“What does this have to do with me?” the man at the back of the room says. I’m glad you, not a plant, asked me that. Ben Aberham, among his many ventures, posts the TWIVGB (This Week in Video Game Blogging) feature over at the Critical Distance blog. Due to the fact he will be out of the country, his country not mine, he has decided to loose his senses and ask me to fill in for the next two weeks.

So if you follow Critical Distance and notice a slight drop in quality of your quick perusal of video game criticism, you know who to blame. If however you don’t want that to happen, please @ reply any links you might find over the course of the next two weeks to the critical distance twitter feed: critdistance.

Critical Distance is a community effort to up the thought surrounding our medium. Please do your part in making my job that much easier.

So reads the title of the ever changing acronym SLRC blog. Ben Aberham if not the most prolific internet critic is definitely one of the most important. Besides is own blog he was the creator of Critical Distance blog, trying to bring all the best of game criticism under one URL after the game has had time to be digested. Probably the most ambitious project in the ludodidecahedron. Ben is the reason Far Cry 2 is recognized as much and taken as seriously as it is. He is the connected critic from down under. And now he ends his personal blog.

As Ben moves on to his thesis project, on internet criticism. Whether it’s solely based on video games or not I don’t know. He is not removing himself from the field, just away from the formal essays and the like. His new blog can be found here: http://iam.benabraham.net/

Though man did you have to make your last post that depressing to the rest of us.

Well I have only one last thing to restate. So Long Righteous Comrade.

First let me speak on the essay itself. I think it’s a beautifully argued and supports its position admirably. The Squall’s dead theory hadn’t ever occurred to me. Never once did it enter my mind that discs 2-4 were a death dream. I think it’s somewhat the problem of video games where we are used to these crazy and fantastical elements that we are never able to question their validity, whether we are supposed to or not. They are par for the course and we just accept them. On thinking about it I prefer this reading of Final Fantasy VIII, than what you see is what you get.

Having said that there is a mistake that goes into thinking how to read a creative work. Part of it stems from the idea of authorship and part of it comes from the idea that works have a single message or single point they want to drive home. This is a mistake, but it does not mean it’s wrong.

I bring up Mulholland Drive for two reasons. One because it embodies what I want to talk about probably better than any other work that springs to mind. And two, because I took two bloody classes on the movie and I’m damn well going to show off.

I called Final Fantasy VIII the Mulholland Drive of video games on twitter the other day, mainly to make the comparison of artistic craft and not using it to legitimize video games. I brought it up, because comparing two works with similar themes, content and/or goals is standard practice in criticism and I think this comparison is apt.

When you are first watching Mulholland Drive seems to make sense until around 2/3rds of the way in, and then it’s ending that devolves into strangeness almost to the point of being incomprehensible. It takes several viewing to understand what you are looking at and what it means. The movie follows dream logic, or rather nightmare logic. Without going into a detailed essay on David Lynch’s masterpiece I will say that the prevailing reading on the movie is that the second half of the movie is the real world and like the FFVIII theory above the first half is a death dream. Diane at the end of the movie shoots herself in a moment of madness, terror and remorse. In that moment of death she dreams the first half of the film. Applying elements from the real portion of the film into her dream trying to make sense of it where she is the successful actress, she is nice and she gets love.

If you read the essay like I suggested you should then you will already see the parallels in the story. Going into further detail is not what I want to do right now and would require a rewatching of Mulholland Drive and a replay of FFVIII.

The thing is with in this story reading there are other readings with the specific element of the movie. Like image theory and how certain images are there to evoke certain feelings in the audience, commentary on Hollywood readings, feminist readings and LGBT readings. The idea that it’s all a dream, though may contradict with certain assertions or maybe just certain pieces of evidence of the other readings does not disqualify them. In fact there is another theory that outright disregards the death dream theory and asserts that the two sections of Mulholland Drive are actually two realities where the consciousness of one woman transfers to the other through the blue box. Parallel worlds where the blue box is a gateway (aka a hypercube) from Shakespearean inspired comedy world to the Shakespearean inspired tragedy world. It sounds strange, but when you hear the full argument it makes perfect sense. It uses classical literary notions to signify the differences between the two worlds and complex entities unto themselves and in a way comments are art by showing the similarities between comedy and tragedy by degrees. Out of the two main theories it’s the one I prefer.

Now to address the other elephant in the room: Auteur theory. Those that follow me know I am a big supporter of this theory, in movies and in video games. I would, however, like to qualify Auteur theory. The director of a movie and lead designer (or whatever the game’s equivalent is) is the author of their particular work. Another widely held notion of art, that contradicts the theory, is the concept that an author is no more an authority on their work than any other critic. Once a creator has finished creating and let their work out into the wild that they should shut the hell up. I’m exaggerating somewhat about it, though some creators do deserve that response because they have gone a bit far. Like Level 5 did when it released packages to reviewers explaining how they misplayed their game Lair after all the low scores came out. Or how George Lucas keeps retconning the original trilogy. The mistake when people talk about Auteur theory is that it is not about a creator imposing their reading or their meaning of their work on us, but a framework by which we can read a work’s meaning in relation to the creator’s body of work. Certain stylistic tendencies, recurring themes and motifs are all things creators inherently place into their work that we can read meaning from that otherwise we would not have, because of the framework. The other mistake is thinking that if they are an Auteur than if we didn’t like something they made than we just didn’t get it. I love Martin Scorsese, but I thought Cape Fear was dull and Casino to derivative. Hitchcock had some great films, but some duds as well. He also had some sub par films, when appreciated as a part of a body of work; you can see the man behind the curtain and appreciate what he successes even more. (See Sabotage and The 39 Steps.)

So what do I see when I see this other interpretation of Final Fantasy VIII? Well first an opportunity to write an essay on the idea of criticism, but also an opportunity to hopefully explain how criticism works since so many seem not to get that it’s not an either/or proposition. Audience input is paramount in every medium. It’s just more obvious and tangible with games.

Roger Travis, I welcome you to and kind of expect you to point out everything wrong in the following post.

Brutal Legend’s story is an epic, not just epic. An epic represented by the hero’s journey. We progress through the game following this well-worn path in a new and creative environment based on the culture of heavy metal. So why does the game end 2/3 of the way through?

The hero’s journey is divided into three steps. First is the Departure, where the hero breaks away from the mundane world of his previous existence and begins his journey. Then comes the Initiation, where the hero faces trials and contends with obstacles until he succeeds in his quest. Finally there is the Return, where the hero must come back to the mundane world he left, sometimes a struggle unto itself.

Step one is the Departure, the section of the hero’s story where he must break away from his normal and often humble life the thrust forward into the events of greater things. In Brutal Legend we have Eddie Riggs taken from the modern world and thrust into the age of metal. Unlike the average epic hero he does not shy away from journey initially. In fact he embraces it. He agrees to help Lars and become the rebellion’s roadie. Supernatural Aid comes in the form of Ozzy Osborne as the Guardian of Metal, providing upgrades and collectables. Eddie’s initiation as the monomyth comes with his first mission. You could argue that it is his escape from the Temple of Ormagoden, but there is no agency on the part of the character. That is a struggle of survival not an answering of the call. That portion of the game is still part of the actual call. The Crossing of the First Threshold is the freeing of the Headbangers. Here Eddie has made the choice to fight and in so doing has begun upon the path. Brutal Legend makes an interesting choice by challenging the structure slightly, but keeping within general story telling conventions by having the Crossing the Threshold part mirror the Trials. The First Threshold is the saving of three groups so that they can begin the rebellion. Eddie not only frees the Headbangers, but also arms the Razor Girls by capturing the wild boars and enlists the assistance of the Kill Master by heading into the heart of the spider’s lair.

Once these beginner trials have been completed we stand at the first test of our worth. Eddie takes command for the first battle on the field of Bladehenge. They continue forward and take the battle to the front door of Lionwhyte’s pleasure palace. But it is not until Lionwhyte’s defeat that we enter the Belly of the Whale: the final piece of the Departure of the hero’s journey where the hero undergoes a metamorphosis of the self and world. Eddie is a roadie, always working from the shadows in an effort to make someone else look good. Now he has to step up to the plate. Lionwhyte is dead, but now so is Lars at Doviculus’ hand, the true villain of the story. The first act has come to an end.

The second step is Initiation. Now that Eddie is apart of this new world or has become a new person he must prove his worth of being the hero by tackling the obstacles thrown in his way. The Road of Trials has already been replicated at an earlier point as a means of departing the world of old. Now there is a new set of three challenges. The previous troops were in service of another, but now Eddie must gather the final troops in his own name. The Fire Barons as reward for the ambush at Death’s Clutch, the taming of the Metal Beasts rewards with the Zaulia and the battle at the mines provides the inspiration for the Rock Crusher. In this section of the story we see Eddie and his road crew begin to mirror Odysseus and his. They are now nomads without a home, continuing on their journey to one-day return victorious. Both monomyth figures face trials that test their metal (excuse the pun) in search of their love so far away. This is Eddie’s Goddess, Ophelia, the representation of his unconditional love. The battle in the Death’s Clutch is the beginning of the second act of the story and the revelation of Ophelia as the next villain: the Temptress, the very thing threatening to pull him from the righteous path of his journey. Atonement of the Father does not have to be about the figure’s father, but whatever holds the sway in the hero’s life and defeat it. In Brutal Legend there are two. Ophelia in her Drowned Doom form is the first, as the corrupted creature now uses his love against him. Eddie must overcome his feelings to transcend the divided purpose Ophelia has instilled in him. The other is the shadow of his father, Riggnarok, whom he learns has a connection to this age and a terrible secret to go with it. He is an obstacle deeply connected with the conflict, further cementing Eddie’s place as the hero, but also possibly as its destroyer. Eddie’s father and the secret is something he must defeat but he can do so not by physical confrontation. Only by coming to terms with it can he surpass the father, a recurring theme in epic tradition as Achilles in the Iliad comes to terms with his father, Zeus and Pursues coming to terms with what his father cannot, the Minotaur.

Apotheosis is the act of defying. Here Eddie must contend with his love for Ophelia and what she has become. Apotheosis is the contention of this contradiction within himself and he must defy one or the other to continue on. He chooses the rebellion continuing on the myth of his father Riggnarok and the hope that he can bring Ophelia back to the light. He kills his notion of love for her and defeats her in the mines and then follows her to the Sea of Black Tears. This is the final part of Initiation: The Ultimate Boon. It is the achievement of the ultimate goal of the journey. What the hero has been working towards the whole time. It is what the struggle has been all about and he must achieve it. In many other myths the boon is a transcendental object that grants the hero powers needed to complete his quest at home: the Holy Grail, the Golden Fleece, etc. Here Eddie’s boon is not an object, but people: the soldiers of his rebellion. The entire journey has been about gathering an army to fight off the Tainted Coil and set the world of men free. With the completion of this battle Eddie has done just that, he gets the final unit, the Rock Crusher. It is not a single unit that has been the goal, but all of them. However to achieve the Ultimate Boon the hero must face the ultimate danger, his own mortality. The journey takes the hero to hell and thus can he achieve the transition from being a divided person into a single spirit. Odysseus’ trip to the River Styx in The Odyssey is replicated in Brutal Legend’s version of hell, the Sea of Black Tears, the most dangerous place for men in the age of metal. For it tempts the race of man with power at the cost of their souls. Ophelia’s defeat at the Sea of Black Tears is emblematic of Odysseus’ journey to Hades. Eddie transcends himself and has centered his spirit and purpose on the final challenge, the right to return and ousts the usurpers as Odysseus’ did to the suitors back in Ithaca.

Now here’s my problem with Brutal Legend: Where the hell is the third and final step? We have Departure and Initiation, but where is Return? The hero must return from his trails and tribulations a proven man and come home. Odysseus must return to Ithaca and be reunited with his wife. Jason must return with the Golden Fleece to Iolcus and be placed upon the throne. Luke Skywalker must face Darth Vader one final time and become a Jedi. So where the hell is Eddie Riggs returning after the tour to defeat the being he has unwittingly betrayed his cause to. This is more than just the physical travel or distance. The hero’s journey is about the emotional and spiritual journey of the man mirrored in his actions. Eddie has completed all the tests, but the game rushes the end and we do not get to see the fruits of his labor. Generally there may be a Refusal of Return, but that is not necessary for Eddie, there was no refusal to begin the journey there is likewise no need to refuse returning. The journey was not about going home to the modern era, but from the shadows to the spotlight to become a hero and then a return to the shadows away from the spotlight. The Magic Flight where the hero escapes with the boon is the major letdown when it comes to the gameplay. This is the step rushed through with the final battle occurring in the same location as the previous one. The confrontation is so quick, boiled into one fight sequence that you fight by yourself that it feels cheep. This is the step where you should have taken the boon, the army that you had been gathering, home. The final struggle against the Tainted Coil would have been the fight to return, not just home to Bladehenge, but to the previous state of existence, to return as the man behind the scenes. Rescue from Without would have used all the units gathered to fight back the hoard on the battlefield. We do get The Crossing of the Return Threshold in a cutscene. The game does, however, allow the final two parts of the third step to be integrated. Master of Two World and Freedom to Live where Eddie lives without fear of death and it instead becomes the freedom to live. The story is over, but the open world is now at your command to finish both in terms of the myth and sandbox.

Brutal Legend sets up the hero’s journey superbly and then quits before we can get going in the final act. There is no final act. We have a two-act structure on our hands. The defeat of Lionwhyte and escape to the mountaintop is the end of the first act, the defeat of the Drowning Doom and Ophelia is the end of the second act, and the return to Bladehenge and defeat Doviculus should have been the third act. Not only in story terms, but also in the terms of the hero’s journey. Tim Schafer for whatever reason just gave up on the story too soon. It wwould have been the return of Eddie Riggs spiritually as well as physically, his place in the world restored as the final soliloquy states, he works behind the scenes to make someone else look good.

Note for next time VGHVI decides to do another single player playthrough, choose a game less audio intensive. Hope we do another; it was a lot of fun.

VGHVI Podcast 6

Brutal Legend

I wanted this game ever since I first heard about it, when I was looking up what Tim Shafer’s next game was going to be. When I heard the concept all I could think to say was: ROCK ON! There has been a lot of criticism directed at the game, though to be fair it would be better directed at the marketing. Despite that and a few control issues the game is awesome. Of course I am a metal head so that may explain some part of my excitement and love for this game. I love driving around looking at the scenery and listening to the music. You can feel the creativity just ooze from the title. Everything about the game is epic and the Tim Shafer humor doesn’t hurt it either. No game since the original God of War has me leaping up in victory like a Viking warrior. Any game with that can do that purely by its pathos is a winner in my book.

Dragon Age: Origins

I’ve been called biased towards this title, because of my ungodly love for Baldur’s Gate, but honestly I wasn’t expecting the second coming with this title. I think I kept my expectations well within reason with Dragon Age. I knew it was going to be another generic fantasy setting and the plot was going to involve saving the world from some evil demonic creatures. But in a way that’s good, because it means they could really nail the details without having to explain the elves, dwarves and the rest from scratch. I haven’t finished the game. It’s long and I haven’t had the time needed for it, but from what I have played of it Dragon Age has some of the greatest storytelling of any game I’ve played. It sucks you into a world and I think may be the first game where I decided roleplaying was a higher priority then making sure I chose an optimal dialogue option or armor. In fact I got rid of armor that hindered my enjoyment of playing my character.

Flower

Sublime is a word that gets thrown around a lot when talking about Flower. But more than anything else, something I had forgotten until I booted it up the other day, it’s a peaceful game. The lovely serenity that permeates the entire experience also sinks into you while playing. It’s an effort of simplicity with controls that even my dad could figure out on the modern Dualshock. The metanarrative of naturalism and dreams somehow meld into the nature of the game and are a reminder of our own dreams and desires.  It also represents the concept that maybe we all need to slow down a little. It’s one of the few games that just make me feel peaceful. The game may be short and can be beaten in three hours or so, but if you did, you’ve missed the point.

Small Worlds

Never heard of it, check it out. It’s a game that will take you at most 20 minutes to play, but after I finished it I immediately refreshed and played again. I hesitated putting it among my best games of the year, because it was a quick flash game for a competition and debated whether or not its seemingly insubstantialness made it worthy of being a contender. Then I remember that a game is a game and it came out between Jan 1st and Dec 31st. The fact that it makes me question myself given its humble origins and that it made my top 5 says something about the game. Two weeks after playing it, I went and played it again. There’s barely a narrative and no characters, yet somehow it elated me, confused me, cooed me and chilled me to the bone. From the basic idea of exploration came a game that said more than any number of space marines could hope to say.

Uncharted 2: Among Thieves

 
Again I have to warn all about my potential bias towards this title. I loved the first one and love pulp adventure. I’ve taken classes on the genres and have studied the style. So my love of Uncharted 2 is no mystery. It puts you into the shoes of an adventurer in the vein of Indiana Jones and Flash Gordon on a quest of riches, greed, villainy and the extra-natural. The action set pieces are wonderful and the scope of the game so grand you can’t help but feel like you are on a wild ride. And despite what anyone says, it is well written and well voice acted. Yes it’s not Shakespeare, Faulkner or The Godfather, but then it’s not trying to be. It’s about sending you on an adventure and having a rip-roaring time along the way.

And the winner is:

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

Dragon Age: Origins

I’ve learned more about the nature of criticism from these astute people, many of them amateurs, than I have from my entire schooling. So to all the people to the right in the ludodidecahedron, this is my thanks to you. For teaching me and putting up with me.

I’ve just gone back over the last year and what has happened on this blog, a lot of it connected to what happened in the critical circles and the gaming culture at large. I don’t know if it is coincidence or not, but I’ve actually played less games this year, the first year I began critiquing them in any ordered manner, than in the previous years. And most of the games I’ve played were not from this year, but what I did do I have to say I am really proud of.

I know anything I could say about the nature of my being a critic I already covered earlier this year. So I wont go into any manifesto talk, but rather talk about some of my better writing this year.

In looking back over my game essays I realized more ink was spilled over Prince of Persia than any other. A game I ostensibly disliked and felt insulted by, you can read here. My other game essays this year that I am proud of were on Beyond Good & Evil, again can be read here. And a post on Flower with it’s twin linked in the post.

Of course I also wrote about the goings on around gaming sphere, throwing my two cents in where I thought necessary. Like on the Citizen Kane issue that erupted into a meme almost overnight. I asked where all the war games were and wrote an epic length response to Danc’s three false constraints. (I swear I’ll figure out that IP issue.)

While QWERTY may be dead, he did leave a legacy. Ok not so much a legacy, more of a lot of WTF moments. But he had at least one or two good posts. And I always give credit where credit is due. Originally it was supposed to be a weekly feature on the blog, something to anchor it to some sort of schedule. Several months after QWERTY’s demise I started the Indie Game Spotlight. Though it has been sporadic for now, at least it has been more favorably received.

Despite some horrendous setbacks and some annoying setbacks I think I didn’t do too badly for an inaugural year. In looking over my categories, and this has more to do on my end that yours, while most are self explanatory others need clarification. Game Essays, Critical Responses, External Sources are self-explanatory. Recent Posts is the way my system orders the posts correctly. I got knocked a few times for posts labled under Thoughts being not as well thought out or being wastes of time. In part I think that’s because of their schizophrenic nature. Some are just meandering thoughts about games in general that came to mind and I wrote down, while others are full fledged essays. In the New Year I am going to fix that. Thoughts will be the quick posts dashed off, while those that are more essay like, not tied to a specific title will be under a new category. I’m thinking of calling it Game Issues.

Finally there is my writing itself. While improving quality is a forever ongoing process that can be seen even over this blogs short existence, content is another matter. As of the time of writing this in 2009 I’ve posted only 43 times. With more time on my hands and presumably more disposable income I will try to write more on games, especially more game essays. Also, while there is nothing wrong with looking back and critiquing old titles, I will try and stay more in the current conversation. I will also try to keep to the plan in the new year of getting Indie Game Spotlight to be a weekly feature. It will be better for the blog and me as a gamer. And I’ve been telling a lot of people of a series of posts on the issue of formalism in gaming; I will try and keep to that as well.

In short, great year mostly spent on the old stuff. A good first year, but hopefully more content and better content in the next year and the next decade. Speaking of which, I’m putting off my decade list until the decade is actually over and I’ve gotten the chance to play some of the contenders I’ve missed. Next post will be my Game of the Year and then I’ll take off a week to actually game.

1- On Resident Evil 5 I said that it would be an end to the series being about horror mostly because of co-op as an effect of its focus on action. I also said that it wouldn’t be as well regarded as Resident Evil 4. I nailed this one. Other than the discussion on race that the game spawned and some discussion on co-op this game was largely forgotten a month later. A few people in making their end of year lists had to be reminded that it came out and then ignored it.

2- I called Killzone 2 another competent, run of the mill shooter and would have as much influence as one could have. Yes, got this one two. After all the hulabaloo and yelling from the fanboys defending it, it really fell off the radar. Not to take away from the game, like I said a decent shooter.

3- inFamous, I said was a strong and solid title that would be a clunker when it came to the moral choice aspect like Bioshock was. Again I think I’m going to give myself a win for this.

4- Heavy Rain. Doesn’t matter what I said about it. It got delayed twice and is coming out first quarter of next year. So much for that one.

5- Prototype. There is some disagreement on this one. Some defend it, others fall on my side of the camp. One thing is consistent throughout, regardless on your stance on the play mechanics the story is crap. Since that’s what I focused on, because that’s what their marketing focused on, I’m giving myself this one as well.

6- Uncharted 2: Among Thieves. Great game, a little better than the first in every way. As for whether or not I’ll end up defending every little nit pick that gets leveled against the game, we shall have to wait and see for me to get caught up on my reading. Glad to see everyone catching up for my love of the series.

7- I Am Alive. Another failure on my part. Ubisoft has got to get its facts straight when it will be releasing a game. Didn’t come out, so my comments are moot.

8- Assassin’s Creed 2. I said it would be an improvement over the first with more varied missions. From all accounts it does just that. It does stumble in some new territory, but I didn’t say it would now did I.

9- Alan Wake. I said it wouldn’t be out this year and I’m three days away from the end, so I’m calling it a win.

10- Dragon Age: Origins. The PC version is better than the console versions and no it doesn’t live up to Baldur’s Gate myth in my mind. Still an excellent game like no other. Nailed this one as well.

So in summery I called 8 out of 10. It all seems so obvious now. Maybe I’ll try and make a few more difficult predictions next year. And hope delays don’t screw up my guesses next time.

The comment can be read here and I suggest that you do it is a wonderful story. And let me just answer your question Sihaya. Are you a good mother? Let’s see, you’ve taught your kids how to read, write, spell, add, speak coherently, and reason. Plus they do well in school, seem happy and are friendly to others. More importantly on your end you encourage them, help them, work with them and pay attention to them. Lady, you are so far ahead of the pack you are not a good mother, you are an exceptional mother.

Let me clarify the title here. It is nice to see someone so eloquently give their own story as case study on how to do something right. And not just because it’s great to shove it into ignorant detractor’s faces, but its genuinely nice to have such a story. As for the shitty season part, it is absolutely the shittiest time of the year and 3 wonderful days of celebration out of 33 ’I'll cut you for that gift on the rack’ days does not change that.

(Note: After writing this response initially I figured it would be a good idea to take another few days to cool down before editing it, especially after rereading a certain middle section. I am also thankful I took the time for Danc has added a notes section answering some of the comments that arose in opposition to his arguments. I address those responses at the bottom.)

The first constraint he defines as having AI talk like it’s a living human being to interact with. His solution is to instead let players talk to other players. There is no uncanny valley within speaking and that meaningful interaction can form between two people like there would be between a player and an AI.

Two things. First Danc takes several facts that when by themselves are true, but sort of fall apart when combined. Yes players can talk to other players in game over the Internet, for what is the point of talking in-game if they are next to you. Also, yes meaning can come about through person-to-person interaction. That’s not entirely true when it’s: meaningful interaction can come about through person-to-person interaction in game over the Internet. The people who populate the Internet are the people I want to interact with the least. They are anonymous. They are not subject to the consequences of their words or actions. Why? Because they do not regard you as a human being, because you also are anonymous. The people I do willingly interact with in game over the Internet are people I know outside of the game. People create clans and groups with people they know, but their meaningful interactions are not a result of the game. Their foreknowledge of these people is what allows them meaningful interaction, not the game.

Secondly, Danc misstates the goal of single player conversations. These conversations have nothing to do with creating Turin AI so you can have uncanny valley free interactions. It’s about being part of a fiction, a fiction that generally will not hold with other people in the real world, unless it’s a fiction about everyday life. In World of Warcraft people talk completely differently than the NPCs do, because it’s a separate culture from that of the in-game fiction. Additionally, the uncanny valley has nothing to do with what the characters say. It has to do with the work that goes into the game. Good actors and solid writing have already crossed the gap where we can believe in a deep, fictional world ala Dragon Age: Origins or Uncharted etc. The present challenge comes in animation and getting the characters to act realistically while in conversation ala Oblivion and Fallout 3. This sort of thing would help in multiplayer games that use avatars for player interaction. Uncharted has actually made huge leaps in this area. Plus, that’s only if you were attempting towards realism. If the game used a more stylized art direction then these wouldn’t be problems in the first place ala Zelda: Wind Waker and Okami.

The second constraint is that of having a game convey meaningful commentary or artistic representation of the human condition. His response is to get rid of the idea that it has to be strictly authored and allow players into a rule set, let them go and have them create meaningful interactions.

Two things. First is that we already have those games where such interactions he described – forming friendships, joking around and trading quips – happen. They’re called MMOs. The problem is the same as with the conversation constraint. Much of the meaning of their interaction is formed outside of the rule set of the actual game. Human interaction is not a game, if you ever watched to any romantic comedy, my personal citation here would be the end of Hitch, quote: “There are no rules to falling in love,” you would know this. The same is true for any human social interaction. A game by definition is a set of rules. So on even a most basic level, regardless of where it happens, such interactions outside of the rule set are not the game.

Secondly. No single player game can offer any meaning at all? Ever? You say this, but then you spout off two examples: Passage and Gravatron. Excuse me, if you can offer one example of a single player game that can provide meaning that means single player games can provide meaning. Guess what, I’ll offer you a few more: Silent Hill 2, Portal, Braid, Metal Gear Solid, Ico, Marriage, Gears of War. Each of those is about or evokes emotion and not the same emotion either. They evoke fear, confusion, remorse, betrayal, partnership, and machismo. Also, what is up with you saying a film can direct an emotional response from an audience using artistic measures, but a game should must to do it though technical ones. Films have had plenty of technical achievements over the years, but they all mean nothing without a basic artistic understanding of the medium. Likewise technical direction is not the future of video games in providing meaning. We already at the point in graphics, when referring to them getting better, Clint Hocking calls the stage we’re in WGAS: who gives a shit. It’s going to come from artistic direction of designers understanding the medium they work in. Get your comparisons right. Also you say this about coding games: “We can’t simply show a visual trigger that smacks a hardwired emotion button on our monkey brain.” The same is true for movies, books, paintings etc. You can’t have an actor cry on screen and expect the audience to react. It’s the artistic merit of the crying that will evoke an audience reaction as is true for anything. The code is not the answer and is not the place where people are even looking.

The third constraint is a matter of reach and how many people are playing your game. Your solution is instead of trying to indoctrinate people into the current gaming culture, we move beyond the boundaries of consoles and high end PC as well as genre constraints of the established culture. That we should move into areas that can reach a wider audience, both technically and contextually.

I threw my hands up at this point, because I absolutely agree. Ken Levine once said, “most designers have seen one movie and read one book and generally its Aliens and Lord of the Rings.” Yes I would love for games to reach a mass audience and to spread beyond the present genres or even the present fundamental institutions of present gaming institution. But then he offers his solution; so much for absolute agreement.

I’ll get the most minor complaint out of the way first. Most of the stuff on the platforms he suggests are shit. Facebook games I’m not entirely sure they are games beyond having rule set. They have no objective other than performing actions in attempt to allow you to perform the same actions more. Mafia Wars has an additional problem in that it’s about annoying people with stupid requests to play so you can grow in power and influence so you can request more people play. It also undermines the whole point of being social as you end up inviting people not because they’re a person, but a number. Fishville sounds likewise baffling to me as a game, because it enslaves you to not even a real living fish, but virtual ones that force you to live on their schedule with mundane activities. So I’m not really sure about the game part, because it’s simulation program that seem to fail at the goal part of the game equation. Hell even World of Warcraft has goals and has been ‘beaten.’ The phone games are likewise bad, because they are cheep to make and cheep to sell so the market is diametrically opposed to the idea of quality control. I will admit I have next to no knowledge of the Asian phone gaming market and was thinking of the iPhone app store, exclusively. Please tell me if the Japanese, Chinese and Korean markets are any different.

You bring up an interrelated economic and cultural problem of the games industry and then offer a solution that undermines both goals. So I’m more confused by this suggestion than angry or afraid of it. You’re third bullet point, however, I completely agree with. The last three indie game spotlights and the next few as well all had games that were based in flash or other programs my computer already had. The real challenge is then how to market them. Will the blockbuster games go away? No, because again you are using faulty logic. In saying that games must evolve their content to the broader audience rather than bring the broader audience to the games, why are consoles left out of this shift. I don’t see why a console game can’t be apart of this shift, especially since they already are and not just with Nintendo. The other two companies may be slower, but they aren’t stupid. When the shift for broader game types comes about, they will be there if they want to survive. Trust me, companies want to thrive, not just survive.

Notes Section:

Re: Re: Can’t we continue to explore the meaning in single player games?

I agree that single player games are going to persist not just because they are wanted and there is a market for them, but because they are easier for designers to test out new systems and programs, something Danc seems a personally in favor of. He speaks of economics, but it is actually easier and cheaper to create “short consumable experiences” because the system doesn’t require sustained resources from publishers, support from designers and players to constantly use it for it to remain meaningful or even useful. Any multiplayer experience you’ve had I can guarantee was first based on a single player experience. Also, Danc says, “If you like crafted content over games that focus on creative systems,” with snide like cynicism, but creative systems are something that would fall under content. To take it a step further, without content there can be no exploration of the systems that games rely on. The best and longest lasting multiplayer games rely on an influx or altering of content to remain fresh. Team Fortress 2’s nearly weekly updates, World of Warcraft’s expansions and level cap increases, Second Life’s or Little Big Planet’s user created content (something you were in favor of earlier, so I’m confused by this statement) are all longer lasting systems because of more content being pumped into those systems.

I take umbrage with his language towards single player games as if they are some blight on the landscape that he has to be resigned himself to allow existing. Phrases like “turning games into warped shadow of cinema” and “culturally meaningful games will trickle in at a depressingly slow pace.” He talks about people being afraid of losing their hobby and being opposed because they, as a minority, don’t like multiplayer games. I’m not afraid, I love co-op games and the occasional friendly challenge; I can’t stand competitive games, or the anonymity that the Internet affords in games, preferring to play my friends on the couch. I’ve written the last three and half pages not out of fear, but out of being insulted at Danc’s frank disregard on an entire section of the video game community because of his own perceived notion that that community is disregarding his beliefs. From that I offer these arguments partially as a counterbalance, but also to remark how fucking stupid many of them are. Yes, multiplayer games are the next era or new cultural wave of creativity, but to think one is intrinsically superior or that the old is inferior because it isn’t new is just as bad an argument as looking at games and thinking space marines killing alien Hitler is as culturally relevant or meaningful as games can become. It really is the same argument that games are pointless, little time wasters, just coming from the opposite end of the spectrum.

Re: Re: Emotion in multiplayer games

While the rating of things is entirely subjective, despite what the Internet may have you believe, so I can accept that. It is after all an opinion and not part of my counter argument. The extrovert/introvert argument is the one that came up early and is in part why I waited so long and rewrote this several times to make sure I wasn’t being overly biased, as I personally skew to the introverted side of things (it is impossible to eliminate bias to think otherwise is folly). As for wider and more intensely felt emotions, I believe I’ve addressed that above. Such emotion when dealing with people in a game is a reaction to the people not the game. The game is a conduit. Was the game meaningful in those respects? I think not, the interaction with people is what was meaningful. Both positive (crying jubilation, love) and negative (griefing) are both caused by players not the game, and while the distinction is a fine one, it is an important one when talking about games as cultural works.

And this is where I wished you stopped talking and moved to the next point, so it would only be mild disagreement on the position of your argument, but then you had to say something like this: “If there are two products on a shelf and one offer[s] a fun level of 3 and the other a fun level of 4, which one will you pick?”

First of all fun is not the factor in which we rate a game’s message, validity or purpose of existence. There are games out there that are not fun, but people play because they have some other factor that makes them desirable. Silent Hill 2, Fatal Frame 2, The Path and other like horror/cerebral games are not fun in the traditional sense, but compel us in the unconscious depths that psychological films, gothic novels and surrealistic paintings all tap into. A lot of the appeal of The Sims comes not from “fun” but from the value of either the player’s sadism or a new medium in which to create. Any serious creator will tell you the actual act and drudgery of creation and fine-tuning is not fun. It is satisfying, but in no way do the majority classify it as fun.

Secondly, rating one game as a 3 and another as a 4? It’s a stupid enough concept when reviewers do it because of contractual obligation, but to rate fun, one of the most if not the most subjective experience in the range of human emotion. The very fact you talk about the differences between extroverts and introverts 4 paragraphs previously should show you that not everyone values or gets the same worth of experience out of a game that you will.

Re: Re: But it is just a chat room

Not a lot to say here, because I agree with that statement, but I need to response to head off any misconceptions that might arise from my earlier arguments on the area of communication. The issue is not communication between players would just be a chat room; it’s the dichotomy that can and will arise when the “fiction” of a game and the connection players make in the game necessary for communication are not in sync. You bring up the idea of a ball sitting in a field versus playing soccer as well as with the idea of Internet poker you infer with ideas of communication intent and bluffing. These work because the fiction of playing these games against other people is consistent with the reality that the players are interacting as if they are playing soccer or poker. The problem is when the fiction and reality do not match up. World of Warcraft has a fiction of a fantasy realm and people going about their lives in this world, but players interact not as fantasy beings, but as people playing at their computers in a fictional matrix. (I wish I could use another example, but it’s so perfect for showing the differences in all these arguments.) It’s not that they’re just chat rooms, it’s when the games display ludonarrative dissonance in regards to communication that they trail behind single player games focused in those same areas.

Re: Re: But Facebook games are shallow!

That wasn’t exactly my argument against Facebook games, but since it’s the one offered I’ll run with it. First, Pong is not shallow. If you get another player it can be as deep and as challenging as tennis. (Slight hyperbole, but my point stands.) Secondly, I do not think that Facebook games will ever have the budget of AAA single player games or even AAA multiplayer endeavors, because those games are free and their economic model is not tuned to returning such a large investment as those on level of single player experiences. And all of that still doesn’t circumvent what these games do within the sphere of social networking sites, by subverting their initial purpose and use for the game’s own endeavors. They also lack a win state or at least a goal state besides being self-perpetual.

Conclusion.

I think of multiplayer or social based gaming not as a replacement or the inevitable point of no return. I do not think they are pointless of lesser like Danc seems to feel about single player games. I see them as Bardbarienne in the comments noted quite brilliantly that we are entering a new period in the art form. I broke this down to the largest measures in a previous post where I said, while gaming generations are easily identifiable as they correlate to the console generations and we’ll probably never get past the 2nd era of gaming, I was unsure when the 5th age of gaming would come or what it would look like, or at least not at the time. With current trends I believe multiplayer and social gaming is the next step, but not to the exclusion of others. Just because it’s the age of hip-hop doesn’t mean rock, jazz or even classical music have gone away. It’s just the evolution of the art form.

As a final note, I agree with Mark Ivey also from the comments.

“The first observation: It is interesting that “people in a room talking” is a mainstay of both movies and books, and yet the actual act of enjoying a movie or book is primarily a private one. Sure, we go to the movies with our friends, but while the actors spend most of the movie talking the audience is expected to be quiet. (Though, as with games, we love to talk with our friends about the experience afterwards).”

Sometimes the social aspect of a game is not from the game itself, but having a shared experience with other people. Not playing with each other or against each other, but playing something individually and then talking about it afterwards. Like going to the movie with friends or being a part of a book club. There are already examples on the Internet and within games. So while social gaming may be the next step, I don’t think anyone including Danc will know or can even guess what form it will take.