I am enough of a historian to know that I played Captain Villiers closest to real life, albeit deliberately as a man with little to no natural capacity for leadership or heroics. As a man surrounded by men, I was able to flip the switch to, "I'm getting mine, fuck y'all." Something deep in me socialized such that even in a completely fictional situation with no actual consequences, when surrounded by other women I strove to act diplomatically and to maintain as much harmony as possible in the unit, while assuming this would serve my self-interest in the long run. I behaved completely differently as a woman surrounded by women, whether or not I meant to, than as a man surrounded by men in an environment we generally consider male (early 19th century naval combat). The shock came when I realized, in a sudden rush, that I had no problem making my player character an ass when it was a man surrounded by men. He died from a cannonball wound sustained in a poorly-chosen and poorly-plotted maneuver, and most likely no-one would miss him, least of all his wife. And as a small-minded brown-nosing member of the King's Navy, he had no problem flogging subordinates, keeping his head down, remaining unaware of mutinies, and alienating young ladies. Mr Midshipman Henry Villiers came along then. Although Mme Admiral Mary Smythe ended up married to a high-ranking Admiral's handsome blond son, her life was very nearly the same as Admiral Strange's. I felt badly for subordinates who I felt were misunderstood, and for enemies who had noble intentions. Mme Midshipwoman Mary Smythe took to sea but I kept finding myself making similar decisions. Of course, having met the premise, I wanted to see what would happen if I made different decisions. Mme Admiral Arabel Strange retired happily to a moderately large country estate, after a successful career, and lived a long and honorable life. I gave almost every other character the benefit of the doubt whenever possible, and played with the same frame of mind it seems I always have: I wanted as many people as possible to like me. Mme Midshipwoman Arabel Strange tried her hardest to make all of the right decisions, all of the honorable decisions, and to maximize both happiness and discipline on her ships and with her crews. On my first playthrough (each lasting roughly half an hour), the Heroic Gamer Ego took hold. Man, Angry Birds develops some really pain-in-the-ass levels as you get in! I can't imagine playing this on the Metro one jitter and I'd have flung them off the wrong side of the screen entirely.) It's a matter of making time in the day for both. So why do we keep expecting gaming and gamers to be different? It's not a matter of playing Wii Fit or Assassin's Creed. (Can you tell it's almost lunchtime for me?) And sometimes you want neither, and want soup, or a salad, or a cookie. All games for all people: sometimes you want a filet mignon from an expensive, high-class restaurant, and sometimes you want a cheeseburger and a milkshake from the cheapest, nastiest 3-a.m.
#Feelgood games bejeweled 3 ps3#
We have this completely false gamer spectrum, and we call it "casual" and "hardcore." This is where we get the "real gamers" problem: if you play Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto on your PS3 or XBox, you're a "real gamer," right? If you play violent games, particularly with an online multiplayer component, and are a male between the ages of 14 and 31, you're a "real gamer."Īll it takes is a glance over Twitter to find that the same people not only playing the "hardcore" games, but also writing and developing them, are playing Angry Birds on their phones and Plants Vs Zombies or Bejeweled 3 in their down time. This is after a few weeks of whiling away my evenings playing Plants vs Zombies on my laptop, thanks to the outrageous discounts on the Steam Holiday sale a few weeks back.