In a post entitled An insight into video game sexism? I’m in two minds… I looked at a PLOS One study into how people playing HALO online reacted verbally to players they considered female. The paper recieved a lot of coverage because of its takeaway claim that the more verbally abusive players were losers.
While I liked the experimental design, I did have some doubts about the paper – particulalry the way it was framed in terms of an evolutionary model that didn’t seem that closely related to the study.
Rebecca Watson of Skepchic has a video which discusses that and other issues with the study:
There is a transcript here also: https://www.patreon.com/posts/3001719
There is an interesting paper (with an odd flaw) on sexism in online video games. It was published the other day on PLOS ONE and can be read in full here: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0131613 Hoorah for open access! [You can even download their data and their R scripts]
Two researchers (Kasumovic from UNSW in Sydney and Kuznekoff from Miami University Middletown in Miami) used Xbox Live to play Halo 3 and recorded audio and video of their team games. They also created three special accounts: one nominated as male, one nominated as female and one nominated as a control. The control account was used to play the game without any verbal input. The other two accounts used a set of pre-recorded audio phrase which were identical between the two accounts but one recorded with a male voice and the other with a female voice.
These prerecorded phrases were identical in the male and female condition, harmless in nature, and designed to be inoffensive. Phrases included: ‘I like this map’, ‘nice shot there’, ‘I had fun playing that game’, ‘I think I just saw a couple of them heading this way’, and ‘that was a good game everyone’.
Having collected audio files from a bunch of games they then transcribed the comments of the other (real) players assigned to them by the game and then they coded those transcripts to identify sexism in the comments. In addition that they had a range of performance values for each of the players (number of kills etc).
I’m pathetic, I know, I know…
There is an interesting article here: http://femhype.com/2015/06/30/fight-club-how-masculine-fragility-is-limiting-innovation-in-games/
It discusses the reliance of fighting in video games – that is the extent to which the standard mechanic in games is to resolve conflict with a fight. To use the words of the article:
In video games, violence—that is, being good at enacting violence more effectively than, say, NPCs or other players—is a often key mechanic. Violence is often seen as the most effective method for engaging players. It sets the stakes and gives players a sense of momentum and urgency by giving them a clear, tangible, immediate goal: hurt the thing that’s hurting you. The consequences of losing are telegraphed to you by your very real instincts of fight-or-flight rather than by the digitized, fictional language of the game.
Now,I can see an obvious reaction to this post as an attempt to ‘neuter’ the excitement of games – particularly as the arument is posed in terms of the fragility of masculinity. However, the issue here is not that games should never depict violence or that they should be denuded of threat or action but that fighting is lazy and limiting when it is used as a core around which a game is built. Portal & Portal 2 are obvious but rare examples of games (outside of casual gaming), which were built up around a premise that was not about fighting something or someone at each step. Yes there was conflict, threat, action and violence but at each step the player was engaged with the physics of their environment as the primary and repeated challenge.
Anyway – read the article if you haven’t already.
This is an aside on to the rambling series on what purpose the Hugo Awards may have and an elevated comment from File 770.
Among the new ways that SF/F is experienced by people as a form of entertainment are video games. Calling it ‘new’ may seem absurd when video games aren’t a lot younger than the Hugo Awards themselves. Video games were children of the seventies and while there is much talk of the Millennial generation being digital natives, the aging legion of affected apathy that is Generation X grew up with video games.
The difference now is that video games have established themselves as a substantial form of entertainment with their own fandoms, conventions, cosplay and ties to other media. People relate to a science fiction game franchises like Halo in the same way they do with film franchises like Star Wars. Additionally games are an important competitor for people’s time and money, while also being an important co-promoter of genre fiction. Games inspire their own tie-in novels, animations and films and while the movie tie-in game may be a genre of disappointment, it demonstrates how multiple forms of media work together.
Having said that I don’t see much point in awarding a Hugo for a game in general. Central to a good video game is effective game play and there are multiple criteria against which a game can be judged that are best dealt with by game specific awards. Some games, for example Minecraft, are so open that it is hard to judge them for their narrative or fictional qualities. Minecraft deserves many, many awards but I don’t think it deserves a Hugo.
Other games though arguably do. Portal was a brilliantly innovative game that took some of the conventions of a first-person shooter style game and turned them into a brilliant puzzle. However the puzzles have existed in many forms (as have games, as have role-playing games) without video games. The Hugo Awards have not been used to reward the quality of puzzles.
Yet Portal (and more so Portal 2) was not just a clever set of puzzles. It had a back story (which was complex and only partly revealed). It had a plot. Characters developed over time (Glados over both games and Wheatley in Portal 2). There was dialog, cut scenes, and foreshadowing, and side plots and important SF themes around identity, surveillance, psychological experimentation and artificial intelligence. These elements are all things that we find in the novel category, the shorter fiction categories and the best dramatic presentation categories.
So what a game should be awarded a Hugo for is those same elements we would expect to see in other fictional works: effective world building, plot, characters, science fiction/fantasy themes effectively explored. Yes, the game should be well executed but the quality of game play shouldn’t be as big a consideration (it isn’t going to be a non-consideration because people will clearly nominate games they like playing if there were a game category). As with the other categories one of more of those elements may be more dominant.
So a video game category would be for the purpose of judging a game as a work of SF/F. Can that be done without playing the game? A nominated game could provide the following (assuming they wanted to):
- A synopsis of the setting and story background of the game. For something like Dragon Age games that is fairly substantial. The Witcher can point at the books it is related too.
- A description of some of the characters that are central to the game. Sometimes the player’s character is a cypher or what the players makes of it but not always.
- A somewhat description of the plot(s) of the game (will contain spoilers)
- Video clips of the game play, key cut scenes, dialog.
- A description of how the player is involved with the above
Assuming that other aspects of quality have been handled by the nomination process (i.e. people wouldn’t have nominated it if it was genuinely awful to play) then people who haven’t played the game or people who don’t play the kinds of games that would get nominated.
Of course a non-player could find those things on the ‘net anyway but I think people might feel a bit fraudulent voting for a game they haven’t played. Providing something like the above would make it overt that the vote was about the aspects of the game are the SF/F qualities.