I think I've been as guilty as anyone
when it comes to projecting a kind of utopian ideal onto the world of
games. Whether consciously or otherwise, I feel as if I've sometimes
indulged in the hopeful fantasy that I've been living in the dawn of
a golden age of video games—evidenced in no small part by the
emergence of a (seemingly) thriving independent games subculture.
Games, as we know them, I want to tell myself, are
progressing—pushing old boundaries and exploring new territory in
terms of technical innovation, design sophistication, and even
artistic depth.
Of course, when I actually write it out
like that, it sounds like total garbage—particularly in the third
area. What does it even mean for a game to have artistic depth? The
AAA games industry is still as infatuated with expressions of
ultra-violent male power fantasy as ever. And even the expanded
market for smaller games has become kind of a dull, saturated
landscape that tends to pump out plenty of content that keeps us all
fairly well engaged and amused but rarely offers anything deeply
meaningful or intellectually challenging.
I can't help but feel that the recently
announced semi-closure of Irrational Games in Boston will be one of
the more significant events from this current decade in games—at
least on a psychological level. Because it's more than just another
studio experiencing some potential financial struggles. For many
people, BioShock Infinite was
supposed to be the great redeeming hope for AAA video games, and
thereby all video games. It would prove to the world that a massively
ambitious, story-driven, first-person shooter could in fact bridge
the gap between violent interactive spectacle and grand artistic
vision. It was as if that magnificent floating city of Columbia was
the digital embodiment of those very hopes and dreams.
Of
course it was naïve, because—again—what does that even mean? On
the one hand, I think BioShock Infinite
does represent a grand artistic vision, but not a very focused,
articulated, sophisticated, or transcendent one. If anything,
BioShock Infinite proved yet
again that a well-funded PR campaign can still—if temporarily—bring
the great gaming press machine into a state of awe-full, blissful
worship.
But where does the
industry go from here? Do we fool ourselves once again into thinking
that the vast exploitation and corporate shepherding of a large
creative team might lead to something other than an incoherent
interactive experience with decent to impressive graphical polish. Do
we move on and invest our hope and faith in some new messiah, or is
creative director Ken Levine's move to the world of smaller games a
telling indicator that the dream is truly dead?
Over the past two
years since I started this blog, my focus and general thinking about
games has been tossed and blown around so many times, influenced by
so many competing manifestos both for games and games
criticism—frankly, I feel dizzy. It's hard for me to know how to
express anything worthwhile, particularly on a macro level. I find it
all the more remarkable, therefore, when I come across the work of
other writers and critics who manage to distill the so-called "state
of games" so eloquently and persuasively. I get excited when I
stumble upon a train of thought that seems so imperatively on to
something.
One of the most
refreshing voices I've encountered of late is Liz Ryerson—a
blogger, musical artist, game designer, and probably plenty of other
things as well. I've enjoyed reading Ryerson's work over the past few
months, because it really has challenged me to reexamine any
remaining utopian notions I may have had—in part by pointing out
how the cultural worship of the elegant systems of games goes
hand-in-hand with our present dystopian reality, whereby the
pervasiveness of similar elegant systems (i.e. social media)
threatens to drown out our humanity.
Consider this
passage from her recent "Re: Fuck Videogames" talk:
within the
current culture, there is a heavy emphasis of sort of clean,
readable, egalitarian systems that are meant to make information more
accessible and approachable and make their ideas easier to sell to a
market. But they also serve as a kind of mundane filter to mask the
messy, chaotic, subjective reality underneath. we may be living
tremendously complicated and colorful lives, but all of those
emotions and experiences are colored over by the overarching
blandness in the presentation of the systems. for people whose lives
are lived on much different terms and in much different places than
the well-off Silicon Valley programmers maintaining these systems,
the effect is much more drastic. and so, these serve as another
institution – one we're being rapidly 'normalized' to, as in
Foucalt's concept of 'normalization'. we like to hope they aren't
having this kind of effect on us, but they are.
to what degree are
we, as game developers, game critics, and game educators, reinforcing
this normalization, and to what degree are we challenging it?
I
think the entire essay serves as an excellent starting point for
delving into Ryerson's work. It's also an incredible companion piece
to her 2013 Flash game Problem Attic,
which you can experience here.
There
isn't a whole lot written about Problem Attic
that I've been able to locate, but there is one extremely
well-written analysis by Brendan Vance. He certainly articulates many
similar thoughts and interpretations that came to me while playing
the game, but he also widens the discussion, using Problem
Attic as a means to expose the
startling absence of intrinsic value at the core of modern commercial
game development (he also wrote a followup piece talking about
current unsustainable trends in game design—namely its overemphasis
on transparent user experiences). It's so carefully laid out, it
almost risks being regarded as a kind of definitive
statement—something I wouldn't wish on any piece of criticism.
To
borrow from Ryerson's own words, Problem Attic
is a game about prisons, "both real and imagined," which I
take to mean as either physical or psychological, imposed on the
imprisoned both by outside forces and by the self. Ryerson represents
these conceptual prisons in the form of abstract 2D environments,
which the player explores in the guise of a simple avatar sprite.
And one of the
first things I notice while playing Problem Attic is the
representation of this avatar. It's a curious stick-figure
shape—vaguely humanoid but almost like an E.T. character (which,
strangely enough, recalls those dreaded vertical pits from the
infamous Atari cartridge from the 1980s). Aside from the black body,
there is a single red pixel that suggests an eye or a face, as well
as a single gray pixel in the location of the sex organs. Already the
game hints at themes of uncertain identity.
From the player's
starting location—a kind of partitioned or compartmentalized
over-world screen (the titular "Problem Attic," I
assume)—the player moves through a series of abstract chambers, the
goal being to find each hidden exit and move on.
As I
suggested before, I more or less agree with a lot of Vance's own
interpretations—including his insights regarding the complicated
nature of the pursuing cross figures, which inflict a kind of visual
and auditory "pain" whenever they come into contact with
the player avatar. I also agree there's a definite turning point that
happens within the sixth room of the opening act of the game. It's in
this room—a hellish environment using background textures reminiscent of DOOM—where the
player avatar encounters a lone, sinister cross figure. More than any
other "enemy" previously encountered, the speed and
directness of this particular figure evokes a much more predatory
motive. The fact that the tiled walls in this room are also
semi-transparent gives the player the chilling sensation of being
watched or taunted. It all gives the impression of a traumatic memory
or event.
This interpretation
is reinforced during the next prison section, in which the screen is
superimposed with a line of text reading "i can't remember it
was," followed by a random number ranging from 1 to 4.
What is the "it" that can't be remembered? Is it an age or
year that something happened? Is it the number of times that
something happened? Obviously, we can't be sure. But the avatar's
appearance is transforming, losing both its shape and axis of balance
as it struggles to make sense of something.
It's
after this that the second act begins. The player returns to the
familiar over world screen, only the landscape of the attic is
changing, filling in with new tiles and obstacles. And, of course,
the gravity of the world has inverted. The sensation of movement in
this part of the game recalls some of the joyous leaping I talked
about in my writeup of VVVVVV,
only in this case there's really nothing joyful about it. Instead,
this falling sensation feels cruel and frustrating. All the player
can hope to do is slowly crawl along the perimeter of the attic
rooms, looking for anywhere that will grant entry or acceptance.
Ryerson
reintroduces many of the former prison rooms, only now the
typical mode of escape is to find the glitched-out areas that allow
the player avatar to clip into the very walls of the room. From here,
the player quickly grows accustomed to navigating at the margins of
the very playing fields they inhabit. Are these the experiences of a marginalized individual in a hostile society? Is it a representation of circumventing old, uncomfortable memories?
One of the final
prisons during this second of three acts stands out for a different
reason in that it's actually kind of fun. It involves a kind of
collecting mechanic, in which the player navigates the maze-like
environment collecting these oddly shaped A.I. characters—who seem
to symbolize fellow victims. To me this particular prison iteration
plays out like a rescue mission of sorts, whereby the player makes
use of a collectible power-up that allows for short teleports through
the solid tiles. It's the one stage of the game where the player
seems more focused on the wellbeing of others. But it's a short-lived
segment that segues into the third and final act of the game, which
plays out like the sad, sometimes anxious wanderings of a very hurt
and psychologically troubled individual—culminating in a moment of
transformation and acceptance.
The
difficulty with all of this is that many players probably will not
make it very far into the game. The first time I played Problem
Attic, I had to throw in the
towel early, because the game was giving me motion sickness from all
of the jostling, forced encounters with the aforementioned cross
figures. I was literally too nauseated to continue, something that
has happened plenty of times while playing old first-person shooters
on an empty stomach but never while playing a 2D platformer.
Fortunately, I was invested enough to restart my play through the
next day. I saw the game to its conclusion, and I've since gone
through the entire experience again.
I don't dwell on
this point as a matter of self-congratulation, or to suggest some
quality of saintlike forbearance on my part for putting up with the
game's nauseating aesthetics and frustrating design choices. In a
Q&A interview with her and Robert Yang, Ryerson
actually balks at the question of whether she ought to compromise her
design choices—even a little—in order to make the game more
accessible to players. And good on her, I say!
We're dealing,
after all, with a game about imprisonment—and not some purely
representational notion of imprisonment, or imprisonment as a clever
gameplay mechanic. It's a game that communicates its theme not so
much by challenging our reflexes or our logical thinking skills.
Problem Attic hits us at a gut level, asking much more of our
interpretive capabilities than the typical playing experience. Many of its
design choices are certainly unorthodox but also essential to
communicating its ideas.
I finished playing
the game Braid last year, and during my time with it I kept
coming back to a nagging question. From its puzzles to its cryptic
text portions to its interesting choices in art direction, how are we
to evaluate whether or not this game is actually good or just—as
many have certainly argued—pretentious? I don't think Braid is
merely pretentious, but I do have a difficult time deciding just how
good it actually is. If the vast majority of games are like prose,
then Braid and Problem Attic are more like gaming
poetry. And I don't think we're very well accustomed to evaluating
gaming poetry—at least not yet. Then again, this whole
preoccupation with "good" is part of the problem to begin
with, and it's not just confined to the world of games.
I think the danger
of utopian ideals is that we latch onto the impossible notion that a
perfect form exists, and that it's ours to obtain—if only we can
chip away and pare down until only the perfection remains. And yet it
seems as if the world of game development has become infected with a
similar idea. You can see it in the present-day obsession with
playtesting and polish. We must have pure, undiluted, perfect play! And it's not like that's a bad goal, in and of itself.
But to suggest this
is the only way is not only dogmatic, it's potentially dangerous. The
experience of play becomes yet another drug that fuels our desire for
a kind of fluid and intuitive progress through the world that we
rarely get to experience outside of games. And to pursue those ideals above all else risks to block out other types of play that might actually resonate with and inform
what our inner and outer lives actually reflect.