I have a lot of criticisms to direct towards Riot Games, for a myriad of reasons. I also used to spend far too much time playing League of Legends (breaching past 2k hours in about 2 years, off and on) and have been following the release of Valorant closely. I have, and continue to be, rather impressed with the systems Riot has implemented in order to stop rampant harassment.

The article “How League of Legends could make the internet a better place” is one with a title that is perhaps too ambitious, which bothers me slightly, but the sentiment is understood. This piece even concedes that a vast majority of online harassment comes from people who are just having a bad day. I would argue it is fundamentally immoral to punish people who rarely lash out in the same way as those who do it all the time. We must not forget nuance, lest we amplify the problem.

First, Riot’s honor system is a good idea. You identify rewards that players want, gatekeep it behind a system that rewards good in-game behavior, profit. It is extraordinarily simple, and yet effective. It also serves as a bit of a social stigma. When you click on someone’s profile and see honor level 0, that serves as a black mark in the eyes of the community. People always fear rejection and being judged, and putting it on their public profile is a good way to tap into that fear. Fear sometimes works better than punishment.

There is no perfect solution to stopping people from harassing others online. To imply that you had a perfect solution to stop all of it would be incredibly bold.  You will not be able to stop a person who is generally fine from lashing out online after having a bad day.

Also, more broadly speaking, I am not a fan of banning accounts for typing in chat. I much more ascribe to chat restrictions and removing ability to type or use voice chat than I am to ban accounts. I think account bans should only be held for people who use cheats, who trade/sell accounts, and who are caught boosting (paying someone to raise your rank).

Harassment in chat and voice is one of the reasons most often cited by people who don’t play  online games as to why that is. I love some of these games, and wish more people would be willing to get in there, and this is just one stupid and unnecessary barrier that is stopping this from happening. I find these games beautiful, and I hope we one day get to a state where these issues are managed, but it is a slow process and it seems unlikely to be fixed anytime soon.

This week we talked about League of Legends and it’s toxic community. In the article How League of Legends could make the internet a better place, it has stated that “the players who just love to be mean, only account for a very small percentage of the negative behavior… More than 90 percent of the vitriol comes from normal players who occasionally act out while playing.” As a part of the League community for a number of years now, I would say that these statistics were mostly accurate to what I have seen from playing. There was a time where I would play many games of league daily with my friends after school. I would say that we are relatively positive players but on those days when we would have a bad day I found that we were more inclined to start BM’ing during our matches. We would go into matches tilted and underperform because of the circumstances we experienced during the school day and just generally be at a poor mindset. I’ve had some experiences where we would be losing and just give up and start to troll our teammates.

One system that Riot added to combat the toxicity is the Honor System. This was released to the public in 2017 and is a system where players can be rewarded for behaving positively during matches. At the end of the match, every player can choose to give an honor to one person on the team, generally for performing well or being a good sport. Based on the number of honors you receive over time, your honor rank can level up and through that you can get prizes in the form of in-game goodies. Personally I feel like this has worked pretty nicely to lower toxicity as over the years I have noticed less extremely toxic behavior in my solo queue games. However, there are still bad apples that simply don’t care about the honor system and still choose to BM and troll. Although they exist, I have experienced this less and less.

Recently, Riot has added another gamemode that I feel is a good way to combat toxicity. This gamemode is known as Clash. Clash is basically an online tourney that Riot hosts on weekends once or twice a month. Players get to make premade teams of 5 and compete in a highly competitive bracket for big prizes given to the winners. However, one requirement in order to participate in Clash is for the player to have at least a level 2 honor. Not only does it stop the player from joining but if a player doesn’t reach the honor requirement, the whole team cannot participate. Because of its lucrative and highly competitive nature, players are more inclined to behave positively and maintain a high honor level in order to participate when Clash does come around. Not only is this a good way of encouraging positive behavior, it gives something for players to look forward to and work towards.

Throughout this course, we have touched on the effects and dangers 2014’s Gamergate posed, on specifically, females and minorities within the online journalism and gaming community. Stemming from the behavior of a misogynistic ex-boyfriend’s intentions, Gamergate resulted in the targeting and harassment of individuals through the usage of in-game behaviors such as, trolling and griefing, as well as behaviors that threatened safety, sanity, and normalcy. An article from the magazine outlet, The Guardian, (“What Gamergate should have taught us about the ‘alt-right'”), specifically discusses the lessons society should have learned from the events of GamerGate, but failed to do so. Those who were being targeted felt unacknowledged and lived in fear whilst society turned a blind eye to this ethical atrocity.

As tensions increased amidst the 2016 presidential election, the female democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, became the victim of harsh meme creations, violent tweets, and outrageous claims, both at the hands of American civilians, the media, and fellow frontrunner Donald Trump himself. But she was not the only candidate who was targeted. (Now President) Trump also became the butt of many a joke and false accusation, but Hillary’s were different. Because of her gender, she was not only harassed for her physical appearance, but was on the receiving end of sexual remarks and desires of violence and assault, some even expressing the desire to rape her. The vast difference between these two candidates – besides their claims, beliefs, values and political parties – was their gender. This identification became the forefront of criticism and critique Clinton experienced at the hands of the harshest crowd: the Internet.

As stated in an article posted on The Atlantic, “Fear of a female president,” Clinton’s candidacy revolved around the media’s harsh comparison between her and Trump. Each argument tried to resonate by utilizing the fact that she was simply a female to back an outrageous and outdated statement in regards to gender assumption and ability. The article explicitly states, “At the Republican National Convention, this fervent hostility was hard to miss. Inside the hall, delegates repeatedly broke into chants of ‘Lock her up.’ Outside the hall, vendors sold campaign paraphernalia.” What was this paraphernalia you may ask? Simply put, it was both insulting and derogatory towards not only Clinton, but to women in general. Pins, buttons, and T-shirts displayed phrases like ‘don’t be a p*ssy, vote for Trump 2016,’ ‘Hillary sucks but not like Monica,’ and ‘a b*tch: don’t vote for one.’ Images depicted cartoon versions of Clinton being urinated on, knocked out, and killed. Both atrocious and vicious, these vendors attempted to push an ideal of women as ‘less than’ in comparison to men, both politically-speaking and simply in reference to cultural and societal boundary and normativity.

It is shocking to me that beliefs and practices like these still exist when referencing females and their capabilities. Time and time again, women have proven themselves to be strong, smart, and resilient, yet in the year 2020, four years since the election, not much has improved when it comes to shaming women for their bodies, their knowledge, and especially, their ability to run a country. Referencing the example of Clinton’s candidacy, this is simply one of many displays of media criticism and Internet trolls who express these toxic beliefs of men’s overpowerment to women. Media holds the power to assist in changing these beliefs and empowering women to take a stand against these criticisms, but will backlash follow? With Gamergate behind us, will it happen again similarly to the 2016 election? Will women continue to live in the shadow of men when it comes to politics, societal boundary, video gameplay, movie production, the music industry, and almost every other outlet of creativity? Will women ever really be able to achieve what men have? Will these achievement be acknowledged as equal and just?

Works Cited:

Beinart, P. (2016, August 4). Fear of a Female President. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/10/fear-of-a-female-president/497564/.

Lees, M. (2016, November 4). What Gamergate should have taught us about the ‘alt-right.’ Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/01/gamergate-alt-right-hate-trump.

This week, we discussed the consequences of the current climate of gaming culture and how it correlates to the increase of alt-right ideas within the gaming community. As Condis states in her opinion article, the proliferation of alt-right ideas may be because of the premise of many of the popular games within the sphere itself. Many popular games, particularly online games, feature a narrative “invasion” from the “other” and a heavy “us vs. them” mentality. Many of these games portray a black and white morality where there is a clear good guy and bad guy, with games such as Call of Duty or Counter Strike: Global Offensive, simplifying the premise of war to repelling the explicitly foreign enemies and invaders.. Another consequence of competitive video games is that the emphasis on player skill as a key element in achieving victory in games breeds a mentality where players want to be the one who is “better” than other players in terms of skills. This creates a desire for superiority for other players that can easily start to leak into ideas outside of gaming. 

The results of this is seen in controversies such as #GamerGate where many members of the gaming community see the increased presence of social justice ideas in games and minority groups within the gaming community as elements that are “taking away” their games. 

Some people may claim that this is just a reaction against the presence of politics in their games, seeing games as an escapist medium where politics shouldn’t be allowed. However, I see this argument can be used in some games where there is simply an LBGTQ character and is open about their sexuality. One example I can think of is when Riot introduced Neeko in League of Legends, and she had in-game character interactions and external statements from developers that Neeko is a lesbian. There was some backlash that happened where players claimed that LGBTQ themes were “being shoved in their faces,” and that Neeko’s sexuality does not need to be openly expressed. However, this same backlash is not applied to heterosexual displays of romance in the game and in external media. Examples include Xayah and Rakan’s interactions, showing their love as a couple, in the game, and Senna’s character trailer where the love between Senna and Lucian is openly displayed. When looked through this lens, there seems to be a double standard between portraying openness of LGBTQ themes and openness of heterosexual themes, where people of the LGBTQ group are expected to refrain from open displays of their sexuality. I think the desire to not see politics in a game can be a valid reason for disliking a game, but I do not agree that open displays of LGBTQ themes count as “politics” if heteronormative themes in games are still generally accepted in the gaming community.

I think this pushback against inclusion of marginalized groups and narratives within the gaming community show that developers should put some consideration into how certain narratives in their games are portrayed. 

Sources:Condis, Megan. “From Fortnite to Alt-Right.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 27 Mar. 2019, http://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/27/opinion/gaming-new-zealand-shooter.html.

The ideas of globalization and capitalism can both be easily connected to video games. Globalization is defined as the way that businesses develop global influence or start working at an international level. Randy Nichols’ chapter called “Pokemon Go: Globalization” explains Pokemon Go largely known mechanic of using world-wide “Pokestops” is “just one example of the game’s reliance on globalization” (250). Pokemon Go has “Pokestops” placed all over the world, making the game possible for almost anyone to play, regardless of their location. One large exception to this is South Korea, because their ban on Google Maps limits the game’s playability there (251). Nichols goes onto explain that Pokemon Go became widely popular because of the Pokemon franchise as a whole. The franchise is known for billions of collective sales of their main series and spin-off console games and various merchandise and memorabilia, as well as the long running cartoon series. The fact that Pokemon is known globally is a big reason for its success.

Capitalism is defined as an economic system where trade and business are controlled by a private owner for profit. Matthew Thomas Payne and Michael Fleisch’s chapter titled “Borderlands: Capitalism” discuss how the “economic system of private ownership predicated on the accumulation of goods and mediated by a marketplace of exchange, all of which is propelled by conditions of scarcity, a desire for profit, and inescapable competition” (165) is implemented in Borderlands through “maximizing one’s return-on-(playtime-)investment through the strategic management of in-game assets” (167), as well as the use of vending machines all over the game world, known as Pandora. These spaces allow players to buy and sell various items, as well as interact and trade with other players, all while being safe from enemies (168). Thus, the game ultimately becomes less about shooting monsters and more about acquiring the best loot, weapons, and the most fortunes, showing how heavily capitalism influences gameplay within Borderlands.

Whenever games are brought up in traditional media, specifically the sports scene, esports is usually scrutinized to be something that takes no skill and the professionals within any esports should not be counted as real athletes. This whole notion is really dumb in my opinion the even though esports don’t have as much physical strain as traditional sports would its not like being a professional in a game is easy. Most people don’t consider the amount of time the player has to commit once they are playing for a pro team in any game. A game where I have a lot of knowledge on what the pros go through is counter strike. A typical day for a cs pro would be start the day around 10 for everyone warmup, and go over any executes, or mistakes from previous scrims for around an hour, and food of course. Then we would start scrims around noon and play for four hours, then an hour break and then another four hours. Then we call it a day there, but in some situations people would be playing more after practice is over. They would play pro ten mans where there are a bunch of pros from other teams and just play for money. I know for me I like to just play deathmatch at the end of the night to help keep my aim consistent. At this point these pros are putting in 12+ hours of work each day, and compared to traditional sports it’s greater or equal to the time esports pros are putting in (Of course not every team runs how I described it, I just used my experience from running a team in the past). Even though physical activity is not the main factor that needs to be cultivated in esports pros, a healthy body has shown to be better for players in general in terms of stamina, and reaction time. Even some organizations have sports psychologists to help with the mental side of the game, specifically in counter strike, it can be a very emotional game for a lot of players and an org called Astralis has shown that a sports psychologist has proved as a good investment. In the past Astralis were known to be a great team, but whenever the big games would come around, their big hitters wouldn’t show up for the match/series. That trend changed when the players got more involved with the sports psychologist and eventually became a really dominant force in the international scene. I’m referencing all of this as proof that the work people in esports deserves to get as much credit as people within the traditional sports scene.

One game that has recently been thrown into the E-sports scene has been Overwatch. I am sure that the majority of people understand how the game works, but I will explain it none the less. Each character has several abilities they can use in the First person shooter. The fatal flaw of the game is that when a team fight takes place all characters are throwing out these abilities that produce these large effects all over the place. Some characters have explosives, shields and even lasers. As a spectator experience it is difficult to determine what exactly is happening without having experienced the game first hand and practiced learning how to discern the clutter from the important things. That being said this is not just a spectator problem as it has also been a problem in game. During team fights it is often common place that several ultimate abilities will be used to win the fight. Ultimate abilities in this game are the worst when it comes to screen clutter. It is a problem when players cannot understand what is happening in the game they are playing. This is not a problem limited to Overwatch as a game like Spellbreak also has this problem. Most games that the abilities produce large visual effects has had to deal with this problem. Overwatch has dealt with this problem through updates to opacity of abilities as well as adding characters that do not have large visual effects of abilities.

In most games there is often two types of people in the community, Those who take the game very competitively and those who just want to chill and play the game casually with their friends. It is often a point of division in games as to where the developers place their main points of balance. One game that happened to suffer from this division nearly a year ago is Sea of Thieves. The game itself splits the play style of player between two aspect, PVP and PVE. About a year ago the game started to gain traction and players off of the back of popular twitch streamer Summit1g who happened to stream the game everyday for over a month as a PVPer who stole from the other players. This caused a large growth in the amount of players that wanted to PVP in the game over PVE and overtime tensions rose between the two groups. It even went so far that the PVE players had their own discord where they would find servers where there were no PVP players and keep it to themselves. Of course this only made the PVP players more hungry as some invaded these servers in order to disrupt the player who were exploiting the small servers to play the game “in an unintended way”
There was a lot of toxicity in the entire thing as smear campaign against Summit and his PVP adventures arose and tried to take him down by insinuating that it was against the “Pirate Code” what he was doing. The Developers were undecided on what to do in the situation and this caused them to make several changes to the game to nerf the PVP players which caused an uproar in the community. That is the last I heard of the situation, but recently the game had a new update and i am interested to see how this issue was dealt with.

This post will be slightly different. This is the story of a League of Legends player that abused an easy to play character to propel two accounts into high rank and show Riot the error of their ways.
In Riot’s game League of legends there is a character that was added called Yuumi. This characters abilities are rather simple… maybe a little to simple. One ability allows the character to merge onto another friendly player and become intangible, another heals the player you are currently attached and the last is a missile that you control. Since this character is a support character they are placed in the bottom lane with the ADC player. All of these mechanics combined allowed a player to launch League on two accounts. one account controlled Yuumi and another controlled the ADC. The player then went on to play Yuumi by using foot pedals while simultaneously playing the ADC as usual. You would think that this would make the team lose a player in a way and be at a disadvantage. Well… this player managed to get the accounts to DIAMOND rank before stopping the experiment. It was posted on reddit and quickly reached the top of the subreddit. Since then Yuumi has received several nerfs to the overall healing output along with other thing. This is a good story of bad balance and its results. It is interesting to see the communities outrage when characters are added to a game that take away from the competitive edge by being almost autopilot. This was also seen in the release version of Torbjorn from Overwatch which would often get Play of the Game by dying and re spawning while the turret would kill everyone.

There is often this concept in gaming that if something is represented in a game that is has to be completely accurate to the real world version. For example every time a new Call of Duty game get released the gun play will play out differently than it would in real life and then someone will post on reddit that “This gun actually shoots faster than it does in game.” While this argument is true it often ignores the fact that the games overall goal is to be a competitive shooter and not a simulator. The developers of these games would rather put a real world object into the game and change it to be balanced in relation to the other objects than put an object in the game that is perfectly realistic and breaks the balance of the game. That being said sometimes the developers seem to forget this themselves and an object will get into the game that is unbalanced because it is trying to hard to be realistic. This is often seen in shotguns since all games represent shotguns as extremely close up and spread-shot weapons when realistically then can shoot pretty far, especially with a slug. In Modern Warfare 2 this was a very large complaint of shotguns. when they killed players from as far away as assault rifles players were upset.
This is just one argument that can be made for Game play Balance over Historical Accuracy.