Reading this brief but insightful post at Man Bytes Blog was like a sudden epiphany. It makes so much sense! (In short, Corvus says that it's a character's relationships that make them interesting, not the traits of the character themself.) Thinking about my favorite characters in popular media, I've been able to apply this idea to every single one.
Phoenix Wright, for example, is a lovable but somewhat forgettable character on his own. It's the trust in his clients, his brotherly affection for Maya, and (most interesting to me) his friendship with Edgeworth that make him an interesting and unique character. (By the way, Phoenix and Edgeworth are totally in love, and if you don't believe me, play Justice for All again and pay attention this time.)
Similarly, for most of the games, Gumshoe is a full-blown "bumbling detective" stereotype (who is also lovable and funny), but becomes much more three-dimensional when his crush on Maggey is revealed.
I could go on all day. Are there any games that involves the player actually forming an interesting relationship with the player? Not ones between distinct characters, such as between Jade and Pey'j in Beyond Good and Evil, but with the actual player, or the stand-in for the player that they control? Mass Effect is the only one I can think of off the top of my head, and even that isn't particularly deep, from what I've heard.
I've always understood that the relationships between characters were something that interested me, but I didn't realize just how important they--as well as a character's relationships with their environment, and so on--are.
Quick note: I'm trying to play through Majora's Mask so I can write about it, but so far my game has frozen twice in the middle of Snowhead temple (my least favorite of all of them), and I've lost way too much progress thanks to the damn convoluted saving system, so I'm not sure when I'll get to write about that. Hopefully eventually.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Setting and the Physical Language of Puzzles
I'd like to clarify my use of the word "should" in the last post. Game areas should form a cohesive game world iff this is a goal of the game design. Functioning worlds (by which I mean worlds that appear to have feasible ecosystems, economies, etc. within the fiction) are not important or necessary for all games, certainly; it's not a good idea to try to limit possibilities here. For a game that seeks to immerse the player in its world and/or story, which very many games try to do, the world should make some sense, or it will detract from the immersion.
To go back to my Metroid Prime 3 example: would MP3 be a better game if this imposed interface were more blended into the world, if it made more sense for those spherical crevices to be there in the first place?
I'm not convinced it's even possible. One gameplay component of Metroid Prime is the puzzles, and to have a good puzzle, you need to set up the physical language that the player interacts with and can "read" to solve the puzzle. The different devices in Metroid Prime, for example: the player sees a small glowing circle and learns, from the tutorial and from doing it over and over, that when they see one of those circles, they're supposed to turn into a ball and drop an explosive in the hole. In this sense, puzzles in Metroid Prime are simply a matter of reading the symbols.
(Similarly, The Legend of Zelda develops its own language with the player: the player learns that a certain target will stick to the hookshot; how far Link can jump or if he has to use the hover boots; what rocks can be blown up with bombs; and so on.)
The point is, if the various technologies on each planet were more unique and made more sense, it would obscure the puzzle language that is very clear the way it is now. If that were to change, at minimum it would be the same problem with a thin layer of paint over it, causing some frustration for the player while not enhancing immersion at all. At the extreme it would cause gameplay that requires the player to relearn the same simple activities at every planet, and not allow the player to reuse knowledge from the last world, limiting the player's sense of advancement. So in this case, making a more "immersive" universe in this sense would be detrimental to Metroid Prime 3's gameplay.
I get the feeling the environments in Metroid Prime were designed more for cool factor than immersion, which is totally fine by me.
To go back to my Metroid Prime 3 example: would MP3 be a better game if this imposed interface were more blended into the world, if it made more sense for those spherical crevices to be there in the first place?
I'm not convinced it's even possible. One gameplay component of Metroid Prime is the puzzles, and to have a good puzzle, you need to set up the physical language that the player interacts with and can "read" to solve the puzzle. The different devices in Metroid Prime, for example: the player sees a small glowing circle and learns, from the tutorial and from doing it over and over, that when they see one of those circles, they're supposed to turn into a ball and drop an explosive in the hole. In this sense, puzzles in Metroid Prime are simply a matter of reading the symbols.
(Similarly, The Legend of Zelda develops its own language with the player: the player learns that a certain target will stick to the hookshot; how far Link can jump or if he has to use the hover boots; what rocks can be blown up with bombs; and so on.)
The point is, if the various technologies on each planet were more unique and made more sense, it would obscure the puzzle language that is very clear the way it is now. If that were to change, at minimum it would be the same problem with a thin layer of paint over it, causing some frustration for the player while not enhancing immersion at all. At the extreme it would cause gameplay that requires the player to relearn the same simple activities at every planet, and not allow the player to reuse knowledge from the last world, limiting the player's sense of advancement. So in this case, making a more "immersive" universe in this sense would be detrimental to Metroid Prime 3's gameplay.
I get the feeling the environments in Metroid Prime were designed more for cool factor than immersion, which is totally fine by me.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Settings in Games Overview
In online discussions I keep bringing up how I want to see more variety in game settings, and I will be going into the topic more in-depth in the future, but I wanted to talk about it a little because of this recent post at MTV Multiplayer: Game Diary -- May 7, 2008 (a comparison of The World Ends With You and GTA IV and how they evoke a sense of place).
First off, I can't wait to get my hands on The World Ends With You. Everything I've heard sounds fantastic.
But anyway, place. Too often, games reuse the same old--or at least very similar--settings over and over. They tend to fall into three categories:
1. The War-Torn Future. These games tell us that our descendants will have nothing to look forward to but martial law due to alien invasions and/or interstellar war. Think mostly-deserted planets with ruined buildings and/or military outposts. Recent games of this setting can be easily identified by the gray-brown pallette and "grit". Setting of many a first-person shooter.
Examples: Halo, Resistance, Gears of War, Doom, Frontlines, Mass Effect.
2. The War-Torn Past. World War II, usually.
Examples: Call of Duty 3. Lots more.
3. Ye Olde Fantasyland*, or Fake Medieval England. Forests and quaint villages, along with castles and horses and knights and princesses.
Examples: Fable, Lord of the Rings, The Elder Scrolls, Final Fantasy I.
Many major franchises fall into one of these three categories (funnily enough, games actually set in the present or near past are not that common). Some notable exceptions are the later games of the Final Fantasy series (I haven't played the middle ones and the first one is definitely #3 above), X and XII in particular. Both had unique environments that were part of a cohesive world, which operated on its own as well as being essential to the plot. This brings me to my next point:
Unique visual environments are important, but game worlds shouldn't be a patchwork of levels sewn together by necessity of gameplay. The areas should form an operating world, and moreover, this operation should have some bearing on not only the plot but the characters and the way they interact with and look at the world--their world. This is essential to create a game world that feels cohesive and immersive.
To give an example of an exception that falls just a bit short, the various worlds in the Metroid Prime games are beautiful and unique (especially in Corruption), but in every area it's the same switches and round slots that Samus interacts with while exploring. Why should beings that look like insects have machinery operated by detonating a bomb in a spherical recess? And why should this same technology exist on all the planets? That just doesn't make sense.
It's not something that bothers me while I'm playing, but in the end it does undermine the worlds that have been created. The visual style, atmosphere, and architecture of the places all go a long way to telling something about the inhabitants of the planet, and yet it's as if someone imposed an interface onto the entire universe so that Samus can interact with it. Which is exactly what really happened, because it's a game. The immersion is wounded. (But would Corruption be a truly better game with better immersion? Hard to say; this is something I'll address in the future.)
That's all for now; I'll be revisiting this topic several more times in the future.
_____________________________________
*I know I've heard this phrase before in reference to fantasy novels, but upon googling it I must attribute it to Shawn Elliot at 1UP (fantastic article, by the way--read it!).
First off, I can't wait to get my hands on The World Ends With You. Everything I've heard sounds fantastic.
But anyway, place. Too often, games reuse the same old--or at least very similar--settings over and over. They tend to fall into three categories:
1. The War-Torn Future. These games tell us that our descendants will have nothing to look forward to but martial law due to alien invasions and/or interstellar war. Think mostly-deserted planets with ruined buildings and/or military outposts. Recent games of this setting can be easily identified by the gray-brown pallette and "grit". Setting of many a first-person shooter.
Examples: Halo, Resistance, Gears of War, Doom, Frontlines, Mass Effect.
2. The War-Torn Past. World War II, usually.
Examples: Call of Duty 3. Lots more.
3. Ye Olde Fantasyland*, or Fake Medieval England. Forests and quaint villages, along with castles and horses and knights and princesses.
Examples: Fable, Lord of the Rings, The Elder Scrolls, Final Fantasy I.
Many major franchises fall into one of these three categories (funnily enough, games actually set in the present or near past are not that common). Some notable exceptions are the later games of the Final Fantasy series (I haven't played the middle ones and the first one is definitely #3 above), X and XII in particular. Both had unique environments that were part of a cohesive world, which operated on its own as well as being essential to the plot. This brings me to my next point:
Unique visual environments are important, but game worlds shouldn't be a patchwork of levels sewn together by necessity of gameplay. The areas should form an operating world, and moreover, this operation should have some bearing on not only the plot but the characters and the way they interact with and look at the world--their world. This is essential to create a game world that feels cohesive and immersive.
To give an example of an exception that falls just a bit short, the various worlds in the Metroid Prime games are beautiful and unique (especially in Corruption), but in every area it's the same switches and round slots that Samus interacts with while exploring. Why should beings that look like insects have machinery operated by detonating a bomb in a spherical recess? And why should this same technology exist on all the planets? That just doesn't make sense.
It's not something that bothers me while I'm playing, but in the end it does undermine the worlds that have been created. The visual style, atmosphere, and architecture of the places all go a long way to telling something about the inhabitants of the planet, and yet it's as if someone imposed an interface onto the entire universe so that Samus can interact with it. Which is exactly what really happened, because it's a game. The immersion is wounded. (But would Corruption be a truly better game with better immersion? Hard to say; this is something I'll address in the future.)
That's all for now; I'll be revisiting this topic several more times in the future.
_____________________________________
*I know I've heard this phrase before in reference to fantasy novels, but upon googling it I must attribute it to Shawn Elliot at 1UP (fantastic article, by the way--read it!).
Friday, May 2, 2008
A Brief Summary of Sexism in GTA IV
(... with informative links! Last updated: 6/1)
As someone who is completely in favor of games as a recognized art form, and who will be attempting to critique games with that mindset in the near future (I swear), I feel compelled to call out sexism in video games when I see it. And nowhere in video games is it more blatant than in GTA IV.
First, some facts:
-- I am not in favor of having the game banned or otherwise censored. Free speech and all that.
-- No, I haven't played the game. But the things I bring up here have been confirmed by people who have played the game, or by gameplay footage. Along with that, I can only actually point out things that I HAVE confirmed happening, so there very well may be more.
-- I am well aware of the style and history of the GTA series.
-- I do not think GTA IV will cause healthy, balanced adults or teens to go out and rape women/shoot cops/whatever.
-- I do not think the game is completely void of redeeming qualities. For example, the graphics are very nice.
The game world of Grand Theft Auto IV is an environment of misogyny. The most grievous evidence of this is the sexualized violence against women, though other details contribute. Together, the evidence suggests a deliberate attempt to create a world that devalues women and reinforces misogynistic attitudes.
Sexualized Violence Against Women
In GTA IV, the player character can pick up prostitutes, have sex with them, and then kill them. Even if the sex isn't rape, which hasn't yet been confirmed as something that can occur in the game, murder just after sex is still sexualized violence. In GTA IV, the player can only do this to women. There are no male prostitutes and the player cannot have a boyfriend. The only characters the player can commit sexualized violence against are female ones. That is misogynistic environment.
Further, the game presents the mature subject matter in a very immature way. Suggested further reading on this point: "Mature vs Mature" -- Man Bytes Blog.
Lack of Female Characters with Depth
The only major characters in GTA IV are male. The only female characters in the game are nameless Liberty City inhabitants, prostitutes, and random enemies. This is a serious flaw in a work of fiction. There is no reason to have no major female characters with as much depth as many of the male characters apparently have.
Other Details
There exists an internet cafe called Tw@, pronounced "twat." Twat is "vulgar synonym for the human vulva, vagina, or clitoris, and is used as a derogatory epithet" (Wikipedia). It's not clever or satirical to name a place after a derogatory term for female genitalia. It's immature and contributes to the atmosphere of misogyny.
Also, a female fast food worker asks the player character if he wants a handjob with his burger. Because clearly a female character cannot exist unless there is the possibility of some sexual interaction. The immaturity paints games as something for young teens.
Update: Via Feminist Gamers, an interesting comment by Cola on Feministing about a certain mission in GTA IV, quoted in part (full comment here):
The fact that this game is receiving nothing but the highest marks from game reviewers and is being hailed as the greatest game ever made upsets me. Is this really something we want to hold up as gaming's finest? (I can't help thinking back to the analysis of No More Heroes I linked to last post, and how NMH is a direct satire of Western GTA fans.) I realize the game does technically impressive things, but what is it saying with that technology? Isn't that just as important?
General Reading, or People Who Put it Better Than I Do
"GTA discussion... over there" -- Feminist Gamers (with a link to Feministing)
"Some GTA IV Questions" -- Man Bytes Blog
"I've Decided That It's Simple After All" -- The True Confessions of an Hourly Bookseller
"How Can Grand Theft Auto Transition from Base Entertainment to Art?" -- Latoya Peterson, Cerise Magazine (May 2008). Fantastic article, highly recommended.
"Grand Theft Auto IV" -- Scholarly Gamer. A general (but interesting and thorough) critique of the game, but contains some concise examinations of the misogyny and homophobia in the game.
"Oh, right... Grand Theft Auto is coming out..." -- No Cookies for Me. (How did I miss this the first time around?)
Common Defenses
"It's just a game!"
No. Games are creative expressions just like books, movies, and television, and are thus open to critique.
Suggested reading:
"The Problem with That Line 'It's Just a Game' -- Are Our Games Our Fantasies?" -- MTV Multiplayer
"It's Just a Game" -- Feminist Gamers
"But you kill men, too." Or, "Why is killing a prostitute worse than killing a pedestrian?"
The problem is not just the killing. I do not think you shouldn't be able to kill female characters in a video game. The problem is the sexualized violence that is directed only at women, as well as the greater misogynistic atmosphere the game reinforces through other details and the lack of any female characters with depth. The rampant violence is NOT equal-opportunity.
"But sexism is a problem in this game/movie/any and all other media."
Yeah, it is. But right now I'm talking about GTA IV.
"There are no incentives to killing prostitutes."
Yes, there are. You gain health back by hiring them and you get back the money you spent after killing them. That's more incentive than mowing down pedestrians.
"It's not part of the story. Rockstar isn't promoting doing this sort of thing."
Except that they are promoting it by allowing it to happen. Liberty City is not a real world, it is a deliberately crafted piece of fiction; things just don't happen. Everything in the world and everything that happens has to be deliberately allowed by the creators. Isn't it unrealistic how there are no children at all in Liberty City? That's because the game would definitely get an AO rating if the player were allowed to kill children. Developer choice.
On this point, see also: "On IGN's Grand Theft Auto IV Video" -- Cruise Elroy
As someone who is completely in favor of games as a recognized art form, and who will be attempting to critique games with that mindset in the near future (I swear), I feel compelled to call out sexism in video games when I see it. And nowhere in video games is it more blatant than in GTA IV.
First, some facts:
-- I am not in favor of having the game banned or otherwise censored. Free speech and all that.
-- No, I haven't played the game. But the things I bring up here have been confirmed by people who have played the game, or by gameplay footage. Along with that, I can only actually point out things that I HAVE confirmed happening, so there very well may be more.
-- I am well aware of the style and history of the GTA series.
-- I do not think GTA IV will cause healthy, balanced adults or teens to go out and rape women/shoot cops/whatever.
-- I do not think the game is completely void of redeeming qualities. For example, the graphics are very nice.
The game world of Grand Theft Auto IV is an environment of misogyny. The most grievous evidence of this is the sexualized violence against women, though other details contribute. Together, the evidence suggests a deliberate attempt to create a world that devalues women and reinforces misogynistic attitudes.
Sexualized Violence Against Women
In GTA IV, the player character can pick up prostitutes, have sex with them, and then kill them. Even if the sex isn't rape, which hasn't yet been confirmed as something that can occur in the game, murder just after sex is still sexualized violence. In GTA IV, the player can only do this to women. There are no male prostitutes and the player cannot have a boyfriend. The only characters the player can commit sexualized violence against are female ones. That is misogynistic environment.
Further, the game presents the mature subject matter in a very immature way. Suggested further reading on this point: "Mature vs Mature" -- Man Bytes Blog.
Lack of Female Characters with Depth
The only major characters in GTA IV are male. The only female characters in the game are nameless Liberty City inhabitants, prostitutes, and random enemies. This is a serious flaw in a work of fiction. There is no reason to have no major female characters with as much depth as many of the male characters apparently have.
Other Details
There exists an internet cafe called Tw@, pronounced "twat." Twat is "vulgar synonym for the human vulva, vagina, or clitoris, and is used as a derogatory epithet" (Wikipedia). It's not clever or satirical to name a place after a derogatory term for female genitalia. It's immature and contributes to the atmosphere of misogyny.
Also, a female fast food worker asks the player character if he wants a handjob with his burger. Because clearly a female character cannot exist unless there is the possibility of some sexual interaction. The immaturity paints games as something for young teens.
Update: Via Feminist Gamers, an interesting comment by Cola on Feministing about a certain mission in GTA IV, quoted in part (full comment here):
"Just as I was starting to think Niko was really great, I realised he was a moralising hypocrite. Oh, and then he hit a woman he was kidnapping for trying to get away and referred to her as 'the bitch.' Then he hit her again to get her to look at him so he could take a picture of her gagged face to send to her father.Clearly the portrayal and treatment of women in this game leaves a lot to be desired.It was really hard to keep playing after that. This woman was portrayed, in contrast to the protagonist, as selfish, shallow, and bitchy. I had nothing but sympathy for her, because she was justifiably scared and angry, but she was being cast as this shrieking whore (she hit on Niko before he kidnapped her)."
The fact that this game is receiving nothing but the highest marks from game reviewers and is being hailed as the greatest game ever made upsets me. Is this really something we want to hold up as gaming's finest? (I can't help thinking back to the analysis of No More Heroes I linked to last post, and how NMH is a direct satire of Western GTA fans.) I realize the game does technically impressive things, but what is it saying with that technology? Isn't that just as important?
General Reading, or People Who Put it Better Than I Do
"GTA discussion... over there" -- Feminist Gamers (with a link to Feministing)
"Some GTA IV Questions" -- Man Bytes Blog
"I've Decided That It's Simple After All" -- The True Confessions of an Hourly Bookseller
"How Can Grand Theft Auto Transition from Base Entertainment to Art?" -- Latoya Peterson, Cerise Magazine (May 2008). Fantastic article, highly recommended.
"Grand Theft Auto IV" -- Scholarly Gamer. A general (but interesting and thorough) critique of the game, but contains some concise examinations of the misogyny and homophobia in the game.
"Oh, right... Grand Theft Auto is coming out..." -- No Cookies for Me. (How did I miss this the first time around?)
Common Defenses
"It's just a game!"
No. Games are creative expressions just like books, movies, and television, and are thus open to critique.
Suggested reading:
"The Problem with That Line 'It's Just a Game' -- Are Our Games Our Fantasies?" -- MTV Multiplayer
"It's Just a Game" -- Feminist Gamers
"But you kill men, too." Or, "Why is killing a prostitute worse than killing a pedestrian?"
The problem is not just the killing. I do not think you shouldn't be able to kill female characters in a video game. The problem is the sexualized violence that is directed only at women, as well as the greater misogynistic atmosphere the game reinforces through other details and the lack of any female characters with depth. The rampant violence is NOT equal-opportunity.
"But sexism is a problem in this game/movie/any and all other media."
Yeah, it is. But right now I'm talking about GTA IV.
"There are no incentives to killing prostitutes."
Yes, there are. You gain health back by hiring them and you get back the money you spent after killing them. That's more incentive than mowing down pedestrians.
"It's not part of the story. Rockstar isn't promoting doing this sort of thing."
Except that they are promoting it by allowing it to happen. Liberty City is not a real world, it is a deliberately crafted piece of fiction; things just don't happen. Everything in the world and everything that happens has to be deliberately allowed by the creators. Isn't it unrealistic how there are no children at all in Liberty City? That's because the game would definitely get an AO rating if the player were allowed to kill children. Developer choice.
On this point, see also: "On IGN's Grand Theft Auto IV Video" -- Cruise Elroy
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Every Time GTAIV Gets a Perfect Rating, Suda51 Sheds a Single Tear
Here are a couple of great critiques of video games that I've read recently.
Scholarly Gamer: Reading Call of Duty 4: In interesting yet brief analysis of some major events in COD4. Well worth a read. Obviously, spoiler warnings apply.
Schlagund's Playground: No More Heroes is Not Punk: At least, it's not THAT kind of punk. This article is fascinating and incredibly in-depth. It's also fairly long, and the again, spoiler warnings apply. I want to talk about it but I'm not really sure what to say except that it's fantastic.
This is the kind of thing I would love to see more of and talk about, but more importantly, I'd love to see more games that inspire this sort of writing.
I'll be writing about Majora's Mask in the near future (once I finish re-playing it); hopefully I can approach the high bar that's been set!
(Edit: Why did I think "critiquings" was a word...?)
Scholarly Gamer: Reading Call of Duty 4: In interesting yet brief analysis of some major events in COD4. Well worth a read. Obviously, spoiler warnings apply.
Schlagund's Playground: No More Heroes is Not Punk: At least, it's not THAT kind of punk. This article is fascinating and incredibly in-depth. It's also fairly long, and the again, spoiler warnings apply. I want to talk about it but I'm not really sure what to say except that it's fantastic.
This is the kind of thing I would love to see more of and talk about, but more importantly, I'd love to see more games that inspire this sort of writing.
I'll be writing about Majora's Mask in the near future (once I finish re-playing it); hopefully I can approach the high bar that's been set!
(Edit: Why did I think "critiquings" was a word...?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)