Dave Elfving (of Machine Chicago) pointed me and others to this insurance commercial ("The Lord of Mishap"), which he first saw on television. Take a look and come back. I'll wait.
Clearly, you're in good hands with gamers.
But how did we get here? This is an industry (insurance) widely known for its conservatism in marketing and its focus on, above all, playing to its potential customers' desire to feel safe and secure. Isn't it remarkable, then, that we've reached a point where a long-established insurance company can reasonably expect to gain customers by saying, effectively, "You shouldn't worry if you've got Farmers insurance, because gamers are standing by"?
Is this an index of how far gaming has come in the cultural imagination? It seems to me that we are in the midst of a transformation where the hallmark of frontline competence in business and technology is moving away from an engineering-style application of linear rationality to solve problems, and toward the application of the embodied, improvisatory, and multiple competencies that games instill.
But there are other interesting questions. Is this shift primarily generational, an attempt by Farmers to reach younger customers? Or do we think that this kind of appeal has broader reach? That is to say, how widely is gaming competence coming to be seen as the kind of competence you want on your side?
Also, does this reflect more a growing idea that gamers' competence is what we need in a technologized environment (since we assume all of our long-term customer-corporate relationships are deeply technologized)? Or is it deeper than that, reflecting a growing cultural tendency to see the world, technologized or not, as a game? In this vein, note how the commercial draws upon its audience's gaming competence as well, in the game-like interface that overlays the suburban setting, and which provides the first clues to what's really happening to the poor Lord of Mishap. Marketing always aspires to get customers to identify with a product's providers, so apparently not only are gamers standing by, they are also white-picket-fenced home owners and minivan drivers, and it makes perfect sense to them to liken everyday mishaps to the appearance of an otherworldly menace wielding arcane powers on Maple Street.
I think it's far more superficial than that, sorry.
I don't think they thought about being "in good hands with gamers", or seeing the world as being more technologized. I think it's a vehicle to grab the attention of 20-something-year old viewers who will hit "skip" on the TiVO if they don't see something exciting in the first 3 seconds of the commercial. After all, it's the 20-somethings that will be buying their first insurance contract. All the rest of us will just keep rolling along with our current insurance, because the insurance industry has made it as comfortable as possible to maintain the status quo, even if we suspect it's costing us more money.
It's all about "eyeball time". Explosions sell stuff almost as well as sex. It's an interesting thought in itself, actually, that they would weigh the eyeball-grabbing potential of this spot heavier than the current political anti-games undercurrent.
Posted by: RickR | Jun 28, 2006 at 15:29
Thanks for the comment, RickR, but it misses the point. I'm not making claims about what Farmers Insurance was thinking. Indeed, I think your description of their mindset is a likely one (as I noted in the OP). Instead, I'm simply using this as an opportunity to get us talking about whether the status of gaming competence, culturally speaking, is changing in important ways. As soon as it becomes a commonplace for gamer skill to be identified with a particular aspect of business expertise, then something has changed in the cultural imagination.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jun 28, 2006 at 17:19
I'd have to agree with Rick. Although I think the questions Thomas is asking are really compelling and important, I doubt the conversation among the advertising team went much beyond how to cater to a certain target demographic. And what does the demographic respond to? Videogames. It's actually quite a narrow slice of the reality and in that sense almost offensively superficial. Someone decided that Farmer's needs to be cool and hip... it would be interesting to know how effective it is.
But I do think public sentiment may be shifting ever so slowly to some recognition that although games are primarily bad or a waste-of-time, there may be some pockets of goodness here and there. Exhibits: Serious Games, Games for Change, etc. But I don't think the idea that gamers learn valuable skills playing entertainment games has entered the public consciousness at all. I know 'cause I spend a lot of time rationalizing my research to just about everyone outside of game studies. When I say to most people that I do videogame research, the first question always is: "Oh, you study the effects of videogames on kids?"
Sigh.
Posted by: Lisa Galarneau | Jun 28, 2006 at 17:29
Okay, I strike the first paragraph of my comment given Thomas' reply to Rick at the same time I was posting... but I stand by the second paragraph... I don't really see it, at least not outside of the gamer generation, who are themselves begging for some recognition of what we know to be true: like waiting tables, there is some set of skills that people develop playing games that are useful and applicable to real life. Yep. But non-gamers have yet to be convinced... their fear (of violence, addiction, indiscriminate fun) is far too gripping.
But maybe I'm wrong. I hope so.
Posted by: Lisa Galarneau | Jun 28, 2006 at 17:34
As a 22 year old, I find the commericial pretty lame. It seems like a weak attempt to reach out to a demographic that the insurance companies don't understand.
I much prefer GEICO's commericials for their understatement and honesty.
As for "It seems to me that we are in the midst of a transformation where the hallmark of frontline competence in business and technology is moving away from an engineering-style application of linear rationality to solve problems, and toward the application of the embodied, improvisatory, and multiple competencies that games instill." ... I'm not sure what you mean?
Games are best solved via linear rationality -- witness raiding, DKP and the math behind every game. People want to optimize everything, and games are no different. WoW is a prime example of this, with so many guilds insisting on particular specs or even particular races for certain classes (only dwarf priests, for example).
Improvisation is looked down upon as either exploiting or as inefficient. There's one way to do encounters and that way is refined and practiced until it is second nature.
Upon re-reading once again, I am still unsure of what you're trying to say with "embodied, improvisatory, and multiple competencies" -- could you give an example?
Posted by: Dominik | Jun 28, 2006 at 19:17
I think I have to largely agree with RickR's sentiment, unfortunately. I think the commercial is more reflective of the insurance industry's "loosening up" and being willing to use brand driven sill commercials like those that GEICO has been running for years.
I think if anything, the stereotype of gamers is and remains that we are male, introvert, more apt to violence, dorky (in ways that introvert doesn't cover) and immature. If anything has changed, it would probably be that people don't assume that gamers are 8-14 years old anymore.
In certain population segments, it's absolutely obvious that the gamer is seen as more valuable or at least interesting than they once were. But I think in some of those, it's a grudging acceptance, i.e. an IT manager accepts that his alpha geeks are in something called a "guild" in some game they play, or something like that, but the real judgement is still paternal: that the gamer should "grow up" and join the adult world.
Outside of acadamia, I haven't seen much positive gain in the estimation of gamers or games, although of course I'm only speaking anecdotally. I hear some people consider WoW the new golf, but my VP hasn't asked me to join his guild yet. =P
Posted by: illovich | Jun 28, 2006 at 19:54
The professional marketing/advertising weinee on board says: it's just a mildly bad ad.
There are two possibilities, here.
1. It's just bad. The guys that made it don't know anything about real games (if they did, the bad guy wouldn't look like Skeletor from 1989 or sumfin and be all, "It's meeee! Mwaaa haa haaa") and it was a fast, dirty idea that they thought would be cute. No harm, no foul. Cost to shoot: $140,000ish.
2. It's a kind of ad sometimes called a "rube." Designed to look like "something" to people who don't know what that "something" actually looks like. Hunters, for example, always wear those hats with the ear-flaps, right? At least in ads. "Farmers" demo is not kids, not 20-somethings, not even X-ers. It's still older people; mid-lifers. So they might just be trying to hit them with a "we are up on tech," or "isn't this funny" angle. And for that crowd, they don't need to actually look like a real game, but look "like" what a game looks "like." See "what code looks like" in "any movie ever made."
It's puff.
But if we're gonna get deep and metaphoric about anything here... frankly, the subtext in this ad bothers me. The implication is that the connection between games and reality *is* real, that the effects of the game can be felt in your life, that the gamers (young white dudes) are the controllers/masters, and that they exercise a non-emotional, supreme level of manipulation over what's going on in your home, neighborhood, finances, etc. That is: their mouse-twitching, joystick-fondling, button-mashing, non-chalance trumps your white-picket-fence. Mr. Ski Mask Boogey Man (symbolizing all that is bad and wrong in the world; fire, accidents, death) can come in and wreak havok... you are helpless... but these young cyberpunks, with a flick of their pasty wrists can (if they so choose...) turn back time. Their power is immense. And yet, to them... it is all a game. What's at stake? Your car? Your house? Your life? Your kids' lives? Well... we'll take care of them in Level 5... If we f'ing feel like it. If we're not playing a different game, or enjoying a cheese challupha.
See, Thomas... you can read the deep doo-doo a couple different ways ; )
Posted by: Andy Havens | Jun 28, 2006 at 21:09
Hehe. Now we're talking, Andy. I think it's interesting that people end up talking about the quality of the ad. I think it's terrible, but that's irrelevant to the question at hand. After all, this is a post that speculates about a trend, and unless one's willing to get into the spirit of that, then I'm sure the post won't resonate.
Dominik wrote:
Games are best solved via linear rationality
Hmmm, I think you might get some pretty strong debate on this one, Dominik. After all, what makes a great player of almost any (non-turn based) game great? The ability to react to exigent circumstances, without having to think it through ahead of time. It is what Csikszentmihalyi called "flow", and it's (on the whole) a lot more important in games where any kind of reaction time is a factor. It's this kind of knowledge or competence that is embodied (like the knowledge of how to ride a bike), and which, as an element of gamer competence, contrasts with a "slide rule" approach.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jun 28, 2006 at 21:51
I really think there is a major discussion to be considered in the last entry I read about the role of "flow states" in game playing. I was briefly excited to find mention of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in the discussion. His work on Creativity, and subsequently his association of this sort of work with business management starts to draw some really interesting possibilities in the scope of what types of tacit knowledege and ability is developed through game playing.
I think therein is probably the basis of the really groundbreaking investigations into the potential of games for learning. Simple "curriculum content" approaches are not goign to yield much int he development of engaging games, and if they don't engage they won't have much value in learning environments. What we may need to do is turn our thinking on its head and start speculating on the value of what is already inherent learning in game playing.
Posted by: Kim Flintoff | Jun 28, 2006 at 23:26
Thomas, this is certainly evidenced in my industry (which is far removed from gaming) by the adoption of not only technologies that are largely associated with computer-gaming but methods as well.
Ten years ago, a 286 would have been suitable in this industry. Today, users are actually asking for "gaming rigs" (such as Alienware) in order to meet their perception that such hardware is built for speed.
Further, developers in our industry have adapted hardware such as joysticks simply to facilitate ease-of-use for 20-something users (I konw ... why they think a 25-year-old is incapable of using a keyboard and mouse is beyond me as well).
I even had a conversation with our owner a few months back about bringing in teens over the school break to see if their "game-oriented" minds would "game" our applications more successfully than our regular users. (Needless to say, the teens lacked the knowledge to make useful decisions with the software, not to mention that they were all terminally bored).
So, there are at least some members of some industries that are at least contemplating somewhat seriously the worthiness of game-playing skills.
Posted by: Chip Hinshaw | Jun 29, 2006 at 00:01
Dominik wrote:
Games are best solved via linear rationality
Thomas wrote:
Hmmm, I think you might get some pretty strong debate on this one, Dominik. After all, what makes a great player of almost any (non-turn based) game great? The ability to react to exigent circumstances, without having to think it through ahead of time.
I would have to say you're both right. In some games, such as WoW's large raid instances that Dominik was referring to, linear rationality will save the day. In other games, Thomas' flow state -- which btw is something transcendental and ZEN-like when achieved in a game like Unreal Tournament :) -- earmarks the truly skilled gamer.
So it's an interesting branch to the discussion that, given that just as gamers' skills are starting to gain some measurable value as seen by non-gamers, those skills have morphed, along with games themselves, into silos of specialization, much the same way that a "computer expert" of 20 years ago was the jack-of-all-trades that a IT professional of today is not.
Posted by: RickR | Jun 29, 2006 at 07:58
Thomas: The quality of the ad is relevant, because ads aren't created solely by the industry advertisied, nor by the society advertised to, but by the advertising industry, which can be, when paid enough, not only incredibly insightful and spot-on in terms of trend-spotting... but even ahead-of-the-curve. "Dorky" ads usually mean that the client paid less money, the agency spent less time, the project got a lower-end team and the result is something less than "spot on." Which means that any analysis has to take the "dumb ass" factor into account.
"Hey! Kids love those baking powder volcano projects in school! Let's put a volcano in the ad!"
So, while the insurance industry is "conservative" from a P&L perspective, it has not been, for a very long time, conservative from an advertising and marketing perspective. It can't be; it sells a very scary product to lots of people that has no visible benefit using terms and terminology that are, at best, arcane and bizarre. In the 1920's, for example, a major insurance company paired up with some of the nation's leading soap and disinfectant companies in order to promote better hygiene as part of a two-pronged advertising campaign to sell insurance, soap and toothpaste. Brilliant, radical advertising. And it helped people live longer. Which is great for the actuarial tables.
OK... So let's talk about the *trend* ; )
Call it "Gamers, gamers everywhere and not a thought to think?"
I keep seeing/reading articles that say the same DAMN THINGS over and over about games. I keep hoping to read something new. And I don't. Here at TN, I get new thoughts from the gang, but this is deep, deep down the bunnyhole, eh? In the MSM we've popped the SL Chung Cherry now. Ooh! There's virtual worlds! People do stuff there! And the take that most news outlets take is... this is a FREAK SHOW!
And the MMO tales? Same old same old. The "videogame violence" angle is the same-same. Kids spending too much time playing games. Old white guys shaking their heads. A few academics saying it's ok, a few saying it ain't.
Outside of hyper-specific gaming media (and, yes, there's more of that, since that channel is growing), I reall do NOT see evidence of a growing, mainstream media *trend* that is more accepting/comfortable with gaming/mmos/VWs. My half-satirical reading of the sub-text of the ad was only half-satirical. I think lots of non-gamers do cock-an-eye at gamers and think, "Loser. Spaz. Geek." And I think we mostly don't care, because we think we're taking over the planet. And I think they think we think that, and that bugs them.
Level Five... Nice. Next time, though, I'm gonna let the Master of Disorder (or whatever... I can't watch it again...) fry and eat Mr. Jones' 15-year-old, Bobby, and I'm gonna let it stick. The little bully-mutha pushed my nephew into a wall last week. Sxrew him.
Posted by: Andy Havens | Jun 29, 2006 at 08:16
Well, someone in the dept of decision-making ok-ed the ad, so using gaming references has become ad-tool-worthy.
I think it is an index point "of how far gaming has come in the cultural imagination".
It is an appeal to a certain demographics (note the "geeky" professionalism of the gamers and their office).
An interesting perspective is the subtext of mishap and distruction in current games. An insurance exec could take a quick look at some games and think "darn, look at all that stuff that needs insurance protection!"
That's my take,
Frank
Posted by: magicback (frank) | Jun 29, 2006 at 11:13
I read through the comments a bit quickly, but I don't see anyone else getting the same message I got out of this ad.
To me, the ad is simply framing games as something trivial and not to be taken seriously. The ad is creating the impression that the insurers are so good at what they do that, when faced with catastrophes, they can "fix" such problems easily as though it were nothing more than a game.
I don't know if this demonstrates a greater public awareness of games; I suspect instead that the contrasting themes in the ad reinforce the notion that games are inherently trivial, lightweight, and without any artistic expression worth taking seriously.
Posted by: josh g. | Jun 29, 2006 at 18:10
But, Josh, that's an inherently self-contradictory position. If "The ad is creating the impression that the insurers are so good at what they do that, when faced with catastrophes, they can 'fix' such problems easily as though it were nothing more than a game," then it's the competence at games that makes it possible, and therefore games are not trivial.
RickR wrote:
I would have to say you're both right.
Um, I don't think that's possible given that Dominik's claim was phrased universally. :-)
Chip wrote:
I even had a conversation with our owner a few months back about bringing in teens over the school break to see if their "game-oriented" minds would "game" our applications more successfully than our regular users. (Needless to say, the teens lacked the knowledge to make useful decisions with the software, not to mention that they were all terminally bored).
So, there are at least some members of some industries that are at least contemplating somewhat seriously the worthiness of game-playing skills.
Thanks, Chip. Love the "game-oriented" minds idea. Suggests that, for non-gamers (and alongside dismissiveness) there is a curiosity about tapping the potential of game competence in other ways. I think it's out there; we just tend to be deafened by (as Andy points out) the deafening MSM accounts.
Andy wrote:
I think lots of non-gamers do cock-an-eye at gamers and think, "Loser. Spaz. Geek." And I think we mostly don't care, because we think we're taking over the planet. And I think they think we think that, and that bugs them.
I think this is exactly what we would expect to see when a shift in the cultural imagination is taking place.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jun 30, 2006 at 13:03
Thomas wrote: I think this is exactly what we would expect to see when a shift in the cultural imagination is taking place.
I disagree. It'just a shift in the weight of who's in the boat. There are more gamers, games are getting more media attention, the games are making more money, they are better looking, etc., and so there is -- in the mind of both gamers and non-gamers -- a heavier weighting on the existing imagination. Not a shift in the imagination itself. Quantitative not qualitative changes.
That's why this ad doesn't strike me the way it does you, I think. To me, it seems very much "same old story," as far as how non-gamers see gamers; disinterested, young, key-clicking, doods who treat the rest of the world like a D&D adventure. The game itself is trite and filled with old school crud. The more I think about it, the more this seems an example of a tired metaphor hooked to an ad campaign. Similar to one in which a white-hat cowboy came out and shot Black Bart as he tried to make off with a homeowner's... er... equity (?).
Now... please don't argue that, "Well, then, the gamer has taken his place alongside the Jungian archetype of the American Cowboy." If that's the case, we're doomed. Because then "Gamer" has been cemented in the public mind as these two pasty, white shmoes playing games at work, blowing up Lord McNefarrio Whatever.
There is still no "stereotypical" moviegoer, reader, runner, writer, singer, skiier, traveller, cook etc. But when you say, "Gamer," you will get a picture of a young, white male in front of a TV or computer screen, slaying monsters. That's this ad in spades. So if it's a symbol of a shift in the cultural zeitgeist... it's a shift backwards.
Posted by: Andy Havens | Jun 30, 2006 at 15:06
Andy said: Outside of hyper-specific gaming media (and, yes, there's more of that, since that channel is growing), I reall(y) do NOT see evidence of a growing, mainstream media *trend* that is more accepting/comfortable with gaming/mmos/VWs.
I'd have to offer my own MSM work, Smartbomb, as a counterexample there. And wait till the movie comes out. :)
As to the ad at hand, I think that what we're seeing is a reflection of a growing cultural intuition—the kind of skills that are required to succeed in videogames qua model-based media are an excellent metaphor for the kind of skills a successful organization often needs to react quickly, accurately and precisely in a vastly complicated and unpredictable world.
I don't think the ad says much about our culture's view of the direct business value of gaming skills.
Of course, I also agree that the primary motivation for making the ad was likely a desparate attempt to avoid getting the TiVo hook.
I
Posted by: monkeysan | Jun 30, 2006 at 15:15
Sorry for the double:
I think another reason for choosing a game metaphor in the ad is to give the impression that working for Farmer's is so much fun and their reps are so motivated and happy to work there that they get as much of a buzz from navigating a byzantine corporate bureaucracy where their every human-human interaction is mediated by machine as they do raiding Blackwing Lair.
Posted by: monkeysan | Jun 30, 2006 at 15:22
Andy wrote: Now... please don't argue that, "Well, then, the gamer has taken his place alongside the Jungian archetype of the American Cowboy."
This is all speculation on my part, but I think maybe that's already happened, Andy. Perhaps the die has been cast.
If someone so inclined were to look at the total number of people playing games (just computer games for this argument) and determine who considers himself or herself a "gamer" and who does not, we'd probably see the vast majority do NOT view themselves as "gamers", no matter how regularly they actually play games.
And I bet those two groups would fall pretty closely on the lines of those who play MMO's, RPG's, FPS's, RTS's (the "gamers"), and those who play Bejeweled, Texas Hold 'Em, NBA 2K6, etc. (the "not-gamers").
So, while--to my thinking--we could reasonably label all people who play games as "gamers", I believe we'd find individual (heck even cultural) perceptions differ.
So what's my point ... I don't know (office BBQ this afternoon, a bit too much grog already). I guess it's what I wrote above: your archetype is burned into the culture already -- probably as far back as D&D. No matter how mainstream gaming becomes in the future, I just don't think the majority of game-playing folks will describe themselves as "gamers".
... want some of my hot dog bun?
Posted by: Chip Hinshaw | Jun 30, 2006 at 18:00
Let me get this out of my system, even though it's been said already. The ad was a condescending grab at the gamer consumer. It displayed a lot of ignorance of what a gamer is and does, down to the antiquated joystick. That's how you play most action games, right?
It's hard for me to consider this ad in particular as indicating anything deeper than that, even considering that it was the ad agency who made the thing. I DO think that gamers' skills are relevant to the technology age, but I DON'T think that the acceptance will come so easily.
At risk of stereotyping the other side of this coin, your average non-gamer (the one that doesn't even play casual games) "doesn't get it." They have no idea what gaming is like other than what they can observe in a few moments. How can they see the advantage to something of which they are so ignorant? I guess the fossils that still have a hard time using a PC might...
I really don't think that the non-gamer will come to accept gaming as skill development until the consensus becomes so overwhelmingly against them that they will have to concede to the sheer weight of popular opinion. And yes, I think this will progress by generations.
Posted by: Jim Self | Jul 01, 2006 at 06:24
Oh, and contrast the quality of the ad in question with the Chinese WoW/Coke ad you can find on Google video... definitely cultural, I'd say. In the conversations I've had with foreign gamers (some from my time in China) gamers outside of the US get a lot of respect for their skill, even from people who aren't gamers. They marveled at how hard it was for good pro gamers to come from the US because of the persecution (their word, not mine) gamers get in the US if they dedicate a lot of time to a game.
Posted by: Jim Self | Jul 01, 2006 at 06:33
I have to say that I'm reminded by some of the comments of something that happened to sociocultural anthropologists over the second half of the 20th century. Initially marginalized within the academy, they eventually internalized the exclusion so deeply that they could only see the academy from the position of "black sheep," continually lamenting (but secretly taking pride in) the fact that no one would listen to them. Of course, as the anthropological conception of "culture" gained ground, and as it became more and more obvious that culture was at the core of fundamental social and policy questions, suddenly everyone wanted to hear from anthropologists, but they continued to believe (and, to a certain extent, still do) that no one listens to them, and this attitude has an irritatingly self-congratulatory air to it. I certainly hope that those in the gaming community (industry, researchers, hard-core gamers) do not adopt a similar habit of (and secret pride in) auto-marginalization.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jul 01, 2006 at 11:10
Auto-marginalization. Neat term. I'm going to remember that one.
I don't think there's a danger of that; too much money in gaming. I've never been ashamed of being a geek, whether it's my show-tunes, poetry, Latin, gamer, techno or liberal cred being brought to the table. And I'm deeply glad that I can choose from multiple videogaming platforms and thousands of games, rather than the paltry few that were available when I was in school. I remember going weeks with no new titles at times... erk.
The "Gamer as Troll" may be an ingrained archetype at this point, a la the "Total Spaz" or "Geekwad." But Bill Gates is the richest man ever. Nobody minds when their daughter is engaged to a computer science major anymore. And it isn't considered "unhealthy" for your kids to own 2 or 3 console systems. Nor for your daughters to play games. I have friends with teenage girls who play a bunch of videogames, and none of their friends -- no matter at what level of popularity or geekness -- have anything to say about it. It's just one kind of entertainment. Even back in the mid 90's, a 16 year old girl who spent more than a few minutes here-or-there hooked into a PlayStation... er... XXY anyone?
So, yeah... I do think the mindset has changed. I just don't think this the MSM has caught up to the changes. And I think this ad is more indiciative of how the media is behind the times, rather than an example of how we're making progress.
Just my read on it.
But, then again, I'm only a hairy-palmed, D&D-crazed, joystick lovin' game-glazed arcade monkey. What do I know? Anyone for GURPS in Latin?
Posted by: Andy Havens | Jul 01, 2006 at 13:27
The trend among younger people is definitely changing. When I was in high school gaming was still for nerds, but when even my younger brother, 4 years my junior, was in high school we started to see gaming as a casual hobby. Everything I've seen convinces me the acceptance will be generational until it gains enough mass and momentum to be mainstream.
Posted by: | Jul 02, 2006 at 00:16
The above post was me, sorry.
Posted by: Jim Self | Jul 02, 2006 at 00:17
Just thought I'd mention, I saw a new version of the commercial in question a few minutes ago.
Posted by: Jim Self | Jul 06, 2006 at 19:32
Being a 19-year-old gamer, I felt the commercial was painfully foreign while a small part was eerily familiar. It appeared to me that the character design was the only aspect of the commercial which received attention in development. Unfortunately, being a gamer, I was further disgusted by the inadequate replica they had created.
Below, the connection that I had observed:
Lord of Mishap
Lord of Destruction
The second character is from an actual video game, Diablo II (created by Blizzard Entertainment). His name is Baal, the Lord of Destruction.
As for the topic of the post, I agree primarily with illovich.
Posted by: Chris | Aug 07, 2006 at 18:46