next »

[Craig Stern]

Games where your choices have permanent consequences are inevitably going to have a greater impact on the player and make them consider what they're doing more carefully. The Fallout games did a good job of this. So does the Fire Emblem series, even if it's only limited to the tactical decisions that can permanently lose you characters.

[William Broom]

There is a clear choice in this situation, and consequences if either path is taken.  If you didn't kill the family, your allies would immediately become your enemies, and your enemies would probably remain your enemies too.  I guess the trouble is making enough choices in a game, not just one meaningful one.  I do think though, even if the player is not given the choice, there is still a bit if guilt for having committed the action.  I mean, yes, to continue the game the action was necessary, but you don't have to keep playing the game, so there is always an implicit choice involved.

You have a point there, which is probably best illustrated by Muslim Massacre. There's no dialogue box saying "KEEP SHOOTING ARABS? Y/N" but I still choose to quit the game in the end rather than keep playing.

[mewse]

I mean, yes, to continue the game the action was necessary, but you don't have to keep playing the game, so there is always an implicit choice involved.

This rationalisation only works if the game was acquired for free, I think.

[increpare]

I mean, yes, to continue the game the action was necessary, but you don't have to keep playing the game, so there is always an implicit choice involved.

This rationalisation only works if the game was acquired for free, I think.

In that case you could return the game if you didn't want to continue playing it.

[Craig Stern]

I think there's a difference, though, between making a game where the player commits horrible acts that will make a decent person want to stop playing, and deliberately making a choice between playing the game and doing something else an integral part of the game experience. If there's a moral choice in the first game, it's a happy coincidence. In the second game, it's an artistic decision.

[Seth]

I think making a game where the only way to "win" would be to stop playing would be kind of cheap.  That's obscenely manipulative.  And all art is manipulative, but it shouldn't seem like it is.

[muku]

I think making a game where the only way to "win" would be to stop playing would be kind of cheap.  That's obscenely manipulative.  And all art is manipulative, but it shouldn't seem like it is.

Have you played Execution?

[Seth]

No.  Link?

[muku]

http://gmc.yoyogames.com/index.php?showtopic=375097

[Seth]

Unfortunately I'm on a Mac, so i can't play it.... but let me explain why I am generally against these types of games.

They seem to use conventional game devices to imply that you are supposed to do some action (like executing someone) and then when you do do it, they immediately chastise you in some way, when really, the game creator wanted you to do that action (and designed the game for you to do that action) in the first place just so they could chastise you.  It's a trap, and it's an attempt to put the game creator on a higher ground than the player.  As a player, I resent both the trap and the pompous attempt at being didactic.  By playing a game I, for a moment, put my trust in the game creator, and it's cheap to take advantage of that trust.

Of course, I have no idea if this applies to Execution.  Games like the Torture game, though, I don't have much of a problem with, because although I end up feeling a little disgusted with myself for torturing the poor guy, the game doesn't attempt to tell me what I'm doing is wrong.  It lets me decide that for myself.

[GregWS]

Yes, it was Socrates, and at first that's what I'd written.  Then I checked wikipedia to be sure, and it left me confused...as I said, I'm a little rustier than I should be.

I remember Execution; I ended up watching my little brother play it, and I'm really glad I didn't play it myself, as I'm pretty sure I would have felt awful after (or, more likely, just quit without figuring out the purpose of the game; winning it, so to speak).  Actually, I think it's a good example of art, even though visual it leaves a lot to be desired, and I completely disagree with the idea that it "tricks" the player.  This idea that we should trust the game designer, I think, is slowly becoming more and more antiquated now that the designers play games of their own with the player.  My favorite example of this is MGS2 where by the end of the game (and still after) you really don't know what's VR and what isn't.  That whole SPOILERS final sequence on Arsenal Gear really screwed with me, as I was playing the game for no kills, which is much harder.  The enemies and the environment seemed like VR, but I'm still not sure what was going on, so I played it safe (and hard) and used my tranquilizer gun and fists to fight.  If these enemies were just fake VR enemies, I'd have no problem shooting them (the irony I suppose is that even the "real" enemies are technically VR), but I just couldn't be sure.  The whole "what's real" metaphysical theme was pretty strong in that game, and the games played on the player were, in my opinion, far more effective than any dialogue.

In reference to chutup's comment about Muslim Massacre, I think that's what's great about free indie games; there's never that "oh, I should keep playing because I paid for this" thought involved.  If you feel the urge to quit, then you can without feeling some kind of loss.  That said, I'm one of those people who'd probably quit anyway even in something I bought, which is why I'm a little more cautious about my game purchases now that more game designers like to screw with the player.

[agj]

I believe that using the word 'art' in this discussion is counterproductive, as it only brings confusion. We should agree that what we seek is games that go beyond being mere tools for entertainment, something more, something good, whatever it may be. And in that sense, a lot of appropriate examples have already arised; I just ask of you not to get stuck discussing 'art'.

Heartland

I find it fascinating that this game was devised by the guy from God of War.

[Gnarf]

Well, God of War sort of limited itself by being an "of War" game. In "of War" games the playable characters have to be manly men who kick doors open rather than just opening them regularly because they're so manly. And so there's just no room left for art.

[GregWS]

I sorta get what you're saying about the word "art," but at the same time I can't think of a better thing to say without changing the discussion significantly.  I mean, there's already a "can games make the world a better place" thread, and I think changing this away from "art" would actually be a disservice.  I will say though, that I don't want to discuss "what is art" here, because as that other "Games and Art" thread proves, it's a question with far to many possible answers.

And about God of War, yeah, when I first heard about it I was pretty surprised that David Jaffe could be so indie too.  Just listen to this!

http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/157148/jaffe-talks-new-twisted-metal-god-of-war-3-story-next-ps3-game/

One of the most emotional video games I've ever played is a Flash game called "Passage." You move a tiny 8-bit sprite character from left to right; every four to five seconds, your character ages. It's a simple, abstract, interactive expression of a life lived. It's great! It's possible to make emotional games, but it's not in my DNA at this point.

Hopefully he does get his chance to do something like Heartland though, because I think something that extreme might actually get people talking about these serious themes.

[agj]

Likely that he won't, because of this line in that interview:

Jaffe says that he finally got the need to do something more than entertain people out of his system. "For me, it allowed me to see and embrace that - at least now in my career - I'm not only OK, but thrilled to be working towards a Michael Bay version of a videogame maker. I just want to make people happy and entertain people. I don't need to push the medium forward, I don't need to say anything. I really just want people to play the stuff we work on and have smiles on their faces."

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

A few practical considerations I have when creating a game are (and I'm sure people will disagree with these, but these are what I use):

1 - Is the theme cohesive, are all the elements of a game integrated into a coherent whole? There are some games that seem to be just a collection of disconnected "cool things", but I think that for a game to be artistically effective all the elements need to work together as a whole. This affects design decisions in obvious ways, for instance, it means that creating mini-games or side quests is usually a bad idea. But that's not a universal, because all the different side quests involving each character in Final Fantasy 6 worked together in an integrated way. But each of those side quests had certain things in common, there were recurrent motifs, such as the necessity of getting over their mistakes of the past and looking to the present and future (virtually every character in that game's storyline revolved around getting over the past, I think the only exceptions were Umaro, Mog, and Gogo). That works much better than if each of the characters' side quests in FF6 had been completely different, with no shared motif.

2 - Does the game say something interesting and important to most people's lives, something universal, and does it deal with it in a way that reveals something about it that is not common sense? If it's saying something obvious, then what's the point? And if it's saying something nobody cares about or has any use for, something too detached from  their life, then what's the point? An example of the former are most jRPGs, they typically have stupid themes about "together, friendship makes us stronger than evil working alone!". More sophisticated but still cliche is "bad means lead to bad ends, you can't have good ends with bad means!". And there are tons of these, things that are pretty obvious to people, so I think they artistically fail. On the other hand, if the point is obscure and only interesting to a specialized audience, it's also useless except to that audience -- an example is Balance of the Planet by Chris Crawford. It's a really great game if you're interested in environmental matters, but if you're not it fails to draw you in. I prefer when games say something universal, but not obvious: a recent example for me is Persona 3, which had an interesting point about death and life (I don't want to spoil it, but basically it was the inverse of the cliche idea that death is necessary for life -- it was that life is necessary for death too).

[GregWS]

I'll agree with what you said about theme, but I do have a few reservations regarding that second point.

So, who is the judge of what is cliche an what isn't?  I also have to take issue (at least a little) with your assertion about stating the obvious.  A lot of the time you're right, but there are a lot of times where the obvious needs to be stated, because people have chosen to ignore common sense.  OK, so my example of this (sorry to bring in religion here, but it works so well) is that the vast majority of Christians agree on "love your enemy."  I would argue that it is common sense that if you love your enemy, then the idea of using violence against them would be completely insane.  However, this common sense has hardly prevailed, and even today fundamentalist Christians act with great hostility towards their enemies.  As a very moderate Christian who tries not respond to evil with evil, I find all of this appalling.

Sorry about bringing religion up here, but I can't think of a better example.  So, that said, if common sense doesn't prevail when it should, then maybe a game could force a person into seeing their hypocrisy (I think they'd probably need to be tricked into playing the game, regrettably).

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Anyone can judge. A cliche theme is something that it's virtually impossible to have lived, say, 15 years in a modern society without being exposed to, which is somewhat consistent between people. Chances are you've come across at least a few 'love conquers all' ideas, or 'evil scientist' ideas, or 'cheaters never prosper' ideas, and so on, probably a dozen or two times each.

I agree that stating the obvious is important, but I don't think it should be stated through art. You can always like, tell the fundamentalist christian directly that he or she is going against the spirit of christianity, no need to make a game or a movie or a song about it. If that idea were the theme of an artwork it wouldn't be likely to convince any fundamentalist, anyway. The people who the artwork is intended for aren't likely to try it out anyway, because fundamentalist christians are known for not letting their children play anything blasphemous and not exposing themselves material that they disagree with. Remember how they boycotted the movie of the da vinci code, or harry potter?

However, there are common flaws in most people which are not obvious or cliche. For instance, we all have the tendency to adjust a given set of facts to our own theories. Two different people with different theories can take the same data set and cherry-pick parts to make it seem as if the facts fit their own theory. That might be an interesting theme to use for a game or something, because it's a common problem which isn't obvious to many people, and it's something that if people were more aware of it'd probably help them out.

[Zaphos]

A lot of the time you're right, but there are a lot of times where the obvious needs to be stated, because people have chosen to ignore common sense.  OK, so my example of this (sorry to bring in religion here, but it works so well) is that the vast majority of Christians agree on "love your enemy."  I would argue that it is common sense that if you love your enemy, then the idea of using violence against them would be completely insane.  However, this common sense has hardly prevailed, and even today fundamentalist Christians act with great hostility towards their enemies.  As a very moderate Christian who tries not respond to evil with evil, I find all of this appalling.

Underlying even a simple, cliche concept, there is a lot of depth and personal experience that you can bring to the table.  Without that depth, people will just write the cliche off as the same as what they have heard before.

To take your example, usually there is a reason that people choose to ignore "common sense."  It's not as simple as, "love your enemy," and "don't use violence," when on a personal level this is very hard, and on a practical level there can be real risks in not using violence.  Find a way to take your general concept and make it real and specific and something you can relate to; something where you can really relate to the mindset that you want to argue against.  I think you could find something much more nuanced and interesting than the simple idea you started with.

Sorry about bringing religion up here, but I can't think of a better example.  So, that said, if common sense doesn't prevail when it should, then maybe a game could force a person into seeing their hypocrisy (I think they'd probably need to be tricked into playing the game, regrettably).

I don't think it's a good strategy to try to trick people in to agreeing with you.  You want to work with people, to go in to their perspective honestly and think about how why that perspective lead to a different belief.

If you come in to a discussion thinking that your audience is stupid and needs to be hit over the head with "the truth," then your audience will know that.  They will want to disagree with you because of that, and you'll have a hard time just communicating anything at all.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Another thing is, if a cliche is used in a unique and compelling way, it's no longer a problem. Watchmen used a lot of cliches -- it's a superhero comic, it's about superheroes fighting crime, but it did it in a way which wasn't cliche, because it dealt with parts of the issue that others hadn't dealt with before, like what problems such people might have, and how they might be hated by normal people, or what psychological problems would lead someone into fighting crime, etc.