
Office Space's copier notwithstanding, machines aren't as satisfying to fight; flesh and blood is better. It seemed self-evident when I said it during a discussion about game A.I.s in general. Now, after some serendipitous reading, the assertion makes even more sense. Forget about Cylon skinjobs and the sentient supercomputer HAL 9000. For the time being, it's machines that neither look nor behave like they're alive that I have in mind.
“Have you ever wondered why normal adults living in urban environments like Manhattan are liable to be terrified of snakes and spiders, while being quite blasé about dangers like cars and cigarettes?” David Livingstone Smith asks in The Most Dangerous Animal: Human Nature and the Origins of War.
“Have you ever wondered why normal adults living in urban environments like Manhattan are liable to be terrified of snakes and spiders, while being quite blasé about dangers like cars and cigarettes?” David Livingstone Smith asks in The Most Dangerous Animal: Human Nature and the Origins of War.
His answer agrees with Barbara Erenreich's: “[H]uman beings are haunted by the ghosts of predators past” -- which is to argue that we evolved in environments where it paid to be aware of animal predators, but not the technology that we would invent millennia later. And so, as Smith writes, high-grossing movies like Jaws, Alien, Predator, and Jurassic Park “arouse primal emotions within us. We respond to these films because they resonate with ancient fears of being hunted and eaten.”
While we are, without doubt, able to imagine nightmares such as a demented car that intends to drive donuts over our corpses, these scenarios lack a snarling dog's ability to automatically elicit hair-raising reactions. The Resident Evil games get this and use it to frightening effect. Crocodiles, snakes, and spiders are among the menagerie of clawing, biting, or stinging animals that menace us in the series' current incarnation. RE 5, of course, capitalizes on the psychology of fear in other ways as well.
More than any other species, ourselves included, parasites and viral organisms have historically made mankind miserable (the Spanish flu eliminated 50 million of us in only a year and a half). It is correct to object that, while we can see macroparasites such as tapeworms and leeches, the microscopic monsters that create measles, leprosy, and Lhasa fever have until very recently remained invisible to humankind. Remember, though, that their transmission vectors – rats, lice, blood, feces, rotten flesh – are both obvious and elicit instinctive revulsion across cultures.
There's more to zombie imagery than this peculiar power to induce disgust. Smith writes that “it is typically thought that the contaminated object transmits its filthy essence to anything that it comes into contact with.” Bear with me, as this becomes fairly complicated. Essence (Aristotle called it substance) distinguishes what a thing is from the qualities that it has. Dogs have four legs, for instance, but can lose any number of these and retain their “doggy-ness.” In other words, a hairless, toothless, three-limbed dog remains in our minds' conceptual “dog” category despite his setbacks. This essentialist thinking finds its home in the notion that humans have souls independent of the bodies that they inhabit (and, perversely, in the tradition that held that a person was black or Jewish on the basis of one-eighth of his or her “blood”).
Zombies -- the converse of our hypothetical canine -- are superficial humans who've lost their human essence. The ubiquity of made-up monsters that appear to be people but in actuality aren't – consider werewolves, vampires, witches, changelings, Cylon skinjobs, pod people, T-800 terminators, and demon-controlled children to name but a few -- proves the concept's immense power over the human imagination.
If you agree with Smith; copious evidence canvasing all of recorded history; and the research of psychologists who study post-combat stress disorders, it is essential for soldiers and communities to dehumanize the enemies who they destroy or whose destruction they condone. We compare our foes to the same dangerous and disease carrying animals that trigger the instinctive fight-or-flight and disgust responses detailed above. Zombies literalize the picture that political propagandists paint when attempting to activate our anti-parasite modules in preparation for war -- which brings us to the disquieting nature of another note that Resident Evil 5 strikes. The title not only features fearful animals and contagious pathogens that create monsters in people's clothing; it blatantly turns people who in relatively recent history have been relegated to a sub-human status and held as vectors of barbarity and disease into barbaric disease spreaders.
46 comments:
You always amaze me with your writing, always interesting and highly intelligently written. You are one talented mofo that's for sure.
Ps. Loved the Out of the Game podcast.
Today I pooped out of my penis
a really interesting read, I wish I could write like this. I hope you can do some more eventually.
Do you find the idea of taking the lowest of the low and making them lower acceptable in popular media?
I agree wholeheartedly about your points regarding dehumanization and zombies relating to groups that have previous been dehumanized in prevailing culture.
However, I don't think your earlier points were as complete. At the end of your first paragraph you seem to hint at future possibilities for purposefully machinelike things to fight, but don't much follow up on it. Unless of course, I misread, and you meant that in reference to the nature of video games.
As for the points you raise with Smith about the resonance of primal imagery, you aren't wrong, but you don't seem to use them for much except to segue into your (quite excellent) ideas about the nature of viruses, zombies and dehumanization.
I think both of these previous points actually have a quite interesting dichotomy though.
Smith asks us why modern humans are "quite blasé about dangers like cars and cigarettes?", you posit that "machines aren't as satisfying to fight; flesh and blood is better.". Both the question and the assertion have their roots in the knowledge base of modern humans versus their primitive counterparts.
Coming back full circle to Born Digital, think about the familiarity with the inner workings of new technology each generation layers upon the technology of the last. While it might seem rather obvious, machines are not as satisfying to fight and we are quite blasé about everyday dangers, because we understand them; their circumstances, causes, and to a certain degree, their odds.
Which brings me back to Smith and The Most Dangerous Animal. While it is not incorrect to say that we have a strong response to animal imagery because it resonates with ancient fears of being hunted and eaten, I don't think that fully describes everything that's happening here.
I think it has to do with a combination of factors, not simply "OMG Were gonna get eated!"
It's the pure fear of the unknown, combined with the modern mentality of having "conquered nature" or "bent nature to man's whims" and then having nature react in kind.
It touches on the the guilt of the modern sedentary lifestyle, and the idea that a certain ability to physically explore or interact with nature has been lost in modernity.
It plays on the ever increasing levels of ignorance that the average person has about the little mudball they live on and life on it besides them.
There's much more subtext here than simple reminders of mortality.
Now, returning to the future possibilities for interesting machine enemies, I don't see them becoming more fun to fight than primal animalistic enemies unless a certain level of "the unknown" can be introduced. SkyNet was interesting in Terminator because no one had any idea how computers and satellites fucking worked in 19whatever-the-fuck-it-was. It played on the idea of what machines could possibly become.
Technology and machines always need to take this path to be fearsome in some manner because our history with it isn't as inherently threatening as our history with animals and diseases.
The threat of machines is always in their potential, and as Smith noted animals are largely predators of the past. Thats why we see such a prevalence of primal imagery when storytellers or developers need emotional reaction. It's easy to do. It already happened. It's much harder to create a menacing enemy out of pure potential. That requires much more time, imagination, and hard work.
I fear the idea of machines as both widespread AND interesting enemies will fall victim to the need that machines fill in general terms: the desire to save time and money by streamlining the process.
Sorry that was so long. I had some more ideas regarding ways of fusing primal/viral imagery with machine fears of losing control (the borg, organic machinery, etc) but this went long enough :P
P.S. If you actually read all this, how's your comic project going? I'm a comic artist/writer myself and would love to see the sort of story that comes out of a mind like yours.
Be well,
Terrence Stasse
**Typing in this tiny box isn't conducive to seeing what the hell you are writing; deleted the last and updated the comment.
I didn't expect the article to end so abruptly; the meat of the argument begins where yours ends.
I would argue that, to twist your words, the game puts a dehumanizing trope (zombification) overtop of a 'race' (ethnic group would be more correct) with a recent history of being dehumanized.
It's an interesting concept that the things which offend people most are the vices of mankind that are reflected accurately. Precisely because of North America's past a large amount of us project that past on what is a palette swap of ethnicity in the franchise.
We can then assume that a title released in Germany which depicted the Jews (or more surprisingly to some, the Russians and other Eastern Europeans) in an overlapping subhuman role would be offensive in the same way. For it's part, Germany has found it offensive without this overlap, to have zombies in a game at all -- it's still a criminal offense to sell Dead Rising in Germany. It's a rather local problem of stereotypes, not a global one.
I would wonder if the proponents of there being offensive imagery in RE5 would like to see it banned, or are instead content to own the right to be offended by it. As it can seem to mimic the objectives of propaganda to these people I'm not *surprised* at their offense taken, I'm surprised that they can allow themselves to be offended by such a clumsy sheep in wolves clothing in the first place -- if there is no filtering of the accidental and the intentional, then they are doomed to be offended for the rest of their lives, save the censorship of media.
Great post. Thanks for turning me on to this book, looks like I might have to give it a read.
Great post Shawn, though it has just dawned on me how many blogs I've read on how zombies are really some meta-personification on human nature. Did Left 4 Dead cause some sort of movement?
Great points, although I must agree with the above commentators: you end your post right as things are getting good! I have yet to play Resident Evil 5 and until I do, I am trying to find out what exactly it is about the imagery that so many find disturbing. How does the objectification of African zombies differ from that of the Japanese enemies in World War II shooters? Both groups were depicted as animals at one time or another, and in the case of the Japanese that depiction came down from the highest levels of our government.
The most revealing fact about the ignorance of those discussing the racist imagery in RE5 is their argument about the "historic" perspective.
But there is nothing historic about slavery. It is a problem today. It was never only a problem of white people enslaving black, it has always been a problem of powerful people exploiting the weak. Slavery knows no racism, slavery is colorblind.
Therefore my reading suggestion: "A Crime so Monstrous" by Benjamin Skinner.
RE5 is but an action game in which the player is running from one arena fight to the next. Battling juvenile enemies for the adolescent feeling of empowerment. There is no suspense, no horror, no message, just an action rampage. The game wants you to struggle more with the controls, than to cope with meaning. A boss spewing forth a few propagandistic platitudes is not going to change that.
It would be interesting to really set up a racist surrounding and have the player fight that. An Alone in the Dark in which the player is black person, deep in the South of the 19th century. No monsters but humans, no action rampage, but a real focus on how racism is a destructive force. Kinda like the first Zombie movie of them all. Failure to see past the differences will lead to the destruction of people. A game constructed around a message, not an action massacre made to impress teenage boys. I doubt we will ever see such a game though.
Always great writing Shawn.
@David K.
"It would be interesting to really set up a racist surrounding and have the player fight that."
That's an amazing idea, I would love to play something like that!
The Fear of animal predators is written into our DNA, but so too is the fear of human predators. One of the main stages of our evolution was a brain enlargement that corresponded to the recognition of deception in another human.
When we recognize through facial expressions or vocal inflections that someone secretly wants to use us, kill us, eat us; that can be more blood curdling than any other predatory creature, because we feel trapped.
Resident Evil uses a basic theme of animalistic behavior in a human form to scare, but a cunning human that leads you into a deadly situation could be far scarier, I think.
I'm thinking John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer here, and I'm hoping for a form of videogame narrative that will lead the player into the situation without suspecting a thing. So far it's pretty ham fisted.
Despite your repeated arguments that Resident Evil 5 has racist imagery, I still can't agree with you, Shawn. I don't think the end to racism will be achieved through the ignoring of differences in culture, nor do I think removing particular races from games is the best method of mending hostilities.
This complaint feels like "Seven Degrees of Racism" to me.
You're in development now...maybe you can give me some tempering feedback...
Are video-games really tracing upon the animalistic behaviors in something like RE5?
The main problem for me in RE4 and 5 is that the "game" itself cancels certain things out. For example, the first sequence in the Ganado village was excellent (boosted in consistency by Dr. Salvador). Feeling like I was being pursued was an excellent way to instill that primal sense of panic, but I became increasingly more jaded as the game went on because of how the Las Plagas carriers acted. Every time they run up to me and then lumber menacingly in front of my face, I can't do anything but laugh at that.
I asked the question a few years ago in a 1up blog, but the popular sentiment was that the hypothetical game I was proposing would be too hard (I was using 28 Days Later as an example). The dangerous line that comes with a title like L4D presented the same problem for me, but at the other end of the spectrum. The game came off as too arcade-ish for me to have fun with (I'm not much for online gaming so the title had no use to me despite being a Valve game).
I like being stripped of my hubris in a game, but at the same time the sophistication has to be enough for me to connect with (not just needlessly complex either). The early RE titles did this conveniently by "happy mistakes" (i.e. tank controls, fixed perspective), but I think those only helped with the illusion I hold so dear now. What I really want are formidable creatures more capable than myself to deal with. When you think about that it's tricky to address because in a sense, ALL games do that, but not in the sense I'm referring to (if that makes any sense to you).
I suppose I could have just said that the "game" constantly gets in the way of my experience, but that's a paradoxical condemnation...
~sLs~
You probably already know this, but your last paragraph directly relates to the 'official' description of the stages of genocide.
http://www.genocidewatch.org/8stages.htm
Very interesting points Shawn. Though I never though of it like that, it makes total sense. I'm currently reading a history of World War II, and the constant descriptions of propaganda utilized by both sides demonstrates perfectly this notion of dehumanization and desensitization.
Oh yeah, and I just wanted to give you props for the Out of the Game episode. Great stuff, keep it coming.
To several above posters asking questions: Don't get your hopes up for answers/responses of any kind. Shawn barely deigns to even acknowledge his groveling fan base. Far as I can tell he's quite disgusted by the whole affair.
I think he's got maybe a half dozen comments in total across the whole of this blog.
I'm curious if you've read any of Gilles Deleuze's work on the Animal and the Ethical. Based on this post, I think you might be interested in the critical questions he and proceeding Deleuzians have posed on the role of the animal as "sub-human" in ethics.
As a former soldier with both an academic interest and a degree of first-hand experience when it comes to dehumanization in the context of war, I think it's worth pointing out that at least for actual soldiers doing the fighting the need to dehumanize their opponents is not nearly as strong or as universal as is generally depicted. The degree to which it's necessary for any given person has more to do with individual values and worldview (religious upbringing, personal moral code, that sort of thing) than any sort of hard-wired reluctance to do violence to other humans. The source of the modern idea that there's a fundamental reluctance to kill (at least in the context of soldiers) comes from studies done by S.L.A. Marshall, but those studies have been fairly thoroughly debunked.
There's also the issue of separating what's required in order to be able to shoot or shoot back in the heat of the moment versus what may be required in order to comfortably integrate that experience into yourself after the fact. The difference between hot and cold blood is one of the reasons why more than just marksmanship is required in order to be a successful sniper for example, though the popular conception of snipers as either cold or sociopathic is quite false.
That's not to say that it's particularly -easy- for humans to kill one another either. This sort of thing doesn't happen in a vacuum, and the part that most people miss is the fairly universal social construct "killing other people is wrong and bad" that gets drilled into most people early and often.
Anyway, the short version is that I'd argue that what people tend to label as a "natural" reluctance to kill other humans has almost nothing to do with "nature" and everything to do with individual and cultural values, and that the evolution of stronger and more general moral rules against killing other human beings is relatively recent in historical terms.
Well, Terrence Stasse, or Terrence, if I may allow myself to indulge in such trivialities, while it is not incorrect to make the assertion that a "combination of factors" (Terrence Stasse, 2009, retrieved March 23, 2009) contributes to a primal fear in the "unconquerable" realm of nature, may I posit that you should do well to elaborate further on your (very intelligent, but not thought out) assertions.
For here to say that we "understand," or "under-ESTIMATE" if you will, machines is merely ludicrous statements from the mouth of a raving lunatic. We do indeed fear, or are afraid of- if I may, machines in the realm of every day.
Id est, I once caught my finger in a photocopier machine as a child and to this day refuse to hook up a printer to my computer for fear of losing other, far greater, appendages, or limbs, if you will. However, see if machines indeed were not under the control of people, it would be the machines and not the people, or "humans," if i may, that we do indeed fear.
Indeed, if cars could control themselves, I would also be afraid of a car running over my big toe as well. The claim that "we understand machines" is but to say that we "control" them. But rather, since cars a mere contrivance of "society" or "culture," if I may, and animals are unequally ambidextrous, to be frank, I am more afraid of my dog biting my left hand.
~Moose
Bill Buckner
www.google.com
Not a problem BeckyWallaceMooseBillBucknerGoogle.
When I referred to the human understanding of machines removing much of the menace of them ... wait, hold on, I've noticed your speech patterns and diction somewhere else before ... just can't place it ... what blog are we on again?
We should not attribute too much to genetics, be it fear, ability or the mirage of superiority.
If the human DNA code can do one thing better than any animal, it is to override its imperatives by training. We are not born tabula rasa, but we are not born fully trained either. If we can do one thing, then it is to adapt. If you invest the time to train the dexterity of both your hands, then writing will be very easy with both of them. A seemingly underlying, ever present lazyness inside us will prevent that from happening though. But there are enough tasks in our daily life requiring the same amount of coordination to be present in both hands. Guess what, we can master them quite easily.
The same goes for fear, we learn it in relation to our surroundings. I am skin type 1, I had to learn to avoid the sun, but it was not imprinted into my "white" DNA memory. There are no poisonous snakes where I live, so there is no fear of snakes.
However, we have an entire entertainment industry geared towards programming us to perceive arbitrary things in a certain way in order to evoke emotions that are then sold to us.
If I step into a dark room which you prepared for me, I am not afraid of the dark, I am not afraid of the unknown, I am afraid of the assumptions I have made about YOU before entering it. That is not a fear you are born with, usually you learn to be scared of some humans the hard way during your life. The next step is for somebody to exploit that and project that fear upon a third party, racism is born; or some other ism based on fundamentally rejecting a different idea other than the own.
I don't know what you're insinuating, or interpolating, franksstasse with the weak chasse of android.com look-a-like Mister Mackey actin fool, but get the hell of MY blog.
Frank Caliendo
~The Moose
I remember watching a video a year or so ago made in the '50s or '60s that had a small child (a few months old, by the looks of it) exposed to a few "dangerous" things; a snake, a tarantula, fire, etc. and it was completely unafraid. Not until it had a sense of context for these dangerous items did the child learn to fear them. I think the "scientists" doing the test presented it as an example of "once bitten, twice shy". Until the child was given a reason to fear, they're inherently trusting.
I think this could be accurate, but I offer another option. I think children are born essentially unaware of their own appearance or even species type. They don't fear anything because they don't know that they are any different from a snake, a tarantula, or even fire. Once they have matured, and they become aware of their humanity, they fear things that are unfamiliar: spiders and snakes move unnaturally compared to humans or, even, the family dog or cat. Across all ages, things that are different or unfamiliar are unsettling. Once we have a set idea of what "normal" things look like, things that are abnormal are frightening. Though I know that a pit bull can be much more dangerous than a cockroach, I would much sooner pet the former than pick up the latter because I have been exposed to dogs my entire life.
I should note that I don't believe this "fear of the unfamiliar" reaches into racism. Children don't have any inherent fear or distrust of children of other races. Racism is taught, either explicitly (a father in the KKK) or passively (the warnings told to white kids not to go into the ghetto).
When it comes to Resident Evil 5, I the discussion should be settled by two things, intent on the side of the publishing company (a topic that has been talked about at length) and intent on the side of the consumer. I'm confident that the game designers were not trying to demonize Africans. I'm confident that the vast majority of those who bought RE5 didn't buy it for the purpose of being able to kill Africans, though, unfortunately, I imagine there were a few out there who did consider that a bonus. Just because you bought RE5, played it, and enjoyed it does not mean that you're condoning violence against Africans any more than playing GTAIV means that you condone violence against police officers.
"Nthing" the comments saying you ended it abruptly, I feel you just let your last point hang there on the end.
I don't agree with your (and others) perceived racist undertones from the game, but then again, I haven't played RE5 yet. With that said, unless I turn on the game and the African people are attacking you with fried chicken and throwing watermelons at you, I will continue to refute this racist theory. I think Capcom decided to branch out the environment elsewhere, and should not be persecuted for doing so.
All said, though, your writing is excellent and I enjoy reading it.
I think the next step for zombies in fiction (whether it be games, comic books etc.) is to try to re-humanize them. One reason Walking Dead works so well is the [i]consistent[/i] detail, from panel to panel, on individual zombies and their relation to their setting.
Maybe it was the fidelity, or the America-from-Japan's-perspective setting, but in any case RE's zombies never felt like creatures that ever had a human essence to begin with.
There is one exception though, in the original game, where the player is exploring the room of a custodian of the mansion: the player's attention is first drawn to the custodian's diary where he relates his transformation into a zombie ("Itchy, scratchy" I believe is the final entry). The player then continues to explore when a zombie suddenly leaps out of the closet and attacks Jill or Chris. That was the only zombie in the game that I gave any thought to; he was the only zombie that had proof he, at one time, had "human essence."
Terrence, I do read every single comment. There are several here that I intend to respind to, however, I don't always have time. That's all there is to it. I'm sorry if it seems otherwise.
Shawn, did you study Philosophy in college? You write and think (I've noticed from podcasts) like one.
I ask this now because you dropped the A. bomb
keep up the great work; none other like it.
A weak start and a strong finish to this surprising post. If topics like this intrigue you please feel justified in posting your thoughts online in the future, an interested audience does exist.
This is unrelated but I don't know how else to contact you. In an old podcast you made reference to disliking the comic Transmetropolitan but gave no explanation. I know you're busy and I'm not asking for an essay but would you mind giving the cliffe notes on why you don't like that series, or pointing me in the direction of where that conversation is found, if it's on record somewhere?
Just wanted to say I've enjoyed your writings and podcasts - and love the new Out of the game show...
But in iTunes, you don't have a logo - a shitty logo like most other podcasts have so I give to you, this... my created shitty logo so that I don't keep seeing the default logo in iTunes....
http://home.comcast.net/~yeahyeah11/gamelogo.bmp
logo a go go a no no.
shawn- i went to buy Wreck of the Medussa however its written by two different authors. which author did you read?
Shawn, this has nothing to do with your post. I just wanted to give you the link to an interview Simon Johnson did on npr's Fresh Air, where he gets into more detail on what he means in the quiet coup. thought you might want to post it up on twitter or something
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101360253
Thanks, Uber. I just updated iTunes with the logo.
Talk about a serendipitous read, Shawn. I'm thinking about writing an essay on the dehumanization of "enemy" combatants, cultures, etc. and you just gave me a great counterpoint to work from. Dehumanization as an essential function.
Interesting read, Shawn. I really enjoy reads that explore the more primal roots of man's common habits. I do wish you had more time to delve deeper into these subjects, though.
Tim
Have you seen the trolling on 'FPS hands'?
http://www.ugo.com/games/best-fps-hands/?cur=chronicles-of-riddick&morepics=1
If you haven't already, read Lt Col. Grossman's 'On Killing'... he makes some great points on this subject of desensitization and modern media; particularly how the techniques long used by the media have been increasingly preverlant in modern forms of entertainment. I'm not going to write a treatise on the subject here, because I highly doubt it will be read... and I'm already doing that in a research paper.
Also, keep up the good work with Out of the Game and hurry up and get out part two of your Symposium!
It's naive to say the media, or even army training, is the sole tool of what you call desensitization. It's assuming that human nature is peaceful from the start and is subverted so that a human is made capable to kill. Uncultured humans, the "noble savage" used to be believed as fact -- but now we find evidence of tribal warfare and other violent actions such as wide-scale deforestation in the Americas. In Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate he claims human nature is dictated by a combination of genetically determined traits and the influence of the environment -- no one effect holds sway over the human mind.
Humans will kill other humans like any other animal -- that's not to say war should not be averted, but it should be humbling to realize that the human animal did not invent killing; it's not a tool we invented, it's a world we were born into. Lord of the Flies has always been seen as an argument for this.
Furthermore, I believe the backbone of Col. Grossman's theory has been broken -- his insistence that in war most soldiers do not fire their weapons, out of an innate respect for their fellow man. Taken from the Canadian Military Journal (http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo9/no2/16-engen-eng.asp):
"The evidence seems to indicate that, contrary to Grossman’s ideas, killing is a natural, if difficult, part of human behaviour, and that killology’s belief that soldiers and the population at large are only being able to kill as part of programmed behaviour (or as a symptom of mental illness) hinders our understanding of the actualities of warfare. A flawed understanding of how and why soldiers can kill is no more helpful to the study of military history than it is to practitioners of the military profession. More research in this area is required, and On Killing and On Combat should be treated as the starting points, rather than the culmination, of this process."
Grossman makes a lot of assumptions in his book, and shows a shallow understanding of biology and the process of natural selection -- his argument is an interesting one, but it does not sit on sturdy ground.
@Mark
As Nick pointed out, Lt. Col. Grossman's theories are founded on invalid premises. Specifically, in On Killing he rests almost the entire weight of his argument on S.L.A. Marshall's Ratio of Fire work...the same work I mentioned several posts ago as having been pretty thoroughly discredited. Another recent article on the subject:
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/parameters/03autumn/chambers.pdf
Hey Shawn, I'd like to interview you for mymonobrow.nl. Care to get in touch?
Hi Shawn
This has nothing to do with your post, but given your interest in the prisoner's dilemma, the Milgram experiments, etc. I think you might enjoy Adam Curtis' three part BBC docu-essay "The Trap" (first part is available here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=404227395387111085&ei=8bA6SrPhOoq4rgKFy_CmCg&q=adam+curtis&hl=en).
I don't agree with every part of his argument, but it's refreshing to encounter a filmmaker who tosses around so many ideas. ("Century of the SElf" is also very good.)
Hey Shawn, is there an email or something I can ask you a question at?
Thanks.
Today is my daughter’s 1st birthday. Let me start off by saying that I am an avid gamer. I was hooked the moment I first played Frogger and Pitfall on the Atari 2600 as a small child. I had a NES, SNES, Genesis, N64, Xbox, and a 360. Wolfenstein 3D was the first FPS I beat. Dragon Warrior (Quest) was the first RPG I beat. Street Fighter 2 was the first Fighting game I mastered. My favorite game of all time is a tie between:
Fallout – it was the first game that spoke to me as an adult.
Virtua Fighter – it was the first and only game I was able to straight up hustle
people at in the arcades.
Oblivion – it was the first game I ever watched my wife play through to
completion.
I LOVE listening to video game podcasts. I listened for the ENTIRE runs of 1up Yours, The Brodeo, and EGM Live*, and 1up FM. I am (or was) a huge fan of Rebel FM, Listen UP, Out of the Game, Geekbox, Gamespy Debriefings, and A Life Well Wasted.
Today is my daughter’s first birthday and I have decided to give up gaming. While I still love video games and will proudly refer to myself as a gamer, it’s time for me to stop. I’ve decided not to spend another minute playing games or listening to podcasts that could be spent with her or my wife. Today is my daughter’s 1st birthday and while it’s been an amazing year, it went too fast. Life has been good. I have a good job, exciting prospects, an absolutely beautiful family, and we are in the middle a modern gaming/entertainment renaissance. But a lot of time I spent making Trials tracks could have been spent interacting more closely with my wife and daughter. The late nights I spent wandering the Capitol wasteland with Dogmeat I could have spent sleeping to wake up earlier with my family.
I’ll never get that time back.
I had so much fun gaming last year, but the time I spent with my wife and daughter were the only achievement points I scored that mean anything to me right now. If my daughter ever wants to play games I’ll play them with her. If I have free time to myself, I’ll spend it staying in shape, reading books, or watching movies.
So I just wanted to say “Thanks”. To all my favorite podcasters and fellow gamers. It’s been a good game. Have fun. :)
Chuck Diamond
Post a Comment