I mean, not some odd associate who apparently needs spaying. So why is it that I’m shunned, observed with wide-eyed bewilderment at the meer sophistry of admiration for the electronic companion? With an almost elaborate cacophony of furrowed brows and grotesque contorted derision, as though you broke into their house on Christmas day and urinated on their kids?! It’s the metaphorical cross that we appreciators of the interactive, pixellated entertainment must bear, with motivated zeal to be recognised and excepted into popular culture.

Converse with anyone un-affiliated with interactive entertainment, and your ill-advised acquaintance will no doubt retort with some unbeknownst knowledge regarding a particularly porky Italian plumber. Yes, the self-proclaimed deity of video games, the rather rotund, tunnel dwelling miscreant who continuous his renegade, airborne assault on the wildlife unimpeded. Ask these same ignorant individuals for another gaming icon, other than a certain accelerated blue hedgehog, and prepare for a similar vacant look of helpless confusion, with a hint of desperation. Have you heard of Nathan drake? “The guy from the X-Factor?”. Master Chief? “I don’t watch cooking programmes”. Ezio? “It’s only easy if you know it mate”. Its like trying to explain the concept of the alphabet, to an unconscious Jodie Marsh, utterly pointless.

The problem is society and the way gaming has been portrayed by the media. Often regarded as either childish distractions or hastening the death of the feeble-minded generation, that causes such accelerated deterioration to their cognitive development. Used in a derided context, as damaging to the imaginings of susceptible youths, belittled by ill-informed sceptical ministerial figures adopting obtuse reasoning, focused purely on isolated negative reports which is then exacerbated by the tabloids, blown up to mammoth proportions with equally ignorant readers happily prepared to devour, then regurgitate the “news” as if its their own opinion. All too keen to exercise reiterated supposition, rather than intellect. Wow, have I gone off topic?!

Venting aside, there are elements of infiltration in many media franchises, with references perforating television programming such as the Big Bang theory or the IT Crowd, but always in a typically, exaggerated interpretation that a gamer would portray. With conversations that use the appropriate vernacular that we as geeky, lonely, socially awkward gamers such as us would understand. Being “Geeky” is all relative, as such labels could be attributed to anyone who possesses any considerable knowledge of any given subject matter that’s of interest, and isn’t necessarily an appropriate definition to describe a gaming enthusiast (though I am a self-proclaimed geek, and proud). But would it really be a benefit if computer games became part of everyday culture, even infiltrating the psyche of the unfamiliar? I for one would quickly become bored with continuous gaming references, with repetitive Drake impersonators yelling “Ah Crap!”, every time some egocentric financial advisor, spills their zested cappuccino or an accountant exasperatingly blowing their nose, and declaring how they may have contracted the T-virus. *Sudden burst of shivers*

As always, I’ve been as insightful as a backwards encyclopedia edited by Meagan Fox, but I’m more interested in what you think. Will gaming ever truly be accepted? But more importantly, should it?