It's the biggest perceived "issue" with what people generally call art games -- they're counter-intuitive or inscrutable, players get frustrated, and then they don't buy that artist's line that the emotions they're feeling are part of the intended experience.
The sensation that a designer has intentionally withheld his or her intention from a player's reach often makes them feel tricked, excluded and frustrated. I'm the sort of player who likes to analyze what the designer is trying to get me to think and feel -- and even I feel annoyed by games that punish me.
As it turns out, the problem with some of those games isn't that they made me feel bad. It's that I didn't understand why they did. I learned this by talking to Douglas Wilson from the Copenhagen Game Collective about the group's surprisingly fascinating philosophy of "abusive" game design.
The designers in the collective work in the discomfort zone because it's a way of starting a conversation between the player and the designer. Ultimately, their work seems to see games partially as frameworks for interaction between people, not as the interaction themselves. It's really thought-provoking: Read the interview!
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Post [About] Some Fxcking Cats (And Bulletstorm)
So I did this article about why despite the fact that research shows exponentially more people self-identify as "dog people" rather than "cat people", cats are virtually the unofficial mascot of internet culture. Even weirder, I assert the cat phenomenon originated in the most aberrant and un-cute of places. Read it, will you?
It relies on the idea that culture's like a living organism; like a cell culture, maybe, like a species, or like a volatile compound. It compensates for inertia, it evolves around environmental events, against homogeny and in response to its own weaknesses. Weird to think of 'cat pictures on the internet' as potential evidence for this concept, but I think it is.
Do you think game culture is evolving? Maybe "game culture" hasn't really been "a thing" for long enough, but when I look at the way creators represent themselves in mainstream games and the way the consumer culture reacts, I just never see anything changing. Of course, the interesting changes, statements and reactions, are happening at the fringe.
There are things happening in indie culture and in those that consume it that are commentary on or responses to (or against) the mainstream. But in all other entertainment media, you can look at trends in even the lowest-common-denominator works and see that they reflect their times.
Film genres evolve as ways for people to represent and express the way they feel about the things that are happening in their world or in their society. Each period of music history has a sound that correlates to the unique circumstances of that era. Do games do this?
I find myself weirdly depressed reading Richard Clark's Gamasutra analysis today about Bulletstorm. He, like many people (including myself, in general) is impatient with adolescent violence. The game's lead designer himself responds in the heated and thought-provoking comments discussion to say he's an adult catering to other adults; that having fun being immature is not the same thing as catering to teenage boys.
Some commenters seem annoyed that gloriously, silly-stupid violent games like Bulletstorm keep on getting made despite the fact that the primary negative stereotype about games and gamers is that they are silly, stupid and violent. That stereotype doesn't just make us look weird in front of our friends and families, it results in ignorant government and legal trouble.
Yet others ask an equally-valid question: Is Bulletstorm supposed to feel responsible for "elevating the medium"? Does it need to feel guilty if people think it's "bringing it down?" It's just one product, one idea in a sea of many.
I had no problem with the silly-stupid sexuality in Bayonetta because I thought it was refreshingly different camp stylization, so I'm probably not in a position to complain about the visual and auditory stupidity of Bulletstorm.
I bet I'd even have fun playing Bulletstorm. I'm a hundred percent behind the idea of a statement that modern shooters, with their bald heads, sullen frowns, "gritty" landscapes and lobotomized attempts at creating "emotion" through hackish and often offensive storytelling, take themselves way too seriously, try way too hard to be "adult." I love that the designers see Bulletstorm as a protest of that tradition.
After all, people complained about Bayonetta, I rolled my eyes and thought, "stop taking yourselves so seriously; not every video game needs to be a Good Example." I felt that letting Bayonetta be weird and naked if she wants to be was a more positive statement than telling me if I wanted to respect myself as a woman I was only allowed to play as a turtlenecked androgyne.
I saw nothing destructive, and I was disappointed that people feeling alienated by Bayonetta prevented them from seeing what a fun, stylish freak of a game she was in.
And I still feel that way -- and maybe more others would too, if exploitive shit wasn't the rule, not the exception. I don't really fault people for disagreeing with me and for being unable to smile much at Bay-bay-bay's naked hair wolves. We've been looking at CGI boob physics for too long to be anything less than cynical and bored.
That's probably why some of the Gamasutra commenters are uncomfortable about Bulletstorm. I could sit here and say "but Bulletstorm doesn't look stylish, it just looks gross and childish," but plenty of people felt that way about Bayonetta and I saw that as just a matter of taste; that mine was simply different from theirs.
So I see both sides, I guess. Most of all, I'm just bummed that this is a conversation we keep having, that big fancy new games are either so samey-same as to cause no ripple when they sink down quietly in the fast-moving river of this industry -- or controversial in the same old way, over and over again.
What's more boring -- an endless parade of man-child bloodbath games, or endless circular conversations about them?
It relies on the idea that culture's like a living organism; like a cell culture, maybe, like a species, or like a volatile compound. It compensates for inertia, it evolves around environmental events, against homogeny and in response to its own weaknesses. Weird to think of 'cat pictures on the internet' as potential evidence for this concept, but I think it is.
Do you think game culture is evolving? Maybe "game culture" hasn't really been "a thing" for long enough, but when I look at the way creators represent themselves in mainstream games and the way the consumer culture reacts, I just never see anything changing. Of course, the interesting changes, statements and reactions, are happening at the fringe.
There are things happening in indie culture and in those that consume it that are commentary on or responses to (or against) the mainstream. But in all other entertainment media, you can look at trends in even the lowest-common-denominator works and see that they reflect their times.
Film genres evolve as ways for people to represent and express the way they feel about the things that are happening in their world or in their society. Each period of music history has a sound that correlates to the unique circumstances of that era. Do games do this?
I find myself weirdly depressed reading Richard Clark's Gamasutra analysis today about Bulletstorm. He, like many people (including myself, in general) is impatient with adolescent violence. The game's lead designer himself responds in the heated and thought-provoking comments discussion to say he's an adult catering to other adults; that having fun being immature is not the same thing as catering to teenage boys.
Some commenters seem annoyed that gloriously, silly-stupid violent games like Bulletstorm keep on getting made despite the fact that the primary negative stereotype about games and gamers is that they are silly, stupid and violent. That stereotype doesn't just make us look weird in front of our friends and families, it results in ignorant government and legal trouble.
Yet others ask an equally-valid question: Is Bulletstorm supposed to feel responsible for "elevating the medium"? Does it need to feel guilty if people think it's "bringing it down?" It's just one product, one idea in a sea of many.
I had no problem with the silly-stupid sexuality in Bayonetta because I thought it was refreshingly different camp stylization, so I'm probably not in a position to complain about the visual and auditory stupidity of Bulletstorm.
I bet I'd even have fun playing Bulletstorm. I'm a hundred percent behind the idea of a statement that modern shooters, with their bald heads, sullen frowns, "gritty" landscapes and lobotomized attempts at creating "emotion" through hackish and often offensive storytelling, take themselves way too seriously, try way too hard to be "adult." I love that the designers see Bulletstorm as a protest of that tradition.
After all, people complained about Bayonetta, I rolled my eyes and thought, "stop taking yourselves so seriously; not every video game needs to be a Good Example." I felt that letting Bayonetta be weird and naked if she wants to be was a more positive statement than telling me if I wanted to respect myself as a woman I was only allowed to play as a turtlenecked androgyne.
I saw nothing destructive, and I was disappointed that people feeling alienated by Bayonetta prevented them from seeing what a fun, stylish freak of a game she was in.
And I still feel that way -- and maybe more others would too, if exploitive shit wasn't the rule, not the exception. I don't really fault people for disagreeing with me and for being unable to smile much at Bay-bay-bay's naked hair wolves. We've been looking at CGI boob physics for too long to be anything less than cynical and bored.
That's probably why some of the Gamasutra commenters are uncomfortable about Bulletstorm. I could sit here and say "but Bulletstorm doesn't look stylish, it just looks gross and childish," but plenty of people felt that way about Bayonetta and I saw that as just a matter of taste; that mine was simply different from theirs.
So I see both sides, I guess. Most of all, I'm just bummed that this is a conversation we keep having, that big fancy new games are either so samey-same as to cause no ripple when they sink down quietly in the fast-moving river of this industry -- or controversial in the same old way, over and over again.
What's more boring -- an endless parade of man-child bloodbath games, or endless circular conversations about them?
Monday, January 17, 2011
Old Dudes And Internet Romance
Things change so fast, don't they. By that, I mean there're some things we accept about the video game landscape that we maybe couldn't have imagined even a few years ago, like motion controls, glasses-free 3D, or buying small download titles without packages.
The internet's changed pretty quickly, too. I am not especially old, but as I was an early adopter and eager to get online from a young age, my earliest memories of "going online" are of a glitch-addled land of the weird, some exciting and foreign country.
This isn't a video game article, but it's about an adventure I had in the "world" of ancient internet -- my first INTERNET ROMANCE, where I was 14 and the poor fellow was 30. It's a fun story, so please give it a read.
The internet's changed pretty quickly, too. I am not especially old, but as I was an early adopter and eager to get online from a young age, my earliest memories of "going online" are of a glitch-addled land of the weird, some exciting and foreign country.
This isn't a video game article, but it's about an adventure I had in the "world" of ancient internet -- my first INTERNET ROMANCE, where I was 14 and the poor fellow was 30. It's a fun story, so please give it a read.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Lost Time
Jeez. The holidays come, then I get a flu, before you know it I've been away from the blog for a couple of weeks. Lots to catch up on, so forgive me if I just quick link-blitz you for now on a little of the stuff I've done here and there in the meantime:
Kotaku: New Year's Resolutions for Gamers -- How many do you think people will want to adopt?
Thought Catalog: How FourSquare Intends To Be Vs. How FourSquare Really Is -- Why I think geolocation apps and "games" aren't "social". Now with 50% more derision.
Thought Catalog: Five Emotions Invented By The Internet -- Deep angst in the digital age.
And I don't know whether to blame holiday nostalgia for younger days or the sense of juvenile vulnerability brought on by being sick for why I've launched on a deep, focused revisiting of Final Fantasy VII on my PSP. And I'm not sure why I assumed a game that I and everyone else loved on such a massive scale that it's possibly not been repeated since wouldn't hold up, or wouldn't be as interesting on reflection.
In a strange way, it's more interesting as an adult, looking at the little details of the game world, traits of the experience that probably wouldn't appear (for better or for worse) in modern designs, and try to think about why it was that the FFVII universe seized us in such a lasting way.
It hasn't even been that long since I tried to think about this, since I was very moved by playing Crisis Core when it came out (although this is my first real play-through of FFVII in some years). I've just never really been satisfied by any of the writing I did around it nor by the firmness of any of the conclusions I made. Going to try to do some fun and useful stuff this time around, so stay tuned.
Yeah. Crazy busy, but what else is new?
Other good stuff: While I was sick I watched this "Princess Jellyfish" show basically in one sitting and I am impatient for more episodes now.
Today's good song: Avi Buffalo, 'Where's Your Dirty Mind'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)