Theory

[icycalm]

http://www.edge-online.com/blogs/what&# ... do-with-it

To write for the interactive medium is to create an entire possibility space where many stories can exist, ideally all equally poignant and honest. The hardest part is that crafting all of those alternate angles on the same material requires a profound and complete understanding of the topic.

You have to describe the rules that will cause the story to unfold honestly regardless of whatever action the player takes.

Describing the algorithm for something like human hardship and sorrow is a much more daunting and subjective task.

PLEASESOMEONEMAKEITSTOPICANTTAKETHISANYMORE

I would honestly pay someone good money to kill that gay prick. And burn down Edge's servers. There's not a single sentence in that article that's not completely and utterly absurd.

[icycalm]

And yes, I realize this is another lol thread. I guess you can never have too many of those. Let's try to keep this one focused on articles that attempt to be "deep" and fail miserably.

[Afterburn]

To write for the interactive medium is to create an entire possibility space where many stories can exist, ideally all equally poignant and honest. The hardest part is that crafting all of those alternate angles on the same material requires a profound and complete understanding of the topic.

You have to describe the rules that will cause the story to unfold honestly regardless of whatever action the player takes.

Er, how can a story be "honest"? Aren't stories by definition fiction and therefore "dishonest"?

And then how can a story "unfold honestly"? WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN??!

[icycalm]

lol yeah. It's a trainwreck. I didn't even have the energy to point anything out in that fucking article.

[icycalm]

You just have to love it when people who are falling over themselves in an attempt to appear cool end up moralizing like old women:

http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=607

Is old-woman moralizing in vogue now?

By the time a player has completed Uncharted, even on the “normal” difficulty setting, he’ll have blown away literally hundreds of human beings.

"Literally", lol. "Human beings", lol. And Tim Rogers is supposed to be editing this drivel?

Some of the comments are even more hilarious than the "review", by the way.

[icycalm]

Steven Poole on the notion that videogames' tendency to teach players to always strike the first blow could help reinforce contemporary belief in ‘preventative’ atrocities.

As if there's anything wrong with them, lol. As if attack was not the best defence, lol. And I like the inverted commas around "preventative". As if they weren't preventative, lol. What is preventative then? Sitting on your ass and scribbling nonsensical articles all day? Is that supposed to be what's genuinely preventative? Yet another shallow-pate moralizer. If only someone would perform some "atrocities" on YOU! Now that would be something worth scribbling about -- in an attempt to promote it.

[icycalm]

I had some hopes for Mr. Pratt, but lost all of them after a quick glance at his blog today.

http://gamedesignadvance.com/?p=1725

Centering on a family’s decision of whether or not to remove their comatose grandfather from life support, End of Life continues a tradition in interactive fiction of addressing issues that are neglected in most video games.

"Addressing issues", lol. Games are now supposed to "address issues". How about addressing the issue that trying to think about one form in terms created for other forms will always prevent you from understanding that form? How about THAT issue, Mr. Pratt? How many centuries will have to pass before YOU address THAT issue?


http://gamedesignadvance.com/?p=1648

I agree that the ABC news piece was silly. But what I wish was that Thomsen had made an effort to explain why seeking the Citizen Kane of videogames is a mistake and something we should move beyond.

Still thinking in terms of the non-existent "we"... This "we", this fatal little "we", which keeps you, your thoughts and your writings forever tied to the lowest common denominator -- and therefore not worthy of the time and attention of those who don't belong to it.

[icycalm]

I've had a little exchange of emails with Charles following the above post, and since judging by his pedantically sophistical replies he doesn't seem to have taken much from it, I figured I'd post it here so that at least someone else might.

Hello Mr. Kierkegaard,

I noticed that you wrote a response in your forum to a couple of posts on GDA. As always I appreciate your thoughts, but I do have a question:

What exactly about that first sentence you quote gives you the impression that I believe video games are "supposed to address issues"? It seems to me that I'm not making a normative statement one way or the other.

I should also point out that I did not write the second article that you quote, which you seem to imply.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback and I hope the books are going well!

Charles

Oh, I was under the impression that everything in your site was written by you. My bad then on the second call out.

But as for the first quote, your meaning is unmistakable. That End of Life crapfest "address[es] issues that are neglected in most video games".

I am sorry Charles, but "issues" are not supposed to be "addressed" in games of any kind. In fact, ultimately, they are not supposed to be addressed even in art. No piece of art yet has managed to solve any problems. Problem-solving, after all, is what "issue-addressing" is all about. That is how you address an issue -- by analyzing it and then solving it. The Iliad and the Odyssey did not analyze anything and did not solve anything. They did not "address" any "issues". And neither does soccer or Monopoly. It is extremely shallow to claim that they do. Such claims merely highlight that the person making them has not the faintest idea what an issue is or how one addresses it.

Issues are addressed in philosophical essays -- and nowhere else.

Now how about we go back to playing games and talking about them? Let's leave the "issue-addressing" to the philosophers, neh?

Mr. Kierkegaard,

Thank you for writing back so quickly!

I can't agree that the meaning of the passage you quote is uncontroversial.

You write that games are not supposed to address issues as a response to what I've written, but I'm not making that claim. Nowhere in that post do I say that video games should or should not address issues. In fact, the only thing you can infer from that passage, or the rest of the piece, is that I believe that they can.

Now, it's reasonable to disagree about whether video games can address issues. My feeling is that it would come down to the difference in how you and I understand the word 'address'. However, we can't disagree about whether games should address issues because I have not stated an opinion one way or the other.

Charles

lol, Sophist!

Okay then. All of this makes no material difference, I am afraid. Because "addressing" in the context of issues means "solving". Anything other than that, even if it may still be addressing (which is debatable -- "raising" or "broaching" issues, for example, is quite another thing from addressing them), is an inferior and in the long run useless form of addressing.

And again, if you think that issues of any kind can be addressed by having someone press a couple of fucking buttons for a few hours you seriously need to reconsider your education.

You are just being pedantic in order to avoid facing my criticisms. The smart thing to do is to face them. Anything other than that is a waste of your time -- let alone mine!

All of these ideas will be developed fully, to a disgustingly exhaustive degree in fact, in future articles. This is just a sneak preview. In any case, whoever is intelligent enough should be able to see right away that what I am saying is simply irrefutable, and to draw from it the appropriate conclusions.

[icycalm]

Two more emails in this sorry little exchange:

Hello Mr. Kierkegaard,

Sorry for the slow reply, it's a holiday weekend here in the US.

I'm not "facing" your criticisms because you're not criticizing me for something I've said. Rather, you're criticizing me for something you assume that I believe based on what seems like a cursory reading of something I wrote.

I do not believe that games are supposed to address issues. My thoughts on the topic were not the subject of the post however, so I was careful not to express my opinion one way or the other because I felt that would have just been distracting for my readers.

As far as games 'addressing issues', which is an entirely different conversation, if by 'addressing' we mean 'solving' then you're obvious correct. Though I don't know anyone who uses the phrase 'addressing issues' in connection with novels or films and actually mean that those things are trying to 'solve' the 'problems' they discuss. I don't know why the same sense wouldn't apply to games.

Whether or not it is 'useful' for games to address (or broach or raise) issues is something I haven't really thought about. I suppose it would depend on the issue!

Either way, my phrasing has clearly led to some confusion so I've changed 'addressing issues' in the post to the more precise 'featuring themes'. I hope this helps to avoid any controversy.

Once again, I appreciate the feedback and thanks for your time!

Charles

"Cursory reading", lol. As if we were children :(

He's not facing my criticisms because blah blah blah. And now he's changed his phrasing to "featuring themes" which is "more precise" than "addressing issues". More precise, lol. MORE LIKE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LOL! You could probably power a small city with such furious backpedalling.

And people wonder why game academics are contributing less to our hobby than gamefaqs posters.

[Rion1]

http://www.screwattack.com/TGO/Continum

When a retard bases his entire philosophical viewpoint on his old Nintendo Power issues.

It's a video, so I can't really quote the man, but his asinine attempts at insight about THE FUCKING CONTINUITY IN ZELDA are pretty hilarious, and I thought some people here would appreciate his rough bastardization of Jung's psychology for the purpose of making a group of fat retards feel better. About the CONTINUITY IN ZELDA.

[icycalm]

I had a look through this guy's blog today because I saw in my stat reports that he mentioned me:

http://www.thatsaterribleidea.com/2010/ ... -room.html

Here's some advice from the smartest guy in the room, then: try to raise yourself above your trailer trash roots. Because as long as you stay there all your scribblings will be worthless.

An example:

http://www.thatsaterribleidea.com/2010/ ... oblem.html

It’s not easy to nail down a definition for content that most people will accept.

lol, who cares what "most people" will accept? Do you think that Heraclitus or Schopenhauer or Wittgenstein ever bothered themselves with what "most people" would accept? "Most people" can't even understand a single sentence they wrote down! -- let alone "accepting" any of them! Your definition should be YOUR definition -- its purpose should be to work as a tool in the construction of YOUR theory, in the elaboration of YOUR ideas (assuming you have some and are not just scirbbling for the sake of scribbling--). Theories and ideas are NEVER arrived at through committee. Only IDIOCIES are arrived at through committee.

Wake up little trailer trash dude!

[icycalm]

This dude registered here and I just approved his account, so before he gets a chance to post anything, in the hopes of avoiding any ugly exchange followed by yet another banning, let me just retract my "trailer trash" comments. For what it's worth, from my casual perusal of his site he does appear to be better than most other videogame bloggers I've come across. The very fact that he recommends my essays already says a great deal about his intelligence, after all. My reaction to him should become more understandable when one considers what he had to say about me:

The problem is that he writes as if he doesn’t want to be read. He insults his opponents and spends so much time telling you how smart and exceptional he is that you are forced to doubt it. His style and tone lead to most readers dismissing his writing. Neither he nor his ideas should be dismissed, but Alex insists on testing everyone’s patience. He’s saying some important stuff about gaming; he does himself a disservice by splattering insults and self-congratulation throughout his otherwise fascinating writing.

That he ends by calling my writing fascinating does nothing to change the fact that the rest of the paragraph is filled with the typical trailer trash notions and misunderstandings.

The problem is that he writes as if he doesn’t want to be read. [...] His style and tone lead to most readers dismissing his writing.

http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?p=8865#8865

The Nietzsche quote, half-way down.

He insults his opponents and spends so much time telling you how smart and exceptional he is that you are forced to doubt it.

I guess you would also doubt Schopenhauer's and Nietzsche's intelligence then, lol. Nietzsche wrote AN ENTIRE BOOK celebrating his intelligence and denigrating the stupidity and wretchedness of his opponents (he called them "blood-sucking vampires" and "little abortions of bigots" and celebrated himself as "the most terrible human being that has ever existed"). And that is by far his most powerful, most enjoyable, and yes, most fascinating piece of writing.

Neither he nor his ideas should be dismissed, but Alex insists on testing everyone’s patience.

On testing the trailer trash's patience -- intelligent people cannot get enough of me. They go as far as to scour my forums for the most insignificant piece of chatter I decide to write down. Then they link it on other forums and discuss it for a dozen pages at a time.

He’s saying some important stuff about gaming; he does himself a disservice by splattering insults and self-congratulation throughout his otherwise fascinating writing.

Insults towards my opponents and self-congratulation are at the center of my philosophical project. All arguments are at bottom ad hominem arguments, as I will one day get around to explaining -- I am just being honest about it.

But what would people raised on journalism would even know about honesty?

[icycalm]

I ended up banning him for being an uneducated fagot, after all:

http://www.thatsaterribleidea.com/2010/ ... flows.html

Games as Metaphors; How Meaning Flows

These games aim to create a metaphor. I believe such games are meta-art. Metaphoric games generate pieces of art. There is no reason a scene generated by a game cannot be as powerful as a good poem.

It's so bad it looks like parody of New Games Journalism. That is to say parody of a parody -- a meta-parody, as it were.

[icycalm]

Article from 1991, about Mario of all things, with a lot of Nietzsche semi-gratuitously (and very clumsily) thrown in:

http://www.wordyard.com/dmz/digicult/mario-4-91.html

This, according to some people lol, is one of the best things yet written on videogames.

I am only going to lol about his conclusion -- no need to bother with the rest.

He is -- you are -- the one mutable factor in an otherwise fixed system,

He has obviously no idea how games work. If Bowser is part of this fixed system, so is Mario -- there is nothing mutable about any of them at all.

the one free will in an otherwise predetermined cosmos.

Yes, lol. Free to do everything that has been predetermined for you.

The worlds through which he passes may run like well-oiled machines; Mario runs exuberantly, unpredictably -- like a human being.

Here's another one who thinks that the little blotches on the screen are human beings. What asylum did all these loons escape from? And again, there is nothing unpredictable about the way Mario runs -- absolutely nothing unpredictable at all.

So yeah, it's really not worth analyzing this thing. It's better than Tim Rogers or Leigh Alexander, I'll give him that, or Juul or Bogost for that matter, but you don't really learn anything from it: neither from a criticism perspective (the same article could have been written for nearly any videogame ever, just by substituting some other character for Mario and changing around a few details), nor from a theory one, since he doesn't have the faintest clue of the fundamentals neither of computer science nor of philosophy.

The conclusion: throwing Nietzsche quotes in your essays will not, of itself, suddenly render them insightful -- if there are no actual connections it will in fact render them ludicrous.

[Bradford]

Kick Ass and the Ethics of Gameplay

My favorite line:

To look at the character of Kick Ass as a videogame avatar/crash test dummy corrodes the humanity and fragility of Kick Ass . . . .

[Worm]

I'd have to go with:

...in most games pain is just a mathematical value with little affective response from the characters or player.

As if "violence in videogames" wasn't already bad enough.