Noise in the Echo Chamber

When I play games on the PC, I tend to leave Netflix on.  Stream through the entirety of the X-Files during a rather extravagant playthrough of STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl.  Half the time, my headphones are on and I'm not even paying attention to what episode is going on.  It could be the one where Mulder finds out clones of his sister have been mass produced, or the episode where Scully's Pomeranian gets eaten by a gigantic alligator.  I won't notice, though; instead, I'll take a peak at scenes that would otherwise be disjointed whenever I start the series to playing, or save and quit when I feel like I need air.  At this point, I just know it all by heart.  At least, so much so I would never openly admit this to another human being.

    Noise is just something that is always there.  It's inescapable.  It doesn't even have to be auditory, during loading screens I'll see a suspect pantomime a recollection to Mulder or Scully and continue on when the Zone becomes real again.  There is a certain amount of noise you're subjected to in this day and age if you're playing video games.  If you're serious about video games.  If you're passionate about video games.  This noise comes in the shape of buzzwords, marketing angles and journalists propagating and shaping the way we view games, titles are constantly given eights out of tens to denote broad appeal and safe gameplay.  These are things we just sort of accept as par for the course, just like no one actually reads the pseudo-intellectual drivel Pitchfork actually writes, they just check the number score before heading to iTunes or the Pirate Bay.

  This generation has been quite a frustrating one to play through, and the "echo chamber" this noise resides in has been growing more intolerable since.  I'm not trying to pine for any perceived "golden days" of the slow-drip of information via different gaming magazines, but this culture has sprung up around video games that, ultimately, has nothing to do with video games.

  Quite possibly the most perplexed I've been in quite some time was after the release of Mass Effect 3, many fans (myself included) felt disillusioned by the direction the series had taken.  Personally, I felt as if the series had gone from a very detailed and interesting space opera heavily influenced by Star Wars, to the dudebro soap opera now characterized by some of the most cringe-worthy excuses for "character development" and exposition in video games.  While I felt my criticisms and resolve to not support the game were enough, other people saw it fit to make their distaste known by bombing its Metacritic page.  This is a common phenomenon, by more on that later.  What was baffling about all of this was EA's response, implying that this was a coordinated effort by homophobes.

  Most people weren't taken by the ruse so easily, however.  Rightfully so, my female Shepard romanced Liara pretty much every time I played.  Fast forward to now, where, almost ironically, this sentiment has manifested itself.  That, somehow, EA is representative of a sexually and gender-diverse group that simultaneously cares nothing for people who just want to play Sim City 5.

  It's strange enough a turn of events to leave you scratching your head for quite some time.   This is further exacerbated by a word that was thrown around so much that the lone mention of it warrants rolling eyes and an anguished, apprehensive sigh: entitlement.  Made infamous by a writer from IGN, this video declared gamers dissatisfied by Mass Effect 3 as "entitled."  It's worth noting that this video was re-uploaded to YouTube, the original seems nowhere to be found.

  It was a ridiculous notion.  We are consumers.  We vote with our dollars; it's not an issue of being "entitled" to anything.  Developers aren't "entitled" to anyone's money just because they continue to use the Mass Effect name.  There are games that have taken pretty extreme and different approaches to gameplay, the most immediate example being Metal Gear Solid 2.  No one, when that game was released, was ready to face the fact that they wouldn't be playing as Solid Snake; rather a new protagonist the series had never seen before.  It was a critical and commercial success, one of the definitive games for the Playstation 2. 

  This behavior didn't end, however.  In a glorious vindication, a game named DmC: Devil May Cry was released.  It bombed.  So hard, in fact, that its sales were only a third of Devil May Cry 4's at launch.  A game developer who had antagonized the DMC fanbase over a year before release was met with the typical response from fans dejected in such a manner.  The linked article even goes so far to make it a point to blame the Devil May Cry fanbase for it failing, which people have pointed out ironically recalls to mind a sense that developers feel entitled to consumers' money.  Who'd have thought?

  I looked up for a brief moment to notice which episode of the X-files is on right now.  I'm not sure of the number, but it's definitely in season 1.  Scully and Mulder were sent to an arctic research facility miles away from civilization, and now a parasite is infecting people causing them to yearn escape in order to infect civilization at large.  Interesting coincidence.

  Most recently, and regrettably, the name Anita Sarkeesian has risen to public consciousness.  An obvious third-wave feminists, she's featured on an blog and series of YouTube videos titled "Feminist Frequency," dedicated to pointing out sexism in popular culture.  I won't link it, but a quick search on YouTube will yield results. 

  Her case is definitely an odd one.  The idea that sexism would be prevalent in popular culture, and especially video games, is something that does warrant some research.  Unfortunately, the discussion has been overshadowed by people thoroughly uninterested in having a discussion. 

  The above picture is taken from Metroid: Other M.  Metroid itself is a series that Nintendo hasn't really put much stock in over time, the fantastic Metroid Prime series by Retro studios being the last time the series was done justice.  When Sakamoto announced that Team Ninja would, along with him, be developing a new Metroid title, it was clear that Nintendo had saved an otherwise terrible E3 and was about to breathe new life into the Metroid series.  Something I personally was ecstatic about.

  Upon release, things weren't so upbeat.  For the most part, the silent protagonist had become incapable of independent action, adhering to the whim and command of her superior officer.  At a certain point, she will refuse to activate a power of her suit that would prevent her from taking damage in lava, because her commanding-officer-slash-man-crush hadn't given her the clear to do so.  This is the woman who fearlessly mowed down hundreds of space pirates, whose arch nemesis is an immortal dragon.  This is something few protagonists, male or female, can boast.  Upon seeing Ridley, Samus is reduced to a crying girl, an insult to her character and something that left a horrid taste in mind and many others' mouths for quite some time.

  This was all presented in a hideous abortion of the forced marriage of Metroid's exploration-based gameplay and action game elements, of which neither are properly realized.

  Couple that with the fact that video game characters across the board haven't had much in the way of evolution throughout this generation and there does seem to be a real problem.  There are a lot of games stuck in the old ways of having stories only as vehicles to drive gameplay forward, without exploring the ways storytelling can be unique to video games as a medium.  You'll see a lot of people making the case that video games are a budding art-form, citing examples like Portal and Shadow of the Colossus.  While I don't doubt there would be some merit in asserting those titles as such, I would lend it more towards games like Pathologic, a game so deeply affecting that calling it "fun" is something I doubt people will be saying about it. Ever.

  However, the larger issue here is ignored because it's been hijacked by a gender-specific series known as "Tropes vs. Women in Video Games."  The first video in her series, the comments and ratings have been disabled, unfortunately drowning out discussion.  Why?  Originally, Anita claimed she was being subjected to misogynistic abuse.  While the abuse was misogynistic in nature, is it so hard to believe that trolls on the internet are going to say the easiest, meanest things they can? 

  I won't give my specific thoughts on the video, because I've been talking about them pretty extensively since the video was released.  The channels for this are somewhat limited, as levying criticisms is treading eggshells.  Certain places receive it well and open a discussion, meanwhile a certain former Unreal employee is quite prepared to compare you to the Taliban should you A.) not assume an identity when discussing it and B.) not find it enlightening material. 

  It's something that's quite difficult to swallow, because this is something that's quite widespread by this point.  She was on TedxWomen to discuss the abuse she faced, taking the spotlight off legitimate criticisms and effectively painting people who didn't want the discussion to end as people defending tools of misogyny.  Meanwhile, her first video tackles games that are, for lack of a better world, old.  They're archaic.  Zelda and Mario, her primary targets as exemplary of the Damsel in Distress trope, are franchises steeped in tradition where the player does not care about Zelda or Link as people, but as tools to facilitate the player exploring dungeons and solving puzzles; or in the case of Mario, jumping on turtles and losing first place because of a blue shell.

  These criticisms are, however, a discussion that she won't engage in.  Instead, the situation is further devolving into an issue of there being no discussion about it at all.  It's either about Anita being right or you being a chauvinist.  It's either about the female depiction in video games or you support "societal constructs" of men and women not being equal (because at some point, different and not equal became mutually exclusive).  The entire debate is something that feels... unnatural.  like a permutation of something that could have some real, lasting impact, but is instead turned into a platform for people to critique video games' slow progress as an art form. 

  The fact that the conversation is so stymied is something that keeps this echo chamber rattling.  At the end of the day, no input is desired from the people who actually play and passionately care about video games.  Why?  Because to those people, to me, video games are not "pop culture."  Most people who play video games don't play them for hits, ad revenue or name recognition, anything of the sort really.  Most people don't seek personal validation and representation in video games, because we're looking for a gameplay experience. 
 
  I keep hoping that eventually this noise will fade, that these flash-in-the-pan instances become archaic groupthink, but it only seems to happen as new nuances are brought in.  Part of me is morbidly curious to see what new, ridiculous nonsense will these fools come up with next?