The Utility of Gaming for Fun Part 2: There are Four Reasons to Play

"Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."

-Henry Louis Mencken

Computer games should never stress us into unhappiness. 

Here is where I believe games for fun place without violating my authoritarian mandate of love:

1. Bonding. Computer games maximize fun; therefore, they provide terrific bonding experiences. 

The games industry is following this idea more than ever. The best single player game of 2007 was a few hours long, and multiplayer was designed to clock in more hours than singleplayer. This year you have seen cooperative gameplay promoted like mad, the super example being Left 4 Dead. The industry has learned that people will spend more for multiplayer. So there.

But, do games like Fallout 3 get a pass? What about the oncoming StarCraft 2 trilogy of 90 singleplayer missions? 

Those games would require gamers to do some serious soul searching under my asshole system of affection and heavy petting. How would we motivate our friends and family and lovers and pets and alcoholic, business buddies to accompany us on those great hedonistic(ly awesome) adventures? 

For those who can't play them socially (no person next to you, no switching between players) the answer is-

2. Recreation. But not for mere pleasuring of yourself. I hope you strive for jobs and people that you will derive great pleasure from to the point where you won't need much beyond sufficient amounts of exercise. But somewhere between here and there, you may become bored to shit; and hedonistic activity may be the best medicine - Specifically, killing 12-year olds on XBOX Live using a mouse and keyboard instead of an XBOX 360 controller may be the best medicine.

(Make sure you get enough exercise. Exercise relieves so much stress, in a way 'pleasures' don't, as long as they don't take too much of your time.) 

3. Games are your profession. If it's your job, you will likely need to play enough games to do well.

And the next is related to this-

4. Self-exploration. You may love games. You may love'm enough to make them part of your future somehow, maybe as a profession, maybe as a tool to help people with. 

I understand you have done this already, but this defends those who haven't, young and old. 

And that's it!

It seems ironic that what I am promoting is a temperance. This is a kick in the frenulum to the way we tend to play, make love, dance, have fun. It's a whack in the weenis to our capitalist, you-must-experience-many-pleasures-or-you're-an-unhappy-loser culture.  

But with gaming designed for maximizing fun, these are the only ways I can think of that use gaming for fun to maximize happiness. 

It all comes down to time management. Among the "middle class" I have found that our greatest happiness killer is negative stress, and negative stress in the U.S. and many other countries is caused most often by this common mishandling of our self-management:

poor time management. 

So play. I hope this doesn't discourage any of you from 'hedonistic' gaming. I hope this writing promotes better play sessions for you. And if you disagree with any of this, please feel free to dissent in the nice 'comments' section below you stupid wankers. 

And to game designers: please make new, interesting, non-shitty games.

The Problem with Fanboys

First off, let me apologize for the lack of updates recently. It's been a busy month or so for me and Paul, especially with finals next week. Rest assured though, we plan on catching up on our writing over the winter break, so keep checking the site for updates. Now onward to the article!

***

With the advent of competing technologies comes groups of zealous fans that openly declare their allegiance to one company while denouncing the competition and their supporters. Nowhere is this more evident than in the world of video games.

Since the beginning of the industry, we've had advertisements telling us to buy an Intellivision over an Atari 2600 if we wanted a baseball game that was "the closest thing to the real thing." During the era of 16-bit gaming, Sega won many fans by touting the so-called "blast processing" capabilities of their Genesis. Fans of the system quickly joined together under the infamous battle cry, "Genesis does what Nintendon't." Of course, advertising and competition are nothing new. If companies want to try and make their product successful they must show that their competitor's product is inferior to their own.

Instead, what I'd like to focus on is the brand loyalty that is so inherit in gaming culture and the consequences of such loyalty. I will refer to this behavior as "fanboyism."

Gamers are fanatical when it comes to their hobby. Simply implying that one console or one company is better than another is enough to start a giant flame war on most message boards. People are so unyielding in their opinions that they will spend hours telling others why Console X sucks, why Console Y is awesome, and why supporters of Console X are idiots and need to "STFU."

But, why are people so adamant about their gaming preferences? Is it just blind brand loyalty? Could it be the result of years of playing one company's systems? What if one person had a bad experience with another company's console, never finding any games that interested them? Whatever the reason, fanboys (and fangirls) are prevalent throughout the gaming community.

And they are hurting the growth of video games.

By pledging loyalty to one system, players become extremely close-minded. They worship their console of choice, declaring it perfect and failing to see that no console is infallible. In some rare cases, fans will refuse to even play games on other consoles, coming to the conclusion that if it's not on their system, then it isn't worth playing. This results in players who lack appreciation for gaming as a whole. They are so adamant about supporting their favorite system that they miss out on the innovations and creativity of other games and consoles. If gaming is to grow and mature as a medium, then gamers must experience all forms of gaming available.

One of the biggest examples of how fanboyismis detrimental to gaming is my very own childhood. Since I was born, I was a Nintendo fanboy. I have had almost every Nintendo system at one point in time. This is because the NES was the first system I ever remember playing. Essentially, I developed brand loyalty from the very beginning. On the playground, my friends and I would argue over what systems were the best, and I would always side with Nintendo.

It wasn't until the previous generation of gaming that I bought my first non-Nintendo console: an Xbox. The reason for this sudden purchase? When the Gamecube was released, I found myself disappointed in the lack of good games the console offered. A friend showed me some of the games he had on the Xbox, including the original Halo. It was these occasional Xbox sessions that convinced me to buy my own system.

As I got older, I continued to branch out to other systems and see what they had to offer. It was through this that I realized the error of my fanboy ways. It's true that I played some incredibly important and influential games on Nintendo consoles, but there were so many other games that I missed throughout the years. Last April I beat Metal Gear Solid for the first time. I was ecstatic at how revolutionary the game was, and at the same time I was kicking myself because it had taken me 10 years to play such an important game. Likewise, only after I've finished Half-Life 2 am I now going back and playing the original. I've also just recently been introduced to all the old Lucasarts adventure games, and to this day I still get ridiculed for never beating Final Fantasy VII. I even missed the Sega Dreamcast, a system that was way ahead of its time. The point is that, by being a Nintendo fanboy, I ignored other games and other systems that were just as important to the growth of gaming.

The fact that I am arguing against a group of people that I was once a part of reveals an interesting point. It shows that no one is safe from fanboyism. If that's the case, then does that mean there's no way to completely eradicate fanboyism? There's no denying the fact that no matter how hard people try to rid the world of console zealots, there will always be a few present. However, if the majority of gamers can get together and be open-minded about their experiences then the fanboys and fangirls will become a dying breed.

In an ideal world, I see gaming as a Socialist business*. Each of the big console creators would come together and make one super console, that all games would be playable on. Then there would be no fanboyism and everyone would be able to experience every important game ever made. Until then, gamers need to put aside at least some of their petty brand loyalty, so that they can be open to the many different experiences video games can offer.

*This statement is in no way supposed to be representative of my political and economic stances. It's just a metaphor people, don't read too deep into it! Oh, wait...

A brief birthday message.

Hey everyone, today is Paul's birthday, so congratulate him on being one year closer to death! :D

I couldn't think of what to get you Paul, so here's a picture of a weighted companion cube birthday cake:

Have a good one buddy! :D

Also, I totally knew it was your birthday and not because facebook told me through it's automated stalker tracking system.

...Honest.

Gamer Poetry

Last year I wrote poems that focused on playing computer games. 

The best one is a sonnet. I didn't base this one directly off a video game experience, but I think you will see its connection to gaming.

"Play"

I brought my water gun outside to play

In Thailand's ninety-degree humid heat

No other kids were in the field today

No fun from victory, none to defeat.

Some chickens crossed the road, play things for me

They clucked their way near me and reached the creek

Unsmiling, I pumped the gun. Wanting glee

I aimed; I fired; I struck and soaked the weak-

Est yellow chick who hit the ground all wet

It crushed its eyelids; it could not make sound

It shuddered, freezing in the heat; it let

The air out of its chest, froze on a mound

Of dirt now wet, it slept, alone. And I

Stood by, now silent, asking why, oh why...

I submitted this to UCSD's Mania Magazine, and it's in the Fall 2008 issue. I recommend picking up a Mania Mag! They are good. 

It's gonna be awhile...

Argh! 

I have three hell-papers due within two weeks. I'm not going to have time to post anything super nice for sometime. 

But I promise to get this utility of gaming for fun series done by Winter Break.

The Utility of Gaming for Fun Part 1: Fun

THE POLEMIC AGAINST FUN: Fun most often perpetuates misery.

Fun, pleasure, the activity that fulfills your desire, has a bell curve effect on your happiness. It isn't a perfect curve, but it resembles it. From a state of happiness, fun will lift your happiness level and, once it is over, drop your happiness off the floor it started. How ironic a life of hedonistic utilitarianism is. It's ironic enough that the great pessimist philosopher Arthur Schopenhaur wrote of the things that bring us happiness as mere exciting transitions that, when over, leave us unhappy and wanting them again, making life a futile cycle of desire-pleasing.

That's the classic, secular argument against desire-pleasing, against pleasure, against having fun. But it's not enough to explain why it perpetuates misery.

A modern argument comes from the importance of good time management- both the "unlike money, you can never get time back" argument and the "place pleasure takes in the Time Management Matrix" argument.

The Time Management Matrix has to be partially explained first. First, click this link to view a Stephen R. Covey Time Management Matrix:

http://www.orgcoach.net/timematrix.html

Do that. Stare at the matrix and then continue reading.

Okay, have you stared at it yet?

Good.

I have to explain what to do with the "not important" boxes numbered III and IV: Do nothing that dwells in those traps. By doing unimportant things, you lose time you will never get back.

Playing games for fun can, and often does, match: "many popular activities"; "time wasters"; "pleasant activities" (this one is from another version of Stephen Covey's Time Management Matrix); and "escape activities"-all in the "not important" boxes. They can feel so fulfilling that our bodies and our materialistic, fun-addicted culture can convince us that unimportant activities are actually important to us

to the point where our self-esteem level is dependent on how much fun we are having right now.

Doing unimportant things increases the negative stress in your life. For so many, fun most often perpetuates misery.

THE APOLOGY FOR FUN: We cannot come close to maximizing happiness without fun.

What is the point of living? The universe is so large, why can we say what we do matters beyond our deaths? What's the point of moving people from a miserable life of poverty and war to a miserable life of wealth and peace? I.e. what's the point of taking people from unhappiness to unhappiness?

And would you pick a life of no stress and no fun over a life of high stress and lots of fun?

That last one is a weird question because it beckons the question: Can a person avoid being stressed out when their life has no fun?
That last one is a weird question too because it beckons the question: Can a person have no fun? Thinking can be fun.

Argh!

So the best apology for the apology for fun is: If it is the only way to maximize happiness, why not?

And now we have a paradox between the polemic and the apology: Fun brings misery and bliss.

But I believe the apology wins, and here is why: Fun shared between human beings is a powerful bonding experience, something that, when done habitually, makes something that lasts; fun fosters relationships when had well. Fun can also relax the body and mind which, for some people in some situations, prevents personal destruction. (Fun as praised in this paragraph goes in the 2nd box of the Time Management Matrix, "Important and Not Urgent." The matching descriptions in the box are "recreation" and "relationship building.")

These arguments may seem petty when we say: "Well, other activities do those too." But then we can regress to: "If it is the only way to maximize happiness, why not?" and combine it all.

Only fun can foster relationships, prevent madness, and bring states of bliss all at the same time. We cannot come close to maximizing happiness without fun because fun brings bliss. The apology for fun wins.

In part 2, I discuss how this relates to playing computer games for fun.

Utility of Playing Games for Fun Introduction.

Hedonism
noun
the pursuit of pleasure; sensual self-indulgence.
The ethical theory that pleasure (in the sense of the satisfaction of
desires) is the highest good and proper aim of human life.

"How is gaming no different from hedonism?" a special forces operator asked me. And I told him about The Sims and its time management lesson- how in The Sims, time, the game's non-cheat code-based resource, presents a utilitarian calculus from which our sims and we gods achieve things.

Lots of simoleans. Lots of commodities. Lots of friends. Death by furniture fires. Or, if game time is 'misused,' you have sims whose average happiness remain low for (in the first game) ever, with those few points of rapture in their lives being a horror show in juxtaposition with whatever else in their virtual lives you see.

The Sims is both a satire and a proponent for our lives, I told him; therefore, computer games are fun and can be didactic art at the same time!

But his question still pokes me because I know why he asked it: Most computer games, as of now, teach us nothing particularly useful nor provide game spaces where we practice potentially useful skills, including most of the best games. Most of the best games instead maximize fun.

So here's the question he should have asked:

"How is playing games that only maximize fun not a waste of time?"

I believe the best way to answer this question is to analyze fun and
time management.

Thoughts on Gaming Journalism

Recently, Dan Hsu has been posting articles examining all of the behind-the-scenes details of game journalism on his blog. About a month ago, he asked for readers to submit their opinions on the subject. After the deadline, he selected a few to post on his blog. Since I'm interested in doing game journalism, I figured I'd submit an article. Unfortunately, my article was not one of the few chosen to be published on Dan's blog. But, everything is a learning experience, and since I've started my own gaming blog in the intervening time, I decided to post my article here so I can get some feedback on what works and what doesn't.

For proper context you might want to read Dan's articles first:

Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Part Five
Article submission announcement

And here's the article I submitted (AGAIN! FEEDBACK IS MUCH APPRECIATED!):

October 5, 2008

Game magazines have always been present in my life, even when I was young. Often, I would sit down with a copy of Nintendo Power or EGM and absorb every detail in that month's issue. As I read, I thought of how cool it must be to be a game journalist. You spend all day playing video games and then write about them! How could that not be a cool job? Of course, as I got older, I realized such thoughts were naive. There's much more responsibility required of the job than I previously thought.

As a reader, I feel the most important responsibility of a game journalist is to write for their audience. There must be a strong bond between the writer and the reader. The writer ignores any outside persuasions and biases, providing the reader with an article as honestly written as possible. The minute a writer makes an article for a game company, or in order to reach some weekly article quota as instructed by their employer, the journalist loses a portion of their integrity and the quality of their writing suffers.

I understand the role of PR events and press conferences. They're a way to get the press, and the public informed and excited about new games, and they're simply a part of the game journalist job description. There is nothing wrong with attending these events as long as the main focus is the game or something that compliments one's understanding of a game. I agree with Shoe that there may be some merit in being treated to a UFC match if you're reviewing a UFC game. Living the experience can help a writer judge how accurate or realistic the atmosphere of the game is.

However, there are a few problems with this corporate relationship. One problem is the events where the main focus is not about the games, but rather throwing lavish parties for the press in hopes of swaying their opinion. Treating clients and business partners to fancy dinners or a night with a female companion are just cultural methods of doing business. The problem is that even if the journalist knows the old song and dance, there's still a possibility that these events will compromise the integrity of that person's article. It might convince a writer to be a little more lenient on that company's game, or even worse, make them believe that if they write a harsh review, the company will use their free dinner or swag as leverage against the writer or the company they work for. In the latter case, it would be comforting to know that your supervisors would support your opinion. Yet, they may not support your article at all, especially if the game company threatens to pull their advertising over a bad review.

Journalists are not innocent in this relationship either. In order to maintain an unbiased opinion, journalists must take caution in what gifts they accept and what requests they make. Making outlandish demands of a company's PR group is not only unprofessional, but also brings a journalist's moral values into question. It feels a bit like a black market trade. If the company gives them free tickets to a baseball game, or a five star meal, or washes all their clothes for them, then the journalist will write a more favorable review of their game. Therefore, the journalist is no longer writing for their audience, but for their own personal gain instead.

The main thing a reader wants is honesty. As long as the writer provides a fair and truthful opinion about a game, the reader will be content. Shoe's advice on dealing with PR groups is great. It's okay if the writer partakes in a free game or a fancy event every now and then. If they're straightforward and honest with readers, then the readers will be respectful to the journalist. That being said, working for a company that appreciates your honesty doesn't hurt
either. Even if a person gets fired for reasons irrelevant to a score they gave a game, if the company isn't honest about what happened, readers will assume the worst. This is why game journalism must maintain a strong and truthful relationship with its most important subjects: the readers.

Written by Colin "Satchamobob" Wheelock

Jennifer Tsao Leaving 1up.com

Another good journalist is leaving 1up.com for another job in the game industry. 

Take a look at her send off; it says a lot about the history of gender in the business (the post is titled "Girl Talk"):

http://www.generaltsao.com

I love that whacky Red Alert series sense of humor:

Check out this link :)

http://gamevideos.1up.com/video/id/22213

P.S. Pssst, Colin, how do we make avatars for Blogspot?

Future Article Everybody Will Love to Hate

By this winter break, I am going to finish an article about the utility of playing computer games for fun. There is some reading I have to do and discussions I have to have before I write it though. 

Here are the current themes of the article:

1. The importance of managing time well.

2. The polemic against hedonism (we call it fun).

3. The apology for fun.

4. Conclusion: We must stop playing games by ourselves solely for fun. Single-player games played solely for fun must be played with others.

I expect a lot of loving hate from bloggers. Bring it on.

Gaming as Art...Literally

This summer, I had the opportunity to attend the opening night of the I Am 8-bit art gallery in LA. Being the gamer that I am, I was excited about attending. Here was an art show dedicated to exploring the cultural significance of video games. Sadly, the actual event was a complete intellectual disappointment.

Let me just say, that I was in no way disappointed with the actual aesthetic nature of most of the artwork. If I had $600 burning a hole in my pocket, I would've bought this Zelda painting immediately. My problem was with the messages the art was trying to convey. Specifically, it was the lack of messages the art was conveying that made the show unsatisfying.

I Am 8-bit was nothing more than a pop art show. That is not to say that pop art in general is some type of vile entity that should be avoided like the plague. But, was it too much to ask that the art says something more than, "Hey remember Earthworm Jim? Well check out this painting!"


The art seemed to say nothing about gaming culture at all. It would've been nice to have seen art that made the audience think about how we game, or challenge the way we think about video games. Instead, all it did was take the viewer on an expedition of nostalgia without ever exploring what made the games so memorable or thought provoking in the first place.

Perhaps the worst part of the gallery was how some art reeked of what I'd like to call, "we're mature now!" art. CAUTION: The next few pictures are slightly NSFW. Don't look at these at work if you like your job.
The only thing this piece says to me is, "Hey we're so mature we're going to make a painting of a topless Princess Peach with tattoos. That's what mature art is, right?" It just feels like the artists being displayed were trying too hard to show that gaming was another form of artistic expression. The problem was that most of the artists failed to capture what exactly made gaming such a unique medium in the first place.

I'm not even going to justify this one with a critique.

Of course there was at least one piece that did appear to say something about gaming:


It's a simple piece. A faceless woman with a game of Tetris being played inside her mind. Compared to most of the other artwork, this piece said a lot about how gaming relates to our everyday life. We constantly try to make meaning of life and organize our experiences much in the same way as we organize tetrominoes in Tetris. However, there's always a risk at overfilling our minds with too much information. Needless to say, at least this painting got me thinking.

There was also a DJ at the event doing live synthesizing with a game boy that I thought was a nice touch. I'll go over that whenever I decide to write about music and gaming.

Despite the fact that I came away from the event disenchanted, I don't regret attending. If anything, I think the I Am 8-bit exhibit is a decent starting point for presenting the importance of video games. However, in order for that to happen, the people who submit art to the exhibit need to focus more on what gaming means for them as opposed to nostalgic pop art. If we want gaming to be considered as a true art form, then the art that is derived from it needs to actually say something about gaming. There's just something wrong with an art exhibit when the free Mega Man 9 box art posters say more about gaming than the actual art on display.

An Introduction of Sorts

Hello and welcome to the blog! What is this blog about you ask? Consider it a metaphorical proving grounds if you will. Proving grounds for two guys trying to perfect their writing skills in the hope that one day they will become full-fledged gaming journalists.

Yes, this is indeed a gaming blog. However, we hope to do things a bit differently around here.

Rather than focus only on gaming news and reviews, our goal is to provide articles and editorials about the ever-expanding world of gaming. We hope to discuss everything from gaming culture to gaming as art to deep philosophical discussions on game design. Whether it be console, PC, tabletop, or live action, we here at Stage Zero feel that gaming is an important social and cultural phenomenon that merits conversation.

Who exactly are we though? Well, allow us to introduce ourselves:

My name is Colin Wheelock (profile name: Satchamobob). I am a third year student at UC San Diego. I'm currently looking at future career options in the gaming industry. Journalism is obviously one area I'm interested in, but I'm also fascinated by the academic field of game studies. I've spent the past few months working as an undergraduate researcher for a game studies group on campus. Among my colleagues was Noah Wardrip-Fruin who writes for the blog Grand Text Auto. Click the link on right side of the page to check it out.

NOW FOR PAUL:

Hello minions! I'm Paul, and I agree with everything Colin said:

In fact, Colin is not just a third year at UCSD - I too am a third year at UCSD. And I am planning to write in the gaming world as well.

So, fellow gamers, enjoy everything we spew onto you because gaming is amazing and that's what will fly from our mouths, onto our keyboards, and into Stage Zero.

And definitely, if you see opportunities to improve our writing, spew back at us. Make it classy.

Since both Paul and I consider this practice for becoming game journalists, we encourage any and all comments and critiques of our writing style. After all, we can't expect to improve our writing if we don't know what's wrong with it in the first place. So feel free to offer your opinion on anything we say or write on this blog.

Because we're students we can't promise a concrete update schedule, but we will try our damnedest to post as often as possible. I suggest you bookmark this blog or subscribe to our RSS feed if you want to see the latest article we've written.

I think I've let this post go on for long enough. The U.S.S Stage Zero has officially set sail. We hope you enjoy your stay with us. We know you have a choice when it comes to gaming blogs, and we're glad you've chosen us as your game blog stop. Until next time!