Video Games Live

Inconstant Readers are no doubt aware of my recent gaming slump. Aside from occasional forays into SFIV and a slow but steady second slog through Puzzle Quest (a corrupted file ended my first play through) I haven't had much hands-on experience of gaming in the recent past. That did not, however, keep me from being as giddy as Henry Jones Sr. upon discovering that Video Games Live was coming to Pittsburgh.

Wait, I mean Video Games LIVE!

Or perhaps it would be more appropriate to call it Video Games LIVE!!!!!!111oneoneone

Yes, it's geared towards that sort of audience. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

I've been in love with Nobuo Uematsu's music for over 17 years, ever since I dubbed - to 4 cassettes! - a friend's copy of the Final Fantasy VI OST which, no doubt due to Americans not having the slightest clue what an OST was at the time (Original Sound Track for those of you still out-of-the-know), was strangely titled "Kefka's Domain". Having played through the 60+ hours it took to complete the game and all attendant side quests and developed an overdue appreciation for Final Fantasy (I had played I and IV but didn't think them anything special) popping those tapes into my Walkman and pedaling to school every morning was nothing short of sublime. The way each character had a unique theme woven seamlessly into the bulk of the soundtrack, the fantastic reprisals of each major theme during the closing credits, and, of course the absolute best final battle music in gaming history (yes, even better than One-Winged Angel - you fanboys realize that wasn't an entirely original composition, right?) all came together to make me appreciate just how powerful music in games could be.

Flash forward a decade or two. I've imported every OST, lyrical interpretation, and piano etude from Final Fantasy 1 through 10. I've longed to hear The Black Mages in concert. I've become familiar with other composers through my love of games - Akira Yamaoka, Yasunori Mitsuda, and Harry Gregson-Williams come to mind. Game music has found itself a staple of both my yoga and massage therapy playlists. When I heard about Video Games Live I thought this was finally it, game music has achieved mainstream appeal and I would be able to enjoy some of my favorite orchestrations in their full symphonic glory.

Someday perhaps I will. For the nonce, however, I'll have to keep dreaming.

Don't get me wrong, I love what VGL is trying to do. Anything that helps get the masses to recognize gaming as an artistic cultural artifact is a good thing. But the current iteration may not necessarily be a gateway to widespread acceptance.

Simply put the focus of the concert was more about fan service than about music. Extreme fan service. I'll admit that perhaps the video game concert of my dreams is on one end of a scale - something very much akin to a traditional night out at the symphony only all the pieces are from games - but VGL is firmly at the other extreme. The cosplay extreme if you catch my general drift. There must be some kind of middle ground.

I've got no problem with the costume contest that opened the show (and the pretty bad-ass Lich King getup that won was no joke), nor the guitar hero competition and general geeky swag-fest atmosphere that permeated the theater. But when it comes to the actual concert, well, I want to pay attention to the music.

Sure the youngsters that inevitably beg their parents to go (along with the more twitchy of the older gamers in attendee) probably couldn't handle just sitting and watching an orchestra perform, so the three screens of video clips are a good idea. Heck my SO really appreciated getting to see the graphical transformation of legendary franchises over the years (although it's jarringly obvious that VGL doesn't have the right to use images from Square-Enix games - a glaring omission when music from several Final Fantasys, both Chronos , and Kingdom Hearts is included). Having a little something pleasing for the eye as well as the ear is only appropriate for a concert rooted in a multimedia art form like games.

Still the emphasis on greatest hits medleys rather than full orchestral songs takes its toll on the artistic integrity of the music. The only piece played in its entirety and not wedged into a medley was One-Winged Angel. This meant that as a fan of the music I wasn't able to close my eyes and get lost in the nuances of a pieces with which I was familiar. Instead I had to settle for the occasional soupçon of a loved phrase during long mash ups that mostly string together riffs of the most well-known and recognizable themes.

The real let-down was the entirety of the second act during which Tommy Tallarico used an entire symphony orchestra as a platform to live out his rock-star fantasy. Electric guitar in tow (even for Scars of Time which screams for acoustic) he dominated every song with his "look-at-me-not-the-orchestra" antics and volume cranked up to 11. The crowd loved it, but as I told Renee afterward it was more like a celebration of Beatlemania than a celebration of the Beatles, more like an emphasis on Michael Jackson fandom than Michael Jackson's music.

For all my gripes it was still a very enjoyable experience. There were several moments of gooseflesh and many more of pure joy (though years of overexposure to rabid fanboys have long since deadened my heart from being affected by the first three notes of Aerith's Theme). I'm very glad that there's something out there that highlights one of the lesser talked about artistic aspects of games. Music-in-games talk today is almost exclusively about interactive music, but it's important to remember that there are well-established craft elements that stand up on their own (music, cinematography, voice-acting, etc.) and need to be recognized. But until such times as the market will support a traveling show of game music in a more traditional orchestral style I'll just keep cranking up my symphonic suites in the comfort of my own home.

What do you want out of your local video games/high culture crossover?

Tossing My Hat into the MJ Tribute Ring

It says a lot about my web viewing habits that I first heard about Michael Jackson's death through a game site. As I've processed his passing throughout the day (and done my share to aid last.fm's spike of song plays) I've tried to think of his impact on my game playing. Like any self-respecting gaming child of the 80's I played the ever-loving snot out of Moonwalker for the Genesis and pumped several dollars worth of quarters into its isometric arcade counterpart. It's Robo-Michael. Who can resist that?

Still MJ has been somewhat absent from modern gaming, with the exception of the to-be-expected rhythm game appearances (themselves far too few - although trying to actually sing decently like Michael is its own genre of comedic buffoonery). Fortunately we live in the era of the custom playlist so I submit for your approval my suggestions for songs to include in your custom soundtracks for games that allow it if you need a little more MJ in your life:

Burnout Paradise - Beat It

Several different racers offer custom soundtracks and by and large any song with a nice driving beat would work, but Beat It is especially appropriate given the more urban feel of Paradise. Besides, doesn't being the marked man whilst cranking this one sound immaculate?

Flock - Leave Me Alone

The video for this one's got quite the trippy, psychedelic carny vibe that melds well with a trippy, psychedelic alien abduction vibe. Can't think of any other tune for herding defenseless sheep. (Bonus: the dancing elephant man scene haunted my childhood!)

High Velocity Bowling - Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough

70's bowling league vibe meets disco. A spare made in heaven.

Little Big Planet - Speed Demon

You might think this song better suited to a racing game (SARBC perhaps?), but you can make racing games in LBP too! The claymation goodness of the video screams LBP and the beat reminds me of some of the tunes in the Savannah levels.

Magic Ball - Remember the Time

Yes, I actually bought this game off the PSN. No, it's not worth the money. But I've got it now and if I want to chill a little bit to some rather laid back Arkanoid-style action this ain't a bad pick. Period costumes ftw!

Mortal Kombat vs DC Universe - Bad

Much like the pairing of MJ and inner-city West Side Story-like cool this clash of titanic IPs was probably best left to fanfic - but we love it nonetheless.

Noby Noby Boy - In the Closet

Um, not gonna touch this one ;)

Pain - The Way You Make Me Feel

There ain't much in the way of punk/ska/oy!oy! music to go along with Pain in MJ's back catalog (unless he went through a neo-punk phase I'm not aware of). Thus we'll have to stick to the lyrically appropriate. You knock me off of my feet!

PixelJunk Eden - Baby Be Mine

Not the most well known of MJ's songs, but the laid back synth beat is perfect for swinging around on the end of a thread and getting your grow on.

PixelJunk Monsters - Smooth Criminal

Just imagining those little monsters marching along to this one makes me squeal with glee. Those crafty criminals, they'll get their due!

Street Fighter IV - Wanna Be Startin' Something

My guilty pleasure. I'd give anything to be able to use custom soundtracks in online games. Mamma say mamma saw my moccasin - to your dome! (Oh yea, and you're a vegetable!)

Super Stardust HD - Heal the World

Perhaps I'm bordering on ironic-douchebag territory here, but come on, you are trying to save the world here (of course 99% of games have that general idea). This song really belongs in Flower - if only it had custom soundtracks.

Supersonic Acrobatic Rocket Powered Battle Cars - Off the Wall

Lyrically appropriate. Think of a lovely roller disco ballet - of the supersonic acrobatic rocket powered variety.

Wipeout - Another Part of Me

Nice driving synth beat in this one, very reminiscent of the early techno that characterizes the franchise. Best reserved for endless mode on the easier tracks where you can just go on autopilot and live in a trance.

Yinz Come Back Now, Hear?

I'm officially a Yinzer. You may have noticed my rather lengthy absence from blogging and would be forgiven for thinking I had met my prediction of falling off the face of the interwebs after a scant few months (just two, really? had you no faith at all?). But, in fact, my life has been a whirlwind of change the past few months - physically, spiritually, and emotionally - which has resulted in my transformation from southerner to northerner. Or midwesterner. Or eastnorwester. Whatever it is you call Pittsburghers (apparently western PA is it's own classification).

No doubt some of the details of this transformation will leak out over the course of future blog posts (any tips for thematically linking life-changes to gaming are appreciated!). For now I'll try to slowly get back into the swing of things and catch up on all of the great blog conversations I've only skimmed. Fortunately I've got a grip (is that appropriate slang up here?) of half-finished posts I began over the past months to kick start my return to PEEGing.

That said I'm not letting you get out of this post without some post-emo-existential gaming ranting.

Michael Abbot once wrote about the clarity of focus that comes from travel when you are limited to your portable devices. This isn't travel per se (though I have logged many hours into Patapon 2) but a major move and while I do have my PS3 available it is hooked up to a gloriously low-def television at my girlfriend's place. In fact, due to packing the wrong set of cables for a time I had to use component cables on a composite connection which - while doable - results in a PS3 output in old-school black & white! There's something to be said for getting down to just the bare essentials in SFIV - and not spending 20 seconds narcissistically deciding what color outfit to pwn your opponent with. Moving from my rather respectably sized, widescreen, HD, epilepsy inducing purveyor of next-gen eye candy to a modest, boxy CRT in no way diminished the joy of SFIV (the same can't be said for my atrophied skills after a two-week hiatus). That's a great testament to the primacy of game mechanics. I wonder if I would have just as much fun playing online with hitboxes alone.

I can't think of a single other PS3 game I own that would hold up well under similar graphical degradation. LittleBigPlanet relies on the tactile look of it's scrapbook objects to draw you into its world. Flower is just depressing without the element of color (as emphasized in the second dream). Word on the street is that you shouldn't even bother with PixelJunk Eden unless you have an HD screen to pick out those pixel-sized particles of pollen.

But SFIV reigns o'er all with it's wonderful online play and poke, prod, and decieve game mechanics (it's certainly not the compelling narrative that keeps me coming back!). I'll take it monochrome on a green, scan-lined background if need be. Any other current-gen games you can say the same for?

The Politics of Appeasement

Time for another fascinating BoRT topic!

Turning Over a New Leaf: February's BoRT invites you take a game design suggested by another blogger in last month's Round Table and build upon it. You should ignore the literary source of the original design, but attempt to communicate the same themes and/or convey the same mood as the original game. This means you can alter the game genre, change the setting, and add new layers to the game mechanics. This is not an opportunity to critique a previous design, but to honor it by striving to reach the same goals, while adding your own personal touch.


The Source

Last month's post that I'm choosing to work with is Chris at ihobo's entry on Pride and Prejudice. You really should take a look at it before continuing - after all, that's the point of this month's topic!

What I really like about the design of the game is the simplicity of the mechanic: A engages politely, B engages rudely. This allows for a lot of fun in anticipation. You know you want to engage rudely, say, but you're excited to see exactly what form that rude interaction will take. Will it be a barb-tongued statement? I disrespectful hand-gesture? I've always enjoyed this element of thematic dialogue trees where the general tone of your options is presented but the specifics aren't revealed until after you make your choice (a la Indigo Prophecy or Mass Effect).

So much for the mechanics, what about the theme of the game? While Chris isn't specific as to the theme it seems that the game is more of a sandbox for exploring various interactions with people in high Victorian society. At the end of the day the point is in the interactions themselves and playing it might give you the feeling, qua the novel, that there really is no ultimate point, that the rules of etiquette and games of intrigue played by the characters are just shallow ends in themselves. It's enjoyable, yes, but serves no purpose beyond its own enjoyment (despite what purpose the characters may think it serves).

What kind of game could I design with the same mechanics and theme? Call me a bitter cynic - I am, depending on which philosopher I last read - but one thing enters my mind when I think about people engaging in varying polite/rude interactions and taking themselves all too seriously when at the end of the day none of it really matters. Politics.


The Thought

Ian Bogost's phrase "procedural rhetoric" is foremost in my mind with this project. You can read a great hashing out of the concept here but in short the idea is that the way a game's mechanics are designed and how we ultimately master them to drive the game forward tells a story in itself, often a very loaded story. Much of the recent dialogue about Far Cry 2, for example, concerns the idea that its mechanics portray imply that seemingly meaningless violence is the only solution to even fairly mundane problems. As a developer one has to be very aware the story the mechanics of the game tells, not leaving such things up to mere chance. Not that you can't portray this underlying mechanics-driven story any way you want, you just need own it and be aware of shaping it (hence the rhetoric).

With that in mind I figure that a game about politics developed by a political cynic like myself would have to very much express through its game play the utter futility and meaninglessness of it all. (Perhaps that's a gross exaggeration but hey it'll be a Wii game so it has to be grossly exaggerated and not taken seriously anyhow! Oh, did I mention I'm a Nintendo cynic as well?) The game would follow you as a newly elected Congressman embarking upon your brief two-year term with the only directly expressed goal being re-election. In fact this should be so explicitly stated so early in the game that it makes the player question the entire logic: "You've just been elected to US Congress, now what are you going to do?" "Get re-elected!"

That's the general theme and the mechanics enhance this by pretty much giving you little control other choosing which members of congress to talk to and whether you want to act politely or rudely towards them, or in the parlance of the game, appease or displease them. You're trying to get re-elected, but in the context of the game the interests of your constituents are irrelevant to you. Building relationships and coalitions with with senior Congressmen is what will get you re-elected, not trying to gauge what your constituents want. Of course building bridges with some Representatives invariably burns bridges with others. . .


The Game

The Politics of Appeasement begins with a brief cut scene which shows your Mii avatar (in a nice suit of course) barely winning the race for Representative of your district. The incumbent which you have defeated congratulates you and offers you the following piece of advice: "Make sure you meet the right people and ignore all the rest. Otherwise you'll end up like me." It's never made quite clear what state, let alone district, you are representing.

After the intro you are given control of your Mii using the same point-and-click interface found in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice (the Mansfield Engine). Your new secretary is showing you around your office in Washington and explaining the control scheme: generally A interacts with objects and people positively, B interacts with them negatively. Instead of politeness and rudeness, however, your interactions are meant to appease or displease and to this end only really have an affect when others are around. You are promptly introduced to the congenial Representative from a neighboring district and instructed to appease her. Pointing your Wiimote at her and pressing A brings up a short quip congratulating her on winning re-election and making a passing remark about the clear-headedness of her constituents. This invokes the appearance of a Sims-style happy face above her head and an increase in her attitude towards you (detailed below). Interacting with A on objects in the room causes somewhat obvious but awkward interactions with things that would appeal to the Representative: pointing out a recent photograph of you with a well-liked Senator, making her aware of congenial literature on your bookshelf.

After his departure your secretary announces the visit of another Representative, one which she clearly indicates as your rival, a man a bit disgruntled by your predecessor's defeat. Before the meeting you are given instructions to use B to interact with him in a displeasing way. Doing so presents dialogue that is very cleverly dismissive in a way that seems cordial but contains undertones of hostility and the corresponding angry/unhappy face above your rival's head. Similarly you may interact with the objects in your office in a manner that promulgates displeasure: putting your feet up on the desk or straightening pictures (an indication that you aren't playing full attention to the Representative).

After this intro you are left on your own to peruse the Congressional directory and make a few calls to fellow Representatives. Much like the Sims you can chose to simply talk or invite them to to an event (mostly fundraisers) for more detailed interactions, all of which involve use of the appeasement/displeasement mechanic. On any given weekday (when Congress is in session) you may only make a set number of calls (say 5), attend 1 fundraiser/function, and, if available, cast a vote on a Bill (more below). Each Friday new poll numbers are released indicating where you stand with your constituency. It must be noted that in addition to there not being any direct line of connection between you and those you represent (indeed, the player has no idea who they are!) these poll numbers are the only visible indication that they exist, though it provides the one structured goal of the game.

In addition to it not being clear exactly where you are from nor who you are representing it's also never made explicit what political party you align with or what your campaign platform was. These details seem extraneous to game play - you re-election depends upon the relationships you make with other Representatives (and maybe the occasional Senator) rather than on pushing a specific agenda. With that in mind you proceed making calls and visits to other political figures. At any point you can press 1 to call up a window showing your relationship to other Representatives (for simplicity's sake the number is limited to 50 or so rather than the full 435) and a handful of Senators. Below each face/name is a scale from -10 to +10 (replacing the Notoriety meter from Jane Austen). A good number of Representatives are neutral with you from the outset, though you can get a sense of who may be a member of your or the opposing party by noting trends in positive and negative associations.

By selecting a specific Representative you can pull up more details about them including humanizing touches like their personal likes and dislikes as well as their political leanings (bills they've recently authored or voted for/against, more on that below). Most importantly you can see a graph tracking the changes in their relationship to you. By comparing days when a particular Representative's attitude for you shifted to your interactions with them or others you start to get a sense of who likes whom and who you may need to appease or displease to influence more powerful figures that you may not be able to directly interact with (depending on the specific Representative and their attitude towards you they may not take your calls).

The core mechanic of the game is a complex logic puzzle that represents a system of relationships. The design needs to be such that feedback is obvious yet the underlying threads are obfuscated enough that the player needs to put in work to discover them. For this reason there may not always be an immediate cause/effect relationship between my actions and the attitudes of others. For those directly involved yes, it should be immediate, but for others it may take a day or two for word to spread and attitudes to change. Ultimately, of course, even the logic of these connections is tied into the weekly poll numbers in a somewhat more inscrutable way. Figuring out having who on your side makes for good numbers and in turn figuring out who to go through to appease those people is where the real strategy comes in. Then again there's no need to appease everybody or even anybody. I hear tell sometimes being a maverick can pay off...

Now this is a game about politics so eventually we will need to actually do what the legeslative branch is supposed to do, namely craft and pass new bills into law. As a first-term Representative you won't have the power to craft a new bill (there's always the second-term sequel/expansion for that) but you may occasionally be asked to sponsor one by a well-liked colleague. Sponsoring a bill has enormous consequences, and the biggest shifts in others' attitudes toward you comes from agreeing or refusing sponsorship. Voting, which happens more often than sponsoring, also affects attitudes greater than individual interactions do.

As for the bills themselves it's important that they not engage the player's personal political leanings. In the spirit of the game these bills avoid anything resembling a hot-button issue and instead are light-hearted and comical as well as mundane. One bill might mandate that all federally funded schools use green chairs in their classroom. Another may levy a tax on people who keep walruses as pets. Again it should be unclear what, if any, interest the player's constituency has on these bills, though conversations occurring before the bill is put to a vote will indicate where particular Representatives stand on the issue. Also you vote yay or nay on the bills from your desk at the end of the work day - it becomes obvious by its omission that at no time do you actually sit in Congress and debate politics or cast your vote.


A Second Term?

Well that's it. Reading it over this definitely represents a very narrow and cynical view of politics but I suppose that's the point! At the end of the day, if done correctly, the game should leave the player feeling a certain sense of exhilaration and fun at the politicking yet be consciously aware that they're not really doing anything in the interest of public-service. Playing the game is an end in itself. If it's a means to anything it's merely a means to re-election. Why be re-elected? That's obvious: so you can continue to play the game!

I'm a Leaf on the Wind. Watch How I Soar.

Though I've recently read and largely agreed with a post by L.B. Jeffries about the benefits of blogging for the long tail rather than the game du jour, I've actually been looking forward to trying my hand at the latter. Over the months that I've been reading gaming blogs I've often felt a bit out of the loop and unable to legitimately formulate my own thoughts because I lacked either the time or the tools (still a Sony-only household) to play some of last year's most discussed games. With all the critical hype surrounding Flower I'm excited to have a chance to throw my tam in the ring during the early stages of what looks to be one of 2009's most talked about experiences.

There's already been some discussion out there in the blogosphere. Michael Abbot's initial shoot-from-the hip impressions have spawned a deluge of comments which I've intentionally avoided for the sake of forming my own critical opinion before having it blown in other directions by my fellow bloggers. So after 2.33 playthroughs here's one PEEGers impressions:

Flower is a game about symbiosis. The hyped up notion of zen-gaming actually works in the game's favor by swaying players' expectations. Before booting it up you expect to accept the simple grandeur of the landscape as a way of turning the game into an exercise in relaxation. It rather reminds me of Cloud, a game I was introduced to back in 2006 as an academic attempt to create non-violent and non-exclusively-goal-oriented play in video games.

The stage progression is what really makes the game. The first dream is 100% natural, bright and airy, free and merry with some random rocks breaking up the landscape and a spectacular tree to capstone the experience. The second flower's dream might initially be seen as more of the same. While there are hints of human interference - the intentionally constructed stone circles - they are non threatening enough that one might not even notice them on the first play through, despite the obvious counterpoint they make with the randomly placed stones from the first dream. The desaturated color palette - an idea that seems to be gaining more purchase lately - doesn't even negatively affect one's mood because it provides a wonderful canvas to paint on.

I probably wouldn't have felt any tension between the natural and artificial elements of the landscape in the third dream if it weren't that I have a friend with a unusual fear of windmills. We've seen the windmills in pre-release videos of the game and, being that you control petals flowing on the wind, they seem like a perfectly reasonable and non threatening addition to the landscape. But as elegant and appropriate as they may be they still represent the beginnings of a tension in the game between nature and technology. This isn't just a narrative tension either. In the third dream you encounter for the first time some constraints on the hitherto free flowing game play. Once you've activated the windmills and enter the canyons it becomes nigh impossible to escape them and re-entering them to search for more petals is a might frustrating as the wind, seemingly generated by the windmills, constantly tries to push you out.

I'd like to stop here and think about this for a moment because in light of where the game goes I think the third and fourth dreams are the game's apex and best represent the symbiosis I mentioned at the outset. Though it doesn't really hit you over the head until the fifth dream there's a steadily building dread - literally an approaching storm - of technology encroaching upon the idyllic meadows and canyons of Flower. At the climax of the fourth dream (what I consider the second act) this becomes very obvious and I was a bit put off by it. I've got more than a little of the tree-loving hippie in me, but I just wasn't excited about being subjected to another trope about technology's deflowering of poor, innocent nature, nor with the rest of the game being a struggle to overcome the evil monoliths of electricity and steel. Not to mention the irony of such a story being told on as bloated a piece of technology as the PS3!

Fortunately Flower doesn't do this. While you may feel, particularly in dream five, that technology is the enemy and must be eradicated, by dream six you start to see how wonderfully nature and technology can get along. The sixth flower's goal isn't to return to the human-free meadow of the first dream but to achieve harmony through balance, a balance that had, in fact, already been achieved in the third and fourth dreams. Your primary goal in the sixth and final dream isn't to destroy the city but to repair it. It's an interesting critique in its own right of the idea that too many games equate "realism" and "grittiness" with drab and colorless landscapes. The solution isn't a full reversal to the land of dandelions and roses, the solution, in true zen fashion, is to find balance and harmony.

Still I have to admit that I've not successfully sat down and played all six dreams in one sitting because I simply can't stand the fifth dream. My poor flower has yet to be resurrected from that nightmare; it sits bowed over and pathetic despite the three bonus leaves resting in its pot. I don't even know if it's possible to make that flower bloom and I'm not sure I'll ever find out - I simply hate that dream! I hate trying to thread the needle, re-living the torture I experience years ago at the hands of Irritating Stick. I hate the way that stage interrupts my calm. In fact after getting literally sucked into the darkness and kicked out of the dream I've needed to "calm down" by playing some Street Fighter - at least there I know to expect tension and how to deal with it. How's that for harmony!

That said the fifth dream is an integral part of the experience. While I'd prefer the chilled out experience of the first dream to the fifth, both of them are extreme ends of a spectrum that needs balancing, a balancing that was present in the third and fourth dreams but that the sixth dream helps you re-discover. The first act is more play than game, the last more game than play, but the real genius is that thatgamecompany has taken the tired debate over what is most important in a video game - set goals versus tools for free form play - and distilled it into an experience that makes you appreciate the symbiotic relationship between them.

Ultimately that makes Flower a wonderful game of self-discovery. To which set of stages are you more apt to gravitate? The first two (Act I) where you can forget entirely about humanity and technology and just flOw, freeform, through the wondrous scenery? Act II (my favorite) where a careful balance is struck between push and pull, control and being controlled, set amongst a backdrop where nature and technology not only coexist but seem to feed off each other? Or the final act which is much more goal oriented, much more tense and dark but, subsequently, may offer a more gratifying feeling of accomplishment?

Time to go poke my nose in on other people's thoughts.

The Metaphysics of Persistent Worlds

While not exactly post-emo-existentiell (the post about which is coming tomorrow, I promise!) I figured hey, might as well get as much mileage as you can out of your written work, no? So below you will find the abstract I've just submitted for the planned World of Warcraft and Philosophy book. Even though the book has just been announced and the articles not yet written nor finalized I'm betting this book will come out before Final Fantasy and Philosophy (which I'm in!) because they've delayed the sodding thing to coincide with the next Final Fantasy game. That's April 2010 in the States, for those of you keeping track.

Bits of Ogres, Bytes of Orcs: Is Azeroth Metaphysically Real (and What in the World is Metaphysics)?

Philosophers have some strange conversations. I mean really strange. The kind of conversations that would cause the average person to question how we’ve managed to survive this long. You get a couple of philosophers playing World of Warcraft and you can rest assured that both the intelligibility and practicality of their discussion will taper off dramatically. But as you’re reading this book you’ve probably done your share of face melting and gold farming so I’m going to assume you’re okay with that.

I got involved in just such an obtuse conversation once after killing an orc outside the badlands. “I’ve slain an orc!” I proudly proclaimed to a colleague. “No”, he replied, “you initiated a computer program that displayed an animation of an ‘orc’ ‘dying’.” Yes, those scare quote gestures were included.

“Orcs aren’t real”, he declared. In true philosophical form I responded with a question; “what does ‘real’ mean?’” That question is the heart of the field of metaphysics. What in the world is metaphysics? Metaphysics is what’s in the world!

Specifically what are the key components of the universe? The ancients came up with the idea of dividing the world into four categories: earth, air, fire, and water. Modern scientists will say the universe is composed of atoms and not-quite-understood subatomic particles. But the term atom, in fact, was coined 2500 years ago by a Greek philosopher named Democritus to describe the smallest building block of the universe. Can the entire universe be described as complex interactions between basic physical particles?

Perhaps, but chances are if someone tells you that Warcraft is just a complicated computer program you’ll disagree. There is more to the world than what our five senses tell us, just as there is more to WoW than pressing keys to produce elaborate animations. What about consciousness and emotion? Are they real? Few would deny that they exist in some way, but if you ask whether they are completely separate from the other building blocks of the universe, well, then you’re thinking like a metaphysician. Ask the same question about Azeroth and you’re thinking like a philosopher who loves WoW.

Back to that dead orc. Or rather, ‘dead’ ‘orc’. Is it real? To be more technical I might say that what I did was execute a series of computer commands that interacted with a program stored on a centralized server, made changes to that program, then broadcast those changes to any other computer in the world that happened to be paying attention at the time. More physically speaking I might say I created a pre-defined pattern of electrical currents racing through a circuit board, a pattern that is recognized and replicated by other computers in the world.

How would my colleague, the Azerothian non-realist, describe an orc? He would say an orc is a pre-defined identifiable pattern of atoms - patterns that we recognize as biological and would include, among other things, green skin and large teeth. However there have never been examples of such patterns of atoms existing so orcs aren’t real - and certainly can’t be slain!

But now we’re arguing over semantics. To put things a bit more simply he might say the orc doesn’t really exist because it’s just a computer crunching numbers. But that leads us to the granddaddy of metaphysical questions: are numbers real?

By now this may all sound like I’m beating a dead orc. Philosophers have been arguing over this stuff for millennia and now we’ve got Azeroth and other persistent virtual worlds to add fuel to the debate. Actually, we’ve got 200+ Azeroths to add to it because each server hosts a different Azeroth, a different possible world. What happens on Uther stays on Uther - unless you transfer your toon to Kalecgos.

So even if Azeroth is real, which is the real Azeroth? Well, now you’re beginning to see how much fun metaphysics can be. . .

____________________
Post-Script: The abstract has been accepted!

The Poseidon Adventure - The Game

Corvus has gone and given us liberty to write a second blog post for the Round Table this month and my cup runneth over! Seeing as how the BoRT was one of the parents involved in this blog's conception (try getting that image out of your head) it's fitting that it should now be so encouraging and supportive of its progeny's interests. So before this metaphor gets too ridiculous let's refresh our memory of the topic and get down to business ('cause it's business time... do'h!)


The Prompt

Putting the Game Before the Book What would your favorite piece of literature look like if it had been created as a game first? In a time when bits of Dante’s Divine Comedy are being carved out and turned into a hack-n-slash game, I find myself longing for intelligently designed games–games with a strong literary component–not merely literary backdrops. So rather than challenge you to imagine the conversion of your favorite literature into games, I challenge you to supersede the source literature and imagine a game that might have tried to communicate the same themes, the same message, to its audience.


The Thought

There's definitely a spirituality-theme focus emerging with my blog posts. It's not intentional I swear! Well inasmuch as there may be a spirituo-religious element to post-emo-existentiell gaming it's intentional, but since I've yet to explain exactly what this blog's title means that probably makes little sense. I'll get to it. You'll just have to take my word for it and settle for another IRS IOU .

The spiritual crisis this week has concerned the difference between viewing salvation as innate/inherent versus viewing salvation as the result of good works. Put another way: does God help those who help themselves or does God help those who wait passively and pray?

I'm not a religious person, but the more generalized question of when to rely on others and when to take matters into your own hands is one for the faithful and faithless alike. In Paul Gallico's The Poseidon Adventure this has very immediate consequences: do we wait for rescue or navigate the perilous hallways of a capsized ocean liner in an attempt to rescue ourselves?


The Novel

You may not know that The Poseidon Adventure was a novel before it was a film. Hell, you may not even know it was a film way back in 1972 if you've only heard about the two films from a couple years back (neither of which I've seen). I'll admit that I didn't know it was originally a novel until I read it just last year either, but the Gene Hackman film has been on my favorites list since I was a boy.

Though the film and novel differ substantially as far as the personalities and fates of individual characters are concerned the basic plot and themes are consistent. A luxury cruise ship is hit by a wave in the middle of the ocean and capsizes. It doesn't sink, however, and a goodly number of people who were in the ballroom (roughly the middle of the ship) survive. Reverend Scott, a hulky, adventurous Ivy-League footballer-turned-preacher tries to convince the survivors that they need to begin climbing towards the ships hull where rescue workers would have to cut through to find them. He's met with much hostility, both from people who have resigned themselves to their fate and those who believe it's the rescue worker's job to find them and that they'd likely get themselves killed if they did anything but stay where they are. After assembling a handful of "adventurers" Scott's party begins their ascent.

The majority of the book concerns the struggle of the survivors not only against the constantly shifting and hazardous confines of a ship that wasn't designed to be navigated while inverted, but also against the constant bickering and break-down of morale that is the hallmark of any group of people under duress. Several members of the party die during the treacherous ascent but eventually a handful reach the propeller shaft where a rescue party cuts through the hull and saves them.

One very important difference between the novel and the 1972 film is that the film makes the moral of the story obvious. Scott's group are the only survivors the rescue crew finds. Everyone who stayed behind and "waiting for a miracle" perished. God helps those that help themselves.

In the novel, however, Scott's group discovers that they aren't the only ones to survive. The story of the other survivors is never told - it is unclear what role, if any, they played in rescuing themselves. That ambiguity - whether or not more of the group might have survived if they'd simply stayed put - is the main point of The Poseidon Adventure game.


The Game

The Poseidon Adventure incorporates four general gaming/rule sets:

• Platforming At it's heart the game is a variation of 2D platform/puzzlers along the lines of Lemmings or The Lost Vikings. Your goal is always to head towards the propeller shaft - generally up though detours will have to be made. You have a cast of characters with different skills - some can climb, some can swim, some can lift heavy objects, even some who apparently can do nothing but complain. You can take control of any character at any time and use them, often in concert with others, to create paths that the less able bodied members of the party can traverse. Ideally, through teamwork and ingenuity, you can lead your party safely to rescue. The trick, of course, is that the environment is not only inhospitable, it's constantly changing. Water levels are constantly rising, fires flare up and burn out restricting access to some areas temporarily (or permanently), and pieces of the upturned ship break hold from the floor/ceiling to block or reveal passages.
  

• Dialogue Trees The members of the survival party are largely strangers to one another and have varying philosophies of how to approach the situation. Some are more gung-ho Reverend Scott type characters, others are much more reticent and apt to complain that the group should simply stop and await rescue. Their skill sets are not immediately obvious. By directing some characters to engage in conversation with others the player can learn what skills each character has (thereby "unlocking" them for use). These dialogue trees are also used to discover individual character motivations, useful in case they lose morale (indicated by a morale meter) and refuse to go on. Dialogue with surviving members of the ships crew can illuminate alternate pathways to the propeller shaft. While dialogue is an essential part of the game the player must always remember that time spent talking is also time spent waiting, time in which the ship could be changing - for better or for worse.

• Logic Puzzles One of the key components of both the dialogue and the platforming is the incorporation of SAT-style logic puzzles of the "Suzie won't share a boat with Richie but must sit next to Johnny" variety. Certain characters (like families) work better when they're near each other, others will prefer to take the lead or bring up the rear. Some character's skill sets only become available if they are near other characters - Martin's desire to protect Nonnie, for example, gives him the strength and esteem be a leader. Throughout the game the player will need to establish some sort of marching order, but of course that order will be compromised when the group must separate to conquer multi-part obstacles within a given level.

• Ludonarrative Holism I can't think of a pre-existing phrase for this last rule set and in truth it's not a discrete rule set at all but more the result of combining the three previous elements of the game. Taking a holistic ecology type of approach the game ultimately ends up resembling something like the Grow/Cube series in which each action has an affect on both previous and future actions forming a very complex web of interconnectedness. Your ultimate goal, of course, is to escape the ship. But the ship is constantly changing and the really evocative ludic point is that some of the ship's changes happen regardless of the character's actions, while others are the result of who you have in your party and what they do. It should be difficult if not impossible for the player to know the extent of this interconnectedness, thus creating uncertainty as to whether a take charge attitude is helping or harming. The extremes of both views will be expressed in dialogue between characters.

There is no central character in the game. "Winning" means getting a character - any character, even if it's just one - to the propeller shaft to be rescued. Not having a centralized main character puts emphasis on the relationships between characters. The major theme of the game is the value of activity versus passivity as it is expressed by people in a disaster situation.

Though the player controls the characters they don't have unlimited control. Some characters will refuse to do certain things, or will refuse to do them under certain circumstances. The morale meter mentioned above is quite important because if it gets too low a character will altogether refuse directions by the player . They will simply sit resigned to the fates and have to be left behind.

Make no mistake: characters will get left behind and characters will die. Sometimes these sacrifices must consciously be made. A switch has to be pulled but doing so is obviously suicide. Who will do it? Who has the skills to do it and moreover who is willing to do it (or can be talked into it)? Some characters may not have the skills necessary to take the path created. Do you leave them behind or try to find another way? Other times death is entirely accidental. An explosion happens, a boiler tears loose, the ship shifts and someone falls to their death. Was it foreseeable? Some characters may think so (there's that pesky morale problem again).

Information is power or, if you prefer, knowing is half the battle. This is certainly true in The Poseidon Adventure. Dialogue between characters is crucial both for learning their skills and learning how to keep them motivated. But because time plays such an important role in the game, the tension between taking action and waiting being paramount, all dialogue is spoken and unskippable. Time spent talking and time spent thinking is time for water levels to rise and for the ship's geography to change. The player is largely in charge of when and where dialogue happens. They select who talks to whom and the general tone of the conversation - think Mass Effect. The game play effects of conversation are immediately evident in the form of new skill availability and/or morale shifts. Plus the player learns information that will help keep morale strong in the future.

The dialogue is also idiosyncratic and personal, really adding to the depth of personality in each of the characters. When it comes time for the player to make choices about who lives and who dies the player should have to weigh game play needs (skill sets) against their personal likes and dislikes of individual characters, not to mention the characters' relationships with each other.

There's a prologue level in which the player has the opportunity to cause interactions among various characters and explore the ship prior to its inversion. Like the rest of the game time is limited in this prologue, but it does let the player gain access to some character's skill sets ahead of time. The trick, of course, is that the player has no way of knowing which characters are going to survive the inversion so some of the discovered skill sets may be moot, though the knowledge gained in the form of the ship's layout and the relationships between characters may be valuable.

The uncertainty associated with who will and who won't survive the initial disaster brings me to the last and perhaps most controversial aspect of the game: much of what happens is random procedurally generated. The layout of the ship, the initial survivors, the motivations and skills sets of individual characters as well as the quality and quantity of changes within the ship after the adventurers set out is different from game to game. I have in mind something akin to the nefarious AI Director in Left 4 Dead. This has the advantage of giving players an meta-narrative God-like entity to praise or blame for actions that happen in the game.

Once reaching the game's final chamber - the propeller shaft - the player is confronted with a sizable wait during which there is some dialogue among the remaining survivors (or interior monologue if only one remains) over whether they will be rescued or have possibly pushed themselves to their limits and wasted the lives of others for no reason. The player could even direct the characters back out of the shaft in search of an alternate means of escape - though to alleviate frustration the path is blocked. The point is to give the player and the characters some time to reflect and possibly even regret the choices and sacrifices that have been made. Eventually the rescue crew cuts through the hull and the characters are led away to safety and closing credits with one caveat: the player can see other rescue ships loaded with passengers from the Poseidon. They are distant and blurry so it is impossible to tell, but it is suggested that some of those other survivors might be people the player has left behind, might be just those characters who preferred to wait for rescue or lost morale and resigned themselves to their fate.

It's never made explicitly clear one way or the other, but the player should be left with the ambiguity of wondering whether their hard work and sacrifices were actually necessary.