Rambling - High Counter Shown Words

So I just read an article on Kotaku about a meeting held by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) about whether or not to apply the rules of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) to video games (full article here).  This strikes me as silly on a superficial level, and dangerous on a much more fundamental level.

...the [ICRC] says they may ask developers to adhere to the rules themselves or "encourage" governments to adopt laws to regulate the video game industry.

The silly aspect is fairly obvious, in that an international organization founded in the 1800s to regulate the way in which nations conduct war is now looking at the content of video games.  Silly, only insomuch that merely saying it sounds ridiculous.  I mean, seriously...

While the Movement works vigorously to promote international humanitarian law worldwide, there is also an audience of approximately 600 million gamers who may be virtually violating IHL...

Virtually violating IHL?  Really?  Just saying that is ridiculous.  Gamers have virtually won countless sports games, virtually saved countless lives, and virtually repelled innumerable extra-terrestrial invaders bent on wiping out our entire species.  So where are the international organizations looking to award gamers with mountains of awards for athletic accomplishment, Nobel Peace Prizes, and undying adulation for preventing our destruction at the hands of the Combine?

Oh....oh, there aren't any?  No one is going to be given an award by the President for Most Crops Farmed in their facebook account?  Well, shit.  They why is this being applied?  That's just silly.

Yes, before you say it, I understand that there is very little real correlation between war, farming, and sports.  I'm not trying to compare the two.  What I am saying is that video games are not the real world, and no real world law should be applied to the way in which they function.

Sure, ban or restrict all the content you want.  Ban kiddie porn, restrict the sale of violent and sexual games to minors, ban and restrict all the things that make perfectly logical sense to keep out of the media in general.  All media; books, television, movies, comics, and games alike.  Which is a small part of my point.  Where is the cry from the ICRC to apply IHL to movies?  If there is, or ever was, such an event then I never heard of it.  If you know of one, please do inform me.

The thing is, even if there was one, it wouldn't change very much of what bothers me so much about this.  As stated at the beginning of the article, and reiterated near the end...

One possible course of action could be to encourage game designers/producers to incorporate IHL in the development and design of video games, while another could be to encourage governments to adopt laws and regulations to regulate this ever-growing industry.

That, to me, sounds like  a very direct threat.  In the same article Brian Crecente (the author) goes on to describe how effective the ICRC has been at "encouraging" government action behind the scenes.  Which is all fine and dandy; they're the ones who are charged with keeping mortars out of schools, mines out of public streets, and hot pokers out of the asses of POWs.  I'm all for that, believe me.

Yet what that quote above amounts to, in my opinion, is the ICRC saying "the video game industry better do this, or we'll get the government to fucking make you do it."  In what way is that not a bad thing?

I'm already angry, lately, about S. 1867, and the last thing I want to hear about is the possibility of government dictating the content of my video games.  I mean, really?  Should there be a government committee past which every developer in the country should run their ideas?  How about an actual government employee on the staff of every authorized game developer (horrifying in itself) whose job it is to say yes or no about every aspect of the game?  Either idea is equally troublesome, and I personally wouldn't tolerate either one.

Now there is something to be said, I must point out, about the idea of applying IHL to the content of some games.  Personally, I find the idea fascinating and I would really love to see someone explore it some time.  Imagine a game like CoD where, instead of the usual uber-pretty yawn-fest "shoot ever'wun, wooooo!!!!" it usuall turns out to be, we had to pay attention to what we were doing.  It might suck ass.  It might elevate the game to a whole new level.  I'd love to see it explored.  Yet in no way should the government step in, or an international organization, or even anyone's Uncle Fester for that matter, and dictate to any game developer what will be included in the game.

Hell, even applying this idea would be ludicrous.  As stated in the article, in 2007 a group called TRIAL studied the 'virtual violation' (that term makes me cringe now) of IHL.  They studied games like CoD, BH, and R6, and to me that makes perfect sense; those are the types games I would expect them to look at when studying the possible violation of IHL in video games.  I don't know whether or not they looked at other games or genres, but I highly doubt they looked at very much.

Did they look at games like Mass Effect?  Do I violate some form of the IHL every time I shoot a Geth in the face?  What about Fable?  Can I be charged with war crimes if I slaughter a farmer's entire flock of chickens (do chickens flock?  I'm not sure.)?  How far would something like this go?

The entire idea is ridiculous, insulting, and dangerous.

------

Like my words?  Buy my stuff!

Also, please support my facebook page and follow me on twitter!

More importantly; tell other people about my work!

Rambling - Crumbling Banjo Bombs

I will endeavor, while writing this, to refrain from descending into fanboy ranting and raving.  I have specifically striven to avoid blogging about Mass Effect before specifically for that reason, but this time I can't not write about it.  Mostly because this time, rather than flailing my arms in excitement and screaming the glories of this game, I have something specific to say (I'll try to keep the flailing to a minimum).

I have a bone to pick with Bioware.  By far one of my very favorite development studios, Bioware has had their money in my pocket since I first played Baldur's Gate.  I have happily played each of the Baldur's Gate series, Neverwinter, KoTOR, Jade Empire, and Dragon Age.  With Mass Effect, Bioware absolutely stole my heart.  It is a setting that has struck more than one chord with me; I love the characters, the technology, the history, the themes, the races, I even love the politics of the Mass Effect setting.  Yet most importantly, I love Mass Effect for its refinement of the type of game that KoTOR first hinted at.

Like other RPGs, Mass Effect allows you to craft your own version of the story that Bioware wrote.  They form the setting, create a broad narrative, and allow you to choose the details of that narrative.  Yet Mass Effect went farther than other RPGs in the creation of Commander Shepard, in a way I talked about in a previous blog, and the result is fantastic.  Commander Shepard becomes the personality you want them to be as you play.  There is certainly a broad framework of character already developed, but like the broad narrative in which Bioware lets you choose the details, the character of Commander Shepard is a personality that you can shape to such an extent that he or she becomes your own version.  Often, this can vary quite significantly from other peoples' versions of the character.  Gender, race, and class aside, Commander Shepard's variations exist, throughout the course of the game, on a range from murderous to beneficent.

At the risk of being That Gamer, I can tell you a bit about my Commander Shepard.  Please, bear with me for just a little bit here.  Samantha Lynne Shepard (yes, I gave her a full name, I do that I'm a storyteller) is two years younger than her service file indicates, since she joined with an altered ID to get away from a difficult life on the streets of Earth.  She had no family there, just a small group of friends, and she did what she had to survive; even killed her first person at the age of twelve.  The Navy was her escape.  She made good as soon as she was possibly able, and hasn't looked back since.  Not long after joining, her unit was wiped out on Akuze, and she survived through sheer tenacity, natural ability, and a big mountain of luck.  She's a good person, always ready and eager to help out people at the bottom rung of society, with whom she identifies.  At the same time, she's got a mean streak a mile wide, and never hesitates to make bloody calls in the moment when necessary.

Sorry to put you through that, but I just wanted to specify what Bioware did when they formed Mass Effect in the way that they did.  My Commander Shepard is a specific personality when I play that game.  To me, this is one of several ways to make a game, and it is among my favorites.  I am quite fine with playing a game such as Deus Ex: Human Revolution, in which Adam Jensen is a defined character with a specific history and personality.  I like Adam, I thoroughly enjoy that game, and I like the way Adam is presented.  At the same time however, Samantha Shepard is as much a legitimate character to me as Adam Jensen.  And I'm not the only one.  I have met many other fans of Mass Effect who have specific visions of who Commander Shepard is to them, and their version of the character is as legitimate to them as mine is to me or Adam Jensen is to any of us.

Then I read this.  Most of it sounds great; specifically that it's an original story and not a rehash of the games' story.  Yet where they fail, on a staggering level, is when they specify that the movie will focus on Commander Shepard.  The specification that Shepard will be male in the movie is entirely irrelevant, even if I wasn't already a member of the FemShep fan club.  This is a bad idea on a level so much larger than the FemShep fans struggling against the BroShep majority.

I don't know the details about who decided at what point to make Commander Shepard the main character of the Mass Effect movie.  It may have been Bioware, it may have been Legendary.  In either case, the end result is the establishment of a "canon" Commander Shepard.  Since the game's inception there has been that short-haired BroShep glaring sternly at us as he went about his adventures in the game's advertisements.  With that I am absolutely fine; it's difficult to sell a game, especially an RPG, without an identifiable character that people can recognize and associate with said game.  Yet every single aspect of the Mass Effect universe has been carefully built to encourage us to develop Commander Shepard as our own character.

The books don't specify anything about Shepard.  The comics don't specify anything about Shepard.  The Galaxies game didn't specify anything about Shepard.  Beyond the use of an identifiable face with which to sell the game, Bioware has specifically avoided saying or publishing anything that would impinge on the character that customers have created in their own playthroughs.  Each time they did so, they strengthened the legitimacy of the character each of us has created.  Every instance in which Bioware specifically took efforts (even making their own work more difficult) to avoid specifying any details about Commander Shepard, they specifically validated our own versions of the character.

Throughout the Mass Effect games, we are given choices.  Each choice shapes the character we are playing, specifies who they are and makes the story more our own.  It could be argued that this is simply a game mechanic meant to provide us with a bit more of an interactive and therefor entertaining experience.  That argument fails however, as soon as you carry a save game from ME1 to ME2, and subsequently to the upcoming ME3.  Your choices span an entire trilogy of games, a feature largely unseen in the entirety of the video game industry.  This elevates the choices from a simple entertaining aspect to a fundamental feature of the series, perhaps even the setting, as a complete whole.  It makes those decisions important.  Now, with the introduction of a single specific version of Commander Shepard our choices are being made null.  You chose to save the council?  Too bad, FilmShep killed them.  Yet you killed the Rachni Queen?  Irrelevant; FilmShep kept her as a pet.  Who died on Virmire?  Doesn't matter, FilmShep already made that choice for you, the decision you made had no effect.

On a different level, using Commander Shepard in the movie is also a disservice to the setting, and the character, in their own right.  The threat that Commander Shepard faces in the existing trilogy is a very specific, well-crafted saga with a beginning and an end.  To stretch that story beyond its intended length just to put it in a movie would cheapen it.  To invent a whole new story for Commander Shepard to be involved in would risk making the whole idea ridiculous.

Yet most importantly, there is a larger aspect to this decision.  Beyond my hurt fanboi feelings that they're nullifying my character, beyond the ridiculousness of giving the galaxy's savior yet another galaxy-ending threat to defeat, is the fact that Mass Effect should not be about Commander Shepard.  Not if they want to make the setting last.  The Mass Effect setting is rich, intricate, and has the potential to become a Science Fiction setting on par with Trek, Wars, or B5.  Yet this cannot happen if the only thing with which the general public identifies is one specific character.  The setting must be presented as a setting itself, not a story about one individual character.   If too much emphasis is placed on Commander Shepard, then if Bioware ever does attempt to make the setting into a legitimate sci-fi franchise the public will be much more reluctant to accept it without that character.  They won't see it as "that sci-fi setting" but "those movies and games about that one dude."  Much like the reaction that many people had about Halo: ODST.  "How can you call it a Halo game?  There's no Master Chief."  People identify such an iconic and central character as the setting itself, rather than as a part of that setting.

I'll stop rambling now, I just had to write this.  I doubt anyone at Bioware or Legendary will see it.  Even if they do, I really don't think it will have any effect whatseover.   I wish it would.  I wish they would see it, understand my point and the place of genuine love it comes from, and agree with me.  That won't happen, but I just wanted to say my piece.

------

Like my words?  Buy my stuff!

Also, please support my facebook page and follow me on twitter!

More importantly; tell other people about my work!

Rambling - Giving Promised Gaming Sanctions

Lovely Knight - Cleavage Armor
(Follow the link on the pic)

As hopefully known by those who are close to me, I generally make a conscious effort to embrace change and support new things.  Normally, I don't even have to make that conscious effort, as I am a genuine fan of things that are new and events that bring change.  As my gaming group would hopefully be able to tell you, this extends most powerfully into my love of tabletop RPGs.

I grew up playing 2nd Edition AD&D, and it was incredible fun.  Samus the barbarian and Aerial Teshlin the wild mage were two characters from that era who still hold places in my dark little heart.  Aerial, for that matter, maintains a prominent role in my own fantasy setting.  THAC0 and negative AC values still bring me fond chuckles, and I even ran a 2nd Edition game recently for two people who never got to experience it.

Yet when 3rd Edition D&D came, I was excited and I embraced it.  My excitement was not misplaced, as the new edition was versatile, intricate, and just as fun as any of the games I'd had in the old days.  The staggering changes were readily apparent; reversal of AC values, change from THAC0 to Base Attack Bonus, the addition of feats, and the creation of a skill system are easy and readily apparent changes.  These were so significant that, while translatable to 2nd Edition, their inclusion rendered the new books into a truly new edition.  It was fun, and I embraced it whole-heartedly by devouring as many books as I could get my hands on.

Later, there came this strange 3.5 thing.  At first, I admit to a little confusion.  Was this a new edition?  Was it a simply reprinting to include errata?  After a brief perusal at my local game shop, I quickly came to realize that this new publication was exactly what it advertised to be; 3rd Edition plus.  The changes were fundamental and significant, but not staggering.  The alteration of class features were a change to the way the game played, the inclusion of weapon damages by the size of the wielder altered the way many characters worked, the functionality of damage reduction changed the face of combat.  These changes and more meant that the game now functioned in a different way...yet all the rules were in every sense compatible with the previous 3rd Edition publications.  One could (and we often did) lift something from 3rd Edition and plunk it down in our 3.5 games with only the most minimal effort.  I was happy, and I embraced the change by devouring every book I possibly could.

Then, came the latest change in the form of 4th Edition D&D.  I watched the development of the newest edition as closely as I could (being an industry outsider), and I grew more excited with every morsel of information.  Once the books were finally released, my excitement was palpable and it was not without cause.  The new edition is amazing, and I thoroughly enjoy it.  Heroes are heroes from the get-go, everyone has something to do in a fight at all times (magic users don't end up standing there with nothing to do), non-magic users have interesting things to do (they don't get outshone by magic users anymore), and in general everyone can have fun through the whole of an adventure.  My gaming group dove into the new edition, and barring social and geographical shifting since then we've been playing steadily ever since.

Coming down the pipeline, something that is causing as much consternation among the D&D fanbase as any of the previous bits I listed, are the D&D Essentials books.  I will admit that I am not entirely happy about this.  The mere mention of the Essentials line actually makes my stomach twinge just a little.  My roommate constantly shouts the praises of Essentials from the mountaintops, and I am occasionally forced to ask him to be quiet about it just to give myself a break of peace.  That being said, I have no problems with Essentials.  My problem is that WOTC won't just admit the truth.

Essentials is D&D 4.5.

It is!  You can't deny it!  Fundamental and significant changes, but not staggering changes.  This will still be 4th Edition, but it will be as different from 4E as 3.5 was from 3rd Edition.  Fundamental changes to the way the core classes work, alterations to some of the most basic feats, new inclusions to the way magic items are categorized; all of these represent changes that push the edition forward without changing it.  There is nothing wrong with it!  I am excited for the changes!  The new rules for classifying magic items in particular sound fun to me and seem to make sense.  I am really excited about the return of the schools of magic (wizard has been and always will be my favorite class).  I am glad the core classes will be getting upgrades to the current standards of class design.  Every single bit of Essentials--thus far--sounds good to me.

I just wish WOTC would admit it.

On one hand I genuinely do understand that they kind of painted themselves into a corner when they released 4th Edition.  I seem to remember there being many very clear, loud, repeated declarations that "there will never be a 4.5."  I didn't entirely buy that at the time, in fact many people didn't, yet now WOTC has a problem on their hands.  If they come out and admit that Essentials is 4.5, they'll have a wave of fans descend upon the forums calling them liars and frauds, bitching and complaining about how "all the books I bought are worthless now," and other such ridiculousness as was spouted upon the release of 4E itself.

The problem is, those people will always be there.  Perhaps not those specific individuals, but there would be other people filling the role of "angry dissenters."  There will always be angry dissenters.  I'm sure that somewhere out there can be found a mathematical formula to determine the percentage of a fanbase that will be put off by a change to the medium of which they are fans, and I'd love to find it.  If you change too many things, you'll piss off some of your fans.  If you change nothing, you'll piss off some of your fans.  I just find myself annoyed that WOTC chose to listen to the specific group of fans that subsequently frightened them into saying "there will never be a 4.5."  Because now look where we are.

"Hey look, here's the Essentials line!  It's as significant and fundamental a change to the game as 3.5 was, but it isn't 4.5, we swear!  It's just...a significant and fundamental change.  That's all."

I'm going to buy the books.  I'm going to support my beloved hobby.  I just wish WOTC would admit it.

------

Like my words?  Please support my facebook page!  Follow me on Twitter!