Our Infatuation with Zombies & the Apocalypse

If you're still with me here, I'd like to thank you for continuing to read my post. I don't want to turn people off to my posting, but by writing about the world, games, or pretty much anything, certain topics need to be addressed even if they're uncomfortable. On that note, I'd like to bring to your attention the sheer mass of zombie everything that has been popular for the past fifty years or so. Zombie movies, games, tabletops, the "what weapon would you use in the event of a zombie apocalypse" quizzes on your Facebook feeds, etc. I always make a joke about learning how to use my bow "in the event of a zombie apocalypse" because they are quieter than guns and I can make my own ammo. But! why is it exactly that we love retelling such a modern myth, especially in video games and what does that say about our culture and society in general? Why are games such an efficient medium to convey the how of such an event?

The psychological issues alone are worth discussing. After getting through it, having to live in it, and in Ellie's case not knowing any different are something to think about. How would you behave?

To put it simply, it's a release of tension and "play acting" of our society in the event that something like this does happen. We might have vastly different fears such as terrorism, our growing lack of privacy as the whole Snowden issue is currently playing out, or the issue of the income gap making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Whatever the reasons in real life, giving a dehumanized (and thus, killable thing) to push all our anger and fear at, our society can release tension and then begin to rationalize what all this means for our future. As I will come back to when I post later on about robots & androids, there's this uncanny valley that we all subconsciously categorizes humanlike beings into which you can find here. This includes dolls, puppets, furries (if you have to ask...), androids (I would suggest watching Bladerunner or reading Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep  and  Isaac Asimov's laws of robotics to get an idea of the separation issues between humans and androids), and dead people aka zombies. It's a good indicator in video games in general if a game is "good" graphics wise in some cases if this valley can be suspended somewhat or why something that might be a little too realistic might be a bad thing.

While this identification can be a good thing sometimes like the case of a transformer or Astro Boy, it generally leaves a sense of unease, especially in the case of constant interaction and the issues that arise. Think about what Data from Star Trek The Next Generation had to deal with and how he changed through the seasons to become more human to bridge this gap in the valley.

In the case of zombies, and specifically video games zombies, their humanness has been doubly distanced to the point that they become walking shooting targets of which many of us had a great time rekilling in classic arcade games like the House of the Dead series, and Resident Evil/Biohazard series, and a multitude of others. In many cases, they are the basic unit of a game, being noob fodder for players in tutorial levels and whatnot. I'm currently playing the last of us and the rendering and mechanics for the Clickers in the game is a nice deviation from the traditional zombie.

How the zombie is infected or killed and reraised is sometimes of consequence, but for all intensive purposes mechanics wise, you're meant to exterminate them or put them to rest. By coming back to a problem we'd thought we'd dealt with already, the comparison of having to "fix" one's past mistakes or "ghosts" lends me to ask the question of how comfortable people are with responsibility on a micro and macro level. Most of us know that dealing with an issue at the advent of an issue rather than running away is usually best, but sometimes we aren't prepared to take on these monsters and have to regroup. But, knowing that such things are lurking out there, we can never feel quite safe until we can clear a room and search every nook and cranny, especially if we're trying to flee from beings like Slenderman (or problems that we know we can't get away from and have no ability to halt or stop from coming to get you.)

Oh hell no...

When you think about it then, each tweak on the classic undead monster trying to nom your brains out could be a particular issue that we as a society might be going through at that time. This of course includes not just zombies but aliens as well, which though similar has some different undertones. Facing a zombies specifically means that at one point this thing was a rational human being that for the most part had the same issues as we the players do. They probably don't want to eat you if they knew what they were doing and retained their humanity, which is why the runners in The Last of Us and some "smarter" zombies are that much more pitiable to kill, because they are trying to resist but unable to, and that we would be in the same position if not for some random reason or skill that has prevented us being being killed/eaten yet.

This lack of agency and control is a fear all of us have when dealing with these situations. Putting it all in the context of an apocalypse only amplifies such fears further. That there might be millions of these things across the globe if not billions? That's a frightening thought indeed. The next time you're playing a survival horror game (think resiliency in spite of _____ ) ponder exactly why and how you're suppose to deal with your situation. Can there be a cure? Is it something that must be exterminated in order for humanity to start anew? And how do these particular issues reflect what is going on right now in the world. 

The Feminism Discussion

So I admit it: I'm (gasp!) a feminist. And yes coming out to that on the internet is still seen as something dirty to many eyes, especially in the gaming community. Many think extremes of trying to think that women are superior to men and that we all want to usurp the men around us by validating our womanly agendas. So stop that right now, because that isn't what it's about at all. You've been misled and uninformed for probably good reason.

When I talk about feminism (and while this relates to games more it applies to everything else as well) I'm talking about equality and balance here. Everyone is good at doing different things and that goes right into gaming. Different genres and scenarios/tropes appeal to different men & women and that's just peachy. I like RPG's because they're story driven and I enjoy searching every nook and cranny for that elusive sidequest or weapon that I missed, or jonesing after that 100% map completion. That's something I attribute to me being more "girly". It also seems to me why JRPG's in particular are a dying breed in America at least. Many developers gear FPS's to guys for catering a sense of masculinity. In manipulation on both ends to generate sales and Many companies unfortunately are in denial about the demographic of their gamers nowadays in addition to the buying power that women have in regards to their game purchases. At the very least, you have mothers and siblings and daughters wanting in on what their other male family members enjoy to such a degree, but what I've heard o' too often is that a strong female protagonist doesn't sell. That I will say right now is bullshit.

This is according to the ESA

In the world of MMO's a fair amount of male gamers pick female toons because they would rather look at a female than a male while playing. I was mistaken for a dude awhile back when I mentioned my fiance could help out in Guild Wars 2 when suddenly a party member ditched our pickup group in the Molten Facility dungeon. I was amused rather than taken aback because I tend to play females as I identify with them more as well as that they don't make very many good looking male toons to play. That this is a normal thing to do begs the question then of why. While it used to be vastly skewed that you'd find the token gamer girl within a group that is not the case. There are plenty of girls around but feel they have to hide their gender as they'll be treated differently in addition to having to fend off being hit on or harassed. I've heard of women modulating their voice in vent because some gamers wouldn't play with them if there was a female in the group. Feeling like they are intruding on a male haven, they are either belittled (oh isn't she a gem trying to kill that zombie with a shot gun!) to insulted in ability based solely on gender (regardless of verified game time or experience) to being sexually harassed (creepy pm's or blatant come on in chat) it is still very much a man's world in the gaming community. 

I do not blame men as a demographic though, since that would be just as bad. Generalizing and being prejudiced blindly would be reciprocating the exact opposite of what should be done. It's a little bit of everyone fault here but I frankly don't care about handing out blame. What I want is a discussion and progress towards making games a more inviting environment for men, women, gays, trans, etc. It doesn't matter what's under the pants, it's the mind, mentality, and skills that matter. If you can pick off a Boomer with the grace and agility of a proper sniper- that's what I care about. If you can place first in Mario Kart because you know how to control Luigi like a boss- that's what I care about.

I'll probably get some backlash for even discussing this issue which is probably a zombie horse by now nonetheless needs to be restated again and again. The adverse retaliation to Anita Sarkeesian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian is unacceptable. Death threats, sexual insults, etc etc are the type of crap women (and men) have to deal with when simply addressing the issue and trying to bring change. It's 2013 and yet we still (And women are sometimes the worst of this) have a 50's mentality of roles of men and women when video games didn't even exist back then.Just take a Bechdel test and see how things have degraded some of the more recent releases for instance. Everyone has a mother (Sorry Batman), a female friend, a sister that I sure as hell they wouldn't want treated as such, yet might be unknowingly perpetuating such a mindset. What I'm asking of everyone is to be conscious of such things and choose hard and carefully of your actions, whether it's something you type in local, something you say on vent, or an action you do in a game.Anita's show Female Frequency is a good review of some of the most common issues with the condition in gaming. While a bit slanted, from my personal opinion that facts themselves can't really be refuted as while it is hard to prove why exactly, such things are happening.

 http://www.feministfrequency.com/

Granted, this type of armor would kill you alot quicker too...

And while this is one aspect of a "solution" if you will, what essentially it boils down to is that there are too few female developers making some of these decisions. STEM majors are vastly geared towards men and boys from an early part of our childhoods. The competitive environment deters many women from completing degrees or (if they do) from getting a job within gaming companies in key positions http://www.igda.org/sites/default/files/IGDA_QualityOfLife_WhitePaper.pdf. 

The same problems in game permeate to the workplace unfortunately. Brosie the Riveter is one of the newest "switches" - that of putting male characers is sexualized clothing and posing usually retained for their female counterparts http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/05/hawken-brosie-meteor-k2/. A wake up call like this is an extreme case of stating the obvious, but it seemed to have made a dent in their boss's awareness in the office environment. Granted this particular issue has been recently brought some awareness and has been taken into account with a fair number of top games. Hilde from Soul Caliber, Shepard from Mass Effect, some of the Skyrim armor, and others have made great attempts at making more realistic (at at least practical) armor that protects better than a metal bikini. Not to say they aren't beautiful in their outfits, but more of how that number is going to deflect a sword blow.

Finally I'd like to conclude with my uncertainly over being considered a bitch, and why that is either a good & bad thing. A contronym meaning that it means it's opposites makes using the term in context that much more important. Bitch can be good in meaning taking charge and not letting anyone push you around but also being a stubborn or strong female (She's/He's such a little bitch right?). If directed at a man, implies that being female is something of a lesser quality blah blah. The fact, it's ambiguous and contradictory use makes it an overpowering negatively skewed word. You should both want to be a bitch but not be a bitch simultaneously (If that's not misleading...). Frankly I'd rather you use some varying length of adjectival descriptors and be a bit more witty rather than calling me out as a one syllable insult I'd respect you a bit more. 

E3 and the Safety of Sequels

Now that E3 has come & gone, I'd like to point out the staggering proportion of sequels to new IP (or intellectual property for the layman). On IGN's site of games announced which you can find here http://www.ign.com/wikis/e3/Big_Games_at_E3_2013 quite a fair share of sequels or dated games make the list. This phenomena both helps and hinders developers and gamers alike for multiple reasons.

For some game series, multiple games are needed as they are planned. This happens rarely I have found in earlier years, but seems to be more and more common with the larger developers that can afford to do so. Most games (especially in earlier years) never had their sequels planned out. If it made money and the gamers clamored for more, it happened. Games like Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross are great examples here. Chrono Cross is considered an Indirect sequel so as not to rehash the story & mechanics and to let people enjoy the story regardless if the had played Trigger before. This was during the highlight of the Square days as well, so Cross was able to come out rather quickly compared to some other sequels.

Undoubtedly one of the best game series I have ever played (Their soundtracks are top notch as well if you haven't heard them).

Another issue is simply the piggybacking method, notably used in any Madden game or any other sport game that revolves around the actual IRL comparison of players and their game counterparts. Essentially the same game every year but with changed rosters and better graphics, games like Madden ride on the popularity of outside factors and rehash them,selves year after year for a nice and steady tribute of $60.00+ from their fans that happen to own consoles. I have nothing against this from a fan's point of view (though I have never owned one of these sports game I understand the fan dynamic of wanting to support something, whether it be a team, a fashion, or some other hobby). But the issue is that such games lack substance and tend to bled into the notion of "what games are" in the public's eye. This can be detrimental if one of these games are the few bits of exposure that someone gets from what a video game "is" to them simply because there is so much more out there than the pixel count of Brett Farve's muscles. 

I think I see a pattern here...

The other issue of piggybacking in respect to more traditional games can be highlighted by series such as Shadow Hearts. The story essentially takes place over two games, yet we have a 3rd installment entitled Shadow Hearts: From the Brave New World. It is set in the same universe much like Chrono Cross is to Chrono Trigger, yet is playing on the previous popularity and fame of the previous two games. 

Unfortunately I haven't had the chance to play it, but from my understanding I feel that I need to play it simply because it is related to that universe rather than on its own merit. This is exactly what has stopped me from playing it so far even though I do mean to play it at some point. I've even heard that the game was subpar in comparison (though I leave my own judgement for later on that) yet I know I will still play it regardless. Such a conscious compulsion however doesn't make many gamers happy as it gives a "have to" rather than "want to" mentality. 

This type of piggybacking goes hand in hand with the simple notion that sequels are SAFE. The first one made money, so why shouldn't the second albeit repackaged a little differently work the same? It's why we see so many movies doing the same (Does Hangover really need a 2nd and 3rd installment? No. It was a standalone movie that the producers wanted more from). Games that have no business having added storyline then can get considerably ruined from having sequels in this way. Characters that had developed empathy and character suddenly forget all they have learned in the first game and must again slay some evil that eerily seems like their last encounter. Such sequels invalidate the worth of the first games as such and it pulls at my heart to see them treated so. One of the games getting redone is FFX-2. All that Yuna did and sacrificed so you could dress her Rikku & Paine in different outfits as she looks for Tidus seems rather coarse towards what they all went through in the original FFX http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Dressphere. I like that it's getting the HD treatment along with FFX at least, but X-2 is not the game that FFX is. Others may disagree with this specifically and that's ok, but you cannot deny that this rough treatment has been done to other great game franchises.

You rock it ladies

Obviously then as mentioned in my last post you have the issue of games not fitting into any sequential order or subverting themsleves in between published game timelines. Games such as these cannot be grouped together with other direct sequels because they are not trying to be direct sequels. Lots of racing games or series that have established universes if not characters that a player are tied to fit this bill. These type of sequels usually don't have the same numbering system as well tending to have subheadings. Take the Need for Speed series. EA has produced a plethora of these, most having their subheading and sometimes even a second one to denote the particular version that it's compatible on. With the onset of mobile and tablet devices taking wing over the past few years each installment has more freedom to focus on a particular feature or mechanic. Better graphics and new choices in cars is considered standard for them much like the sports games as they are dependent on cars in real life, yet they are not trying to be as realistic as a football player in that sense (Play some Gran Turismo instead if you want that) which grants them a much greater amount of freedom. As long as it continues to make money then, such a model seems like the way to go.

This doesn't usually work for more story driven games however. It's why I believe Biohazard/Resident Evil 6 flopped so hard. Games trying to reboot themselves need to take much greater care when trying to recreate themselves as they have an established fan base and particular character personalities that they need to work around. Games like Prince of Persia were able to do this fantastically as they were able to create a character for the Prince, while Games Like Fallout focused on the player and the choices that the player makes themselves to liven up the series. Unfortunately, if a company deviates too much from a pre established character however, such reboots are usually left in the dust for not being able to bridge such a connection between the player and the original game. 

From this...

To this.

The Aging of Gaming

Time incessantly rolls on. It's a fact that cannot be denied in real life no matter how much wish fulfillment we get from other games that might let us control, manipulate or otherwise alter the flow. With that in mind, it has been fascinating to watch how both game franchises and game developers have aged. There seem to be three options that come to mind as I observed the choices of companies as we raced passed the millennium mark and on to the 21rst century proper. 

1. FAIL: Some companies have failed or been devoured into larger giants. Clover Studios, the maker of our favorite reincarnated sun goddess is no more. Disney interactive has recently been incorporated into (cringe) EA. SEGA, the makers of Sonic, probably the second most recognized video game character ever stopped making consoles and its own games in 2001, currently pairing with other 3rd party developers. While the majority of people that were the creative cogs have moved on or been encompassed into these other companies, it bears reminding some of the groundbreaking games that these now ghostly logos have been a part of making into video game history.

2. Linear Love: While others may fall, many are still growing strong. What is interesting to examine though is exactly how games and developers have let their games "grow up" with the players. Obviously this is much easier with T or M rated games as there is more room for content and complexity within a narrative as well as graphics to support any more vivid imagery. In addition, there could be a complete division in either graphics or story, even across mediums. Sonic the Hedgehog, while not a game takes on a darker theme of a war torn world set after an apocalypse. That seems to be a bit headier than the simple antics of foiling Dr. Robotnic/Eggman in a desert while eating chili cheese dogs. Jak & Daxter, seems to grow with the player as well (just looking at the box art says much to that end). And in a special place in everyone's hearts, what was a spin off of a spin off, Conker's Bad fur day, one of the few M rated N64 games and Rare's last game for the console gave Conker a completely new personality, making him a far cry from his persona in Diddy Kong Racing. Whether this is good or bad really depends on a few factors of course. Companies want to make money. If their target audience grows up they can either follow them and claim some of that cradle to grave brand loyalty that's all the rage with those Baby Boomers or they can try and keep recreating the past with the current formula and world that they've created for their characters. In creating older more adult games, players might be too young to play later incarnations at first. This could alienate some players who are impatient, yet overall I don't believe this to be too much of an issue given that many customers (of which many are parents) are unaware of the ratings system.

3. Pick & Choose: Lastly, and what seems to be the most common with target audiences that pander to the younger crowd (I'm looking at you Nintendo) tend to stick to non linear sequels, or sets (such as the Paper Mario series within the larger Super Mario series). These then keep their target audience to s specific age group that is usually more family friendly and accessible to all ages. Some exceptions are made of course (Twilight Princess and some of the issues in Wind Waker are decidedly more complex and existential issues such as rebuilding a culture after a devastating flood that killed most of a country's population, or the repercussions of the execution of Ganondorf from "The Hero is Triumphant" timeline as mentioned in Hyrule Historia, page 69). Series such as the Star Wars' franchise benefit greatly as they can simultaneously integrate non Canon story into new games like that with Force Unleashed, or expand on other areas that only briefly were described in the movies or books. These games and developers tend to be more widely accepted and known for the larger set target group, yet if not carefully groomed or rehashed one too many times (Kingdom Hearts 1.5 HD Remix?! a hd version of essentially two reduxes of the original KH game). This could be for many reasons such as the issues with FF XIII Versus and Kingdom Hearts III or the disbanding of former contributers. It can even come down to issues with voice actors. Kevin Conroy for example will not be voicing our beloved dark knight in Batman: Arkham Origins as well as Mark Hamill for the Joker, which is a shame really.

What each of these companies and series must ultimately ask themselves is how they want to adapt to the ever changing environment. More and more people are aware of games and play them at at least a casual level. Many of us gamers that are growing up or have grown up now have their own children to introduce to the wonderful world of video games. Yet gaming will never again be like it was in the 80's 90's or 2000's. I find that being able to play a franchise as it came out is vastly different and rewarding in some different and pivotal ways from being able to instantly access (provided I have the hardware or emulator or credits on the estore) a series. Both have their merits, and though the pick and choose companies have circumvented the lack of hardware issue by lettings older games be accessed through an estore, all of these companies must be vigilant in their assessment of themselves in their mutability in the market. Unfortunately it all comes down to money yet with the advent of emulators, even if you've never gotten the chance to play Chrono Trigger on the SNES, you can still do it on your gameboy or on your computer.

 

Guess which one is which!