I can't do those things. I haven't got enough time to practice as they do: I'm an adult, with a job and wife and kid, so I get maybe an hour with Halo on a good day. I wind up sucking far, far more than most other Halo 3 players, and despite the best attempts of Xbox Live to match me up with similarly lame players, I usually wind up at the bottom of my group's rankings -- stumbling haplessly about while getting slaughtered over and over again.
So after a few weeks of this ritual humiliation, I got sick of it. And I devised a simple technique for revenge.
Whenever I find myself under attack by a wildly superior player, I stop trying to duck and avoid their fire. Instead, I turn around and run straight at them. I know that by doing so, I'm only making it easier for them to shoot me -- and thus I'm marching straight into the jaws of death. Indeed, I can usually see my health meter rapidly shrinking to zero.
But at the last second, before I die, I'll whip out a sticky plasma grenade (pictured above) -- and throw it at them. Because I've run up so close, I almost always hit my opponent successfully. I'll die -- but he'll die too, a few seconds later when the grenade goes off. (When you pull off the trick, the game pops up a little dialog box noting that you killed someone "from beyond the grave.")
It was after pulling this maneuver a couple of dozen times that it suddenly hit me: I had, quite unconsciously, adopted the tactics of a suicide bomber -- or a kamikaze pilot.
It's not just that I'm willing to sacrifice my life to kill someone else. It's that I'm exploiting the psychology of asymmetrical warfare.
Because after all, the really elite Halo players don't want to die. If they die too often, they won't win the round, and if they don't win the round, they won't advance up the Xbox Live rankings. And for the elite players, it's all about bragging rights.
I, however, have a completely different psychology. I know I'm the underdog; I know I'm probably going to get killed anyway. I am never going to advance up the Halo 3 rankings, because in the political economy of Halo, I'm poor.
Specifically, I'm poor in time. The best players have dozens of free hours a week to hone their talents, and I don't have that luxury. This changes the relative meaning of death for the two of us. For me, dying will not penalize me in the way it penalizes them, because I have almost no chance of improving my state. I might as well take people down with me.
Or to put it another way: The structure of Xbox Live creates a world composed of two classes -- haves and have-nots. And, just as in the real world, some of the disgruntled have-nots are all too willing to toss their lives away -- just for the satisfaction of momentarily halting the progress of the haves. Since the game instantly resurrects me, I have no real dread of death in Halo 3.
I do not mean, of course, to trivialize the ghastly, horrific impact of real-life suicide bombing. Nor do I mean to gloss over the incredible complexity of the real-life personal, geopolitical and spiritual reasons why suicide bombers are willing to kill themselves. These are all impossibly more nuanced and perverse than what's happening inside a trifling, low-stakes videogame.
But the fact remains that something quite interesting happened to me because of Halo. Even though I've read scores of articles, white papers and books on the psychology of terrorists in recent years, and even though I have (I think) a strong intellectual grasp of the roots of suicide terrorism, something about playing the game gave me an "aha" moment that I'd never had before: an ability to feel, in whatever tiny fashion, the strategic logic and emotional calculus behind the act.
And the truth is, I'm probably going to keep doing it. Because when it comes to online Halo -- I still suck.
Clive,
What you're describing could conceivably be compared to "running amok", the Malay term for the universal phenomenon of low prospect young males (and sometimes older males) going on a homicidal/suicidal rampage in order to take others down the abysm of evolutionary oblivion. It's clearer when you focus on the fact that your doing it because you're not as skilled as the other players and know your obsolescence is looming. Studies of suicide bombers generally show them to be better educated and wealthier than average in their society.
Posted by: darrel's other brother darrel
at January 13, 2008 11:32 PM
I appreciated the ambition of the analysis, Clive, but I think the analogy falls apart due to one crucial distinction you missed: by definition, suicide terrorist attacks are those directed *at civilians*. To justify blowing up kids in pizza parlors or office workers in the World Trade Center, the terrorists' ideological supporters will often make this argument: "Of course our warriors must resort to suicide, for we are poor and have no great weapons except our bodies." Carefully omitting the fact that they're not attacking armed combatants, they instead paint *themselves* as the victims. So your Halo analogy is not actually illustrating the strategic logic and emotional calculus behind terrorism, but the rhetoric used to *justify* terrorism.
Posted by: W.J.A
at January 14, 2008 5:30 AM
Hey darrell -- that Malay phenomenon is really interesting! I'd never heard of it. And yes, the fact that suicide bombers are well-educated and often well-off is by now quite well documented. When I refer to being a have-not, I'm not intending a parallel to the by-now-outdated idea of suicide bombers as poverty-stricken illiterates. The have-not-ness is more appropriately a parallel to the concept of cultural humiliation -- i.e. the idea that an act of suicide bombing is a response to a real or perceived occupation of one's land (and those motivations have been, historically, linked to the majority of all suicide attacks).
Though in truth, I think the main part of my analysis that holds water is merely my personal experience of asymmetrical warfare. Because I'm not afraid to die in Halo 3 -- and my opponents are -- we have an asymmetry in our experience of the game, and I'm exploiting that, precisely as suicide bombers use their willingness to die as a way to bring relatively (by military standards) low-yield bombs into areas of high-density population.
W.J.A., you're right, suicide bombers most often attack civilians. But they also usually draw no distinction between their opponent nation's military and their civilians: The civilians are morally equivalent to soldiers.
That said, I agree that those parallels in my comparison are pretty thin. The only one that's relatively strong is the point about asymmetry.
Posted by: Clive
at January 14, 2008 2:52 PM