Bonnie Ruberg"Bang! You've been shot in the arm, but it doesn't hurt. Bang! You've been shot in the head, but you're not really dead." Bonnie Ruberg looks at how pain and gaming relate to each other.
Issue 27: Casual Friday - Addicted to Pain
- Thread starter The Escapist Staff
- Start date
Original Comment by: Seasought
The correlation between pain and power is not new by any means and I find it interesting that someone has finally brought this connotation into video game culture. I think the best example of such a correlation (pain and power) can also be found in the late Mishima Yukio's works, namely Sun and Steel.
When interactivity in games extends into the realm of more extreme physical stimuli (impact, physical movement, perhaps certain levels of physical harm), video games will reach an even more dramatic level of impact that will further exaggerate opinions on violence and psychological effects games can have.
Thanks for the article.
The correlation between pain and power is not new by any means and I find it interesting that someone has finally brought this connotation into video game culture. I think the best example of such a correlation (pain and power) can also be found in the late Mishima Yukio's works, namely Sun and Steel.
When interactivity in games extends into the realm of more extreme physical stimuli (impact, physical movement, perhaps certain levels of physical harm), video games will reach an even more dramatic level of impact that will further exaggerate opinions on violence and psychological effects games can have.
Thanks for the article.
Original Comment by: Doug Inman
http://ren-tek.net
Karate doesn't break bones, you've just been watching too many movies. The law still applies inside the dojo you know, and a kick to the face or a fractured arm is still going to get you sued. This is something that's repeated over and over again, so try and get it into your head; the first thing you have to learn in martial arts is restraint. Otherwise, they'd be illegal.
http://ren-tek.net
Karate doesn't break bones, you've just been watching too many movies. The law still applies inside the dojo you know, and a kick to the face or a fractured arm is still going to get you sued. This is something that's repeated over and over again, so try and get it into your head; the first thing you have to learn in martial arts is restraint. Otherwise, they'd be illegal.
Original Comment by: Brinstar
http://acidforblood.blogspot.com/
I like this article. It made me think about the behaviour and habits of a friend of mine, in relation to her psychological disposition...
http://acidforblood.blogspot.com/
I like this article. It made me think about the behaviour and habits of a friend of mine, in relation to her psychological disposition...
Original Comment by: Vihena
http://www.escapistmagazine.com
Doug, while I understand what you're saying, it's not exactly the point of her article. You could substitute "Karate" with "Street fighting", and it would make sense. I don't think she's referring to dojo martial arts, but more of fighting in general. Don't be such a stickler for details such as that. Restraint has nothing to do with this article. In fact, it's all about being unrestrained.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com
Doug, while I understand what you're saying, it's not exactly the point of her article. You could substitute "Karate" with "Street fighting", and it would make sense. I don't think she's referring to dojo martial arts, but more of fighting in general. Don't be such a stickler for details such as that. Restraint has nothing to do with this article. In fact, it's all about being unrestrained.
Original Comment by: Bonnie Ruberg
http://www.heroine-sheik.com
Thanks, Vihena. Yup, Doug, she's got the idea.
Seasought, do you foresee that game interactivity will extend into a more physical realm in the future? Certainly we've seen examples of this in the past, but nothing that's really caught on...
http://www.heroine-sheik.com
Thanks, Vihena. Yup, Doug, she's got the idea.
Seasought, do you foresee that game interactivity will extend into a more physical realm in the future? Certainly we've seen examples of this in the past, but nothing that's really caught on...
Original Comment by: Tim
http://oghc.blogspot.com
Bonnie, GREAT article. Some psychologists use games as a catharsis for violent tendencies (behaviors that we are told we all possess, in one form or another) for anger management or simply as an additional tool for therapy. And we're not talking Animal Crossing, I mean full out War Games. Call of Duty or Brothers in Arms for instance DOES in fact have concequences for actions, its not simply "shoot the dude, duck, shoot another dude." The narration between chapters in Brothers In Arms: Road to Hill 30 is poetic and full of existential reflection of the nature of war. The terror of being caught within such violence is part of the game itself!
You are becoming one of my favorite authors here
http://oghc.blogspot.com
Bonnie, GREAT article. Some psychologists use games as a catharsis for violent tendencies (behaviors that we are told we all possess, in one form or another) for anger management or simply as an additional tool for therapy. And we're not talking Animal Crossing, I mean full out War Games. Call of Duty or Brothers in Arms for instance DOES in fact have concequences for actions, its not simply "shoot the dude, duck, shoot another dude." The narration between chapters in Brothers In Arms: Road to Hill 30 is poetic and full of existential reflection of the nature of war. The terror of being caught within such violence is part of the game itself!
You are becoming one of my favorite authors here
Original Comment by: Andy
Agreed. Very cool article, indeed. You are fast becoming one of the best writers here, IMO. Not to parrot Tim or anything.
But yeah, interesting stuff. Do you see game violence becoming more physical, as Seasought suggests?
Agreed. Very cool article, indeed. You are fast becoming one of the best writers here, IMO. Not to parrot Tim or anything.
But yeah, interesting stuff. Do you see game violence becoming more physical, as Seasought suggests?
Original Comment by: Doug Inman
I guess that was nitpicky of me. Still, it's a common miss assertion, and in the context of the article I thought it was relevant. It is actually a great stress reliever, or 'violence substitute' as you seem to be thinking about it, and if done properly you should never get more than a few bruises once in a while. But if you push yourself hard in any sport, you do get constructive mental and physical pain as you push your body to its limits. I just thought that paragraph and where you take it wasn't all that well though through I guess.
I guess that was nitpicky of me. Still, it's a common miss assertion, and in the context of the article I thought it was relevant. It is actually a great stress reliever, or 'violence substitute' as you seem to be thinking about it, and if done properly you should never get more than a few bruises once in a while. But if you push yourself hard in any sport, you do get constructive mental and physical pain as you push your body to its limits. I just thought that paragraph and where you take it wasn't all that well though through I guess.
Original Comment by: Bonnie Ruberg
http://www.heroine-sheik.com
Thanks, Andy and Tim!
Doug, I understand what you're saying; it's a valid point to make. What I mean more by the karate statement is that karate can break bones - that there's a potential for physical harm. It's not to imply anything negative about the sport, just to juxtapose it to the painless world of video games.
http://www.heroine-sheik.com
Thanks, Andy and Tim!
Doug, I understand what you're saying; it's a valid point to make. What I mean more by the karate statement is that karate can break bones - that there's a potential for physical harm. It's not to imply anything negative about the sport, just to juxtapose it to the painless world of video games.
Original Comment by: Tortanick
Just to play devils advocate a bit, where exactly did you get the evidence to say people play games because power is fun or just for power itself.
Or is Casual Friday an opionion piece, I've never been too sure about that.
Just to play devils advocate a bit, where exactly did you get the evidence to say people play games because power is fun or just for power itself.
Or is Casual Friday an opionion piece, I've never been too sure about that.
Original Comment by: Munir
I dunno about evidence, but I only ever play CS:S for that reason! It's purely to see who can exert their will to headshot the most effectively! No friendly competition or test of skill or even social fulfillment. Just a base, addictive urge to see your name appear left of a 'head with a hole in it' icon.
I dunno about evidence, but I only ever play CS:S for that reason!
It's purely to see who can exert their will to headshot the most effectively! No friendly competition or test of skill or even social fulfillment. Just a base, addictive urge to see your name appear left of a 'head with a hole in it' icon.
Original Comment by: Bonnie Ruberg
http://www.heroine-sheik.com
Hi, Tortanick. The article is something of a cross between an opinion and a research piece. You'll find links throughout the article to gamer writing that mentions playing for this reason. Also, there's a certain amount of research that's based simply off of personal experience (and speaking with others about theirs) and a more general familiarity with discussions going on in the game community. Munir's approach, for example, is a pretty common one.
http://www.heroine-sheik.com
Hi, Tortanick. The article is something of a cross between an opinion and a research piece. You'll find links throughout the article to gamer writing that mentions playing for this reason. Also, there's a certain amount of research that's based simply off of personal experience (and speaking with others about theirs) and a more general familiarity with discussions going on in the game community. Munir's approach, for example, is a pretty common one.
Original Comment by: Tortanick
Well I checked the links, seemed to be a mixture of other escapeist articles, other opinion pieces with a bit of serous reserch. But then as you said this partly opinion so if details like if your talking about most or a minoraty of players can be ignored provided that the description of that psychological group is accurate.
Anyway Bonnie, have you ever noticed how your writeing style tends to imply that your talking about everyone in facutal terms even when you outright say its not, for example in this article you said, and I quote: "That's one of the things that makes videogames so addictive". However even though you've just said that power isn't the only reason I got the distinct, and in retrospect false, impression that you were infact saying that is the awnser to why people play games.
Well I checked the links, seemed to be a mixture of other escapeist articles, other opinion pieces with a bit of serous reserch. But then as you said this partly opinion so if details like if your talking about most or a minoraty of players can be ignored provided that the description of that psychological group is accurate.
Anyway Bonnie, have you ever noticed how your writeing style tends to imply that your talking about everyone in facutal terms even when you outright say its not, for example in this article you said, and I quote: "That's one of the things that makes videogames so addictive". However even though you've just said that power isn't the only reason I got the distinct, and in retrospect false, impression that you were infact saying that is the awnser to why people play games.
Original Comment by: Doug Inman
Well, I don't want to continue to push the issue, but my point in the last comment was that karate and other sports are ways by which millions of people "get constructive mental and physical pain as you push your body to its limits" every day. Saying "Where else can we turn...?' and then not mentioning the oldest, most popular and most obvious method, physical games, just seems like a bad piece of writing.
Like I said, this is just one paragraph of many, but the reason I focus on it is because this is where I feel things begin to go wrong in the article. In the following paragraph you begin to mix up events in GTA3 with real life occurrences - hookers in GTA don't get aids or die slow and painful deaths. I was about to let this slide, because it's an obvious error of sentence structure instead of logic, when you hit us with "Pain derives from physical violence, or, in a broader sense, destruction." What does what now? This sounds like some kind of wild philosophical decleration, and you seriously need to say how and why you've come to this conclusion. Anyone who has any disease proberbly didn't recieve it because of physical violence, they just catch them or are born with them, often with no rhyme or reason. As for destruction, I don't really know where you're going with that.
How about this for an alternative sentance: 'The pain you see in games is most often the result of (simulated - add for effect if required) physical violence, and when you're fighting the nazis or killing terrorists you just know it's going to go hand-in-hand with destruction. Violence and war are facts of life we see echoed in our favourite entertainment all too often.'
Or, if that isn't what you meant, how about: 'Pain, death and destruction are all products of our species' lust for violence, a violence we love to emulate in the consequence-free bubble of our living rooms.'
I know it's not my job to write the article, but do you see where i'm coming from? I don't know what you're going on about, and it would be great if you'd clarified your viewpoint. 'Violence without pain is power' suffers from the same problems - you just say it, and assume everyone knows what you're talking about, when in reality it's a statement you make out of the blue. On top of that, I think Tortanick is right about referencing - if you're going to wax philosophically then you need to reference philosophically too - but i'd suggest that anything too heavy is out of the scope of this mag.
All in all I wasn't sure where the article was going, or where we ended up, or what your main point(s) were. That said, I think hidden in the article are some good points ready to be rediscovered, and I think you should ground your opinions, avoid fuzzy logic, and just pick them out.
Well, I don't want to continue to push the issue, but my point in the last comment was that karate and other sports are ways by which millions of people "get constructive mental and physical pain as you push your body to its limits" every day. Saying "Where else can we turn...?' and then not mentioning the oldest, most popular and most obvious method, physical games, just seems like a bad piece of writing.
Like I said, this is just one paragraph of many, but the reason I focus on it is because this is where I feel things begin to go wrong in the article. In the following paragraph you begin to mix up events in GTA3 with real life occurrences - hookers in GTA don't get aids or die slow and painful deaths. I was about to let this slide, because it's an obvious error of sentence structure instead of logic, when you hit us with "Pain derives from physical violence, or, in a broader sense, destruction." What does what now? This sounds like some kind of wild philosophical decleration, and you seriously need to say how and why you've come to this conclusion. Anyone who has any disease proberbly didn't recieve it because of physical violence, they just catch them or are born with them, often with no rhyme or reason. As for destruction, I don't really know where you're going with that.
How about this for an alternative sentance: 'The pain you see in games is most often the result of (simulated - add for effect if required) physical violence, and when you're fighting the nazis or killing terrorists you just know it's going to go hand-in-hand with destruction. Violence and war are facts of life we see echoed in our favourite entertainment all too often.'
Or, if that isn't what you meant, how about: 'Pain, death and destruction are all products of our species' lust for violence, a violence we love to emulate in the consequence-free bubble of our living rooms.'
I know it's not my job to write the article, but do you see where i'm coming from? I don't know what you're going on about, and it would be great if you'd clarified your viewpoint. 'Violence without pain is power' suffers from the same problems - you just say it, and assume everyone knows what you're talking about, when in reality it's a statement you make out of the blue. On top of that, I think Tortanick is right about referencing - if you're going to wax philosophically then you need to reference philosophically too - but i'd suggest that anything too heavy is out of the scope of this mag
.All in all I wasn't sure where the article was going, or where we ended up, or what your main point(s) were. That said, I think hidden in the article are some good points ready to be rediscovered, and I think you should ground your opinions, avoid fuzzy logic, and just pick them out.
Original Comment by: Bonnie Ruberg
http://www.heroine-sheik.com
Tortanick: Sorry, I'm a bit confused about what you're trying to say in your second paragraph.
Doug, whether or not physical forms of violence are "constructive" isn't a matter of yes/no, but of social perceptions. Keep in mind that the paragraphs you're mentioning describe two opposing, commonly-held viewpoints on violence in video games, not statements on my part.
As for the idea of destruction being at the root of pain, it's hardly a wild philosophical idea; it's simply logic. Whenever there's pain, there's a destructive action at it's root. Of course, the meaning of "destructive" is debatable, but taken most simply, it's a matter of cause and effect. You hurt because someone has hit you; people suffer because someone has set off a bomb; etc.
http://www.heroine-sheik.com
Tortanick: Sorry, I'm a bit confused about what you're trying to say in your second paragraph.
Doug, whether or not physical forms of violence are "constructive" isn't a matter of yes/no, but of social perceptions. Keep in mind that the paragraphs you're mentioning describe two opposing, commonly-held viewpoints on violence in video games, not statements on my part.
As for the idea of destruction being at the root of pain, it's hardly a wild philosophical idea; it's simply logic. Whenever there's pain, there's a destructive action at it's root. Of course, the meaning of "destructive" is debatable, but taken most simply, it's a matter of cause and effect. You hurt because someone has hit you; people suffer because someone has set off a bomb; etc.
Original Comment by: Paul Jenkins
Spectacular article, Bonnie. Truly. A lot of the things you mention have been on my mind, but I didn't connect them until now. Thank you for that!
Tortanick - I'm not sure if you're bothered by the strong writing style, or if you feel there's some factual issue. If it's the style, then I'm not sure what would make you happy. If it's a factual error, please clarify, as I probably can cite plenty of sources that aren't Escapist articles that back up the links.
And, I'm not sure anyone has ever claimed to have "The Answer" to why we play games. The pursuit of a reason is far more important than any individual's personal belief. That's why the industry loves Raph Koster's book, even if is incomplete or has flaws. It adds to the pool of knowledge we all use to design better games.
Spectacular article, Bonnie. Truly. A lot of the things you mention have been on my mind, but I didn't connect them until now. Thank you for that!
Tortanick - I'm not sure if you're bothered by the strong writing style, or if you feel there's some factual issue. If it's the style, then I'm not sure what would make you happy. If it's a factual error, please clarify, as I probably can cite plenty of sources that aren't Escapist articles that back up the links.
And, I'm not sure anyone has ever claimed to have "The Answer" to why we play games. The pursuit of a reason is far more important than any individual's personal belief. That's why the industry loves Raph Koster's book, even if is incomplete or has flaws. It adds to the pool of knowledge we all use to design better games.
Original Comment by: Nick Weidner
I agree that this was an interesting article, but I feel like when people come in to critize Bonnie, the same few people also swoop in and say, "Spectacular! I loved it! Don't change a thing." But like every writer, Bonnie has room to improve. She has great ideas, but I agree with the other posters who say that she doesn't always defend or establish them. Paul, you bring up Raph Koster's book - that's a short read with a lot of silly pictures, but Koster also analyzes specific games, references research, quotes other critics' analysis, and when all else fails, we can assume that he's making a point because he has years of trial and error in the industry. I'm sure Bonnie has played games for years but as a reader, I don't know that.
Sometimes Bonnie's articles seem to say, "I'm stating this as a fact because it seems to be true." Often, I agree with the point, but wouldn't the article be stronger and more colorful if she used more statistics, quoted analysts and designers, dug into specific games (no game is mentioned by name in this article), or referenced theories and philosophers that back up her point? If you look at other critics and opinion writers, from op-ed columnists to serious film critics, they're all expected to argue more rigorously, and with more facts and detail, than this. That's not even to say that their ideas are better than Bonnie's, but they have to put in more legwork to back up what they're saying. The same research would turn Bonnie's good articles into amazing ones.
I agree that this was an interesting article, but I feel like when people come in to critize Bonnie, the same few people also swoop in and say, "Spectacular! I loved it! Don't change a thing." But like every writer, Bonnie has room to improve. She has great ideas, but I agree with the other posters who say that she doesn't always defend or establish them. Paul, you bring up Raph Koster's book - that's a short read with a lot of silly pictures, but Koster also analyzes specific games, references research, quotes other critics' analysis, and when all else fails, we can assume that he's making a point because he has years of trial and error in the industry. I'm sure Bonnie has played games for years but as a reader, I don't know that.
Sometimes Bonnie's articles seem to say, "I'm stating this as a fact because it seems to be true." Often, I agree with the point, but wouldn't the article be stronger and more colorful if she used more statistics, quoted analysts and designers, dug into specific games (no game is mentioned by name in this article), or referenced theories and philosophers that back up her point? If you look at other critics and opinion writers, from op-ed columnists to serious film critics, they're all expected to argue more rigorously, and with more facts and detail, than this. That's not even to say that their ideas are better than Bonnie's, but they have to put in more legwork to back up what they're saying. The same research would turn Bonnie's good articles into amazing ones.
Original Comment by: Munir
I quite enjoy the less serious side to casual fridays. Gives the mag a bit more contrast imho. I often feel that sometimes you can say more with a passing comment than a well thought out and backed up one. Whereas other times its just another opinion. It just depends how good you are at explaining your ideas I guess. I know I'm terrible at it!
I quite enjoy the less serious side to casual fridays. Gives the mag a bit more contrast imho. I often feel that sometimes you can say more with a passing comment than a well thought out and backed up one. Whereas other times its just another opinion. It just depends how good you are at explaining your ideas I guess. I know I'm terrible at it!
Original Comment by: Doug Inman
Doug, whether or not physical forms of violence are "constructive" isn't a matter of yes/no, but of social perceptions.
I don't see how this applies to the article or my reply to it. How did you determine video games were a constructive pain fix? The fact remains that even if you don't like sports millions of other people do, and they find them constructive ways to relieve stress and keep fit. Dismissing their views in such a way is hardly addressing the issue you brought up is it?
Keep in mind that the paragraphs you're mentioning describe two opposing, commonly-held viewpoints on violence in video games, not statements on my part.
Which one, the one where you insinuate violent games are the only real stress reliever, or the one where you tell us that hookers in GTA3 get aids? Both sound like your opinions, because they're written in your writing style in an article full of your own opinions without any incication that they aren't. A simple 'some people say' would be enough - but even then I would question who says, and why they said it, because i've never heard either view point before.
As for the idea of destruction being at the root of pain, it's hardly a wild philosophical idea; it's simply logic. Whenever there's pain, there's a destructive action at it's root.
It isn't logical to me, it seems like philosophy speak. So, I set about looking for whichever quote you might have used to make that assumption, and I came up with Plato:
"Pain is the destruction of organic harmony, pleasure is its recovery, and Neutral is harmony itself." - http://emotion.bme.duke.edu/Emotion/History/Plato/Plato.html
5 minutes googling (first result for 'plato pain is destruction'). Explaining the origins of your aruments here is essential if you want anyone to respect the views you put forward - even dropping Plato's name would have been enough. Even Plato wouldn't drop a sentance like this into the middle of an article, he takes time to set up his viewpoints and present his arguments in a logical format. But is this even what you meant?
Of course, the meaning of "destructive" is debatable, but taken most simply, it's a matter of cause and effect. You hurt because someone has hit you; people suffer because someone has set off a bomb; etc.
It isn't debatable, it means "causing destruction or much damage" (dictionary.com). But here you talk about hitting and bombs, and this is my point - are you really talking about pain being caused by destruction, or by violent acts of war? War is so intrinsically linked with the destruction of cars, buildings, countries and peoples lives, and also with pain and suffering, that I can see how you'd want to equate them to each other, especially when I imagine war or war like games are mostly the subject of your debate. But i'm just trying to make sense of your argument and see where you're coming from, don't let me put words in your mouth, say what you mean in a clear manner.
I'm not the only person bringing up these points, some other posters have done so very concicely, and perhaps you could benefit from listening to a theme that seems be occurring here. Like Nick I feel you're articles are falling short of their potential, and the only reason I bothered to write this is because I think you can change that if you want to.
Doug, whether or not physical forms of violence are "constructive" isn't a matter of yes/no, but of social perceptions.
I don't see how this applies to the article or my reply to it. How did you determine video games were a constructive pain fix? The fact remains that even if you don't like sports millions of other people do, and they find them constructive ways to relieve stress and keep fit. Dismissing their views in such a way is hardly addressing the issue you brought up is it?
Keep in mind that the paragraphs you're mentioning describe two opposing, commonly-held viewpoints on violence in video games, not statements on my part.
Which one, the one where you insinuate violent games are the only real stress reliever, or the one where you tell us that hookers in GTA3 get aids? Both sound like your opinions, because they're written in your writing style in an article full of your own opinions without any incication that they aren't. A simple 'some people say' would be enough - but even then I would question who says, and why they said it, because i've never heard either view point before.
As for the idea of destruction being at the root of pain, it's hardly a wild philosophical idea; it's simply logic. Whenever there's pain, there's a destructive action at it's root.
It isn't logical to me, it seems like philosophy speak. So, I set about looking for whichever quote you might have used to make that assumption, and I came up with Plato:
"Pain is the destruction of organic harmony, pleasure is its recovery, and Neutral is harmony itself." - http://emotion.bme.duke.edu/Emotion/History/Plato/Plato.html
5 minutes googling (first result for 'plato pain is destruction'). Explaining the origins of your aruments here is essential if you want anyone to respect the views you put forward - even dropping Plato's name would have been enough. Even Plato wouldn't drop a sentance like this into the middle of an article, he takes time to set up his viewpoints and present his arguments in a logical format. But is this even what you meant?
Of course, the meaning of "destructive" is debatable, but taken most simply, it's a matter of cause and effect. You hurt because someone has hit you; people suffer because someone has set off a bomb; etc.
It isn't debatable, it means "causing destruction or much damage" (dictionary.com). But here you talk about hitting and bombs, and this is my point - are you really talking about pain being caused by destruction, or by violent acts of war? War is so intrinsically linked with the destruction of cars, buildings, countries and peoples lives, and also with pain and suffering, that I can see how you'd want to equate them to each other, especially when I imagine war or war like games are mostly the subject of your debate. But i'm just trying to make sense of your argument and see where you're coming from, don't let me put words in your mouth, say what you mean in a clear manner.
I'm not the only person bringing up these points, some other posters have done so very concicely, and perhaps you could benefit from listening to a theme that seems be occurring here. Like Nick I feel you're articles are falling short of their potential, and the only reason I bothered to write this is because I think you can change that if you want to.