Class discussion for "Gaming Homer" online course

[Roger Travis]

Now let's see if I can get this thing linked up on HuskyCT. . .

[Warren Nesteruk]

Kevin Ballestrini said:

Warren, how about this then...

What does the fact that Odysseus kills unarmed, unprepared, men not once, but -twice- in the surviving traditions say about the character of Odysseus? He seems to have no problems laying waste to Rhesus' men while they are asleep (and Rhesus himself) in Book X of the Iliad and taking the spoils along with Diomedes, in the same manner they would have stripped the gear off of a hero they just defeated in single combat. I think you give Odysseus (and the singer of this book) too much credit for trying to defray the kleos gained from slaying the suitors. It is Odysseus' own distinct type of kleos but it is -his- kleos. Of course his aristeia isn't going to be the same type of aristeia that Achilleus gets; he's just not that type of hero. I don't think it is at all out of the question to compare what Odysseus does (i.e., tilt the scales in his favor by attacking Rhesus' men while they sleep or the suitors while unarmed) to say, the lore behind Capt. James T. Kirk modifying the Kobayshi Maru simulation so that it became winnable. It just forces the bard, the audience, and us to rethink the ways that one can gain their kleos.

Well frankly I give him that credit because this is a course where we are trying to interpret beyond the basics of the book. Did Homer and the bards necessarily formulate this grand scheme where Odysseus paralleled a reverse aristeia, possibly. Can we ever definitively say so? Absolutely not. I mean sometimes I feel when I read a lot of epic, that it probably much less complicated than we make it. I feel there are definitely parts of epic that are meant to be taken exactly for what they are. But to assume so is to assume that the culture of the time was easily entertained and easily pleased. Knowing what we do about the intellectuals of the time, I like to imagine, or hope, that they leaned towards something much more formulaic and deliberate. All I can do is dream I could prove it haha.

[Alex Meeske]

It seems to me that the concept of aristeia can be applied to video games in more contexts than just the "boss fight." I have no trouble visualizing the boss fight as a character's finest moments, nor do I have problems seeing "grinding" as the baseline that makes the aristeia so extraordinary. However, I think that the aristeia can come from within basic battle/monotonous tasks as well as in a cataclysmic face-off.

Take my recent foray into the vast daedroth-filled wasteland of Oblivion for example. After annoyingly slaughtering goblin after goblin in Cyrodiil (a continent of the Elder Scrolls series), I had attained the rank of Master of Marksman. This rank granted my character a high chance to paralyze his opponent upon letting loose a well-aimed arrow. Now I think that this ability has given me the chance to invoke an aristeia myself, so I took it upon myself to conduct an experiment.

In Oblivion, my character was charged with the task of closing the gate to Oblivion (basically Hell). So, I equipped my dagger (and my blade skill is not very high) and started hacking away at scamps and demons and the like. That is, until I reached the top of the tower, where I was swarmed by minions of the evil Mehrunes Dagon. It was at this point that I decided to equip my bow, and with dextrous fingers paralyzed and then killed all the demons, leaving my character standing alone, victorious.

What I'm trying to say is that although many games provide aristeiai that you cannot avoid performing (e.g. the final boss battle in Ocarina of Time), there are certainly opportunities for the gamer to make his/her own aristeiai. I suppose this hints at a dual bardic role played by both the gamer and the game developer. While there are only so many pre-packaged adventures and boss battles (i.e. aristeia contributed by the game developer), there are myriad situations a gamer might find themselves in where their character exhibits a particular moment of excellence. In a racing game, for example, a corresponding aristeia might be a turbo boost that propels the character many laps ahead of all of his/her competitors. This boost could be invoked at any time, but there are only so many boss races.

I think an interesting consequence of these in-game capabilities is that the aristeiai give us gamers (as an audience) something to look forward to. Everyone has been discussing how boring a game would be without grinding, but of course there would be absolutely no game if it only consisted of grinding (*cough* Left4Dead). In bardic songs, I'll bet the aristeiai where the points during which the people in the audience had their eyes glued to the bard and were sitting on the edge of their seats. Whether the aristeiai in question are battle related or not, I think they are essential components of the song and of the game that help to propel the narrative.

[Warren Nesteruk]

Megan Wenker said:

Just a few random thoughts on what's been said. I really like Warren's analogy about Odysseus saying, "you think that was cool, you should see what I did this morning!" But, if endlessly killing low-level people is grinding, which builds up to a huge fight with a bad-ass guy, than what is Odysseus grinding (killing the suitors) working towards? This is essentially the end, and he never fights one bad-ass guy after this. The narrative goes the opposite way, with him fighting the Polyphemus earlier than he fights the suitors. I guess I have sort of the same question in regards to Club Penguin. I easily see how level-grinding builds up to aristeia in Runescape, but if, as Prof Travis said, there is no aristeia in Club Penguin, than what is the grinding for? What is the point of endlessly catching fish? Plus, if gear is indicative of coolness, than wouldn't pimping out your igloo or buying clothes, (like being able to wear more bad-ass armor in the Iliad) indicate your excellence to other players? Because in that case, the grinding would be working towards this goal, just like in Runescape.

This is another interesting concept. The lack of the perpetual boss. I was trying to address this actually while I was playing call of duty 5 with my friend the other day, and I was able to come up with a loose, and I strongly stress the loose, outline of aristeia for a game where there is no final boss. On call of duty 5, you play online obviously, killing essentially the same soldiers, controlled by different people, over and over. There is a ranking system which goes from levels 1-65, but once you hit level 65 you have the option to enter 'prestige' mode. There are 10 prestige modes. That is a total of 715 levels of hardcore level grinding just by killing the same things over and over. While I was trying to explain to my friend the concept of this module, I immediately noticed hey ... where is the boss. What is the culmination. Weird. Then I asked myself, well what am I working towards. The answer is a 10th prestige level 65. In its own sense, that is my big showdown. Once I have reached that level, I have obtained my perpetual level of being excellent in that game. Its much like receiving an epic mount, but it is in the form of a symbol next to your name. I know it is loose, and hard to understand, but it is a very achieving feeling when you reach that point.

[Samantha Lee]

Adam Zajac said:

So to me, grinding in video games serves two purposes. Firstly it gives the player a change to learn and develop new skills that are vital in progressing in the game, otherwise you would stand little chance against any strong boss type characters, much in the same way how a soldier would be unlikely to be a hero in battle without training and war experience.

I think this is interesting, only because I had a really hard time trying to transform my gaming experience in RS and CP into aristeia moments. Though I can totally see what you mean in some other games I've played. Maybe I need to do more gaming sessions to create some "boss fight" scenarios... continue with the repetitive grinding since I keep on dying against those scorpions in the desert in RS...

[Samantha Lee]

Warren Nesteruk said:

This is another interesting concept. The lack of the perpetual boss. I was trying to address this actually while I was playing call of duty 5 with my friend the other day, and I was able to come up with a loose, and I strongly stress the loose, outline of aristeia for a game where there is no final boss. On call of duty 5, you play online obviously, killing essentially the same soldiers, controlled by different people, over and over. There is a ranking system which goes from levels 1-65, but once you hit level 65 you have the option to enter 'prestige' mode. There are 10 prestige modes. That is a total of 715 levels of hardcore level grinding just by killing the same things over and over. While I was trying to explain to my friend the concept of this module, I immediately noticed hey ... where is the boss. What is the culmination. Weird. Then I asked myself, well what am I working towards. The answer is a 10th prestige level 65. In its own sense, that is my big showdown. Once I have reached that level, I have obtained my perpetual level of being excellent in that game. Its much like receiving an epic mount, but it is in the form of a symbol next to your name. I know it is loose, and hard to understand, but it is a very achieving feeling when you reach that point.

Level grinding towards prestige for prestige's sake. I love it and hate it all at the same time.

In the consumerist sense, it's a great way to promote the game and to keep people playing to make money for the company (genius and wrong...). We aren't working towards anything specific in CP that would grant us kleos or aristeia, but the coins we gather and the clothing and accessories we buy does show other players the awesomeness of the game playing we do. In spite of the lack of a boss fight, we still earn a sort of kleos/aristeia. It's also a devious way to enculturate(enculturation of?) consumerism to the young players of CP. Sigh... Disney. At the same time this argument helps with the understand of CP towards a pseudo aristeia. Similar to the way we live our lives, nose to the grindstone working towards some end because it's an end provided by society (schoolwork, degrees, jobs, standard of living... etc.)

[Warren Nesteruk]

Good points sam. I am sure game creators and marketing firms along with their billions of dollars of funding have found out plenty enough on the human psyche to definitely make the games for maximum consumer pleasure. And profits. While some may frown upon such things, It also makes it better because they are able to tap into our instincts and not leave us bored out of our minds.

While I was writing my lab report I had a little revelation. I decided I wanted to share it among everyone instead of just letting it become a grade in the books.

I noticed that when I go to do level grinding, we all have a final goal. The end of the road. To reach the highest level, beat the boss, etc. But while we are actually grinding, I found that I was subtly setting mini goals for myself. Win this game. Get this many levels today. Instead of sitting down and just blindly focusing on the ends. I was creating the means.

Then I noticed that even though I was actually DOING my mini goals, and trying to achieve them, my motivating force was still the final end. The highest level. Then I came to a conclusion that aristeia must be a fine balance between the means and the ends, because too much excess in one direction can leave you in a bit of a lame spot. For example.

Say you are playing a video game and are too involved in the now. You have let loose completely of the final goal, and are just playing to say, win that one game. You have let loose of the main motivation. I find that being in this boat will exhaust a game and leave you bored, feeling purposeless, and not wanting to continue because it feels empty. On the other hand, lets say one is playing the game with the the unrealistic goal of reaching that final end, in that session. It is inevitable you will probably fail, or starve to death, whatever comes first... and you will walk away from the experience feeling like a failure. And as we all know, that can leave people in a spot where they are not favorable to return to the game. Now apply it to the bard.

Say you are the bard and you are telling a story. You go into your audience and tell the story, without keeping the motivation of the ends within your mind. You tell of killings, slayings, etc ... but if you don't keep the end in consideration, you are eventually going to get bored telling the story. Being only human, a bored bard probably is not going to be one telling a really fascinating story. Chances if you are bored telling it, they are bored listening.

Now say you as a bard are fervent about the ends of the story, and rush through missing important details, and skipping battles and slayings. For one, you have eliminated the climactic build up of a story, and two, the audience is going to feel gypped because this is doubtfully not the first time they have heard the epic. The audience will not be impressed, the bard in his blindness of detail will become frustrated, and he will walk away from the story telling angry. Frustrated, and not sure what he did wrong.

[Yvonne Waters]

I pretty much agree with everything being said here. The combination of level grinding and aristeia is fundamental to the success of both the Homeric epic and modern gaming. Taking on the 'boss mob' in a game really does seem like a satisfactory climax to the seemingly endless hours of grinding... and in many ways whatever loot that might drop comes secondary to the feeling of accomplishment as a reward.

Then again, there are plenty of games out there that don't have a 'boss' fight... most 1st gen Atari games didn't, neither does computer games like Tetris, and like some have mentioned above, online 1st person shooters don't either. I think in some of these instances the aristeia might still be present - using Tetris as an example: the levels get harder as you move on, and even though you don't 'win' ever, you can still get a thrill by besting the high score. Same goes for a 1st person shooter like Counterstrike or Gears of War... you can demonstrate your heroic-ness by garnering the most headshots or kills or least number of deaths or whatever.

I'd also like to mention that I personally find the 'level grinding' aka body count in the Iliad and the Odyssey absolutely fascinating and hilarious. I mean, there's so many different ways Odysseus kills the suitors! So much originality in the blood and gore and I can just imagine a bard singing this scene and the audience cheering and cringing and laughing. Awesome. I think if game designers could capture this sort of energy and incorporate it into their level-grinding parts of their respective games, they'd be a lot more interesting. Then again, I think a game like Gears of War (where there are so many ways to kill an opponent, including using the chainsaw part of your gun) most closely approaches this.

As for the ariestia in Homer, I would disagree with the assessment that it is all about besting one's opponent with only strength/battle prowess. In book 9 of the Odyssey, Odysseus recounts how he escapes from the Cyclop's lair. He uses smarts and cunning rather than brute force. I like how there's the graphic blood and violence when the Cyclops is blinded which would placate those in the audience who liked those kinds of scenes, but his escape hinged more on fooling the Cyclops first with his name, and then sneaking out with the sheep. I think this illustrates that both intelligence and strength were highly respected attributes in ancient Greece.

[Mike Stamatis]

Though I wholly agree with all the connections made between aristeia and how it involves grinding to improve one's skill and ability to perform challenging actions and defeat the boss, I do have one question.

Does grinding truly make the most memorable and epic scenarios?

I'm not sure I can think of a proper example in The Iliad or The Odyssey to base this question, but let me explain it in relation to videogames. You could attribute this to any RPG, but my example will be Final Fantasy VII. I remember, after beating the game, I read how other players played the game. Many players grinded extensively and as early as possible in the game, reaching high levels and acquiring all of the strongest magic and limit breaks. As such, they were able to wipe the floor with all of the game's bosses and challenges, and saw this as validation to brag. My fondest memory of the game, however, was one particular boss fight. For those who have played the game, it was Demon Wall in the Temple of the Ancients, where you are forced to use Aeris. My party was Cloud, Aeris, and Cid, and I was severely underleveled. I did not do the extensive grinding that the other players did.

Anyway, the fight against Demon Wall dragged on and was immensely difficult. Cloud and Aeris were dead, and Cid was down to his last few hit points, but he had a limit break ready (a special move). I launched the limit break attack and killed Demon Wall when I was within seconds of defeat. After this, I felt like it was an incredibly epic battle, and thus felt very satisfied upon achieving victory. My point is, oftentimes, in videogames at least, grinding makes the game easier and can take challenge out of it. Is true excellence simply becoming the best one can be? Or is it tackling those difficult challenges? Perhaps downing hard challenges is moreso the realm of kleos... your thoughts?

[Dan Emmons]

Andrea said:

There’s a lot of similarities between video game grinding and its epic counterpart, but for such a huge parallel it seems to me like no one ever makes the connection – except the people in this class, of course! Video game grinding and violence is just discounted as mindless amusement. In epics, on the other hand, the same kind of repetitive violence is excused and explained as an important part of building the story – sinceit was written by the great Homer, after all.

I would say that both are true, for epics and video games. Repetitive violence (grinding) in epics is a way for the bard to develop the character – his aristeia, his excellence, his ability to win, in the audiences’ eyes. Grinding in video games serves the same purpose: gets your character XP (or some equivalent), which increases its ability to win – ariseia. Enemies in video games are also made to seem more excellent – to have more aristeia – when a player has to fight through a bunch of trash to get to the main boss. We can see this same effect in Il.16 when Patrocles and Hecktor have to fight through lesser fighters before finally confronting each other. The “mindless” repetitive violence in video games does indeed serve a purpose, just like in epics: developing the character and its aristeia.

I wonder if the development of bardic epics may have followed a similar pattern, moving from simple entertainment and repetitive violence into an increasingly moral view of its own subject matter.

I think that in non-MMO games, the grinding part of the game only serves as a means of making your character physically stronger. There really is nothing new learned about the character by grinding against the same enemies again and again. The character growth comes through advancing the story line. So the aristeia lies most likely inside a part of the story, instead of the grinding necessary to advance in that story.

[Dan Benitez]

I really like your idea of the aristeia in the video games. I also agree that the aristeia can be more than just a boss battle. Although there are many games where the aristeia is given to you as a straight boss battle, I agree with the idea of creating your own aristeia throughout the gameplay through battling and level grinding. The whole aristeia concept reminds me of the WoW episode of South Park. The kids start playing warcraft, and then a player comes along and starts killing everyone. No one can stop him because his level is so high, anyone who signs on and stands up to him is easily overkilled. The player was so powerful that it looked like it could be the end of the world.....of warcraft. Stan, Kyle, Cartman and Kenny hide in the forest and level grind by killing wild boars to increase their level in hopes of defeating the unknown player. The aristeia comes when they finally challenge the player. He is still too strong for them until they use the "sword of a thousand souls," and defeat him. There is obviously more to the episode than my little summary, but if you watch it, youll find it a great example of aristeia.
Alex Meeske said:

It seems to me that the concept of aristeia can be applied to video games in more contexts than just the "boss fight." I have no trouble visualizing the boss fight as a character's finest moments, nor do I have problems seeing "grinding" as the baseline that makes the aristeia so extraordinary. However, I think that the aristeia can come from within basic battle/monotonous tasks as well as in a cataclysmic face-off.

Take my recent foray into the vast daedroth-filled wasteland of Oblivion for example. After annoyingly slaughtering goblin after goblin in Cyrodiil (a continent of the Elder Scrolls series), I had attained the rank of Master of Marksman. This rank granted my character a high chance to paralyze his opponent upon letting loose a well-aimed arrow. Now I think that this ability has given me the chance to invoke an aristeia myself, so I took it upon myself to conduct an experiment.

In Oblivion, my character was charged with the task of closing the gate to Oblivion (basically Hell). So, I equipped my dagger (and my blade skill is not very high) and started hacking away at scamps and demons and the like. That is, until I reached the top of the tower, where I was swarmed by minions of the evil Mehrunes Dagon. It was at this point that I decided to equip my bow, and with dextrous fingers paralyzed and then killed all the demons, leaving my character standing alone, victorious.

What I'm trying to say is that although many games provide aristeiai that you cannot avoid performing (e.g. the final boss battle in Ocarina of Time), there are certainly opportunities for the gamer to make his/her own aristeiai. I suppose this hints at a dual bardic role played by both the gamer and the game developer. While there are only so many pre-packaged adventures and boss battles (i.e. aristeia contributed by the game developer), there are myriad situations a gamer might find themselves in where their character exhibits a particular moment of excellence. In a racing game, for example, a corresponding aristeia might be a turbo boost that propels the character many laps ahead of all of his/her competitors. This boost could be invoked at any time, but there are only so many boss races.

I think an interesting consequence of these in-game capabilities is that the aristeiai give us gamers (as an audience) something to look forward to. Everyone has been discussing how boring a game would be without grinding, but of course there would be absolutely no game if it only consisted of grinding (*cough* Left4Dead). In bardic songs, I'll bet the aristeiai where the points during which the people in the audience had their eyes glued to the bard and were sitting on the edge of their seats. Whether the aristeiai in question are battle related or not, I think they are essential components of the song and of the game that help to propel the narrative.

[Ben Beaudry]

Yvonne Waters said:

I pretty much agree with everything being said here. The combination of level grinding and aristeia is fundamental to the success of both the Homeric epic and modern gaming. Taking on the 'boss mob' in a game really does seem like a satisfactory climax to the seemingly endless hours of grinding... and in many ways whatever loot that might drop comes secondary to the feeling of accomplishment as a reward.

Then again, there are plenty of games out there that don't have a 'boss' fight... most 1st gen Atari games didn't, neither does computer games like Tetris, and like some have mentioned above, online 1st person shooters don't either. I think in some of these instances the aristeia might still be present - using Tetris as an example: the levels get harder as you move on, and even though you don't 'win' ever, you can still get a thrill by besting the high score. Same goes for a 1st person shooter like Counterstrike or Gears of War... you can demonstrate your heroic-ness by garnering the most headshots or kills or least number of deaths or whatever.

I'd also like to mention that I personally find the 'level grinding' aka body count in the Iliad and the Odyssey absolutely fascinating and hilarious. I mean, there's so many different ways Odysseus kills the suitors! So much originality in the blood and gore and I can just imagine a bard singing this scene and the audience cheering and cringing and laughing. Awesome. I think if game designers could capture this sort of energy and incorporate it into their level-grinding parts of their respective games, they'd be a lot more interesting. Then again, I think a game like Gears of War (where there are so many ways to kill an opponent, including using the chainsaw part of your gun) most closely approaches this.

As for the ariestia in Homer, I would disagree with the assessment that it is all about besting one's opponent with only strength/battle prowess. In book 9 of the Odyssey, Odysseus recounts how he escapes from the Cyclop's lair. He uses smarts and cunning rather than brute force. I like how there's the graphic blood and violence when the Cyclops is blinded which would placate those in the audience who liked those kinds of scenes, but his escape hinged more on fooling the Cyclops first with his name, and then sneaking out with the sheep. I think this illustrates that both intelligence and strength were highly respected attributes in ancient Greece.

Right on! What could be more exciting than a gaming experience that imitates that of the best bard. I don't know if games are quite there yet, but I definitely want to play them. The Wii and the DS have this in mind, and although it's still new, their sales say it all. People want to feel the experience, not just play it. That's why the Wii won. Don't get me wrong, the other consoles are great, but for different reasons. IMHO, if you've been a PC gamer up to this point, there's no reason to buy the PS3 or the 360. There is too much redundancy. And for the price you'd pay for either of their next generation, you might as well buy a new desktop. However, I do like that Microsoft factors this in, offering both gaming and controller support. The PC has been lacking a solid control for a long time for those that aren't keymasters. But I digress. Ironically, No More Heroes is a great example of the Aristeia, because it is essentially a level-grinding game. Prof. Travis, you would love it. The wiimote is the sword, and you swing it as such. Games with swords should allow you to swing swords, not with buttons, but with your body. But that's only part of it. This is Kill Bill the game, and when you hack a baddie, it shows. Blood spurts out everywhere, even on the screen! Going berserk is the point. The blood is the point. Level-grinding is the point. There are ten bosses you must fight, and after each one you get better. Better weapons, health and equipment. It's a great grind.

[Jake]

This was a very interesting module, and I like what a lot of people have said regarding aristeia. I seem to have an ambivalent view toward the idea of level grinding. On the one hand, I believe that the repetitive killing of creatures and npc's is important to add to the overall enjoyment of the game when it finally pays off. I have always had a thing against cheating. I was playing Fallout the other day when a couple friends stopped by and tried to convince me to go into console mode to unlock locked doors, make myself invincible, give me unlimited ammo, etc. They didn't understand my view that it takes away everything from the game. Similarly, my little brother paid $8 real money to buy a wealth of in-game credits in star wars galaxies. My response was the same, that he was ruining the game for himself.

At the same time, I also feel like level grinding in some games doesn't really add anything to it at all, particularly when there isn't much "story" involved in it. For example, just heading out into a field of NPCs and killing them toward the end of just gaining experience. Where I think repetitive killing both adds to the experience of the story and the enjoyment of the game is when it is involved in actually doing something else (i.e. killing a bunch of monsters that you have to get past in order to rescue someone, retrieve something, etc.). Grinding in and of itself is something I've always found very unappealing about most MMO's, and is ultimately one of the reasons I get bored with them.

Anyways, I think the material in this module was a very interesting way of identifying a deeper reason of why I have those "purist" thoughts toward video games. The backdrop that aristeia creates is essential in any story.