The Frustrating Nature of Gaming in Social Media

Edited for Blogger

Before we begin: I am not a supporter of Anita or Zoe Quinn's opinions or works. Please do not label me under any groups of which I'm not actually associated with.

When somebody steps up to the plate and brings with them heavy ideas, they don't do so easily. Many of the personalities that we know, be they developers like Phil Fish or Bungie, reviewers/critics like TotalBiscuit, InternetAristocrat or Anita Sarkeesian or those who are projected into the spotlight in the middle of drama are not at the centre of attention just because they solely want attention. Each of them has something they want to offer. Game developers want to make games. Critics want to share their opinion and discuss any relevant problems. Let's Players wants to share their experiences and build a community with similarly minded individuals. Even though they feel a big like these giant pedestals, at the end of the day, they're still human.

Everyone has ideas, and everybody has opinions, all of which are different. This is part of being human. It is unavoidable. We will all have biases, and we will all have sensitive issues. I think that this is okay. If people didn't have conflicting opinions, then nobody would be able to identify the problems in society, and we'd never be as advanced as we are. Hell, video games probably wouldn't exist without conflict. This conflict that spawned video games, specifically its predecessor games (such as sports, board games, card games and the like) were mainly about war as well as having political and religious significance. Quite a lot of times, these games would end with bloodshed, but in these primitive societies, that was acceptable.

The majority of people who read this will likely come from the USA, Canada, Australia and parts of Europe. These are first world societies. We are at the pinnacle of current technological evolution for our species, and we have moved away from the primitive behaviours of our ancestors in order for us all to cooperate and reach a greater level of scientific understanding, and a better class of life for our citizens. Clearly, with issues such as Ferguson, it is not perfect, but when you considering the Ebola epidemic, the potential invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and the various battles taking place in the Middle East, we live in a majority of peace. Even thought people still murder, still steal and still commit other crimes, the majority of us can sleep peacefully and not have to worry about if we will survive the night.

Video Games are a first world invention. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the world does not have access to the technology that enables them to play video games. Therefore, we can argue that we are all somewhat privileged that we have the opportunity to partake in what may just well become the most revolutionary form of media the world has seen to date. The implications of games are staggering; it's not just a simple past time, but can be used a tool for education, rehabilitation, communication of social issues and so on, so forth. The video game is doing what school education has for the most part failed; giving children the ability to train up their skills and to become better members of a productive society. Even simplistic First Person Shooters offer simple lessons that can be valuable, such as reflexes, accuracy and hand-eye coordination. Some will argue that these are not as important in this day and age, but I believe that it is very dependant on what the specific individual wishes to do with their life. Regardless of which, despite their overwhelming nature, the most important things about games are that they, just like books and movies, are a past time, and cannot compensate or replace the real world that we live in. Games may enhance our experience of life, but if we allow them to control it, the effects on our health and society in general are telling.

So why is it, in a world where we can afford to sleep well, have clean water packaged in bottles and be readily available for purchase and be able to hold the entirely collective of human knowledge in the palm of our hands, ready at any point of the day, that we so easily and brutally resort to a more passive form of primitive violence over these devices of pleasure? Why, when the greatest thinkers of our time and before were able to peacefully and respectfully discuss and question life, that our potential great thinkers shot down brutally, treated as human landfill and celebrated once they are "removed"? It has taken me a great deal of time to think about this, and I'm not quite what I believe in any more, but hopefully I can come to some sort of conclusion.

You may dislike Anita Sarkeesian. You may feel that Zoe Quinn's actions are reprehensible. You may believe that Phil Fish's level of popularity is undeserved. You may disagree entirely with their opinions. That, in and of itself, is okay. As I said before, it is okay to have conflicting opinions. My first consideration, however, is that conflicting opinions need to exist, and need to challenge the status quo, if we as a society want to progress. As I said before, we wouldn't be here without conflict, and while previous civilisations may have relied on the spilling of blood, we as a more advanced form of human should rely on our power of words. Many of us do through the power of the Internet and social media. It is important that we are telling each other what we think is wrong and right, so we can work together to make informed judgements, and hopefully come to a peaceful conclusion that will successfully move us and our technology forward. Many of the most important revolutions, including that all important American revolution, were built on the conflicting ideologies of the people at the time, and regardless of whether they were the prevailing opinions, people rationalised and came to the conclusion they agreed with. Because of this, we shouldn't silence anybody who wants to challenge how our media works at the moment, but rather give them an open mic so that they can show us a perspective we may have never seen before, and consider if it can improve our society and the way we live.

All too many people believe that a conflicting opinion is dangerous. It plays into our human psychology; the flight or fight response. We are used to dangerous situations challenging us for our own survival. Unfortunately, many people in the heat of an argument cannot grasp the very different nature of fighting a sabre-tooth tiger and talking over the Internet. When people see a conflicting opinion, it is far too easy to think back over the negative things that have happened due to the opinions of people. In short, people are mostly afraid of change, This is how our brain works. Change defies our internal patterns. It means we must continue to update. We cannot rely on our grokked ideals which have kept us alive, but instead we must devote effort to practising and changing. That's hard, though, and our brains would rather avoid it. That's what many people are fighting against; they're worried that change will in some way affect the daily routine of their life that they have made optimal for themselves.

Unfortunately (moving back onto conflicting opinions), with so many conflicting opinions, it is only a matter of time before an individual feels as though they need to speak louder in order to be heard. It is not long before those who speak up begin to use more aggressive tactics, either to dissuade their perceived "enemy", or to rally support (Pathos, playing on the emotions of the people). The escalation continues, either as both sides remain in a standstill while building up more anger for each other, or more people join either side. It is not long before individuals will rely on personal attacks, a cheap tactic in any verbal argument. Whether it be questioning one's status in life, telling them bluntly to perform some ridiculous action ("kill yourself" etc) or just straight out threatening an individual, it is not long before further escalation occurs, and we see hacking, "swatting", and other criminal offences come into play. Why is this? Why do people allow themselves to become so build up over what is essentially a counter-opinion? More importantly, why doesn't this happen as often in the real world?

The one thing that the inventors of the computer never really learnt to program was empathy. It's very hard, too. Some people, such as psychopaths, don't feel it all or feel it in limited amounts (sociopaths). More importantly, though, it requires many elements. A personal connection, the ability to understand and have felt emotions, and usually the ability to see one's facial and body motions. These are all subtle cues, and in real life, these cues play into our subconscious, allowing us to reach out and act in some form of humbleness towards our peers. On the Internet, however, we are all psychopaths.

On the Internet, we have anonymity. We have an instant connection to the entire world. We have a blinking cursor prompting for input. We have no empathy. We have no understanding of what potential societal effects there will be for our actions. It is these elements, and more, that we label as "GIFT" (Greater Internet f****wad Theory). On the Internet, everything is aligned in such a way that you will not act as yourself. This is why and how many people can bring themselves to call upon death threats on individuals they've never met. This is why it's so psychologically easy to rationalise performing a hack on a major website database. On the Internet, you can't feel truly human.

So, is this the end? Must we just accept that people are going to be assholes, and move on with our lives?

You can't.

Despite those posting the messages not really caring, acting within the moment under the assumption their entire world is being threatened because you dared to bring an alternate opinion to the table, it can be nearly impossible to deal with the crushing impact of it all. If you read the conversations at the top, you now have a slight snippet of what certain individuals have had to deal with very recently for their opinions. The effects are far more reaching and devastating than just a few wasted bytes. TotalBiscuit has suffered many health issues due to the community. Anita Sarkeesian was forced to relocate. Phil Fish had to quit Video Games entirely. It doesn't matter what opinions they had; nobody deserves to suffer in the way they do, regardless of whether they are in the first world or in developing countries. It's even worse when you consider how much work can go into certain creations. I've yet to see anybody from the player or reviewer side successfully scratch the surface of how much effort it takes to build a game from scratch, as well as fit the superfluous credentials that "gamers" believe are necessary.

What should be obvious is that it's not the majority who have done this damage. It is a rather small, but very vocal proportion of people who engage in these arguments, and the unfortunate part is that they may well never understand or care about the impact of what their comments do, regardless of how perfect or generous they may be in real life. These people, as I discussed earlier, are convinced that if anything changes, only bad things can happen, and that they are somehow responsible for "saving video games".

I shall keep this ending rather brief, because by this point, most of you would have stopped reading and caring. If you love playing games, keep playing them, and vote with your wallet and time. Be respectful online, especially when voicing your opinions. Don't be a part of the loud, ignorant and disgusting force that believe they are entitled to control the future of video games, but also remember to let developers and critics know when you feel you disagree. Make sure you support your arguments with proper evidence and don't rely on any form of personal attacks. And at the end of the day, remember there's an entire world outside of games and the Internet to explore. You can make your own world just as good as the virtual worlds you've explored. Sometimes, it might be as hard as Dark Souls, but that's part of the fun.