Who Are You?

For a while now, I’ve been going down the management career path in that elaborate Sims game called “Real Life.” Recently I had the pleasure of applying for and receiving a promotion. Going through the interview process, it was absolutely critical to be simultaneously the most confident person in the room and the most humble. To accomplish this I had to build an artificial image of who I am, and then right before the interview step into that skin — the skin of a person far more talented than I feel I am — and pretend to be the guy who can Get it Done.

And then, once the interviews were done and the decision made, I had to come to terms with the fact that the person inside that GiD skin is still me. Just me. Same old me that did that thing I did before. Only now, everyone is waiting for me to live up to who I said I was, which, let’s be honest, isn’t necessarily easy.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m extremely excited about my new work. Energized daily by the things I hope myself and my team of 40 talented professionals can accomplish. I’m frequently awoken in the middle of the night by a buzz rattling through my body that just wants me to hop up and do … something! But I’m also keenly aware of my limitations, and every now and again, right before an important meeting or discussion with a colleague, I worry that they’re going to find me out. “Hey,” they will say, “you’re not ‘Get it Done’ skin guy; you’re just Sean.” And, they will be right.

Which is why I don’t play games like Demon’s Souls.

Wait! Don’t go. Let me ‘splain.

I have a healthy respect for those who can still find relaxation by being tasked and taxed. I hear people who really love deep and complex strategy games talk about diving in for weeks without even getting close to winning a game in a traditional way. They talk about the small victories, the long slogging march through hell, and how the strife of the journey alone is the prize. And, honestly, I don’t know what the hell they are talking about.

I play video games because that’s one of the easiest ways to create my artificial skin, whatever it is that thing is supposed to be. And GiD guy exists in video games perhaps more clearly than he exists anywhere else. He’s the guy who cleaned up the last seven players in a Counter Strike match. He’s the guy who plays The Who songs on drums at the Expert level in Rock Band. He’s the guy who totally pwns Bronze Leaguers in StarCraft 2. And, yes, all of these accomplishments, such as they are, are totally meaningless constructions of imaginary artifice.

That’s appropriate, because GiD guy is made of the same stuff.

But, because I’ve cultivated this gamer identity, I also can’t learn to enjoy a game where the victory is in losing slightly better than before. After all, I’m playing games as much for a sense of individual empowerment as for anything else. I want to feel good about my accomplishments for the majority of time I’m playing. It feels unhealthy.

The problem is it’s hard to stop being GiD guy. When I am at rest, at play even, I want to still be that guy.

This is part of the reason I loved Portal. Portal makes me feel like the smartest person on the planet. It’s not that Portal is never challenging, but it’s just challenging enough, and even then only briefly and never for too long. Playing Portal, I never have the sense that I might just encounter the unsolvable problem that leads to a shame-filled, slinking, hang-dog, sad-Charlie Brown-music walk to the computer for a GameFAQs check. I get more than enough unsolvable problems everywhere else in my day, thank you very much.

“Yes,” you may say, “but don’t you understand that the ego-inflating vectors of a game like Portal are wholly artificial? They are designed to not be too hard, to make you feel disproportionately smart, to be an illusion of achievement and hollow reinforcement for ultimately having a developer grab your face and turn it toward the answer.” This is a good point. Thank you for describing how I’d like most future game designers to design games for me.

For some of you, I know this is the fork in the road where we must accept that we cannot travel together, that our own personal brands of emotional dysfunction are incompatible. We will shake hands and never look back — you imagining me being carried by sneering imps as my face goes slack, my expression deadens and a thin trickle of saliva escapes from the corner of my mouth as my brain dissolves; me imagining you running pointlessly into wall after wall until finally, bloodied and broken, you are forced to admit that none of it means anything after all.

Come, my imps. GiD guy’s feet are tired.

Comments

so Portal > Demon Souls?

Well, that is the logical extension. I'd call it proven.

My reasons may be slightly different from yours, but I'm with you all the way on the difficulty/fun ratio, Elysium. I've been in a management position for the last six years, frequently dealing with situations where my decisions have serious consequences; if I fail to meet certain goals, I won't lose my job--but people who work for me will, and I've lost a lot of sleep over the years making sure that doesn't happen.

When I come home, I play games to escape from making difficult decisions and being profoundly challenged. I get enough of that in real life. I want just enough difficulty for games to be fun, but not frustrating. Besides, my time is valuable. Where I used to stick it out and grind through frustrating segments in some video games, now I just uninstall the game and move on to the next one.

I agree entirely.

This is why I exclusively play co-op multiplayer: I don't WANT to battle on event ground, narrowly overcoming my foes through my skill and luck. I want to march with other players, trouncing our foes, sharing in our victory and defeat. And hopefully more victory than defeat.

In the same way, I'm into coop boardgames lately, and I like to set it up for a good chance at victory. Pandemic on super-hard isn't for me.

It's petty, but it's getting harder to justify sitting down for 4 hours with a competitive boardgame when I've got a 80% chance of defeat.

I understand your point, and there are lots of times when I feel that way. I wouldn't still be playing Minecraft or Bejeweled if I didn't. But when I have time and clearness of mind I don't mind getting my arse kicked until I overcome a real challenge the way Ghost Stories on the iPad is doing now because each time I learn a new way to defeat the ghosts and one day I'll clear them out of the village and really cheer (and maybe not get my arse kicked at the next Boardgame Night ).

I guess I don't consider it an identity point because I'm not always that way. Sometimes I also consider Portal to be enough, and others I joyfully and voluntarily play rogue-likes where a small misstep can cost you hours of progress.

Nice article. Thanks to Steam clocking my hours, I use a 5 hour rule. If this game isn't fun enough, doesn't challenge me enough - the sweet spot isn't hit in 8 hours of play, then it isn't gonna happen for me.

The funny thing is that this limit gets small every few years. I can recall three or four years back when it was 8 or 10 hours.

I might need to ditch this rule soon or ditch gaming :/

I'm one of those crazy people. Some days, I want to play a game like Portal to get that "I'm SMART AND AWESOME!" feeling that you describe here, but some days I want to play a game like Dark Souls that is going to kick the sh*t out of me and make me work to get those accomplishments, and some days I just want to fire up Diablo and senselessly slaughter hordes of critters.

I have no single gaming habit, aside from an eternal desire for variety.

I'm generally in your camp. I'll happily fail at and replay the exact same task 3-4 times in a row, but somewhere between 5 and 15 times at the most, the game better really have its narrative or other not-directly-gameplay hooks in me pretty deep or I'm just not going to persevere.

That's not hard and fast. It can vary depending on whether there's good checkpointing and/or any significant load time between retries too. If the game instantaneously pops me back to right before I failed then I'm likely to have more patience for retrying, but if I have to sit through a 5 second load time then replay a 30 second section I already passed etc....

Many of us are the first generation of video gamers, thus we grew up on punishingly hard arcade games designed mainly to get as many quarters out of us as possible. They accomplished that by making games with very narrow paths for success. Each turn would, hopefully, teach you something about that path. The worst moments where when you failed on a section you already cleared, but were forced to replay. Dark Souls resurrected that awful feeling, for some reason.

I wonder if games like Dark Souls tweak those same neural pathways we honed as children in the arcade. When we encounter that razor's edge game design now, I wonder if it simply tweaks some kind of neurological nostalgia. Games like this used to be the rule. Now they are an anomaly, but when it is done right, gamers buy it in numbers. For me, Dark Souls feels like the old arcade games I used to play, just without the quarters, which is the whole reason that type of game exists in the first place.

I think some gamers just have a Pavlovian-like response to these games. No matter how many times they get shocked, they know there will be some food...at some point. As Eddie Murphy will tell you, a Saltine cracker tastes like Ritz to a starving man.

I always felt a sense of injustice in the arcade, where I never had enough quarters to ever win a game...not a single one. I always felt like I got a very expensive truncated experience. Now most of the cost is in time, but it feels like a lot to pay for so little joy.

I find my taste in games swings wildly depending on what I'm doing during my work life.

If I'm in the middle of crunch time where I'm battening down the hatches, ignoring the outside world and working as much as I can to get a project finished I like to come home to an engaging story. This lets me escape for a few hours form the stresses that come with trying to finish something you've been staring at for weeks/months. It feels like a breath of fresh air and a nice reminder that there are other things in the world beyond my cubicle and screen.

In quieter, more relaxed times, I like games which challenge me. At work I'm doing what I know, sometimes facing a challenge but usually managing to overcome them without too much strain on the brain. In periods like those it's great to come home to Dark Souls, curse, swear, toss a controller, until I've defeated the challenge infront of me.

But one thing is for sure, and I've come to realize this after a co-worker got into Saint's Row The Third this week, there is never a bad time to beat someone down with an adult-toy themed baseball bat. Never.

Many of us are the first generation of video gamers, thus we grew up on punishingly hard arcade games designed mainly to get as many quarters out of us as possible.

I am from that generation as well, though. I don't miss it a bit.

I've got a very, very fine line where failure leads to frustration, and it seems every year that goes by reduces my tolerance for that. When I was young, I'd play games for hour after hour, honing skills to perfection - a mindset necessary in those days, of course.

Now, though? I just want to have fun. I don't want a game to feel easy, but you're right on the button with Portal: It's not a particularly hard game, but it's one that makes you feel very good about your success.

As with BeriAlpha above as well, I only play co-op multiplayer games for the same reason.

I don't play the crap out of games to hone my skills anymore; I'm just not interested in the effort required. When I was young, I didn't have a family to support, an extremely physically and mentally challenging job to spend 12 hours a day doing, all that. These days, I want my entertainment to be fun and relaxing, and make me feel good.

Every now and then, I try a vs. multiplayer shooter, and get absolutely beat into the dirt. I know I could practice, build the skills necessary and be competitive.... but for what? That's a whole lot of effort that isn't a lot of fun, and I know regardless of how hard I try, I may be competitive but I'll never be able to challenge the kids who can really dedicate themselves to it.

So, yeah... No competetive multiplayer for me. It's just not fun. Co-op, however, is a blast. I really would love to see some more story based games with full co-op play options - say, Mass Effect style games where you actively work together through the story, not just some cheesy stupid multiplayer shooter addon. Sure, the current games are designed for one player to be the Hero, but this doesn't have to always be the case.

heavyfeul wrote:

I wonder if games like Dark Souls tweak those same neural pathways we honed as children in the arcade. When we encounter that razor's edge game design now, I wonder if it simply tweaks some kind of neurological nostalgia. Games like this used to be the rule. Now they are an anomaly, but when it is done right, gamers buy it in numbers. For me, Dark Souls feels like the old arcade games I used to play, just without the quarters, which is the whole reason that type of game exists in the first place.

I don't agree with this at all. Dark Souls feels nothing like those old arcade games except in the sense that it is difficult. Most of the elements that make Dark Souls so crazy and daring are innovative ideas that have never been in games before.

There is a reason that the people that love the Souls games love the Souls games, and it has nothing to do with old school design mentality. It is that exact feeling Sean described having with a game like Portal, but amplified to an extreme that no other modern game provides. It's probably never going to appeal to a gamer like Sean for reasons he outlined in the article, and that's perfectly ok, but I don't play games like Dark Souls to be punished, I play them to be rewarded. League of Legends and Starcraft 2 fall probably also fall in this category.

And I have absolutely zero nostalgia for old school arcade games

Oddly enough, though I mostly agree with you, the aspect of this that hit me most was Get it Done guy.

I wish I had the willpower to even fake being Get it Done guy, but every time I think of doing certain things like just recording some audio and making a YouTube video discussing some thoughts of mine, I get frightened and don't know what to do because I am so afraid of putting myself out there. I may get excited about a story idea or something, but when it comes time to write I just keep second guessing myself and never actually run with it.

It would be really nice to be able to fake being Get it Done guy, even to myself.

Oddly enough, that's what hit me most about this article.

That and the fear that I'll somehow get stuck in management in a field I really am not that passionate about.

Preach it brother.

I gave voice some weeks ago to a speculation that, in general, people's appetite for challenge in games/recreation is inversely proportional to the challenge in their real lives. For some reason, this irritated someone (I don't recall whom), who seemed to think that this meant if you enjoyed challenging games, this meant that you sucked at life. Personally, I think it's a balance thing. We all require a healthy amount of stress and challenge in our lives, and I think that we unconsciously balance that in our pursuits.

For example, the guy with a challenging, high-stakes job that requires a lot of mental or physical effort is likely going to want just chill out when he plays a game (i.e. doesn't take his gaming too seriously). In contrast, the guy with an unchallenging, unstimulating, put-food-on-the-table 9-5 job will seek challenge in recreational activities, whether sports or gaming, and will tend to those pursuits much more seriously. Whether this is purely stimulation, self-esteem, or some combination of the two isn't clear, although I suspect the latter.

To be clear, this is all pure speculation, based on what I've observed, and my own experiences as I've transitioned from a young guy with few responsibilities into a vastly more challenging occupation. Of course, there will be outliers, where people seek challenge in all aspects of their lives, or indeed seek challenge in no aspect of their lives. Both of these are unhealthy, in my opinion.

Ultimately, I think we all try to find a balance in life, in all aspects of our being, fulfilling Maslow's hierarchy as best we know how.

Farscry wrote:

I'm one of those crazy people. Some days, I want to play a game like Portal to get that "I'm SMART AND AWESOME!" feeling that you describe here, but some days I want to play a game like Dark Souls that is going to kick the sh*t out of me and make me work to get those accomplishments, and some days I just want to fire up Diablo and senselessly slaughter hordes of critters.

I have no single gaming habit, aside from an eternal desire for variety.

This.

I still don't really know why I played through and completed Dark Souls. I just kept playing it. I struggled, got better and eventually won. Many times I had help, which was awesome. I couldn't have defeated some of the bosses without assistance. I don't feel any less of a gamer because I had fun, and that is what I want.

To put it another way, I had just as much frustration with the Hammerhead sections of Mass Effect 2 than I had with the Tarsus Demon in Dark Souls. Go figure.

This is one of the reasons I continue to find enjoyment in MMOs, I think. The treadmill of self-congratulatory, ne' ejaculatory DINGs aside, endgame MMO content requires a certain measure of dedication to experience. It's not 'hard' per se, it just requires some paying attention and the ability to adapt to new situations. It's like life with training wheels. And swords. Also lasers. I lost the metaphor somewhere in there.

Anyway, learning a new class in WoW is - in the grand scheme of things - totally meaningless. But to me, it's a fun way to feel like I'm stretching myself without the dangers of a pulled muscle.

My approach in games is similar to my approach in life - every time I go out I want to get something out of it, even if that something is imaginary, fleeting, and ultimately pointless. This is as true of a build order in SC2, a specific stroke technique in swimming, or valuable experimental data in medicine (saving someone life counts, too).

I'm no more energized by banging my head pointlessly at a challenge with nothing to show for it, but frequently, I find something in events that apparently don't have meaning for others.

The first time I lose spectacularly to a new SC2 build excites me. Why? Because I just got handed a recipe for success. I only have to review the replay for a blow-by-blow tutorial! That is a very, very significant something, and often something I can turn around use immediately use to get a victory myself.

Likewise, I often don't mind slogging through a difficult brawler or somesuch if the ongoing gameplay works for me. Every time I play, my neural pathways get forged and reforged until I get the timing perfectly, and I kill something flawlessly that used to kill me with one hit. I may only dodge the fatal hit a split second every time, but I perceive that each split second takes me closer to flawless victory - and that to me is as tangible and as valuable as figuring out how to do a puzzle in a puzzle game.

I have no more patience than Mr. Sands, I think. I just see victory where he sees pointless defeat.

Hum, if I can restart a single track 50 or over 100 times in Trials just to get the best time on my friends list...

Am I a target demo for Demon's Souls and Dark Souls?

interstate78 wrote:

Hum, if I can restart a single track 50 or over 100 times in Trials just to get the best time on my friends list...

You can make things easier by having less friends. That's what I do.

Weird article. Like the one about not playing MOBA's.

Sounds a lot like you're trying to convince yourself to stay away from a certain kind of game, yet feel envious of the achievements others conquer by chipping away at apparently impossible odds.

I read this like "oh man, most games make everybody feel a winner, does diluting the value of finishing a game to finishing a movie, so I guess I ain't really the h0t sh1t the game claims I am.

I really should start something that's actually hard and requires me to hone a certain play style. But wait, before I get anywhere, I'll actually feel what it is to not be the h0t sh1t, and I really don't want stop taking that sweet "you da man" morphine that most contemporary shooters (for example) pump into my brain".

In this respect, Portal is the worst kind of game, because it produces the best kind of lie.

I'd say do what you want. Stop feeding yourself reasons not to and have a go at it. It sounds like you want to do the work and do the learning. Yet you fear the failing. Well, f*ck that.

I usually play with this in mind:

Samuel Beckett wrote:

Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.

Fail better.

"This is a good point. Thank you for describing how I’d like most future game designers to design games for me."

Hoo boy did I laugh.

Something else is in the mix here, I think, that isn't being talked about.

I have the most fun playing games when I'm awake, alert, and able to enjoy them fully. You're probably the same way.

But with a job, kids, and other things going on I rarely get to play games when I'm in the best condition to enjoy them. And if they're going to be brutally challenging? Yeah, I'm not going to be in any shape to steel myself for that kind of challenge.

Not a complaint, just reality.

I have a healthy respect for those who can still find relaxation by being tasked and taxed...diving in for weeks without even getting close to winning a game in a traditional way.

I play video games because that’s one of the easiest ways to create my artificial skin...the guy who plays The Who songs on drums at the Expert level in Rock Band.

Unless you were a drummer beforehand, I think you may be glossing over the journey it took to get from first setting up the drum pads to passing Moon on Expert...

I agree with this article wholeheartedly. But there are also different sorts of challenge and different sorts of patience I have for them.

My feeling on the matter is if I know HOW to do something, I should be able to pass it in a couple of tries. So Portal is much better than Demon's Souls as a game for me. It helps that if the game's main challenge comes in figuring out how to do something, and I really do hit a brick wall I can usually look it up. Skill based challenge has no such recourse.

If the challenge is exacerbated by poor game design, poor controls, etc. then screw that game, I don't have patience for that sort of thing any more.

webdanzer wrote:
I have a healthy respect for those who can still find relaxation by being tasked and taxed...diving in for weeks without even getting close to winning a game in a traditional way.

I play video games because that’s one of the easiest ways to create my artificial skin...the guy who plays The Who songs on drums at the Expert level in Rock Band.

Unless you were a drummer beforehand, I think you may be glossing over the journey it took to get from first setting up the drum pads to passing Moon on Expert... ;)

Not quite. Demon's and Dark Souls don't have Easy or Normal settings that challenge adequately but are still passable. There's a beginner level to Rock Band and Guitar Hero that is challenging, but also easy enough that you can pick up on the basics.

Demon's and Dark Souls build in difficulty over time, but they still start at the deep end of the pool. You don't get a life vest or them swimmy-things for your arms to learn. They just shove you in and say "swim".

I imagine you walking into the interview for the position and being asked why you are qualified for the promotion and answering. "Because I'm bionic b*tch!" Then as you walked out of the room the theme to 6 Million Dollar Man would play.

interstate78 wrote:

Hum, if I can restart a single track 50 or over 100 times in Trials just to get the best time on my friends list...

Am I a target demo for Demon's Souls and Dark Souls?

I'm not sure if your being serious or not but in some ways, yes. Since there are no traditional check points in Dark Souls, when you die you have to make your way to the boss / area again from a beginning point. Since all the enemies are always in the same spot allot of the game is about creating a path and learning the patterns that minimize your health loss.

I've long thought the same way as MadcapLaugher and Coldstream. I used to be the guy who beat Ninja Gaiden and Mega Man games on the NES, or poured hours into Civ II, when my job was fairly unchallenging. Depending on what my job and life currently throw at me, I find myself looking for varying levels of physical and mental challenge, so sometimes I'm up for Bayonetta and others I just want to mindlessly hit "attack" over and over in a turn-based RPG.

I think evolution has hardwired us to seek challenge, to a certain level.