I remember reading that when it was originally published. What makes it so funny is the misplaced sense of drama. It's as if she is interviewing a person of considerable stature and importance, instead of a random, average girl who plays video games and works a retail job. Even if the interviewee was someone significant, all that flowery prose is just too much. The
entire issue is terrible.
If you want more of the same, stop by at
The Border House. There is enough lulz to be had for an entire thread, but here's just some of the
cutting-edge game criticism you'll find:
Some of the discussion centered on the game’s protagonist Jack, a white male. Lake Desire pointed out how Jack is a blank slate, and how annoying it is that the designers’ idea of a “blank slate” is male rather than female. Terry Mesnard then summed up what many others have pointed out, that the neutral personality of the protagonist is central to one of the game’s main themes – the illusion of freedom in a game. However, this doesn’t answer why Jack has to be a man. I hope to explain this problem in this post.
With Bioshock, I found a very contentious debate, akin to Shakespeare scholars still arguing to this day over what he was trying to say in a soliloquy.
Moreover, what does the scene say about Jack? He is a tool, a helpless baby, and a reflection of the privileged white male gamer power fantasy. Lake Desire understandably had trouble relating to Jack and becoming immersed in the game, which is a good thing, because this means she is not a privileged white male gamer with a power fantasy.
Jack is like a rat in a maze following cues to the cheese. In the Andrew Ryan scene, I think the developers were trying to say the same about the average male gamer.
p0nd is a little flash game that seems to parody the whole "is games art" debate. The following analysis of the game is
priceless:
You know what annoys me about this game? It isn’t that it beat me (last thing I’d care about). It’s not that it sucked me in with the breathing mechanic, and then slapped me in the face when it parodied itself (and thus that design idea) so brutally (and thus mocking me for engaging with it). It was the harm this does to every other person who doesn’t care about art games that plays this and has the same experience. How will they feel? They probably won’t want to engage in another art game again.
Allow me to explain why this game is such a problem.
It’s not the story. A man leaves his house; gets killed by a kraken. I could talk about how uninteresting it was, or that the kraken wasn’t contextually believable in a small pond, but that’d be like squirting a water pistol into the Indian Ocean. And in one way I could argue for the game since it argues a point completely with its ludic elements, which is laudable. It’s just that that argument is hollow, and untenable based on the game as evidence.
To me p0nd is saying the following:
- Games are meant to be relaxing, yet they put you in stressful situations.
- Art games with simple mechanics are inane.
- Art games that are not difficult or violent will never be as popular as hardcore games.
- Art games with such mechanics should not be made. And you are stupid for playing them.