Competitive gaming and game rage

Anyone in the world knows, gamer or not, winning feels good. It feels very good. It feels ESPECIALLY good when you're either;
a) Competing for a prize of some kind in a tournament
b) Defeating an arrogant or annoying little microphone warrior
or c) Beating a close, dear friend then laughing hysterically at their failure and holding it over their head for the purposes of banter.

Yes we all like winning and to try and get my latest egotistical boost came in the form of entering a Mortal Kombat 9 tournament for PS3, ran by Gamestation. I had a run in with this contest once before, a month or so ago when the demo for the smash hit fighter was released to the PSN and Live Arcade alike. Gamestation in cahoots with Warner Brothers ran the competition to which i was all too eager to join. As it was only the demo version, only 4 characters were playable; Johnny Cage, Scorpion, Sub-Zero and Mileena (HAHAHAHAHA). But yeah it was Scorpions all round with 1 Sub-Zero player. Anyways, I got to the semi finals and was absolutely annihilated by the overall contest winner, so i left disheartened. Yesterday however I attended another Gamestation tournament with hopes of redeeming my earlier defeat and much to my joy, I did! I took home the title of tournament winner and the proverbial gold - the gold being a cardboard Mortal Kombat sign and a copy of Thor on PS3.

So what is it that draws us all to the competitive arena? Well as I stated before; we crave victory. With victory comes fame, admiration, or even better; prizes. There's certainly no shortage of any kind for competitive gamers, both serious and casual. America is where the big gaming for money happens, with the likes of MLG (Major League Gaming) putting cash prizes up in the thousands. Over here in Europe we have the EGL (European Gaming League) and if you win, they make sure your name is known. Justin Wong, a name all to well known to competitive gamers all over the world. He's the one who dominates most every fighting game tournament there is, most recently Mortal Kombat - taking a hefty 10 grand winnings. Not bad for a days work..But for most of us - all competitive gaming comes to is a kill to death ratio on CoD, or being able to beat your friends to a bloody pulp without taking so much as a scratch. It's for bragging rights.

 Or is that very close minded of me? Of course it is. There are those who play, brace yourselves for this one.. FOR FUN. Good god, the concept is shocking isn't it? Yes there are those who play Call Of Duty who will be sniped by a filthy, camping little swine and will simply shrug, maybe even complimenting them on their good shot. The world would be a better, nicer place if every game was full of these kinds of players, but generally they don't tend to be very good. Not that that is a crime, I applaud people like that. I think we all take gaming, myself especially, far too seriously. At the end of the day - it's fake numbers brought about by fake bullets or punches. We realistically don't benefit or suffer from them, yet taking a bullet or finishing blow will force some players into a rage nonetheless - usually ending in them insulting whoever it was who beat them. I talk from personal experience of course, from both sides of the story..

Let's look at it from a different perspective. Competitive gaming inevitably took off largely due to the introduction of consolised online play - no longer did you have to spend a fat wedge on a computer powerful enough to run all of NASA just to play online games. Now most every household has some kind of gaming system with online capabilities. Game developers of course recognised the importance of competition, why else would they focus so heavily on online play? Not only that but they cater to the needs of the competitor by including number of deaths, number of kills, ratios, accuracy.. Every aspect of play can now be seen and compared. Modern Warfare 2, the critically acclaimed FPS, had an astonishing 8 million online players in it's first week of release - all blowing each other to pieces, so obviously there's no lack of demand for it.

That's not to say that the non-competitive among us aren't accounted for. God knows any potential untapped resource will be realised by developers far and wide in an attempt to squeeze the last penny from their wallets. Just look at the Wii, that I can think of there are no seriously competitive games on the console save for Super Smash Brothers which admittedly can get exceptionally heated. Save for SSB it has the likes of Red Steel and a few others like it, but they don't support online play. Luckily we live in an age where every type of player is catered for.

So that's my little bit on competitive gaming. To finish off - here's a priceless video of competitive gaming and it's potential effects;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8pR1rZZHEs&feature=related

Just blame it on the game



I recently got into an argument with someone on a message board over their argument that video games inspire violence in teenagers and those younger than 18. I was quick to jump to the defense of the entertainment medium and after the argument was settled in my favour, i got to thinking about when i took psychology for A-Level in college, I based one of my assignments on just this topic. So, I thought I'd dig it out for all you lovely people and change it slightly to be more video game than psychology based. Hey, a post is a post, recycled or not! It is estimated over 80 percent of video games on the market contain some form of violence. In a world of escalating knife and gun crime in teenagers, where violence in video games is so common, is there some correlation between them?

Grand Theft Auto is a hugely popular video game created by Rockstar that features extreme violence and crime, and the player is rewarded for anarchic behavior, as any gamer worth their salt will know. Let's face it, we've all gone on a mad rampage now and again; stealing cars, beating prostitutes, gunning down the random old lady who happens to get in your way.. However, this game does not stand alone within Rockstar. Perhaps the most violent game in all of Rockstar's catalogue is, Manhunt. Though not as popular or well known as Grand Theft Auto, in the UK at least it still pricks up a considerable amount of ears when mentioned as a hefty amount of people have played it in their youth, myself included. For the record, it was brilliant. The player controls an individual who is being told to 'execute' gang members, civilians and police officers in the most violent way possible, for the enjoyment of someone else. The player is presented with an array of weapons with everything from crowbars and guns to simplistic weapons such as screwdrivers and plastic bags.

The game has three 'levels' of executions, and these get bloodier as the levels of execution progress. Level 1 execution are the least bloody of the three, Level 2 executions are considerably more gory, and level 3 kills are over-the-top fatalities. The game encourages players to execute enemies as brutally as possible, and awards players who do so with higher scores at the end of the level.


Who wouldn't want to whack this thing?

Now, I'mma lay some science on you! In the world of psychology, this is what is known as 'symbolic modelling' as players are witnessing violent behaviour being rewarded so are more likely to imitate and learn their own behaviour from the symbolic model character. Saying 'symbollic modelling to anyone remotely involved with psychology, myself included, will throw up the name Bandura, Ross and Ross, as they conducted an experiment into this in 1963. I could describe the whole study; the aim, methodology, ethical implications etc, but that isn't why you're here so if you're really interested in that then you can go research it! Basically, they showed kids a video of a man hitting a clown doll and getting rewarded, and another group of kids a video of the same guy hitting the same doll but getting punished. Guess what the result was? That's right - the kids who saw the first video were more likely to act violently towards the doll. However, although this may SEEM to support the video game violence behaviour; people have to bare in mind it is not small, highly impressionable children who are playing these games. Also people who play these games tend to be logical, perfectly mentally healthy individuals who can distinguish between fantasy and reality, implying if they see a character being rewarded for violent behaviour in a game they know this would not be the case in real life.

There have been many court cases in which Grand Theft Auto and Manhunt have arisen as possible causes for the murder but as of yet, no direct link has been found. As of September 2007, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is the best-selling video game in the United States with 8.6 million copies sold. (This could very well be horribly wrong as we now live in 2011 and I originally wrote this 2-3 years ago but hey-ho) With that many copies sold, if it really did induce violence, would there not be more cases?

That's not to say there aren't reported cases of video game 'inspired' bonuses. Every so often this controversy of violence in video games appears in the media usually due to an incident, such as this one; In March 2005, 2 police officers and 1 civilian were shot dead by 18 year old Devin Moore who was a big fan of the Grand Theft Auto video game. The game rewards the player for shooting or beating passersby and police officers, destroying and stealing cars and causing any mayhem they can. After his capture, Moore is reported to have told police, "Life is like a video game. Everybody's got to die sometime." This tragic incident caused outrage among the public, leading the brother of one of the men shot dead to file a law suit against Rockstar, the company responsible for the creation of Grand Theft Auto. In the court case, there was no link found between real life and fantasy game violence.

This is not the only case of its kind either, and the same game is involved. In Oakland, Calif., detectives said the game provoked a street gang accused of robbing and killing six people. In Newport, Tenn., two teenagers told police the game was an influence when they shot at passing cars with a .22 calibre rifle, killing one person. In each case, no direct link between the game and the violence was found. A perhaps more famous case Is that of Stefan Pakeerah. There was outcry for the game 'Manhunt' to be banned shortly after its UK release, and after the murder of Stefan Pakeerah by his best friend who was said to be 'obsessed' with the game pleaded guilty. Following the media exposure, the game was removed from store shelves such as GAME but this only increased demand for the game online. Manhunt went back on sale across the country after it was found, yet again, there was no link between the murder and the game violence.

So, there we have it. The evidence stacking against the argument that games inspire violence, as opposed to for it, is overwhelming. I have tried not to be in any way biased towards this side of the argument, looking at it from a psychology perspective but i suppose there will always be some bias. Personally, I believe that video game violence does affect real life violence, but only to a very limited extent and it only affects a limited number of individuals. I believe that those already of a certain mindset will be affected by the shown violence and may replicate it but for the vast majority, it will have no affect as they realise it is fictional and purely for fun. As for me, and I'm sure millions of other players around the world, I'm going to keep playing so long as they keep getting made, and enjoying every gore filled moment, knowing it is just a game. I mean, what beats tearing a guys leg off then beating him to death with it (God i love you Mortal Kombat).

The age of online?

I, along with millions of other Playstation 3 owners, have been left stranded as of late by Sony and their recent fiasco involving the infamous hack and tremendously dire handling of the situation. There are already thousands of blogs, articles and videos detailing the incident so rather than tread old ground - I'll take a different approach and look at the wider picture of online gaming.

It's no secret that the vast majority of the gaming market, and indeed the biggest and most popular titles base themselves heavily on the multi player experience. In the past this would be the likes of Goldeneye, multi player not stretching further than 4 people sat around 1 television but now split screen is dead and forgotten by developers. The real multi player experience now is online. Facing off against an infinite number of different opponents, each with different playing styles, set ups, tendencies, ways of life and backgrounds from every walk and race of life. What could be better than meeting a randomer from another country on a game you like and making friends? Yeah right - it usually just ends up a slur match, but if anything that's more fun.

This seems like, and is, a fantastic leap forward in terms of connectability and technology, ensuring no man plays alone. This is why, as highlighted earlier, so many games incorporate some aspect of online play. Whether it be Demon's Souls' scarce co-op, the world known Call Of Duty multi player or even games which have NO single player mode and function only online such as MAG, game developers rarely if ever leave out online.

However, is this a good thing? Getting back to the PSN outage, millions of gamers, myself included, have been left without online. This means some people can not even play the games they may love such as MAG, as online is a requirement. For the most part however, it simply means a more lack-luster gaming experience. I'm all for a good campaign or story mode, but games like Mortal Kombat and even after 1 or 2 playthroughs of Crysis 2, I'm left hungering for online. This is an echo of the era we live in, and after this shambles I have mixed feelings over it. It used to be a game could be enjoyed for hundreds of hours while playing solo but now the massive amount of money, effort and time put into games multi player or online experiences tends to mean a short coming for the single player experience, which i think is a real shame. Maybe after this disaster for Sony, developers will start following suit of Batman Arkham City.

Arkham City, follow up to the massively successful and brilliant Batman: Arkham Asylum, recently revealed that there would be no online features in the highly anticipated game. The developers of the game spoke out their views and reinforced their belief that this would be for the best, both in interests of the game and for fans. They thought that including an online mode in what is primarily a single player game, would lead to the detriment of the single player experience, something they definitely did not want. Why provide what would in all actuality, be a sub-par or generic online experience which would cause the solo play to suffer, when they can provide no online but instead offer a fantastic single player game?

I'd love to hear other people's views on this. Should more developers follow suit and make single player only games? What are your views on the network outage and online gaming?