Prolonged sessions of the original Street Fighter (not II, or any permutation thereof) typically induce a state of mental torpor. Last night's nauseating exercise in clunky graphics and inadequate control seemed to have the opposite effect, however. I started asking myself dangerous questions, the kind of stuff that can emotionally cripple a man, leaving him in no shape to defeat Sheng-Long, or even his own anxieties. Principal among these was a nagging doubt I've been repressing--essentially since my inception as a human being. Why have I chosen--over all fields of study, eschewing philosophy, spurning mathematics—to pursue video games and video game esoterica as my primary field of expertise? If we accept that the noblest and most natural of human motives is the desire for permanence, the drive to leave a lasting impression on this earth, how does my interest, my hobby turned obsession turned career, help me to achieve this goal?
I write the gospel of video games, and I really do believe in their power as a spiritually-transformative medium. Hell, I'll even believe in them as a spiritually-transformative "Large." Games have, for my entire living memory, spoken to me in ways I can't begin to describe. I am fully aware that I sound incredibly shallow when I say that I have never felt as passionately about anything or anyone in my life. Interestingly enough, the only "people" to whom I've ever felt particularly attached are fictional, non-player characters. I am still having a torrid affair with Grandia II's Millenia, who may just never be unseated as my paramour. Even I am sane enough to realize how unhealthy this is. Yet, if Eve were borne from Adam's rib, why not love a woman who's sprung forth from a man's mind? This kind of thinking is almost enough to make fembots sound appealing.
The source of this recent, more acute ambiguity toward relationships isn't particularly mysterious. Recently, I was trying to explain to my non-gamer girlfriend how Metal Gear games burrow into me, twist up my insides, and send my tear ducts into high-production. Upon hearing me reverentially describe scenes from MG titles, running the gamut from the MSX console to the PS2, she nodded and said, "Yeah, I love Metal Gear."
"You...do?"
"Of course! I started with the NES, and, um, 'worked my way up'!"
"That's...incredible."
Of course, in my characteristic naïveté, coupled with my inability to detect sarcasm that is already famous in the GameSpot offices, I completely believed her. Why did I allow myself to rest upon her tissue of lies? Why does the WB keep attempting to make family-oriented dramas starring underwear models? These are questions best left to the philosophers whose ranks I have opted not to join.
I can't be angry; at least, I can't let on that I'm angry. The problem is one of perception. My girlfriend, along with almost everyone else who knows me, assumes that my love of video games is just a more advanced form of the kind of fondness felt for them by normal people, men and women who are looking for entertainment, and who know that Vice City is "hella sick." Clearly, this is not the case. I know that, when I think of video games, a part of my brain is tapped that is simply not present in 99.9% of the population. I am an enigma, an anomaly. I'm the messianic presence I always knew I could be...or maybe I'm just like every other gamer was, fifteen years ago.
To better illustrate my point, I took a look at the 1992 issue of Electronic Games that kicks around the game room. Archaic gaming journals are incredibly sentimental objects for me, as I used to regard them as scripture, and their purveyors as oracles. I will take this opportunity to honor Bill Donahue, of Game Players fame. Through a combination of his curmudgeonly attitude, his love of Indy rock, and his general reliance on a constant flow of alcohol into his blood stream, Bill captured and perverted my developing mind much more effectively than had even Nintendo Power and their spinoff comics. Anyway, looking at that piece of gaming history, featuring an article on the arcade release of Street Fighter II(!), I noticed a few things:
1. The pages were incredibly thick, almost like those of books from countries with government-subsidized publishing houses. I was holding an historical document meant to stand the test of time.
2. Games from multiple console generations were being reviewed and featured alongside one another. Technological snobbery hadn't yet reached its current boiling point, in which gamers will post their computer specs in their forums signatures. It's sad to think about, but most gamers skipped the 16-bit generation entirely. I know plenty of people who owned a "Nintendo," as they seem to universally term the NES/Famicom, and didn't hop back on the bandwagon until Sony made multimedia an appealing enough prospect to lure them back into the fray. Those intervening years really shaped me as a gamer, and it's strange to think that many weren't privy to the games produced in that era. Regardless, Electronic Games' willingness to support gamers at different investment levels is exemplary of the fact that, at the time, video gaming was a hobbyist activity, as devoid of hardware homogeny as the car enthusiast world. If you wanted to play games, there were several solutions, and the amount they would tax your wallet was variable.
3. Reinforcing my idea that gaming was then a hobbyist's pursuit, (and not a brand of entertainment for mass consumption, like movies), the magazine featured a blurb on a young chessmaster, and her recent tournament coups. The very fact that this information would have been considered interesting and pertinent to the lives of Electronic Games' readership is, to me, baffling and wonderful. Incidentally, I love chess. I guess chess and gaming were once similarly-nerdy pursuits.
All this is leading to a logical conclusion, if you're a fan of logic. The point is that companies like EA have applied crazy production values to games, thereby making them immediately accessible to anyone and everyone equipped with sight, hearing and—to a limited degree—tactile sensation. This doesn't lessen their value to someone like me, for whom they can be truly transformative experiences, but it does make them a cheap date for the disinterested slobs who shell out $50 to play an interactive movie. Fifteen years ago, if you played games, I probably would have gotten along with you, no questions asked. We would have shared interests in related subjects, like cutting-edge technology, AD&D rulesets and being unpopular in school. Now, if I meet someone who professes to like gaming, it's impossible to make any sort of character judgment, solely on that information. It's like searching for a date—finding a sexually-compatible mate isn't enough. I can't assume that if I meet a heterosexual woman, she'll share my interests. I can only assume that she practices a particular activity with a certain type of person.
In short, the face of gaming has fundamentally changed, and I am a relic of a bygone era. It is unclear whether that makes me a precious commodity or an obsolete remnant of a reality that no longer exists. If video games have now eclipsed Hollywood, in terms of profitability, they must be appealing to an incredibly broad audience. I am reminded of Greg's cautionary tale, in a recent journal entry, about feeling "special," or "entitled." For better of for worse, I have chosen to apply my considerable intellect to games, instead of curing cancer or inventing square fruit. Every day, I share my vocation with a greater number of people. Every day, I am less sure that another gamer will find games as gut-wrenchingly moving as I.
When I find someone like that, some sort of explosion should go off it my head. I think it has.
Log in to comment