TIGSource Forums

This thread is for sharing serious experiences of works and analysis of the interactive media.

Here are some of my views on the subject and documentations of my experiences in video form:

"Let's Play: Thrustburst" (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=yu8JJKAyzeo)
"Analysis: Knytt" (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=BMdQ-qAi-9M)

and my written works on the subject of the maturing interactive media and its cultural relevance and impact:

Genki-Hass (http://genkihass.blogspot.com)

Wow, that is some close reading, isn't it?  You're clearly taking this Genki-Hass site very seriously.  I would disagree with your interpretation of Portal's protagonist as representing individualist masculine repression; rather, I see GLaDOS as the agent of the patriarchy in that work.  She serves the heteronormative role of subservient caretaker under the command of Aperture Science, a patriarchal organization (science stereotypically being in the purview of the man).  The "might-is-right" argument in this case places the might in the hands of Aperture Science, which has the power over the enshackled protagonist.  She, in turn, uses the tool of the patriarchy -- the phallic weapon which turns everything into an orifice -- to strike back against the establishment, and strips the subservient GLaDOS of the self-destructive tendencies enforced upon her by the male-dominated society: patriarchal morality passed down by a primal father-god, the childish curiosity of the a woman who is not allowed to attain true adulthood, enforced domesticity (represented by recipes, which are written by male chefs for female cooks), and artificial masculine aggression.  Thus, the protagonist is actually an agent for feminine liberation.

Although you're totally right about the Match-3 mechanic being the only responsible game mechanic.  Adopting a free standard based on matching three or more objects by color is the only way to liberate ourselves from the exploitive grasp of what I like to call the "mainstreamsplotive games SINdustry."

Do you really believe all you wrote?  :-\

I think that those who see all these sexual references and metaphors in other's work are actually expressing THEIR ideas, not really the game developer's ones...
anyway, one can see a phallic symbol in any cylindrical object...  :beer:

And that blog had some errors... the protagonist has a name (a thing like Chell).
And she doesn't die at the end, she will probabily be found in HL2:ep3...

Did you really read the second paragraph of my post?


Her name is never conclusively stated in the game, and when you do a close reading, you really should justify your arguments only from content in the work itself.  The credits reveal her name as Chell, but it's arguable if they count (I say they do).

It's unclear whether she dies at the end.  She's definitely lying on the ground, like she does when she dies in the game, but the color isn't washed out like it is then.  Personally, I think she lives, but I can't prove it.

No. Portal is a game about portals. Not masculine oppression and definitely not a gun that shoots vaginas. You ruin good games by analyzing them like this.

EDIT: Read some of this Genki-Hass site. I really hope it's a joke. It's gotta be a joke, right?

EDIT 2: "One can safely deduce from these facts that the tale of the 'good princess' falling victim to an evil scheme is entirely false. In fact, the evidence suggests that the supposed 'Mushroom Kingdom' is in fact a peaceful, multiracial (Note that the 'minions' of Bowser never use violence against each other and very few aggressively attack Mario,) collectivist society under the guidance of Bowser. With this in mind it should not be surprising that Mario encounters no signs of any displaced members of any alleged 'Mushroom Kingdom' on his journey. It should be obvious that the princess here is in fact monarch of a colonial power intent on conquering (Note that as Mario clears each level he lowers the flag of the people and hoists the flag of invaders as a symbol of his conquest. Often this is accompanied by a provocative fireworks display to further gloat over the destruction of foreign culture) and undermining a peaceful society in order to generate wealth for the ruling classes."

Yeah, OK, it's a joke. Pretty good one too.

How are games ruined by analysis like this?  Sure, it can go too far (and intentionally has, in this thread), but I find it interesting and fun, and it shouldn't make anyone else's experience worse.  Are you not able to enjoy Portal as much because folks talk about the metaphors and symbolism involved?

There's definitely stuff worth discussing about games.  What does GLaDOS mean when she says, "You're not a good person.  Good people don't end up here?"  Why does Planescape: Torment have so many answers to the question, "What can change the nature of a man?"  What could Manuel Calavera's sin have been?

Seriously, how does overenthusiastic analysis ruin games?  I'm actually interested; I've heard that opinion from a lot of people, and it confuses me.

You grind from the top of the cave? Kinky. A very insightful analysis. To think the guys at Umlaut Games had such subtlety and nuance under the sleek, polished, delicious, impossible surface.

 :gentleman:

Those questions are a bit different. They're actually related to the plot rather than some dodgy symbolism that shoehorns every element of the story into unconvincing connections to itself. I would be happy to discuss the GLaDoS quote about 'good people' because it's direct evidence from the story. The writer of Portal actually intended for people to think about what that line means. Whereas I'm pretty sure he never considered that the recipe for cake represents male oppression.
And by coming up with stuff like that, you end up perverting the storyline to fit in with your ideas of symbolism. No, Chell wasn't liberating Glados from male oppression, she was killing her. And Glados wasn't under the control of the Aperture Science 'patriarchy' because she'd killed all of them. So your interpretation (not sure if you were serious or not) is quite logically flawed as well as pretentious.

On the other hand, I would be willing to discuss Glados representing the dangers of technology, progress and artificial intelligence, because that is clearly a part of the story. Aperture Science went too far with Glados so she killed them. And Chell could represent the idea that humans will always be better than AI because of their unpredictability, their humanity. Even though Glados has control over the entire base, Chell wins out through lateral thinking that Glados would never be capable of. I think this ties strongly into the gameplay since the gameplay is all about 'thinking outside the box' or, in this case, 'thinking with portals'.

My Literature teacher used to constantly tell us "Find the evidence" when analyzing a text. That's why I think that my theory is a better analysis than yours. (OK, looking back I'm pretty sure that you were joking too when you wrote about Portal. Still, you asked why I don't like analyzing games and I told you.)

I really liked Glados. That last fight took me a looong time. I kinda wanted to work something else out. Like, you know, hanging out and eating cake. Or something. The companion cube was nice, I missed it, but... Wait, were we supposed to get attached to Glados?


Oh, and on topic, media psycho-analysis generally makes me feel uncomfortable. I end up thinking to myself "Did I enjoy it because it was fun, or because it satisfied my [repressed psychological underpinning goes here]." If it 'ruins' anything, it's that security. Not that I think analysing something ruins it! But, sometimes a Cake is just a Cake. Or at least that's what I tell myself.

Well i can't still see any hint to say it's a joke...  ???


After this it must be a joke. Nobody can be serious about that  ::)
Anyway i see that the writer of the blog always falls into discovering collectivistic and peaceful and armonic societies, ruined by [some-secret-capitalistic-organization]'s evil plans.
So in fact you can see better what thinks the author of the blog, rather than the "real" meaning of the game.

For me it's really worthy to discuss about meanings in games, wich surely aren't only meant to have some fun.
But, as Chutup said, if you don't even consider the evidence, and you find symbols just exploiting the literal meaning of words you end making B-phylosophy instead of an analysis.

Mhh...from my experience, this is the way big commercial titles are usually made:

step1- Inside a big company, a group of co-workers who share a common disgust for the previous title they worked on due to content/management woes decide that 'this time will be different', that they'll make a game that they can be proud of, that will bring something meaningful to the world...etc...

step2- They pitch their dream game to an important person in the company (might be the president or VP, or anyone who has any pull). The VIP looks impressed, they are after all a pretty strong team of talents, and he was just thinking about making that kind of game.

step3- The team gets it's producer, who starts creating a hierarchy, with assistants and directors and other titles that MEAN SOMETHING.

step4- The meetings start, where slowly but surely, the original idea gets bastardized with subtle input from the VIPs via the producer.

step5- The core team starts hiring, but they soon lose control over the quality of the hired applicants because the deadline for the first presentation to the VIP is getting closer, and their producer puts a lot of pressure on them to deliver on very short term goals.

step6- The producer hires some of his good friends to some key roles. They might be great human beings, but as devs, they 'vacuum air'

step7- The first presentation is well received BUT could you make these changes to the main character? He needs to be more like (insert popular movie superhero of the moment)

step8- The core team has a choice, they can all quit, or do another bad title. It's only one year...

step9- Lack of vision, shortsightedness, inability to listen to veteran devs takes the game to new lows. Luckily, the marketing department arrives, with suitcases full of ca$h.

step10- They start a very costly ad campaign, replete with buzz words and suggestions of a deeper meaning, which really is'nt native to the game.

step11- The original core team looks in disgust, as some of them are even asked to promote the game via interviews with a seemingly blind press.

step12- Finally, the game is released, with much of the original features left out because it was too 'hardcore' or did'nt please the multiple focus groups.

step13- The group of co-workers who share a common disgust for the previous title they worked on due to content/management woes decide that 'this time will be different', that they'll make a game that they can be proud of, that will bring something meaningful to the world...

 Experience might change depending on the company and team size (smaller teams bring different problems, like power struggles and dictatorial development) but in the end, it gets to the same place -> there is no real meaning to the game mechanics, there might be little S.O.S hidden in the game's art, but it's mostly on an individual level, not as a collective effort. The meaning you find is the one you want to find, like the virgin mary in a grilled-cheese.

 

That seems to be the general message given by industry veterans. Sounds awful. It's all "Yay, we get to make games" until the game-making starts. So they're pretty much processed by committee into an unrecognizable puree?

Oh, also, hooray, Lurk's posting again. Thought you disappeared after the VGNG.

Gainsworthy: Yeah, I'm at step11 right now (my day job), so I'm mostly lurking again from work (they block the logging ability on the forums!). But just you wait, I'm planning a gentlemanly comeback inspired by the excellent 'Thrustburst'.

ITT: Stuff goes over people's heads.

I finished reading the blog. I agree with everything on it. The black gamer oversight goes back to the Blaxploitation scandal, when they had to change pacman's complex color scheme to yellow (because asian stereotypes were better accepted in these troubled times). The game was still about a young addict trying to get his fix from discarded drug paraphernalia lying on the cold dark, neon lit streets of a hateful metropolis. Chased by the phantoms of his previous life, only by finding the 'pill' could he then erase them from his life for a while. But this is where the game went bad, because the originally black pacman took his aggression on a switching ghost of COP BLUE and WHITE MAN. Changing the color allowed the game to reach a bigger public, plus it made it much easier to see the main protagonist.

Some of you don't take these 'games' seriously enough.

I think overanalyzing games as it is often done really plays into the hands of the developers. If any of them see such interpretation of games, they probably think "Shit, why didn't we think of that? We gotta work this into a sequel."

Of course, a game's only as deep as you want it to be. Silent Hill is probably one of the most analyzed games ever, with monsters being suppressed feelings of the protagonist (sexual frustration and shit), but you don't need to know that to enjoy the game.

For me, games are either of two things. For one, they're plain and simple entertainment. Pac-Man for example. Or Pong. Heck, even the new Hulk game is just plain and simple mayhem fun. These games don't have much of a deeper purpose. They're just about collecting points in a challenging manner.
The other kind of games for me are interactive books or art. Instead of reading a set story, you actually play the story and often can even influence its outcome with your decisions. I often play games like these with a walkthrough, since I want to get ALL of that story (Legend of Mana is a good example, if you play this game by yourself, you'll probably never get all of the quests)

So, yeah, in the end it's really up to yourself how deep you look into a game. Everybody sees what he wants to see. Just don't expect that the developers did the same.

I've written over-analyzing game critique before.  Heck, it was even about Portal.

You know, there was some element of trying to prove that I know how to do this media analysis crap, sure.  I mean, at the time I was still wishing I could get into a Game Studies academic lifestyle, pick up a post-grad degree and go write papers overanalyzing my time spent playing games.  Heck, it still sounds pretty good.

But mostly I just loved the game and got seriously into it and just had to get these thoughts out of my head and written down.  Plus, the game was so well-crafted that I seriously believe that the design team were capable of sneaking in subtle messages through stuff like character design and off-hand one-liners. 

I mean, if I were them, I'd totally do it just to mess with all your heads.

Capturing the subtleties of the true experience of diamond riding.

EXPERIENCE: Diamond Rider (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=BdtwcJyz52k)

'Bubsy in: Claws Encounters of the Furred Kind' is a subtle allegory of the ressurection of Christ.

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee8/Green-clad_gamer_dude/MarioDEEP.png

Sonic's continual defiance of Dr Robotnik's plan of creating robotic furries is really a way of saying that furries are not objects.  They are living, um, things, too.

Movius, thanks for posting those links.  Reading through G-H now (I've put it off until now, not having the time).

MATCH 3 STUFF:

Match 3 is not without its potentially damning narratives.  For instance, one could construct a narrative which casts its emphasis of partitioning of elements into homogenious segments as a form of anti-multi-culturalism (or as a form of multi-culturalism you don't like the sound of).  'things that are the same go together'.

I don't fully understand the above.  Maybe for a single work, a match 3 game might be effective, but I can't imagine that too much would come from a whole match 3 industry (more than the one that already exists).

???

MARIO STUFF:

I don't think that is the case.  Most (all?) of them seem to be on permanent sentry duty, 'doing their job' guarding stuff, rather than going out of their way to stop mario.  That said, the narrative you set up is a relatively effective one: I do think that it's a good idea (though not obligatory) to question mario's 'motivations'.

I do not think that this is obvious.  I think it more plausible that Bowser's kingdom is one ruled by an iron fist, that Mario is taking on the roll of 'liberator'.  He does not, for instance, rule over any countries: he is a plumber, not a diplomat or dictator.  Even given this though, narratives that valourise interventionist regimes (especially ones without any obvious support from the natives) are always a little bit suspect.

I agree with you here, and think that's a good point.  The only game to really challenge me in that respect was Chrono Trigger.  (though many RPGs will have people attack you if you try and steal their stuff).

I don't think it makes any such strong statements.  But I think a lot of its features can be reasonably read as being revealing of the cultural background and ideals of the creators.


Black Stuff
Any citations/evidence to back yourself up?

Any citations/evidence to back yourself up?

(also, you seem to be assuming that you're speaking to a white audience...)

??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

Did you get it or not? From this
seems like you did but the rest of your post... hard to tell?

Anyway, I think your reasoning is flawed or perfect; as we've seen in many historical cases homogeniety can lead to disastrous consequences, and this is approriately represented in the destruction of the pieces that are placed together in such a fashion. It would be more appropriate to describe the marrying of thee same-colour pieces as ghoettoisation of minorities. In a multicultural society minorities seek out their racial peers, but this often leads to destructive social patterns. The continuous downward pressure of the other elements (which, let's not forget, form, from a board-wide perspective, and by definition, a homogenous mass of fairly evenly-distributed colour) is a methaphor for this racial tension. Placing racial elements in close proximity can lead to cascading race-related destruction on a board-wide scale.

Most affectingly, I feel, illustrated by Reversi.

Your opinions seem to be labouring under the false assumption of the existance of objective facts and a true reality. Once you move beyond this travesty, then you will be able to experience true expression.

How so?  And, if your assumptions about the '[non-]existance of objective facts and a true reality' (whatever that might mean) be true, then what of it?