When I read this piece on Kotaku earlier, I thought that this line was the most interesting moment. Glad to see you draw specific attention to it. We make choices when we speak, and turns of phrase like this matter.
Fantastic article. That line was such a puzzling encapsulation of the coping/empowerment mechanism you were talking about... "You make me [insert action here]" is very indicative of the perceived absence of agency, but the action itself in-game is a reclamation of that agency.
I'd rather 'Pete' used GTA as is outlet than not have it and 'Pete' took it out on real people. Much like people who use prostitutes to fulfil their sexual 'fantasies'.
It's a difficult one to hear, but that's what you get for asking the question. Especially after having tracked him down knowing something wasn't quite right about his attitude to gaming, and especially women.
It's like visiting Hannibal Lector - for example - and then wondering why you're left feeling uneasy.
Not saying you deserved it, but really, you shouldn't be surprised.
Pete can speak for himself, but I think I understand his point of view. In the article you praise his gentleness and amazing selflessness while saying he's the type of guy you'd never date. How many times do you think he can hear stuff like that before deciding women aren't being honest with him?
I can't help but think that "Pete" is being made to look like a humongous jerk. Sure, he beats prostitutes in GTA, but doesn't everyone? GTA doesn't let you escort them to their houses or bring them to women's shelters or report them to the police (though that might be an interesting wrinkle to think about in the next GTA).
It was nice of him to open up about some of his struggles and allow them to be published to a wider world. He may be troubled, but at least he is probably not like that in real life.
I would give him a break, personally. I don't think he deserves some of the comments I read in the Kotaku comments.
Taken out of context, that's a totally creepy thing to say, but based on your description of the conversation, it seems like the type of thing that makes sense in the head but then doesn't quite sound right being said out loud. Also to be fair, there is obviously a history that he is referring to that you decline to discuss (fairly so), and so we can't really know what he means.
Then again, the desire to abuse virtual women based on experiences with real women in and of itself is discomforting. I think that there are a lot of dark sides to our personalities that we try to pretend don't exist, so it is refreshing to see someone admit to it so candidly. I like the idea of games making us more aware of our deeper psychology.
I always find the whole 'girls don't go for nice guys' thing puts my back up a bit. It tends to have a lingering smell of misogyny about it, a sense that there's a set of behaviours women should find attractive and that men who follow those behaviours have a right to feel aggrieved if women don't respond appropriately. If a guy genuinely isn't having women ever be attracted to him (rather than just the specific few women he's chosen to idolise), I'd be pretty damn sceptical about it being because he's 'too nice' or 'in the friend zone'. Women date nice guys, and they date their. Some do neither of these things, and some are particularly drawn to selfish or abusive men (or women, of course - let's not talk as if we were in a universe of heterosexuals), but there's no gender-wide prejudice against upstanding blokes. Being kind and caring can be an active plus a lot of the time, as well - but there's a massive difference between being caring and being deferential, fawning, or 'safe'.
I'm made even more uncomfortable by the idea that the kind of in-game behaviour described is some kind of healthy outlet for perfectly ok resentment, but I'm rambling already.
@Sean Good points. A while back Kate Harding had a great post on Broadsheet at Salon about how Nice Guys aren't really that nice.
That being said, we haven't heard a whole lot about "Pete" other than his GTA play style (which is gross but not uncommon), that he has some Nice Guy indicators. There are plenty of upstanding citizens who, when they play FPS, get off on pwnership to an absolutely ridiculous degree. So I'm a little hesitant to single out just one disturbing style of play as egregious.
Finally managed to read this article. Nice. I find the idea that you go for the jerks in Harvest Moon funny, and I kinda liked Pete's comment on it! ;)
I'm a moody player of games. In life, I'm a nice guy but I'm not held by the same stigma that I used to get. The idea that nice guys finish last is perpetuated by the ones that do. When a nice guy fails, everyone is sympathetic and wonders why the unassertive, safe option never gets the girl (though they, themselves, wouldn't want to date him, of course).
When a jerk fails, everyone just laughs at them. And the jerk moves on, caring little about it. Because hey, they're jerks! Keep trying and eventually, you'll win.
Anyway, this was meant to be about computer games, I think...
When I play an RPG, I normally play pretty much as myself, where possible, fireball-casting non-withstanding. You know, be nice, do the right thing. Other times, I give the character a background and work it like a method actor. Sometimes they're the forgetful mage, unable to remember where the quest-giver is. Othertimes they're the compulsive liar, deliberately doing the opposite of what they agree. Sometimes they're Conan, sometimes they're Dexter.
Escapism. Yay!
But I guess, when you're given an entirely blank slate with certain rules to follow, like Farmville or HM, if you like the game you're probably pre-disposed to certain lines of thought within it. Good potential survey there. Find women who play HM, see who goes for which guys!
I've always wondered exactly why comments like this end up coming up. It's something that I've heard more frequently then not, especially being a girl who plays videogames. :/
I invited a friend over once to play GTAIV and his first response was "Yeah, let's beat up some hoes." And that really bothered me. I'm sure it might have been a joke, maybe not because that does seem to be one of the top activities associated with that game. I haven't done it since GTAIII when I was in high school and it was more for the novelty (remember this was the first mainstream, enjoyable game to allow it).
I rarely ever attack pedestrians because I don't find it interesting. I find the joy in GTA is pulling off stunts and becoming efficient and precise at shooting, traversing, and driving, the game's main mechanics. I do punch an occasional ranting crazy but that's to shut him up. I also kill beggars in Assassins creed but again, they actively impede me and I want them to stop.
I rarely get emotional (angry) when attacking the enemies and the rush I get from beating a certain scenario comes from the skill I have to use to achieve it and also the improvisation that I am allowed (i.e. using a firetruck to get the upper hand in a race).
I get a little more invested in multiplayer but that is because I'm playing against real people with real personalities. I get a little wicked and joyful when I pass a guy who's trying to ruin a race with a rocket launcher and I leave a grenade for him. I generally enjoy winning a competition but never really care when I lose, usually I'm in awe of a particularly skilled opponent.
The one mission in GTAIV that really affected me was the husband with the cheating wife. I was uncomfortable doing his missions to begin with and I could never beat his final mission. When I found him with his wife's body in the trunk, the only thing I was able do is to get in the car and back it into him to crush him. I wish the game would have given me the freedom to complete the mission that way.
I guess I haven't really looked at games as fantasy fulfillment or anger release since high school. I play for fun mechanics (pixeljunk shooter) or for action and challenge (GTAIV, Uncharted 2).
Note to "Nice Guys": why are waiting until you are a friend before asking the girl out? I think sometimes nice and timid are confused. My girlfriend and I are best friends, but I couldn't forsee that when I asked her out.
@Sean Totally agree. I think of Brian Krakau on My So Called Life. Through most of the series, he seems to be a nice guy, but it turns out he's just shy, when he's finally given the chance to do the right thing, it turns out he's kind of a jerk. The "Nice guys Finish Last" thing is inherently a sense of entitlement. "I act in these ways so you should like me." There is no reason a girl/ guy should like you. You can do things to make yourself more desirable or not but your efforts end at you and the other person has no obligation, commitment, anything.
Women go home with the agressor, the guy who's willing to treat them like the idol, the desired, the one-and-only. They like being dominated, being adored, being the princess. The dark side to relationships is desire as its primal, feral need to overflow and claim the other. The "nice" guy doesn't understand that women are as much a prize to be won as they are something to be revered
@ anonymous Women aren't a prize to be won and they don't all want to be dominated. They should be respected. I think the us VS them/ man vs woman mentality that is pervasive in our society is very unhealthy. Women and men aren't exotically different beasts that come from opposing clans. Maybe the problem with nice guys is that they should just be nice people.
@Anonymous (the second one) - allow me to be a little less eloquent than Ken and say this: What a load of utter rubbish (I said something stronger, but dunno if there's a swearing policy on SVGL?). Half the problem with 'nice guy' stuff is that shy men get convinced that nonsense like that is true.
i don't like being a princess. when guys kiss my ass it turns me off, and i think the same is true for every girl i know.
like anyone, we like to be with people who have their own lives and interests and don't appear to need us, not people who bend over backward to overstate chivalrous gestures.
unfortunately "men that don't appear to need us" are usually "self absorbed asshats"
In truth, i was happy to find killing in GTAIV quite repulsive. The animations were very believable and the game's natural role playing ability was very interesting, but nevertheless i wonder if it works on everyone as well as it could.
This is a very present conflict with a lot of people, the distinction between a game that is "just a game", an one that pushes beyond the limits of a simple mechanics exercise. When we evaluate someone's actions in a game, it's really, really hard to have a structured protocol to help us with determining how much a person imprints himself on his avatar, even while not taking into account the possibilities of role playing.
I'd love if some serious research was done in this area, if not just to clear thing a bit. It'd do wonders for the industry. I think.
Also, @Sean, agree completely. Until a few years back i wouldn't take such things seriously, but after seeing it's effect on so many social occasions, it worries me. Not just it being a misogynistic stance, but also it almost being misanthropist propaganda. I mean, who would want a world like that? It generally reduces all humans (with a clear attention to women) to a very, very narrow field of action and thought. Not just that, but it's said with almost fanatic conviction, as if change were not just impossible, but also illegal!
I wonder if it's just a passing social construct, or a result of the nowadays startlingly sexual social pressure? I'm almost ("almost" having a very broad range) convinced that this will bring forth a social status akin to that of Japan, where such matters are concerned. Which is frightening.
I like how the whole discussion turned into "Relationship advices with Leigh Alexander" ;) That being said, I really love that kind of personal and psychological features, truly my favorites.
It's also interesting to think that before Farmville, people like Rosie who wants control in their life would probably play The Sims. That game is all about controlling the life of people, have a true sense of power over the events. Want a job? Read the newspaper. Want a relationship? Talk to someone long enough. Don't like that guy? Remove the ladder while he swims. Every games are about having control over something, and some, like Sims and Farmville, just take the concept a bit further.
Wow, I guess that's why I play Sims 3 when I'm stressed.
I know a nice guy who has trouble getting ladies. For this particular person, it's because he's timid of approaching and talking to them. Still, the girls love him, but as he is not taking any steps to acquire the new/unknown girls and the others are his friends, nothing happens, and he gets depressed and more timid.
The nice guys vs. jerks thing is a classic polling problem. Women have a wide variety of tastes in men, but the socially acceptable response is, "I'm looking for a nice, sensitive guy." This leads both genders to conclude that nice guys should be in high demand, and thus nice guys will constantly be told "I don't like you but I'm sure other girls do," even in the face of contradictory evidence.
Add a dash of paranoia, and the conclusion "Girls must be lying to me" isn't too far of a jump. They aren't, of course; it's just confirmation bias.
I'm sorry that's been your experience, but (as I'm sure you're aware) there's plenty of middle ground - and other directions, for that matter - between the needy and the self-obsessed.
Not that the two things are mutually exclusive, either. Unfortunately.
Armchair psychology aside, if someone is using games as an outlet it should be consistent across all the games they play. I'd be more interested in seeing if someone who plays GTA like a psycho would do so in say, Dragon Age. GTA only offers "desperate criminal" and "psychotic" options really. Playing like a nutjob is the whole point.
As a longtime "Nice Guy" who has finally found love, I feel like I have some insight to the situation that hasn't been discussed yet.
Compassion can be misinterpreted as neediness. Guys and gals want to be wanted, not needed. Being needed implies obligation. Being wanted releases endorphins.
My girlfriend wasn't single when I met her, but she wasn't happy either, and I had to be kind of a jerk to make her see it. Before her, almost every girl I asked out gave me the "I have a boyfriend already" line, and I left it at that.
What nice person wants to ruin a relationship, after all? I didn't inquire if they were happy, or insist they get to know me well enough to consider if I might make them happier. I only got the courage to do anything with my current girlfriend because we were mutually commiserating about past failed romances. I could tell she liked me when she stayed up until 4AM repeatedly talking to me about anything, everything, and nothing at the same time while her boyfriend went to bed. I could tell she wasn't happy because she was talking to me about her troubles rather than him.
How many shy guys like me never get the chance, because they assume that "I have a boyfriend" means "I'm happy"? How many never get obvious clues, or have built up such a negative image of themselves after repeated rejection that any signs of interest they find, they dismiss?
I blame the women who stay in relationships they aren't happy in because they're too afraid of being alone. I blame the guys who treat women like crap but get upset when someone makes "their" woman a better offer. I blame the jerks who fake nice early to get into a relationship when they aren't actually good people. I blame society for making it inappropriate, after being handed "I have a boy/girlfriend", to inquire "But are you happy?". Finally, I blame the media for showing, over and over, the nice guy finishing last, leaving every budding caring male romantic to figure that he'll never get the girl of his dreams either. After all, she probably likes jerks, right?
To change topics, I found the story about the Farmville player just as interesting. I'm fortunate enough to be employed, but I understand the need for validation and being able to display her accomplishments in the game as the economic "real world," be it in the quest for a job or the daily grind that comes with one, seems out of control for a lot of people. It reminded me of the "Why We Play Games" and how Farmville gave your subject both the benefit of control (as you had pointed out in your example list) but also of power (not the violent kind, but the powerful feeling of having your prowess displayed for all to see). Solid.
It's always funny to see comments like that. Had the gender been on the other foot [sorry 2 hours of sleep] something like that is perceived differently. Asexuality gets no love.
Why is it that a guy can't be nice to a woman without it being labelled needy? If I like a woman, I'm going to attempt to treat her nicely.
Instead, because girls want men who appear aloof, you either get nice guys who have to put up a bullshit act all the time, or guys who are aloof because they don't give a shit about you. I realize women can't change how they feel sometimes but you've gotta realize when your standards are screwing you and everybody else.
I thought your Kotaku post was very interesting. I think games like GTAIV can reveal some things about the player. It's such an blank slate, that players are able to do whatever they want. Some seemingly "nice" people want to do some pretty insane things. I don't think that makes them crazy, or any less nice. But it certainly does reveal something about them. For example, I'm pretty much always the good guy. I never harvested in Bioshock (couldn't bring myself to it), and I'm always doing the best I can in games like Red Dead, GTA, and Mass Effect. Does that make me a good person? Not at all. It's just that I happen to identify so much with the world in the game, that I can't bring myself to act in a manner contrary to my real life personality. However, in games where I don't identify so strongly with the universe, I have no problem doing as many crazy things as I can, just to see what happens.
38 comments:
When I read this piece on Kotaku earlier, I thought that this line was the most interesting moment. Glad to see you draw specific attention to it. We make choices when we speak, and turns of phrase like this matter.
Kind of scary line there at the end, but another great article on Kotaku.
Fantastic article. That line was such a puzzling encapsulation of the coping/empowerment mechanism you were talking about... "You make me [insert action here]" is very indicative of the perceived absence of agency, but the action itself in-game is a reclamation of that agency.
YOU CAN BEAT PEOPLE WITH DILDOS?. Rofl awesome.
I'd rather 'Pete' used GTA as is outlet than not have it and 'Pete' took it out on real people. Much like people who use prostitutes to fulfil their sexual 'fantasies'.
It's a difficult one to hear, but that's what you get for asking the question. Especially after having tracked him down knowing something wasn't quite right about his attitude to gaming, and especially women.
It's like visiting Hannibal Lector - for example - and then wondering why you're left feeling uneasy.
Not saying you deserved it, but really, you shouldn't be surprised.
Pete can speak for himself, but I think I understand his point of view. In the article you praise his gentleness and amazing selflessness while saying he's the type of guy you'd never date. How many times do you think he can hear stuff like that before deciding women aren't being honest with him?
I can't help but think that "Pete" is being made to look like a humongous jerk. Sure, he beats prostitutes in GTA, but doesn't everyone? GTA doesn't let you escort them to their houses or bring them to women's shelters or report them to the police (though that might be an interesting wrinkle to think about in the next GTA).
It was nice of him to open up about some of his struggles and allow them to be published to a wider world. He may be troubled, but at least he is probably not like that in real life.
I would give him a break, personally. I don't think he deserves some of the comments I read in the Kotaku comments.
It's Nice Guy(R).
Taken out of context, that's a totally creepy thing to say, but based on your description of the conversation, it seems like the type of thing that makes sense in the head but then doesn't quite sound right being said out loud. Also to be fair, there is obviously a history that he is referring to that you decline to discuss (fairly so), and so we can't really know what he means.
Then again, the desire to abuse virtual women based on experiences with real women in and of itself is discomforting. I think that there are a lot of dark sides to our personalities that we try to pretend don't exist, so it is refreshing to see someone admit to it so candidly. I like the idea of games making us more aware of our deeper psychology.
I always find the whole 'girls don't go for nice guys' thing puts my back up a bit. It tends to have a lingering smell of misogyny about it, a sense that there's a set of behaviours women should find attractive and that men who follow those behaviours have a right to feel aggrieved if women don't respond appropriately. If a guy genuinely isn't having women ever be attracted to him (rather than just the specific few women he's chosen to idolise), I'd be pretty damn sceptical about it being because he's 'too nice' or 'in the friend zone'. Women date nice guys, and they date their. Some do neither of these things, and some are particularly drawn to selfish or abusive men (or women, of course - let's not talk as if we were in a universe of heterosexuals), but there's no gender-wide prejudice against upstanding blokes. Being kind and caring can be an active plus a lot of the time, as well - but there's a massive difference between being caring and being deferential, fawning, or 'safe'.
I'm made even more uncomfortable by the idea that the kind of in-game behaviour described is some kind of healthy outlet for perfectly ok resentment, but I'm rambling already.
That should have been 'and they date their friends'.
@Sean
Good points. A while back Kate Harding had a great post on Broadsheet at Salon about how Nice Guys aren't really that nice.
That being said, we haven't heard a whole lot about "Pete" other than his GTA play style (which is gross but not uncommon), that he has some Nice Guy indicators. There are plenty of upstanding citizens who, when they play FPS, get off on pwnership to an absolutely ridiculous degree. So I'm a little hesitant to single out just one disturbing style of play as egregious.
Finally managed to read this article. Nice. I find the idea that you go for the jerks in Harvest Moon funny, and I kinda liked Pete's comment on it! ;)
I'm a moody player of games. In life, I'm a nice guy but I'm not held by the same stigma that I used to get. The idea that nice guys finish last is perpetuated by the ones that do. When a nice guy fails, everyone is sympathetic and wonders why the unassertive, safe option never gets the girl (though they, themselves, wouldn't want to date him, of course).
When a jerk fails, everyone just laughs at them. And the jerk moves on, caring little about it. Because hey, they're jerks! Keep trying and eventually, you'll win.
Anyway, this was meant to be about computer games, I think...
When I play an RPG, I normally play pretty much as myself, where possible, fireball-casting non-withstanding. You know, be nice, do the right thing. Other times, I give the character a background and work it like a method actor. Sometimes they're the forgetful mage, unable to remember where the quest-giver is. Othertimes they're the compulsive liar, deliberately doing the opposite of what they agree. Sometimes they're Conan, sometimes they're Dexter.
Escapism. Yay!
But I guess, when you're given an entirely blank slate with certain rules to follow, like Farmville or HM, if you like the game you're probably pre-disposed to certain lines of thought within it. Good potential survey there. Find women who play HM, see who goes for which guys!
I've always wondered exactly why comments like this end up coming up. It's something that I've heard more frequently then not, especially being a girl who plays videogames. :/
I invited a friend over once to play GTAIV and his first response was "Yeah, let's beat up some hoes." And that really bothered me. I'm sure it might have been a joke, maybe not because that does seem to be one of the top activities associated with that game. I haven't done it since GTAIII when I was in high school and it was more for the novelty (remember this was the first mainstream, enjoyable game to allow it).
I rarely ever attack pedestrians because I don't find it interesting. I find the joy in GTA is pulling off stunts and becoming efficient and precise at shooting, traversing, and driving, the game's main mechanics. I do punch an occasional ranting crazy but that's to shut him up. I also kill beggars in Assassins creed but again, they actively impede me and I want them to stop.
I rarely get emotional (angry) when attacking the enemies and the rush I get from beating a certain scenario comes from the skill I have to use to achieve it and also the improvisation that I am allowed (i.e. using a firetruck to get the upper hand in a race).
I get a little more invested in multiplayer but that is because I'm playing against real people with real personalities. I get a little wicked and joyful when I pass a guy who's trying to ruin a race with a rocket launcher and I leave a grenade for him. I generally enjoy winning a competition but never really care when I lose, usually I'm in awe of a particularly skilled opponent.
The one mission in GTAIV that really affected me was the husband with the cheating wife. I was uncomfortable doing his missions to begin with and I could never beat his final mission. When I found him with his wife's body in the trunk, the only thing I was able do is to get in the car and back it into him to crush him. I wish the game would have given me the freedom to complete the mission that way.
I guess I haven't really looked at games as fantasy fulfillment or anger release since high school. I play for fun mechanics (pixeljunk shooter) or for action and challenge (GTAIV, Uncharted 2).
Note to "Nice Guys": why are waiting until you are a friend before asking the girl out? I think sometimes nice and timid are confused. My girlfriend and I are best friends, but I couldn't forsee that when I asked her out.
@Sean Totally agree. I think of Brian Krakau on My So Called Life. Through most of the series, he seems to be a nice guy, but it turns out he's just shy, when he's finally given the chance to do the right thing, it turns out he's kind of a jerk.
The "Nice guys Finish Last" thing is inherently a sense of entitlement. "I act in these ways so you should like me." There is no reason a girl/ guy should like you. You can do things to make yourself more desirable or not but your efforts end at you and the other person has no obligation, commitment, anything.
@anonymous
Correct. Timid != Nice.
Women go home with the agressor, the guy who's willing to treat them like the idol, the desired, the one-and-only. They like being dominated, being adored, being the princess. The dark side to relationships is desire as its primal, feral need to overflow and claim the other. The "nice" guy doesn't understand that women are as much a prize to be won as they are something to be revered
@ anonymous
Women aren't a prize to be won and they don't all want to be dominated. They should be respected. I think the us VS them/ man vs woman mentality that is pervasive in our society is very unhealthy. Women and men aren't exotically different beasts that come from opposing clans. Maybe the problem with nice guys is that they should just be nice people.
@Anonymous (the second one) - allow me to be a little less eloquent than Ken and say this: What a load of utter rubbish (I said something stronger, but dunno if there's a swearing policy on SVGL?). Half the problem with 'nice guy' stuff is that shy men get convinced that nonsense like that is true.
That whole article made me feel really uncomfortable for some reason.
I enjoyed reading it but...I just can't place my finger on it.
Either way, good article.
I don't pick up hookers, I run them over. Actually I run over everyone.
i don't like being a princess. when guys kiss my ass it turns me off, and i think the same is true for every girl i know.
like anyone, we like to be with people who have their own lives and interests and don't appear to need us, not people who bend over backward to overstate chivalrous gestures.
unfortunately "men that don't appear to need us" are usually "self absorbed asshats"
In truth, i was happy to find killing in GTAIV quite repulsive. The animations were very believable and the game's natural role playing ability was very interesting, but nevertheless i wonder if it works on everyone as well as it could.
This is a very present conflict with a lot of people, the distinction between a game that is "just a game", an one that pushes beyond the limits of a simple mechanics exercise. When we evaluate someone's actions in a game, it's really, really hard to have a structured protocol to help us with determining how much a person imprints himself on his avatar, even while not taking into account the possibilities of role playing.
I'd love if some serious research was done in this area, if not just to clear thing a bit. It'd do wonders for the industry. I think.
Also, @Sean, agree completely. Until a few years back i wouldn't take such things seriously, but after seeing it's effect on so many social occasions, it worries me. Not just it being a misogynistic stance, but also it almost being misanthropist propaganda. I mean, who would want a world like that? It generally reduces all humans (with a clear attention to women) to a very, very narrow field of action and thought. Not just that, but it's said with almost fanatic conviction, as if change were not just impossible, but also illegal!
I wonder if it's just a passing social construct, or a result of the nowadays startlingly sexual social pressure? I'm almost ("almost" having a very broad range) convinced that this will bring forth a social status akin to that of Japan, where such matters are concerned. Which is frightening.
Man, what a world. I hope naiveté is hiding the real world from me. I don't want it to be this one.
I like how the whole discussion turned into "Relationship advices with Leigh Alexander" ;) That being said, I really love that kind of personal and psychological features, truly my favorites.
It's also interesting to think that before Farmville, people like Rosie who wants control in their life would probably play The Sims. That game is all about controlling the life of people, have a true sense of power over the events. Want a job? Read the newspaper. Want a relationship? Talk to someone long enough. Don't like that guy? Remove the ladder while he swims. Every games are about having control over something, and some, like Sims and Farmville, just take the concept a bit further.
Wow, I guess that's why I play Sims 3 when I'm stressed.
Anyone here ever open up a game of SimCity and just go crazy with the Disasters menu?
I know a nice guy who has trouble getting ladies. For this particular person, it's because he's timid of approaching and talking to them. Still, the girls love him, but as he is not taking any steps to acquire the new/unknown girls and the others are his friends, nothing happens, and he gets depressed and more timid.
Loved the article.
The nice guys vs. jerks thing is a classic polling problem. Women have a wide variety of tastes in men, but the socially acceptable response is, "I'm looking for a nice, sensitive guy." This leads both genders to conclude that nice guys should be in high demand, and thus nice guys will constantly be told "I don't like you but I'm sure other girls do," even in the face of contradictory evidence.
Add a dash of paranoia, and the conclusion "Girls must be lying to me" isn't too far of a jump. They aren't, of course; it's just confirmation bias.
@Leigh
I'm sorry that's been your experience, but (as I'm sure you're aware) there's plenty of middle ground - and other directions, for that matter - between the needy and the self-obsessed.
Not that the two things are mutually exclusive, either. Unfortunately.
The above comment was me, wrong google account.
Armchair psychology aside, if someone is using games as an outlet it should be consistent across all the games they play. I'd be more interested in seeing if someone who plays GTA like a psycho would do so in say, Dragon Age. GTA only offers "desperate criminal" and "psychotic" options really. Playing like a nutjob is the whole point.
I do love how a topic about inner game personality immediately gets turned into a discussion about Nice Guys.
Anyhow. Leigh, the new, non SVGL articles bar on your blog isn't updating and it's stuck on the Video Game Death article. Just to let you know.
As a longtime "Nice Guy" who has finally found love, I feel like I have some insight to the situation that hasn't been discussed yet.
Compassion can be misinterpreted as neediness. Guys and gals want to be wanted, not needed. Being needed implies obligation. Being wanted releases endorphins.
My girlfriend wasn't single when I met her, but she wasn't happy either, and I had to be kind of a jerk to make her see it. Before her, almost every girl I asked out gave me the "I have a boyfriend already" line, and I left it at that.
What nice person wants to ruin a relationship, after all? I didn't inquire if they were happy, or insist they get to know me well enough to consider if I might make them happier. I only got the courage to do anything with my current girlfriend because we were mutually commiserating about past failed romances. I could tell she liked me when she stayed up until 4AM repeatedly talking to me about anything, everything, and nothing at the same time while her boyfriend went to bed. I could tell she wasn't happy because she was talking to me about her troubles rather than him.
How many shy guys like me never get the chance, because they assume that "I have a boyfriend" means "I'm happy"? How many never get obvious clues, or have built up such a negative image of themselves after repeated rejection that any signs of interest they find, they dismiss?
I blame the women who stay in relationships they aren't happy in because they're too afraid of being alone. I blame the guys who treat women like crap but get upset when someone makes "their" woman a better offer. I blame the jerks who fake nice early to get into a relationship when they aren't actually good people. I blame society for making it inappropriate, after being handed "I have a boy/girlfriend", to inquire "But are you happy?". Finally, I blame the media for showing, over and over, the nice guy finishing last, leaving every budding caring male romantic to figure that he'll never get the girl of his dreams either. After all, she probably likes jerks, right?
To change topics, I found the story about the Farmville player just as interesting. I'm fortunate enough to be employed, but I understand the need for validation and being able to display her accomplishments in the game as the economic "real world," be it in the quest for a job or the daily grind that comes with one, seems out of control for a lot of people.
It reminded me of the "Why We Play Games" and how Farmville gave your subject both the benefit of control (as you had pointed out in your example list) but also of power (not the violent kind, but the powerful feeling of having your prowess displayed for all to see). Solid.
So let me get this straight...If a guy doesn't 'appear' to need a woman he's usually self-absorbed?
Yes.
Or homosexual.
Or both.
Or Rainman. Definitely Rainman, definitely.
It's always funny to see comments like that. Had the gender been on the other foot [sorry 2 hours of sleep] something like that is perceived differently. Asexuality gets no love.
Damn I'm Punny
Why is it that a guy can't be nice to a woman without it being labelled needy? If I like a woman, I'm going to attempt to treat her nicely.
Instead, because girls want men who appear aloof, you either get nice guys who have to put up a bullshit act all the time, or guys who are aloof because they don't give a shit about you. I realize women can't change how they feel sometimes but you've gotta realize when your standards are screwing you and everybody else.
Cool article. GTA games are fun though, but they make you do bad things! In the game of course. We're all adults here. Most of us.
I thought your Kotaku post was very interesting. I think games like GTAIV can reveal some things about the player. It's such an blank slate, that players are able to do whatever they want. Some seemingly "nice" people want to do some pretty insane things. I don't think that makes them crazy, or any less nice. But it certainly does reveal something about them. For example, I'm pretty much always the good guy. I never harvested in Bioshock (couldn't bring myself to it), and I'm always doing the best I can in games like Red Dead, GTA, and Mass Effect. Does that make me a good person? Not at all. It's just that I happen to identify so much with the world in the game, that I can't bring myself to act in a manner contrary to my real life personality. However, in games where I don't identify so strongly with the universe, I have no problem doing as many crazy things as I can, just to see what happens.
Post a Comment