Jason Rohrer, at it again.
Another one of Jason Rohrer’s mind-blasting games, Castle Doctrine, was recently released. I love what Rohrer does. Oftentimes, he’s credited with being the person who took games and put them in the limelight as far as “games as art” goes with his most famous title, Passage. All of his games are very meta. Everything about them subverts our normal understanding of what a video game is. Save the princess? Nope, she just dies. Experience a story? No, tell one yourself. Exposing the nefarious trade of blood diamonds on the Nintendo DS? Yes, please. Make a game that’ll be playable in thousands of years… to aliens! Yup, he did that too. Jason Rohrer is a nutjob in all the good ways.
There’s a saying that no one will recognize you as an artist, your talents, or know who the hell you are until you’re dead. This clearly isn’t true because plenty of people know who Jason Rohrer is. There’s another saying where artists will always be poor. Now this is the biggest question as far as creating something that is marketable to the mainstream while still trying to support yourself. Of course, this can be done. Heck, Rohrer has a family to support (albeit they live in some crazy self-sustaining tall grass growing hippy property, it’s nuts).
I was checking out Castle Doctrine on Steam when I came across a really hilarious review that prompted the idea for this post. But first, let me explain to you what this game is about.
More after the jump.
I WILL SCARE THE EVERYTHING OUT OF YOU!
I always like to keep in touch with the new releases and one of the properties I always have a pulse on is the Lord of the Rings related stuff. For the most part, those hack ‘n slash games were decent! I enjoyed the early ones that came out around the time of the original movie trilogy. Not really sure what’s happening now with The Hobbit nonsense but I’m glad I caught Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor. I rail on AAA a ton in my blog posts but here’s one thing that I really appreciate about what they do. Because of their ridiculous budgets, huge teams, and oftentimes familiar properties to work within, they have a safe space to do some crazy things.
In SoM, you play as a ranger named Talion who has a badass wraith helping him out. The combat looks cool in that it follows the Batman Arkham series of timed attacked and counters against many enemies at once. Sure, you get some really cool wraith abilities to scare the shit and influence your enemies or spy on them. None of this is as interesting as what they’re doing with enemy encounters… completely dynamic enemy personalities that tie into the story.
Holy what? More after the jump…
Patents and trademarks can be a very good thing because they can protect innovation. We can’t patent game designs just yet (although I’m told you can definitely patent processes) so developers are always potentially going to fight off clones like poor Vlambeer. On the other hand, I’m glad you can’t patent game mechanics otherwise you’ll get stupid shit like King.com’s troll crusade on Banner Saga for the usage of the word ‘saga’. All I have to say to King.com is just a diarrhea spew of expletives. The same thing happened when Bethesda’s parent company, Zenimax, sued Mojang for his new game ‘Scrolls’ because you know Elder Scrolls.
These are all trademark issues and protecting a brand. I guess ridiculous stuff happens here all the time. OMG you’re using the word ‘zombie’! SUE YOUR ASS. Okay, I’ll concede that if I use the word ‘coke’ in my product’s name I”ll get in deep trouble, but ultimately that’s just the wrong thing to do. I’m being stupid by thinking I can use ‘coke’ and that’s okay. But just innocuous words like ‘saga’ and ‘scrolls’? WTF.
I call this quick post “Never Lose Touch” because I ultimately think that most people will find all these lawsuits stupid. I bet most the people at Bethesda thought suing Mojang would be the wrong thing to do. As an indie developer, the dream is to get larger and have multiple teams working on multiple projects. As the company gets larger, lots of things can go unnoticed. You’ll suddenly have a marketing arm and a law leg. Who knows what the leg is doing! This is why you can’t ever lose touch with what’s going on in every aspect of your company, especially if you started small. This is just one of the advantages indie developers have over larger studios. Everything gets noticed.
Don’t lose sight of what’s right. Don’t let the wrong slip out.
I like to preserve cultural references and views but these are changes I’m more than happy to agree with.
In a previous post, I mused about how cultural differences could influence narrative and game mechanics. I mean, they obviously can and do influence a lot of different things. Another example popped up with the upcoming release of Bravely Default‘s North American release.
The above image depicts the costumes in the original Japanese release on the right and the NA counterparts on the left. The most gratuitous is the top-left—I think that costume change is pretty reasonable. Seriously, who the hell goes out and fights in their underwear? Come on, guys. The BDSM outfit, borderline for me although I do like the covered up one more… it’s doesn’t bash me over the head as much.
More after the jump…
Part stealth, part haunting, part family drama.
Kent Hudon’s new game, The Novelist, came out today. I met Kent some years ago at GDC when I rage quit David Cage of Quantic Dream (Heavy Rain). I liked Heavy Rain a lot but when it came to Cage’s talk, I couldn’t disagree more. Across the hall was Hudson speaking about player generated stories. I believe that talk was the impetus behind many of the ideas in The Novelist as well as many other games in the past year (Gone Home, Dear Esther, and even my own MFA thesis game). I’ve been waiting for Hudson to show us what he wanted to do. He was with LucasArts at the time, and now that’s gone.
But now we have The Novelist. So far, it’s pretty awesome.
I just finished the first arc of the story, the first month of a summer long getaway for the Kaplan family. Needless to say, everything after the jump is a huge spoiler.
Hit the jump for more…
So much good in this game. So why haven’t I finished it yet?
I was very excited to get this game when it was released. The potential to have Batman Arkham Series-like fighting mechanics outside of the Arkham universe was mouth watering to me. Gladly to say, Remember Me did an awesome job with it and solves a lot of problems that came with the fight mechanic design in the Arkham series. However, for whatever reason I haven’t finished it and is therefore an indication for some problems with the game. Here are some critical thoughts on just a few aspects of the game.
The first thing I’ll talk about is, of course, the fighting.
Hit the jump for more…
The game is about doors. No, really.
The Stanley Parable always had a certain buzz around it. Having finally played it a few times, I can understand why it’s great but I also recognize that this game falls victim to the same problems that almost all popular narrative-based (if you can even call this a narrative) games out there. It’s the problem of branching and therefore a problem of content creation.
The magnificent thing about this game is that it’s magnificently self-aware. It’s omniscient narration is the first indication of the game’s strengths and continue to riff on the idea that the player is a meaningless pawn being controlled by the system… or the designers. I love this idea because it brings attention to how games are made. As a player, you are very cognizant of what the designers want you to do. I had a lot of fun with this because that conversation between designer and gamer was intensified for me. Being a designer by day and a gamer by night, the divide between these two roles were being broken down by how meta this game is. That’s where this game really shines.
The narration and even some of the endings bring to the players attention that they are playing a game. Their avatar is trapped in a game-world where the rules of games apply. The narration points out weird habits in FPS level design and general game quirks. I read somewhere that there’s even an ending where you can fall outside of the level and seem to end up in a broken state. I’ll assume that the narrator will do his job and properly dictate your actions back to you and therefore confirm that this ‘broken’ ending is actually part of the game. That’s magnificent.
However, this game suffers the same issues because it’s all reliant on branching narrative structures that requires careful crafting of content. Being meta, as usual, these branches are explicitly expressed in its level design. Do you choose Door #1 or #2? These are branches in the narrative, quite literally! There’s a lot of opaque interaction that’s frustrating, but
forces encourages the players to explore. The entire game is about trickling down the paths and experimenting with its outcomes. It’s about toying with the constructs of “what is it to be a game?” and seeing how it produces a unique kind of cognitive dissonance. Normally, we allow the weird rules of games and FPS-land and continue playing with these rules in the back of our minds. The Stanley Parable brings these to the foreground and forces players to continually think of them.
The rules we created for games are really weird. Arbitrary, even. While The Stanley Parable does a good job at exposing these strange cases in first person game design, is it anything more than that? There were interesting things in the conference room, a critique on corporations, but is that even important? How many endings need to be produced and how much time will it take players to discover them until the true meaning of the game becomes apparent? Maybe it’s nothing more than a self-aware observation of games, which is does a great job at.
Snipin’ you with ma arrows.
Tomb Raider was a pretty good game. I had some fun playing it. What I’m really glad about is the fact that we can begin gathering the old Lara Croft and start putting those games in the attic. The new Lara is a multi-faceted character with the potential for growth and further development. She’s not the flat (well, depends on how you look at it) persona that she once was. The only gripe I have is that new Lara grew up way to fast for me. It was demonstrated in the escalation of combat during the game. Furthermore, the combat and combat options (weapons, tactics, etc…) didn’t match the progression of Lara’s character in the story. I thought they had a good team of writers on this? Well, it did… but do writers and combat designers actually talk to each other? AAA, what the fuck is going on here?
More after the break.
Because the things the mainstream tries to tell you is always true.
I’m jumping on the bandwagon here and will also talk about what I think a game is. Raph Koster wrote a post that spawned many many replies and, in general, a huge discussion on what games really are. For the record, this discussion is good and it’s something that we need to keep doing. As many game makers have mentioned already, most notably Adam Saltsman, is that we are in a time where we can greatly influence what games are and how they’re made. We’re the ones, right now, deciding what the industry is about. It was evident at GDC 2013, the most inclusive Game Developers Conference ever—indies, social, AAA, mobile, F2P’ers, and everyone under the sun cheering each other on.
So here’s my nutshell definition:
A game is something that does not require a goal or objective but has a formal ruleset or system, that was designed by someone as a pre-meditated conversation to be had with a potential player. By exploring and obeying the designed rules and systems laid out in front of him/her/them, the player is conversing with the game designer.
More details after the jump…
The only thing I cared about this entire game was the welfare of this little girl.
The guys who put together Spec Ops: The Line may think that violence is easy to pull off in video games but what I think they were trying to say that violence is oftentimes meaningless in video games. While the physical action of pulling a real gun’s trigger to shoot another human being in the face is pretty much the same as pulling the right-side trigger on a game controller to shoot a manifestation of another human being, the psychological, moral, and ethical repercussions are world’s apart. Most conventional shooters eschew the real world emotions that pulling the trigger against a living thing entails (animals included). Even if The Line was about violence, you never felt like the psychopath they wanted you to be. I’m supposed to feel some guilt when I kill all the refugees, I’m definitely supposed to think about my moral dilemma at the end of game. NOPE.
But you know who does violence correctly? It’s fucking Telltale Games in The Walking Dead.
More after the jump…