Issue 27: Casual Friday - Addicted to Pain

[The Escapist Staff]

Original Comment by: Bonnie Ruberg
http://www.heroine-sheik.com
Thanks, Paul and Munir.

Nick, I hear your concern. It would be great to be able to back up these claims with extensive, objective research, and I agree with you that that's where my writing falls short. For now, however, I work with what I have; for the most part, my pieces express critical theories, whether of games or the games community. If only I had the time/money/resources for more. As for more direct references to specific games, I can understand this request too, and I'll certainly keep it in mind as a way to ground later pieces.

Doug, I do thank you for taking the time to discuss my piece with me, but I think we disagree in some areas. The paragraphs I mention that explain commonly-held opinions are the ones that start "Some people say" and "Other people say." The philosophical vs logical debate we probably have to let rest. Can that be a philosophical issue? Of course. But at it's base it's logical. And to have to drop Plato's name whenever you wax philosophic... We should probably agree to disagree. As for destruction being debatable, I think we come to an immediate misunderstanding if you're looking up dictionary definitions. As with all other words, destruction has it's most base meaning, and then other revealing overtones. What I mean by debatable is very different; as someone interested in the power of masochism, I'm hesitant to insinuate that all "destruction" or pain is innately "destructive" or counter-productive (in a very literal sense).

 

[The Escapist Staff]

Original Comment by: media artist
http://-
I wonder how anybody who writes about this topic can manage to ignore the
installation called "Painstation". For almost 5 years this piece of media art has been
around at numerous exhibitions and has brought the topic "relation between pain & gaming"
to a widely publizized discussion.

There have been articles/features in tv and almost all major newspapers.
Please, if you write about a topic, make shure you know at least _some_ basics.

http://www.khm.de/~morawe/painstation/media.html

 

[The Escapist Staff]

Original Comment by: Munir

Hey that's so cool. I want a go! That 'first ever game' video was great!

 

[The Escapist Staff]

Original Comment by: Doug Inman

I know you don't see it this way, but both paragraphs begin with opinions based on common media, but then continue with different opinions written as if you author or sanction them - i'd say that is typical of the problem I find with your writing.

Without wanting to go much further, I can only say that if you intend to use words for things they weren't intended for then perhaps you should consider writing poetry instead of media articles. I can't go any further than that, because it would proberbly be a waste of both our time.

 

[The Escapist Staff]

Original Comment by: Bonnie Ruberg
http://www.heroine-sheik.com
Doug, if you're only willing to look at language in it's most base form, then critical analysis probably isn't for you. Let's leave it at that and be civil.

Media artist, thanks for the mention, but this is a project I'm very much aware of. The Painstation - while an interesting project and, I'm sure, a unique experience - really isn't relevant to the issue. True, it literally links gaming and pain, but it cannot cause in-game pain -- nothing can. While a mention of it in the article to show what attempts are out there was a possibility, it deals with a different approach. Can we simulate pain by using machines as proxies? Yes, but that doesn't change the restrictions of the virtual environment, or the way that people, even when those proxies are not involved, act as if pain were present.

 

[The Escapist Staff]

Original Comment by: Ferrous Buller
http://ferrousbuller.1up.com
I think Doug's original post brings up a good point: the difference between "cinematic" martial arts and real-world martial arts. In real life, the martial arts are competitive sports: pain and injury are a potential consequence, but they are not their raison d'etre; like all sports, it's about testing your abilities by competing against others. When fans speak of the "sweet science" of boxing, they are not referring to the ability to smash in the other guy's face. But in the movies, karate is what you use to put a guy through a plate-glass window.

And a similar concept can be applied to videogames, I believe: the contextual relevance and purpose of violence. E.g., is Soul Calibur about beating the crap out of your opponent - i.e., inflicting as much virtual injury and pain as possible - or is it about testing your skill against an adversary (human or virtual)? Is violence (and its accompanying power-tripping) the sole purpose of a fighting game, or is it simply the mechanism through which players demonstrate their gaming skill? I would argue that it is usually the latter, though there are no shortage of games which amp up the gore factor for maximum bloodlust. The threat of injury or death - even a short-lived virtual one - increases the tension in any game: it ratchets up the stakes when you know something is at risk, even if it's just your own pride.

Which is not to say videogames aren't an outlet for aggressive tendencies, sadistic fantasies, or good old-fashioned power-tripping - they certainly can be, of course. I simply mean that the issue of violence in games is not so neatly reduced and compartmentalized; it depends as much on its intended purpose (which is reflected by the game design) as it does on the gamers' frame of mind.