A Toxic Community

I usually tend to shy away from topics like these, but with the state of the country today it's hard not to veer into these things a little bit. On top of this, the toxicity of the gaming community has been something that I've long had strong feelings about but have only voiced to friends I participate in the hobby with. Quite frankly this is something that's been boiling over for a very long time but it wasn't until this recent incident with a popular YouTuber that I felt I should comment on it a little bit.

To bring that opening into context, I need to give some background on what happened with this popular YouTuber. PewDiePie is basically synonymous with two things in popular culture: gaming and YouTube. It's how the guy makes a living and it's what propelled him to a high level of success in today's world. At this point in time, despite previous controversies, I believe he still holds the record for the highest number of subscribers on that platform. This guy reaches millions of viewers of which a majority are young and impressionable children. However, therein lies the problem with his most recent controversy. 

In a recent live stream on YouTube, PewDiePie (real name Felix Kjellberg) managed to slip out a racial slur after one of his teammates was killed. In frustration for the action, he very casually let out the n-word in reference to the enemy player. He then quickly turned to calling the player an asshole, quite possibly after realizing what word he had let slip before. After some time, the quick cover-up of words then turned to a rationalization that he had forgot he was live streaming. It's a very awkward few minutes to watch. 

Let's unpack this for a second though. I've been a gamer for a better part of my life. It's a longstanding hobby that both engages a person interactively, visually, imaginatively and, in more recent years, socially. That last aspect is where things seem to get rough. With the advent of the internet you were no longer confined to playing cooperatively on a couch or in an arcade. The internet combined with online gaming allowed you the opportunity to connect and share with fellow gamers all over the world. And with that opportunity breeds competitive online play, which undoubtedly, leads to trash talk. Trash talk is generally no different from talking smack to another person in say a game of pick-up basketball. The problem with trash talk in online games though is you're given anonymity that you would not have in a face to face scenario. And with this veil of anonymity, people have gotten accustomed to saying some pretty wretched things in online games.

I myself have heard racial slurs and racist diatribes spouted out in online games as if it was every day language. The n-word was tossed around pretty liberally in the days of playing Call of Duty on X-Box 360 as well as across other platforms and games. A majority of my time playing online games today is spent with the voice chat turned off or relegated to a party chat experience with friends. I have no desire to deal with the toxic mentality of these anonymous bigots who get their jollies off by being able to throw around indecent language in a community space. The shroud of being just another voice on the other end of the server with no identity but your gamer tag or user ID gives people the freedom to say things they otherwise would never have the audacity to say in an offline and public space. Simply put, online gaming communities give racists a cover to freely express their racism without anyone calling them out on it because it's under the guise of "trash talk".

In the case of Felix, I see a similar scenario. While some may be quick to come to his defense and say that he's not racist, I ask you to sit back and analyze the scenario for just a second. Kjellberg live streams and makes videos for a living. He was live streaming the day this happened, but supposedly forgot he was live streaming. I happen to live stream from time to time on my own channel and, frankly, I don't think I've ever forgotten that I was broadcasting  due to all the programs up on my screens indicating that my stream was indeed live. I don't believe for a second that him forgetting he was live has anything to do with it.

Secondly, it's the way the word so casually slipped out. Think about any time you've played someone competitively, whether it be in a game or an actual sport, more often than not you've engaged in your own trash talk. Out of frustration, you may have called someone an asshole, a dick, or something similar. You probably have a go-to word in this scenario that just gets spurted out, something your brain does as if it were muscle memory. It’s as if the spewing of the word doesn't even happen on a conscious level. The fact that it's said in such a nonchalant manner leads me to believe that it's not only a word he's used before, but probably uses often enough that it became his subconscious insult for the opposing player.

Another common defense I've witnessed in pursuing the topic on various social platforms has been about the context in which he used it. The word being directed at no minority makes no difference. It was used in a derogatory manner and in anger. The word never should have been uttered in any way, shape, or form. The fact that you can see his immediate regret for uttering the word on the live stream is proof. He knew the word never should have been said. However, his attempts to poorly explain it away only served to worsen the situation. I do believe that stems from it being without the guise of anonymity that most online players are used to. Had he not been streaming and this happened, no one would've been the wiser. Since, in this case, you can put a face to the hatred, it's spawning discussion. It's representative of an overall problem with gaming culture and how toxic its community has become. Especially, in the case of Kjellberg who has previously been in hot water over racially charged antics on his channel. When put in that context, it's not surprising that he would be prone to using such language as it clearly fits a pattern.

This is someone who has influence over the community and for him to blurt out something so carelessly, and without apology, is horrendous. It gives his viewers the wrong idea while enforcing toxic behavior already exhibited by people within the culture. People like this deserve no platform whatsoever to spew their bullshit. And people like Kjellberg who have a platform like that have a responsibility to not reinforce such negative behavior or spread such vile trash to young and impressionable viewers.

Risk vs Reward

It's probably no secret that I think the definitive experience of last generation came in the form of Naughty Dog's The Last of Us on the PS3. The game is the perfect blend of action, stealth, and story development. The last bit being the most important aspect here because in this medium story can sometimes take a backseat to the playability. Naughty Dog had pretty much cut their teeth in this regard with the Uncharted series prior to making The Last of Us and because of it we ended up with a game that had some of the best characterizations I've seen in the industry to date. Not to mention a story that by the end had taken multiple emotional turns and brought us to a satisfying yet morally ambiguous ending for our lead characters. The experience with these characters felt like time well spent. The game was a smash hit and naturally we had to know that it would spawn a sequel. 

Frankly I have no issue with sequels in certain aspects. Some games have managed to overcome sequelitis and become interesting franchises. In regards to The Last of Us though, I feel like it's a risky move; one that could reward Sony and Naughty Dog handsomely or slightly taint the original experience. This feeling comes strictly from a perspective of how the ending left the two main characters and whether or not their journey is one that we should most definitely close the book on or if we need to revisit these characters later down the line in their experience.

Are You A Marvel Or A DC?

Admittedly, conundrum might be an odd word to describe this situation but stick with me here. I bring up this situation as we as a society dominated by pop culture enter a time where our favorite comic properties, games, and books are being optioned into big Hollywood blockbusters. And lets be honest, there's only one entity that is managing to pull this off successfully while raking in buckets of cash at the same time; that being Marvel Studios. This Hollywood juggernaut went from being a fledgling studio banking its hopes and dreams on a big screen adaption of Iron Man in 2008 to a studio powerhouse with a multi-threaded universe that has thus far grossed over $7 billion dollars at the box office. And the most impressive feat here is that they've done this all without even owning the movie rights to the most popular characters on their comic book roster as the X-Men rights are tied up with Fox while the rights to Spider-Man belong to Sony. 

You're probably wondering where DC stands in all of this. Well, DC has been partnered with Warner Bros for years and we have seen many DC related movies in recent years; from Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy to Zack Snyder's Superman reboot, Man of Steel. DC is cranking out movies just as much as Marvel is, but they haven't quite gotten the same kind of buzz. What makes it odd is that it's not for lack of trying and it certainly isn't because of the stable of characters DC has access to. DC being partnered with WB means that the full roster of characters is available to them. What seems to have happened is that the only properties that seem viable to them are Batman and Superman. You might say sure, there was that failed Green Lantern movie with Ryan Reynolds and I would be likely to agree if it weren't for the fact that it was just outright a terrible movie.

And therein lays the difference between the two approaches to this scenario. Marvel from the get go had a singular vision for this on screen universe they wanted to build. Each movie was a bigger gamble than the last. As mentioned above, Marvel's two heavy hitter properties aren't even theirs to use on film. This forced them to create a strategy of elevating what were essentially B-list characters into the spotlight; characters that were known but not exactly popular. Characters that actually have some fairly convoluted origin stories but people bought in wholeheartedly. And to this day it continues to be a gamble because any one movie could derail this whole thing as each film is threaded together. The gamble however is paying dividends so far as Marvel has managed to elevate characters like Ant-Man, The Vision, and the Guardians into the mainstream. It's worked out to the point that Sony's failings with the Spider-Man property led to a partnership with Marvel, landing one of their most profitable and recognizable characters appearing in this year's Captain America: Civil War.