Eternal Sonata and Folklore

By Shamus Posted Friday Oct 19, 2007

Filed under: Nerd Culture 28 comments

Just after putting up yesterday’s post on Art & Videogames, I spotted this news story, which talks about videogames as art. Specifically, it talks about the games Eternal Sonata (XBOX) and Folklore (PS3) and the subjects they tackle. The article makes a big deal about the games taking on serious subjects:

But the question is: Is this world simply one of Chopin’s fevered dreams, or is it reality? And who’s to say which is which? This surprisingly sophisticated story also asks the player to consider heady topics such as the plight of the poor, the tyranny of the powerful and the damage done when mindless consumerism and modern “progress” steamroll the eternal rhythms of nature.

I guess that’s more in-depth than Duke Nukem, but there have been games taking on serious subjects for years. Decades. A Mind Forever Voyaging took on all sorts of philosophical and political themes, and that came out in 1985. (It was, of course, text only.)

I do see more and more people talking about games as art. As much as I like to have people on my particular bandwaggon, I doubt this is due to the pursuasive skills of zealots like me. I suspect they’re coming around because computer graphics are finally getting good enough for the medium to be taken seriously. In years past, lots of people would look at the blurry, blocky sprites bumping around the screen and dismiss the whole thing as a bunch of nonsense. Now that we can create evocative imagery, people are sitting down and listening to what the game has to say.

I won’t be playing either of these games any time soon. Both are on next-gen consoles, which puts them several hundred dollars out of my reach. Still, I’ll hazard a guess that they probably aren’t breaking new ground from a storytelling perspective. They’re probably as smart and interesting as many other games, but now they have the candy coating needed to get new people to try them. This is a good thing in my book. The more the merrier, and so on.

 


 

The Art Grid

By Shamus Posted Thursday Oct 18, 2007

Filed under: Random 40 comments

Here is Steven’s definition of art:

My own definition: art is a creation intended to communicate something which cannot easily be communicated. As such, there are three dimensions to it, three scales on which any given piece of art falls.

  • What is communicated can be mundane or profound. (Or somewhere in between.)
  • The idea is communicated effectively or not effectively.
  • What is communicate can be understood by a broad audience or only by a few.

“Great” art is profound, effective, and broad. It says something important, says it extremely well, and communicates it to many people.

This makes me think of a scene near the beginning of Dead Poets Society where John Keating (Robin Williams) begins a lesson on how to judge the merit of a poem by placing within a two-axis grid. I can’t recall what the two axis stood for, but they were not unlike the three-dimensional system Steven gives us above. The movie then mocks the idea that you can clearly define the merits of art this way and Keating has the students tear these pages out of their books. But I like what Steven has up there: A thing Is what it Does. Yeah, yeah. I know: Engineers and their confounded desire to quantify every dang thing. Sue me.

Later he says:

For instance, an impressionist landscape is (or can be) effective, broad, but also mundane; it tries to say “mountains are pretty.” But it delivers that feeling of entrancement with the beauty of mountains to many people and inspires that feeling strongly in them.

Let’s drag this topic over to my favorite dead horse – videogames as art – and give it a few more good thumps. It’s interesting to note that for an overwhelming number of games – first-person games in particular – the message is something along the lines of “You are a hero”, or perhaps better, “Heroes are good”. Hero stories are the landscape paintings of videogames. They’re an easy target to hit. Most of us have a built-in appreciation of heroism just like our appreciation of mountain vistas, so the creator just needs to connect with the audience enough to tap into that.

(Futile attempt to intercept nitpickery: Of course there are also games which aren’t trying to communicate anything. The Sim series of games is a good example of this. Will Wright calls these “software toys”. It’s not a chess set, it’s a box of Legos. They aren’t games in the sense that you have to “win” and they are not designed to communicate ideas or evoke emotions.)

Now, hopefully that isn’t all the game has to say, or it’s going to be very dull. Letting you knock down bad guys for its own sake is an empty sort of self-gratification. Hopefully the game uses the hero concept as a starting point for bigger questions. “What is a hero?” or “What can change the nature of a man?“.

Okay, this is the eighth post on videogames in a week. Man, I really need to get our D&D group going again.

UPDATE: Jennifer Snow makes a pretty interesting counter-argument in the comments.

 


 

“Reviewing”?

By Shamus Posted Wednesday Oct 17, 2007

Filed under: Random 31 comments

Several people have been nudging me to get Portal, so I thought I’d note here that I have already devoured the game. I’m just waiting until I get the Episode One writing out of my system before I start in on reviewing Portal.

Wait. Reviewing? I suppose that’s the correct word, but I don’t review stuff in the typical sense of talking about a product and then assigining some sort of numeric (number of stars) or boolean (thumbs up / down) value that’s supposed to guide your purchasing decisions. That’s not really why I write. I just enjoy talking about games and I’m always pleased when people join in. Really, my tastes can be quite peculiar and my opinions often border on heresy (I loved Serious Sam and hated Far Cry, for example) so I can’t imagine someone buying a game just because I say it’s good.

I actually wish game review sites would go more in this direction: Turn down the self-aggrandizing, ease off on the hype, don’t encourage the jabbering fanbois, and just talk about your experience playing a game. What worked, what didn’t, what could have been better? Stop talking about the games coming out next month and talk about what games you played this month, and why you’re still playing them. I itch for this sort of writing, but it’s rare. I feel like most gaming sites are geared towards semiliterate teens. Maybe that’s where the money is, but I can’t help thinking that a site talking about games, aimed squarely at grownups wouldn’t fill a need for a lot of neglected gamers out there. I can’t be the only one who’d prefer literacy and personality over big screenshots and verbal intensity.

“Games for Grownups”. Aspiring games journalists: This is your big chance.

 


 

Half-Life 2: Timeline

By Shamus Posted Wednesday Oct 17, 2007

Filed under: Game Reviews 14 comments

I did this same thing for Final Fantasy X a while ago. How long (as measured by in-game days) was Half-Life 2?

(Spoilers ahead, if you’re worried about spoiling a three year old game.)

At the opening, the lighting seems to suggest morning. You arrive at the train station and manage to get arrested by Barney, sent towards Kliener’s lab, jumped by Metrocops, and rescued by Alyx. Then the teleport goes wrong and you have to flee the city through the canals, and ride the boat to the dam. Fight the helecopter and then arrive at Black Mesa East near sunset. You meet Judith and Eli, and as it gets dark you learn how to use the Gravity Gun. End of day 1.

The Combine invade the compound and you have to take The Bad Way. You spend the night in Ravenholm and then move on to the mines. You emerge at dawn. You make your way along the tracks and intervene as the combine are attacking the first outpost. They give you the “car”, and you begin the long journey along Highway 17, all the way to the lighthouse. Help defend the lighthouse, and then navigate the sand traps in late afternoon. You have been awake for about 36 hours now, but you must still be feeling peppy because you move on to assault the Combine outpost without resting. End of day 2.

Antlions in tow, you penetrate the Combine defenses and assault Nova Prospect during the night. You fight waves of Combine, and then battle another huge antlion beast. You can only see a little slice of sky when you meet up with Alyx again, so it’s tough to judge the time of day. It’s overcast and dark, but not night. Let’s call it early dawn. You assault the place with Alyx and endure a couple of Combine assaults with the help of the auto-turrets. You find Eli and discover Judith’s betrayal. She steals Eli back and you teleport out of there.

The teleport sends you a week into the future, although it looks like you arrive at roughly the same time of day. It’s morning again when you emerge and Kliener explains about the revolt. You’ve been awake for 48 hours now, give or take. Time for rest? Nah. Let’s assault the Citadel! The battle to get there is long and intense. It takes all day, so that it’s sunset again when you face off against Dr. Breen. End of Day 3.

After three days of non-stop combat and exertion without food or sleep, Gordon at last gets a little rest. Wow. Theoretical Physicists are unbelievable badasses.

Episode One spoiler:

After a night of sleep underneath a pile or rubble at the base of the Citadel, Gordon wakes up and begins Episode One. It seems to end late in the afternoon that same day.

 


 

Half Life Episode One: Ending

By Shamus Posted Tuesday Oct 16, 2007

Filed under: Game Reviews 17 comments

I’ve been through Episode One, and then went through again with commentary. It was short. The second trip through – where I instantly knew the answers to the puzzles – was preposterously short. Still, better a spoonful of awesome than a heaping bowl of mediocrity.

I’ve said in the past that the constant re-writing of graphics engines is bad for games, because your artists have to spend so much time re-learning how to do their job and use the new tools that nobody ever has time to polish anything.

A good example of this is how the Playstation games grew to look better and more sophisticated on the same technology. For the most part “early” Playstation games look crude compared to games made near the end of the console’s lifespan, even though the games use the same hardware. This is true on PC side as well, although usually developers are so busy chasing the latest rendering buzzwords that they don’t take the time to let their engine and tools mature.

I think Episode One is a good example of the step up in quality you can get if you’re willing to stick with one engine for a few years. They did manage to sneak a few rendering improvements in there (none of which are available on my hardware, so they don’t affect me) but the step up in quality is obvious. It looks like the same game as Half-Life 2, but it plays better. If you listen to the commentary, you’ll note that their initial design for most of the set pieces sounded annoying, confusing, or unrewarding. The game reached its final state of smooth, rewarding gameplay only after numerous iterations. Iterations they wouldn’t have time for if their artists and content developers weren’t so proficient at their tools and able to turn out assets at a steady rate. To put it another way: Those earlier, less fun versions of levels are what we’re usually stuck with in PC games.

I was right about the plot. It went almost nowhere in Episode One. Instead, we got what I predicted: More mystery (the new mind-blasting aliens) without resolving any old mysteries. This is not a bad thing, but I would really love it if they threw us a bone every now and again and revealed a bit more about the G-Man, the Vortigaunts or the combine.

The ending was yet another cliffhanger. And another explosion, at that. I see a pattern developing here. I’m more forgiving of that sort of behavior here than I was with Dreamfall, but only because the gameplay here is so tremendously fun. (In an adventure game, all you have is story. If your story doesn’t work, you got nothin’.)

I’ll probably get Episode Two once it goes down to $20. People complain about the length of these episodes, and they are indeed short. Five hours is a very brief game. I know it doesn’t make sense, but I’ll buy a 5 hour game for $20 without giving it a second thought, but I’ll agonize over spending $40 on a 15 hour game. The $20 price point is just irresistible to me.

 


 

EA Buys Bioware

By Shamus Posted Monday Oct 15, 2007

Filed under: Video Games 51 comments

I see in the news that Electronic Arts is buying my beloved Bioware. Some people solicited my opinion on the matter, which was a mistake. This is like asking Paris Hilton what she thinks of AMD’s transition to 65nm process technology. The answer may or may not be amusing, but you will be in no way enlightened at the end. I’m not a business expert, and I’m really too much of a Bioware fan to be objective about it. I could even be a Bioware fanboi. I just don’t know. I can, however, engage in uninformed speculation along with everyone else. If this sounds like the sort of endeavor which will make you happy then by all means, let’s do this:

I can’t really broach the subject without excoriating EA a bit first. A few years ago there was the EA Spouse controversy, where a woman talked about the brutal working hours and defective company culture within EA. Lots of debate rose up around it. Slashdot debates ensued. Forum fights emerged. Teenagers on FARK speculated on whether or not EA Spouse might be a hot chick. Positions ranged from “EA is a slave pit and must be destroyed!” to “If the place is so bad, don’t work there, idiot!” But the thing that bugged me most is that this is just an appallingly stupid and ineffective way to make games. People can’t be energetic and creative about their work when they put in seventy hours a week, every week, all the time. You can’t operate in crunch mode for months or years and expect to have a quality product at the end. A company with the resources of EA shouldn’t need to behave this way. They aren’t in survival mode. They’re doing just fine, so creating miserable conditions with high turnover is senseless.

Bioware falls at the opposite end of the spectrum. I don’t know anyone from Bioware (although somebody there reads my site. Hi There!) so I don’t know what the place is like inside. But they are not a conveyor belt development house. They focus on a game, do it very well, release it when it’s good and ready, and move on. A lot of love goes into their games. It shows.

So what does the buyout mean? They have just acquired the goose that lays the Golden Eggs. The question is, are they planning on collecting more eggs or just roasting the goose? I guess it depends on what EA is after. A few items come to mind:

  1. They want the people at Bioware. Or at least, they want control of the talent at Bioware so that they may aim it in a particular direction. This might not be too bad. They might (for example) oblige the team to focus on a particular platform, or to go multi-platform when Bioware would rather focus on XBox / PC. Mass Effect 2 on the Playstation 3 and such. In any case, unless EA is comprised of complete idiots (which is plausible) they would otherwise leave the Bioware team, their design philosophy, and their corporate culture as they found it. Bioware could still make great games, but they might come out of different platforms or be based on different IP than we might expect.
  2. They want the IP of Bioware. They want the rights to things like KOTOR, Jade Empire, or Neverwinter Nights so they can port those games to other platforms, turn them into an MMO, make expansion packs, create spinoff titles, or otherwise put them to use elsewhere. In this scenario, the talent pool at Bioware would become a major liability. If all they want are the rights to sequels and such, then the staff at Bioware is of little direct use. Why pay this amicable, talented, creative guy a decent salary when we can hire some desperate kid fresh out of game college for a fraction of the cost? Why not change the culture of the place and crank up the development schedule so we can get a buggy cookie-cutter game every 18 months instead of an excellent one every three years?
  3. They want a cut of those Bioware profits. Again, I’m clueless when it comes to business, but I can’t imagine this is the case. The Bioware profits (while hopefully large) are most likely peanuts to a creature like EA, and buying a successful company like this one is expensive. It would take them a long time to start getting any kind of a return on their investment.

Beats me. Like I said, I’m coming at this as a consumer, not an insider. The only reason to buy out another company is to change whatever it is they are doing, and since Bioware makes outstanding games I’m not all that eager to see them “changed”. Assuming the team doesn’t leave and form a new company, it will probably be a couple of years before we’re able to see what really happened here and why.

Note to the fine people at Bioware: Good luck.

 


 

The Mystery Plug

By Shamus Posted Monday Oct 15, 2007

Filed under: Personal 34 comments

It’s early Monday morning and I’m enjoying a little videogaming before work. Suddenly the whole show powers down. Poof.

Oh no!

Ohnoohnoohnoohno.

Continue reading ⟩⟩ “The Mystery Plug”