|Posted by rjagilbert on January 8, 2019 at 11:10 PM|
When I was a kid, Dungeons and Dragons was the game that I was told to avoid. My family, my friends, and my church all said it was “evil” because a few people who played the game took it too far. Kids were being pressured into committing suicide because their characters died in the game. Some kids were being pressured into murdering homeless people as a way of carrying the game into reality.
This was only one of many examples as to how depravity can work its way into a group and rot all whom it touches. An even better exhibit, however, is the game Monopoly. Initially designed to frustrate players as a means to illustrate an economic point, it was instead embraced by a certain psyche of gamers—those who liked to dominate their fellow players. These days, the rules for Monopoly are meant to allay as much frustration as possible—players who want to quit are allowed to walk away from the table without being forced to keep playing or shamed by the winners. The same cannot be said for the ever-evolving world of Online Gaming.
Within the online gaming community, there are two very different kinds of players. Mainly, there are those who play for the experience of playing—who most enjoy following the game’s story, interacting with team-mates amid the adventure, or just exploring the game’s immersive, online world. But there are also those who play because they need to feel a sense of domination over the other players. These are the players who prefer the competitive mode to gaming—who prefer Player-Verses-Player modes over co-op or adventure modes. This is the population of players from which overwhelmingly come the griefers, trolls, and cyber-bullies. And this is the population that software developers work feverishly (most of the time) to develop ways to keep them from ruining the gaming experience for everyone else.
In 2018, Bethesda Software announced a long-awaited sequel to its Fallout series. As Fallout 76 neared its release date the potential for clashes between the two types of gamers was a very real discussion on the internet. Bethesda software announced an in-game dueling system meant to deter cyber-bullying. Essentially, those who sought to kill other players would find themselves at such a disadvantage that they would be expected to think otherwise about their intentions. A major example cited for their intervention was the chaotic and (literally) criminal gaming experience that Grand Theft Auto Online had come to be known for—many servers had degenerated into murder sprees among the few players still depraved enough to enjoy that kind of gameplay. Bethesda wanted to avoid this, and hoped that their innovative new system would provide a solution. The reaction was exactly opposite what they had expected. But why?
In 2011, Blizzard Software introduced a mod to their Call of Duty franchise called “Gun Game”, the market they were aiming for was obvious: those who wish to assert domination over their fellow gamers—what some call “competitive gaming”. The premise of this mod is that all players start with the least effective weapon, then progress to the next most lethal weapon each time they kill another player. To most undiscerning players, the idea sounds fun. In reality, it plays out like the history of a third-world country. Eventually, the players most skilled at killing are equipped with the most effective weapons, and the remaining players are just target practice. This, to a historian, is what we call Tyranny.
Who do you think that environment appeals to? The bullies, of course. Those who cannot accomplish their own dictatorship in real-life can at least, while the server is running, feel a real sense of control over all those who are foolish enough to remain within that server during their reign. You would think that, under ordinary circumstances, sane people would simply stop playing this kind of game. (I certainly put those kinds of PVP shooters down for a good part of my life—not just because they frustrate me, but because I do not enjoy that kind of violence.)
What I’ve discovered, of course, is that the online despots have developed a social mechanism to keep their victims in the game. Obviously, the occasional bully will leave a server when he is no longer on the giving side of the pain, but the servers never empty of victims because of the social pressure implemented against players to “be a good sport”. Being a good sport, of course, means playing multiple rounds against more skilled players who consistently deny you a chance at ever being anything more than target practice. And being a victim this time means you are more likely to log in tomorrow with hopes of achieving domination over another population of victims using the same system of social pressures and weighted rules. Often all it takes is the mocking of one "rage-quitter" to keep the rest of the victims from leaving that server until they can come up with another excuse (bedtime, Mom wants me to take out trash, etc.).
My own experience with this kind of online gaming illustrates not only the gaming mechanisms that enable bullying, but the social pressures that sustain it. Invited to an online server for a comic-book-style variation of Gun Game in which my own family and friends were playing, I quickly found myself among the lesser-armed caste, while my more skilled children dominated the map. When I explained how this game was weighted poorly (not to mention the “stickball” rules that granted a period of immunity to the players most skilled at killing others), I was accused of being a “poor sport”. When I said that I did not want to play another round, I was accused of “rage quitting”…by my own children.
I should pause to point out that I’ve made a few of my own games in my day, and arguing about the rules is nothing new to my family. I’ve even made a few games with rules that were intentionally meant to be frustrating as a means to illustrate a point. Yet my family reacted to my criticism of their rules with a downright demonization of my character. I wondered where they learned these reactions, then realized that these are social behaviors passed on to them from their own experiences in other servers, where others who had picked them up had instilled them with that same, warped sense of duty. These reactions had become so ingrained in their gaming experience that it seemed only natural for them to employ them against their own father when he dared to notice the cracks in the game’s seemingly innocent facade. Sadly, the only reason my own children felt the need to “dominate” their father came from them having been dominated by somebody else in another server; ours was only the latest of a vicious abuse cycle that has been circulating on the internet for years.
This breed of tyranny is not contained to the online world. I experienced similar abuse from my own church, and only by walking away was I able to free my family from the fear of being labeled the over-worked volunteer’s equivalent of a “poor sport”. In both gaming and church ministry, the tactic is the same; the tyrant, fearful of losing the targets of his tyranny, uses psychological means to keep them under his thumb. This behavior is then learned—even by those who are dominated—so that it becomes the social norm within that community. Questioning this system or the rules that maintain it is out of the question. In a sense, “rage-quitters” today are the same as those who were once accused of “heresy” during the Middle Ages. For hundreds of years, few questioned that the “heretics” might have actually had a reason to challenge the rules by which the Church was playing.
As I mentioned earlier, the reception for Fallout 76’s bully-deterrent mechanism was poorly received. …But by whom? Is it possible that those who complained the loudest were, in fact, those who most wanted to ruin other players’ experience in the game by bullying them? Has anybody noticed that the same “rage-quitters” who did not like being bullied by unfair domination-favoring games were not the ones demanding a “fix” for Fallout 76? Could it be that the loudest voices against a well-balanced system of rules—rules that prevent cyberbullying and unpleasant gaming experiences for others—are the very players who want to engage in those practices? What is more disturbing than these questions is the noticeable lack of comment on the problem from the gaming journalism community. It’s as if most of the gamers who write reviews and articles for these games were…among the disappointed.
This presents a much deeper, more disturbing series of questions. How can something like domination-gaming, that appeals to mankind’s most depraved nature, proliferate so well and for so long in a society without being noticed? And, more importantly…what else might we find, if we only look, within our society that we should not be so proud of proliferating?
From a Biblical perspective, I am reminded of the days when Israel demanded a king. They wanted somebody to lead them in battle, like the other nations around them. Of course, this was not something God wanted. Samuel, speaking for God, warned the people as Moses had, that a king would lead to a whole new kind of depravity within the nation. But they would not listen to his reasons. They continued to insist, and eventually got what they wanted. It was not long before that line of kings began to lead Israel into its own period of civil war and unrest from which it never fully recovered. But the people never stopped to ponder whether they had possibly made a mistake. They had what they wanted—or at least, the people on top did. Few noticed the subtle injustices, the murders, the adulteries. Nobody questioned whether God was pleased with the way things were going. Why not? Those who were on top didn’t care about the people they hurt because “they were winning.” The few who dared to speak for God on the matter were usually put to death; the rest just bucked up and kept playing the game.
Here’s my point: in the end, God only got Israel’s attention by destroying the entire nation.
He had to make them lose before he could make them listen.
And if He has to, God will do this again.
Because depravity is still winning, still warping God’s Will, and those who dare to speak up against it are still being condemned as “poor sports”.