Blips: Life is Short and Death is Cheap

Source: Playing With Death
Author: Rob Gallagher
Site: The New Inquiry

This piece by Rob Gallagher for The New Inquiry's Games issue is a thorough examination of how games are uniquely equipped to discuss the concept of death, yet much critical discourse on the topic is framed in literary or cinematic terms. Gallagher points out how games that use rouguelike mechanics are pushing players away from seeing life as precious, and instead as a means to some other end beyond simply staying alive. He uses Tokyo Jungle as an example, where keeping a single animal alive in the dangerous urban wasteland is futile, and the point of the game is about carrying on the bloodline. Failure to produce offspring is the ultimate death in the game, not the worldly death of a single creature.

This is an interesting point to make in light of the recent strand of "empathy games" that have popped up in the past couple years. Though admittedly a unfairly reductive term, empathy games keenly focus on the repetition and suffering of characters as they struggle to make ends meet or operate on a basic human level. The empathy game and the rouguelike aren't in direct conflict, but typically handle the death of the player character differently. XCOM: Enemy Unknown doesn't aspire for players to comprehend the personal struggles of your international collection of anti-alien mercenaries, yet players have been reported to feel tremendous remorse for the loss of combatants on the battlefield, where death is permanent and the game keeps moving forward. The attachment comes through gameplay, not the narrative of struggle.

I don't think one way of handling death is better than another here, and am glad there exists such a variety of options, but I think it's worth acknowledging how games can look at the way they inherently cheapen the reverent nature of life and death, yet understand and use those qualities to say something about the subject in ways that can't be done in other mediums.

Blips: Give Empathy a Chance

Source: The Games We Deserve
Author: Michael Abbott
Site: Brainy Gamer

I'm often surprised by just how much my Communications studies in rhetoric and interpersonal communication as an undergrad have surfaced as resonant and useful beyond school. I was a double major, and always viewed my Communications track as secondary to my Fine Art studies, yet time and time again, I've leaned on those lessons as vital strategies for speaking with people in constructive and empathetic ways. Perhaps you've noticed that folks on the Internet aren't always the best at this, myself occasionally included.

In his Brainy Gamer blog, Michael Abbott lists some ideas to keep in mind as a type of checklist for speaking with people online in hope of generating a more considerate, less incendiary dialogue about video games. Think of this list as the digital age equivalent of the old "count to 30" strategy for anger management. It's easy to say "avoid mean-spirited language" and "don't be a jerk," but it's helpful on a practical level to have a more literal checklist of behavioral tendencies to look out for. Plus, as Abbott points out, if this stodgy, combative atmosphere is how the game community presents itself,  developers are more likely to create games that reinforce that behavior.

Through my work in teen education, I've also found it useful to "always begin by assuming positive intent." This is especially important when trying to cultivate communities that are inclusive and welcoming of people from diverse backgrounds. You don't lose anything by assuming positive intent, and it carries the potential benefit of broadening your understanding of a different side of in issue that you would have otherwise not been exposed.

Lastly, I wanted to point out Samantha Allen's "Open Letter to Games Media," with does a great job of laying out the responsibilities that providers of comments sections and forums have to ensure those spaces foster constructive dialogue. It's a nice companion to Michael Abbott's list that helps dissect the complexity of the issue at hand.

:image source: