This has little to do with anything, but I just relistened to The Microphones' incredible The Glow, Pt. 2 on headphones, and GOD DAMN is that a glorious experience. There are albums that should be played loud on speakers, albums that should be played on headphones, and then there's albums like this, which take on a beautiful pulsing life unfamiliar and exhilarating even after dozens of listens that only reveals itself on a pair of good-ass headphones. Phil Elverum certainly knows how to manipulate sounds, let me tell you.
Man, it's shit like this, this short-ass stuff that gives me that nagging feeling that I need to get a twitter. It's horrible. All the stuff I read about how to succeed as a writer has nothing to do with how to write better, or improve my work ethic or revision strategies, or craft more interesting plots, or shit like that. It's all about BUILDING YR PLATFORM--how often do you tweet? What kind of tweets, man? Do your tweets entice reader interest? But for the love of God, don't try to hard and do one of those "lure" tweets where you're intentionally vague so someone will ask you to elaborate. God damn, man, don't you let a single fucking day go by without a tweet for it is upon that day THAT YOU WILL BECOME NOTHING
Seriously, I don't want to have to tweet. I really don't. Please stop telling me I need to tweet, world, I really don't want to have to deal with that.
WHAT THE HELL THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT THE MICROPHONES
It's this stuff that makes me love and hate writing
Although I suppose you can't really love something unless you hate it too
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
A call for a new genre
So recently I posted on facebook a thought I was regularly having while agonizing over a piece of writing, namely, "fiction writing would be so much easier if it weren't for all these damn plots."
What feedback this received was mostly in the vein of "LOL there's no original plots" and "LOL there's only like 11 stories in the world!" While it is somewhat true that most plots have a similar structure (Man vs. Man, Man vs. Himself, Man vs. Nature, etc), those comments are reductive and insulting. Writers don't have trouble with plots because they're too dim to realize what the components of plot are. I wasn't running into issues because I didn't know what the plot was going to be--I was having issues because I didn't want the plot to need to be so heavily emphasized.
What I most like about writing, and what I'm most good at, if you'll pardon some shameless self-congratulation, is creating and maintaining a voice. This is why I almost always write in first-person. What's the point of coming up with an interesting character if you don't even know what they're thinking? And how much easier is it to characterize when you don't have to rely only on the character's words and actions but also on the way they choose to narrate?
My problem is that when my characters are talking, my writing is good (yeah, yeah, I'm supposed to be humble and all, but I'm just going to go ahead and say it. I am good at it). People like it, it's unique and clever (but not too clever). But when I actually have to move past the voice and have the voice actually engage in real-time with the plot, the quality dips. The voice lessens and I struggle to find ways to portray the on-page action with as much vitality as the less plot-based segments. I find the character and his mind much more interesting than little scenes he has to play in. It is much easier for me to effectively have characters commenting on the plot than to have them engaging in it. Why does stuff need to be happening for a piece of writing to be interesting? There can be conflict in a character's mind without him needing to go around doing things.
But this is not a good thing for fiction writing. There needs to be a plot. Something has to happen. Otherwise the story is unfocused. There's no arc. You're telling and not showing. I can see where these criticisms come from, but I don't think I'm "telling, not showing," I'm showing who the narrator is via what he tells the audience. What he's telling is unimportant. What the telling shows about him is what interests me as a writer and as a reader. So what I find myself being drawn to is fake non-fiction. That is to say, writing that reads as true, without the conventions of fiction and its need for action, but is from the point of view of a distinctly fictional character. This is easy to do comedically, but how can it be done seriously? And who would read it? Who would publish it?
Someone told me a story of mine was too much inside the narrator's head, shortly before they told me how they enjoyed the narrative voice. It's possible they were just being nice and they thought it sucked, but if both of these statements are true, I'm baffled. Of course it takes place inside his head--his head is by far the most interesting thing going on in the story. But if a story moves even further in that direction, leaves plot behind almost completely, is it even a story anymore? Is it fake non-fiction? Is it something else entirely? Who knows such things.
Of course this may just be a beginning writer struggling with taking a modicum of talent and focusing it into something of worth, and whining about the pointlessness of the parts he can't pull off right away. I'm fully prepared for that to be the case. This is basically like a diary entry--it's just I'm more comfortable typing than writing longhand.
What feedback this received was mostly in the vein of "LOL there's no original plots" and "LOL there's only like 11 stories in the world!" While it is somewhat true that most plots have a similar structure (Man vs. Man, Man vs. Himself, Man vs. Nature, etc), those comments are reductive and insulting. Writers don't have trouble with plots because they're too dim to realize what the components of plot are. I wasn't running into issues because I didn't know what the plot was going to be--I was having issues because I didn't want the plot to need to be so heavily emphasized.
What I most like about writing, and what I'm most good at, if you'll pardon some shameless self-congratulation, is creating and maintaining a voice. This is why I almost always write in first-person. What's the point of coming up with an interesting character if you don't even know what they're thinking? And how much easier is it to characterize when you don't have to rely only on the character's words and actions but also on the way they choose to narrate?
My problem is that when my characters are talking, my writing is good (yeah, yeah, I'm supposed to be humble and all, but I'm just going to go ahead and say it. I am good at it). People like it, it's unique and clever (but not too clever). But when I actually have to move past the voice and have the voice actually engage in real-time with the plot, the quality dips. The voice lessens and I struggle to find ways to portray the on-page action with as much vitality as the less plot-based segments. I find the character and his mind much more interesting than little scenes he has to play in. It is much easier for me to effectively have characters commenting on the plot than to have them engaging in it. Why does stuff need to be happening for a piece of writing to be interesting? There can be conflict in a character's mind without him needing to go around doing things.
But this is not a good thing for fiction writing. There needs to be a plot. Something has to happen. Otherwise the story is unfocused. There's no arc. You're telling and not showing. I can see where these criticisms come from, but I don't think I'm "telling, not showing," I'm showing who the narrator is via what he tells the audience. What he's telling is unimportant. What the telling shows about him is what interests me as a writer and as a reader. So what I find myself being drawn to is fake non-fiction. That is to say, writing that reads as true, without the conventions of fiction and its need for action, but is from the point of view of a distinctly fictional character. This is easy to do comedically, but how can it be done seriously? And who would read it? Who would publish it?
Someone told me a story of mine was too much inside the narrator's head, shortly before they told me how they enjoyed the narrative voice. It's possible they were just being nice and they thought it sucked, but if both of these statements are true, I'm baffled. Of course it takes place inside his head--his head is by far the most interesting thing going on in the story. But if a story moves even further in that direction, leaves plot behind almost completely, is it even a story anymore? Is it fake non-fiction? Is it something else entirely? Who knows such things.
Of course this may just be a beginning writer struggling with taking a modicum of talent and focusing it into something of worth, and whining about the pointlessness of the parts he can't pull off right away. I'm fully prepared for that to be the case. This is basically like a diary entry--it's just I'm more comfortable typing than writing longhand.
Friday, February 4, 2011
PPPPPP
PPPPPP, chiptune musician Magnus Pålsson's soundtrack for the very good indie platformer VVVVVV, is one of the best things I've heard in forever.
Maybe if you weren't fed a steady stream of beep-boop melodies while playing the beloved video games of your youth, you won't find so much to love in PPPPPP. But if this is your thing, prepare for some of the most propulsive, infectious, downright joyful chiptune music you're likely to hear anywhere in the world. VVVVVV is the first game in a long time, since Ocarina of Time, in fact, where I would start it up and leave the player character uncontrolled for the sole purpose of listening to the background music. PPPPPP's songs are dense, enthralling collages of artificial beeps, and yet they sound as human and energetic as any song composed with the human voice or physical instruments.
I purport to be a music snob and I can tell you all sorts of stuff about Touch & Go Records and the Golden Age of Hip-Hop and whatnot, but despite that I can say in full confidence that PPPPPP, this 30-minute slab of video game music, is objectively some of the best music I've ever heard and it will take some stiff competition to keep this from being the best music I hear this year.
Maybe if you weren't fed a steady stream of beep-boop melodies while playing the beloved video games of your youth, you won't find so much to love in PPPPPP. But if this is your thing, prepare for some of the most propulsive, infectious, downright joyful chiptune music you're likely to hear anywhere in the world. VVVVVV is the first game in a long time, since Ocarina of Time, in fact, where I would start it up and leave the player character uncontrolled for the sole purpose of listening to the background music. PPPPPP's songs are dense, enthralling collages of artificial beeps, and yet they sound as human and energetic as any song composed with the human voice or physical instruments.
I purport to be a music snob and I can tell you all sorts of stuff about Touch & Go Records and the Golden Age of Hip-Hop and whatnot, but despite that I can say in full confidence that PPPPPP, this 30-minute slab of video game music, is objectively some of the best music I've ever heard and it will take some stiff competition to keep this from being the best music I hear this year.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Reviews- Amnesia: The Dark Descent
Upstart Swedish developers Frictional Games have created something unique in their latest horror title, Amnesia: The Dark Descent. Its concept seems almost diametrically opposed to the general understanding of what makes a video game, and yet is wonderfully successful. It's a title sure to be bandied about in discussions of the genre's artistic potential for years to come.
Amnesia: The Dark Descent is the work of some evil motherfuckers from Swiss-land or something who I am pretty sure like to step on puppies or agree to catsit while you're visiting your cousin in Michigan and then they try to poop on your cat and when the cat runs away from their butts they throw books at it from your shelf and you just know they're going to land weird and get their covers creased, and now there's poop on the floor, and it goes without saying that they aren't going to give the cat enough food.
The player is given a first person view from a man named Daniel, who, predictably, wakes up with amnesia in a broken-down castle. Certain objects can be manipulated by lifting, throwing, pushing, pulling, or opening them. There's not much demanded in the way of player input. The reason becomes clear as the game progresses: your former self wants you to kill the castle's master, who is probably evil, but more importantly: the castle in inhabitated by unfathomable horrors who, bucking all video game tradition, the player is quite literally unable to harm in any way.
So you wake up in a scary castle. OK, whatever. Follow a blood trail, not so bad. Then a door loudly blows open right in front of your face and any sane person would turn the game off right then. Speaking of sane, seeing weird stuff, that is, seeing ANY of the stuff in this game, makes the dude lose sanity, making the screen all woo-y so even normal stuff looks scary. You learn that the monsters are invulnerable because OF COURSE THEY ARE. That's just how much of a dick these developers are. Seeing a monster makes your dude go extra insane. So basically you have walking horrors that you can't look at or even be near. And you have no idea where they are. Fucking wonderful. I am just loving playing this game. And by playing I mean turning on for one second before realizing it is literally the most unpleasant thing I could be doing with my time.
The game opens with a suggestion not to be too bogged down with thinking of it as a "game." That is to say, don't go in expecting to "win" or to overcome challenges--instead appreciate its atmosphere. An apt suggestion indeed. None of the tasks your character must perform are in and of themselves difficult. Puzzles are basic and monsters are slower than your sprinting speed. One infamous section takes place in a flooded chamber with a blind, invisible monster who hears you as you splash through the water. A terrifying prospect, but jumping safely on boxes is simple, and there is a long enough grace period to jump back to safety if you miss. The next section finds the character in a flooded chamber with no boxes--it's a mad sprint from the monster, making sure to lock doors behind you to slow the beast down. The scenario is spine-tingling, but in execution, it's almost impossible to lose unless you forget to run or close the doors. This is where the game's excellent sound design comes in. As your character's sanity drops, he starts hearing things. Steps, moans, groans, wails of terror. But a monster's growl is loudly distinctive and sets your teeth on edge. In the sprint away from the water monster, its growls are nearly deafening as are the splashes it makes. It pounds on the locked doors viciously until they explode off the hinges. The intensity of the sound is mind-blowing.
This stupid game is just a series of fetch quests. There's a big safe room that connects all these little levels and I just want to spend all my time here. Why don't I just break a window and get the fuck out? In the levels it's all dark, which makes your character insane, warping the screen and making him hear noises. OK, fuck that. I don't want to see any scary monsters, so I need their sounds to know when to run away, and now you're throwing fake-out sounds at me? HOW THE HELL IS THAT FAIR? Oh my god, I don't like this. I don't like this. I should light this candle but then I'm afraid a monster will see it and eat me. I don't like this. This area is so small. How can there be a monster here? He has to have seen me by now. OK, what was that sound? Were those my steps? OK, walk a little so see what my steps sound like--OK, there it was again. Is that ME? I--I don't think so. Oh crap. A monster. It's gotta be. I'm hiding in this wardrobe. Yes. Nice and safe. Yeah, I don't ever want to come out. This is where the game is gonna end for me. My dude's just going to starve to death in here, safe from monsters.
Amnesia is miserly with its monster's screentime and it benefits tremendously from it. The developers must be fans of Jaws. Other horror games put considerable time and effort into the character designs of their monsters and feel it'd be a waste not to show them off. Of course, in those games, you are often wielding massive weaponry. In Amnesia, actually being close enough to a monster to see it means you have made a terrible mistake in course-plotting and are about to pay dearly. As a result, players likely won't see a monster for more than a fraction of a second, and several intensely eerie, dark areas teeming with spooky noises often appear to not house any monsters at all. The player has to do the work of being scared, and a person's imagination will always do more to scare them than a piece of creative media. That isn't to say the monsters are lackluster visually. The game's graphics are pretty good, especially in the momentary visual transition as you move from light to dark areas, and the shambling, deformed, humanlike monsters are sufficiently gross.
HOLY SHIT I mean if I just died once and was reminded it was a video game I'd be OK. Where even are these things? It's like there aren't even any, it's just faking me out constantly. Like there's probably only like four in the whole thing. I mean I just--oh shit, what was that sound? OK, put out the lantern. It was probably a fake out, just going to open this door and HOLY SHIT IT'S A DUDE NO NO NO IT'S GROWLING RUN RUN RUN RUN! Ok, going to make it, gonna get away, OH SHIT THIS HALLWAY IS CAVED IN I'M TRAPPED GOTTA GO BACK AND FIND ANOTHER WAYYYOH SHIT OH SHIT NO NO IT'S RIGHT THERE IT'S SO GROSS I'M GONNA DIE--wait, where'd it go? Did it just turn to dust? Oh my god. A fucking fake-out monster? A full-on fake-out monster? Well fuck, guys, what the hell. Why? Why would, why would you...this is just cruel. This doesn't even count in the game. I didn't take any damage or anything. Why would you put this here? It's just to make me want to never do anything in the world ever again. OH my god. God damn. So scary. I hate this. Stupid game. I don't like this. I don't like this.
Of course, it's not a perfect game. The writing and voice acting are only a few steps above atrocious, lending the game unintentional comedy. And even though the game is little more than a delivery system for paranoia-inducing spooky noises and panicked fleeing from scary dudes, the level design could be a little more inventive than "safe hub room with little clumps of rooms attached that you need to get items from." However, it's still a game unlike any other, and packs more genuine scares than most horror films. Frictional Games is definitely a company to watch. 8.9/10
Oh my god, it's all woo-y. Why can't you turn, dude? You're insane, not drunk. Oh shit, no, loud noise, oh crap, oh crap, my dude's falling down, get up dude, don't you know monsters will get you if you sit around like this? Oh my god, oh my god, at least I don't have that god damn water to deal with anymore. You know what, this game is just the worst. From the fake-outs, the darkness, the relentless spooky noises, I don't understand why they don't send some boxer to my house to punch me in the face while I play. I mean this game clearly isn't meant to be enjoyed. It's designed to be as unpleasant as possible. This actively makes me more wound up and more stressed. Why would anyone want this? Why would anyone want to make this aside from possibly IRL trolling? OH SHIT there was a scary sound. What the hell was that? Oh god. 0/10
Amnesia: The Dark Descent is the work of some evil motherfuckers from Swiss-land or something who I am pretty sure like to step on puppies or agree to catsit while you're visiting your cousin in Michigan and then they try to poop on your cat and when the cat runs away from their butts they throw books at it from your shelf and you just know they're going to land weird and get their covers creased, and now there's poop on the floor, and it goes without saying that they aren't going to give the cat enough food.
The player is given a first person view from a man named Daniel, who, predictably, wakes up with amnesia in a broken-down castle. Certain objects can be manipulated by lifting, throwing, pushing, pulling, or opening them. There's not much demanded in the way of player input. The reason becomes clear as the game progresses: your former self wants you to kill the castle's master, who is probably evil, but more importantly: the castle in inhabitated by unfathomable horrors who, bucking all video game tradition, the player is quite literally unable to harm in any way.
So you wake up in a scary castle. OK, whatever. Follow a blood trail, not so bad. Then a door loudly blows open right in front of your face and any sane person would turn the game off right then. Speaking of sane, seeing weird stuff, that is, seeing ANY of the stuff in this game, makes the dude lose sanity, making the screen all woo-y so even normal stuff looks scary. You learn that the monsters are invulnerable because OF COURSE THEY ARE. That's just how much of a dick these developers are. Seeing a monster makes your dude go extra insane. So basically you have walking horrors that you can't look at or even be near. And you have no idea where they are. Fucking wonderful. I am just loving playing this game. And by playing I mean turning on for one second before realizing it is literally the most unpleasant thing I could be doing with my time.
The game opens with a suggestion not to be too bogged down with thinking of it as a "game." That is to say, don't go in expecting to "win" or to overcome challenges--instead appreciate its atmosphere. An apt suggestion indeed. None of the tasks your character must perform are in and of themselves difficult. Puzzles are basic and monsters are slower than your sprinting speed. One infamous section takes place in a flooded chamber with a blind, invisible monster who hears you as you splash through the water. A terrifying prospect, but jumping safely on boxes is simple, and there is a long enough grace period to jump back to safety if you miss. The next section finds the character in a flooded chamber with no boxes--it's a mad sprint from the monster, making sure to lock doors behind you to slow the beast down. The scenario is spine-tingling, but in execution, it's almost impossible to lose unless you forget to run or close the doors. This is where the game's excellent sound design comes in. As your character's sanity drops, he starts hearing things. Steps, moans, groans, wails of terror. But a monster's growl is loudly distinctive and sets your teeth on edge. In the sprint away from the water monster, its growls are nearly deafening as are the splashes it makes. It pounds on the locked doors viciously until they explode off the hinges. The intensity of the sound is mind-blowing.
This stupid game is just a series of fetch quests. There's a big safe room that connects all these little levels and I just want to spend all my time here. Why don't I just break a window and get the fuck out? In the levels it's all dark, which makes your character insane, warping the screen and making him hear noises. OK, fuck that. I don't want to see any scary monsters, so I need their sounds to know when to run away, and now you're throwing fake-out sounds at me? HOW THE HELL IS THAT FAIR? Oh my god, I don't like this. I don't like this. I should light this candle but then I'm afraid a monster will see it and eat me. I don't like this. This area is so small. How can there be a monster here? He has to have seen me by now. OK, what was that sound? Were those my steps? OK, walk a little so see what my steps sound like--OK, there it was again. Is that ME? I--I don't think so. Oh crap. A monster. It's gotta be. I'm hiding in this wardrobe. Yes. Nice and safe. Yeah, I don't ever want to come out. This is where the game is gonna end for me. My dude's just going to starve to death in here, safe from monsters.
Amnesia is miserly with its monster's screentime and it benefits tremendously from it. The developers must be fans of Jaws. Other horror games put considerable time and effort into the character designs of their monsters and feel it'd be a waste not to show them off. Of course, in those games, you are often wielding massive weaponry. In Amnesia, actually being close enough to a monster to see it means you have made a terrible mistake in course-plotting and are about to pay dearly. As a result, players likely won't see a monster for more than a fraction of a second, and several intensely eerie, dark areas teeming with spooky noises often appear to not house any monsters at all. The player has to do the work of being scared, and a person's imagination will always do more to scare them than a piece of creative media. That isn't to say the monsters are lackluster visually. The game's graphics are pretty good, especially in the momentary visual transition as you move from light to dark areas, and the shambling, deformed, humanlike monsters are sufficiently gross.
HOLY SHIT I mean if I just died once and was reminded it was a video game I'd be OK. Where even are these things? It's like there aren't even any, it's just faking me out constantly. Like there's probably only like four in the whole thing. I mean I just--oh shit, what was that sound? OK, put out the lantern. It was probably a fake out, just going to open this door and HOLY SHIT IT'S A DUDE NO NO NO IT'S GROWLING RUN RUN RUN RUN! Ok, going to make it, gonna get away, OH SHIT THIS HALLWAY IS CAVED IN I'M TRAPPED GOTTA GO BACK AND FIND ANOTHER WAYYYOH SHIT OH SHIT NO NO IT'S RIGHT THERE IT'S SO GROSS I'M GONNA DIE--wait, where'd it go? Did it just turn to dust? Oh my god. A fucking fake-out monster? A full-on fake-out monster? Well fuck, guys, what the hell. Why? Why would, why would you...this is just cruel. This doesn't even count in the game. I didn't take any damage or anything. Why would you put this here? It's just to make me want to never do anything in the world ever again. OH my god. God damn. So scary. I hate this. Stupid game. I don't like this. I don't like this.
Of course, it's not a perfect game. The writing and voice acting are only a few steps above atrocious, lending the game unintentional comedy. And even though the game is little more than a delivery system for paranoia-inducing spooky noises and panicked fleeing from scary dudes, the level design could be a little more inventive than "safe hub room with little clumps of rooms attached that you need to get items from." However, it's still a game unlike any other, and packs more genuine scares than most horror films. Frictional Games is definitely a company to watch. 8.9/10
Oh my god, it's all woo-y. Why can't you turn, dude? You're insane, not drunk. Oh shit, no, loud noise, oh crap, oh crap, my dude's falling down, get up dude, don't you know monsters will get you if you sit around like this? Oh my god, oh my god, at least I don't have that god damn water to deal with anymore. You know what, this game is just the worst. From the fake-outs, the darkness, the relentless spooky noises, I don't understand why they don't send some boxer to my house to punch me in the face while I play. I mean this game clearly isn't meant to be enjoyed. It's designed to be as unpleasant as possible. This actively makes me more wound up and more stressed. Why would anyone want this? Why would anyone want to make this aside from possibly IRL trolling? OH SHIT there was a scary sound. What the hell was that? Oh god. 0/10
Monday, November 22, 2010
My Review of Harry Potter and Deathly Hallows Part 1
It was OK, but I still don't understand why, after learning that one of the Deathly Hallows is an invisibility cloak, Harry didn't go
"HOLY FUCKING SHIT I HAVE ONE OF THE GOD DAMN DEATHLY HALLOWS. LIKE I HAVE IT AND HAVE HAD IT SINCE I WAS A LITTLE KID WHY DID NO ONE TELL ME THIS RON RON SERIOUSLY YOU HEARD THIS STORY WHEN YOU WERE LITTLE AND DIDN'T BAT A FUCKING EYELASH WHEN WE USED THE INVISIBILITY CLOAK LIKE EVERY DAMN DAY BACK THEN WHAT THE HELL BRO"
Let's be reasonable, people
"HOLY FUCKING SHIT I HAVE ONE OF THE GOD DAMN DEATHLY HALLOWS. LIKE I HAVE IT AND HAVE HAD IT SINCE I WAS A LITTLE KID WHY DID NO ONE TELL ME THIS RON RON SERIOUSLY YOU HEARD THIS STORY WHEN YOU WERE LITTLE AND DIDN'T BAT A FUCKING EYELASH WHEN WE USED THE INVISIBILITY CLOAK LIKE EVERY DAMN DAY BACK THEN WHAT THE HELL BRO"
Let's be reasonable, people
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Stuff that's happening
So apparently there's a lot of hooting and shrieking going on about violent video games and whatnot. Now, I'm nothing if not an ignorant and uninformed person. This is what happens when one does not have access to TV news, newspapers, or the will to find reliable sources of news on the Internet. So, I don't really know what the people on either side of this issue are arguing. But I know enough about stupid reactionary idiots and the nature of fabricated moral panic to have a basic idea.
The thing that most annoys me about this is that the violent video game most often cited by the anti-game people is Postal 2, a game specifically designed to be as obnoxiously inappropriate as possible. This game is A. Over 10 years old and completely irrelevant when talking about modern gaming, B. taken seriously by approximately zero percent of the gaming community and is considered kind of a crappy game, and C. Seriously, what the hell?
Worse still is the Grand Theft Auto hate. Every mention of the series is sure to come with a mention of prostitute-killing, painting a wholly inaccurate picture of the games and gaming as a whole. Here's the deal: Most of the people who have an opinion about this issue have never played video games or are so ignorant of them that they may as well not have--this in and of itself is absolutely ridiculous and makes me miserable--and therefore most of what they know is based on what has been told to them. When they hear whore-killing linked with GTA so often, it follows that they would connect the two in their minds. Since they hear little else about them, GTA becomes "that game where they give you points for killing hookers" (nevermind the fact that "points" as a game design concept have long become irrelevant and are rarely if ever used). Couple that with GTA being one of the most prestigious series in modern gaming, and you have a lot of ignorant people who associate an entire branch of media with killing prostitutes. AND THAT'S TERRIBLE
I mean, here's the deal: GTA is about giving the player freedom. They can do whatever they want. They're in a city, and, as cities are wont to do, they are full of people. The player, being equipped with weapons, is able to use them against any of said people. Some of said people are appareled in clothing befitting of ladies of the night. It is therefore possible to discharge the player's weapons upon such women. Is there any benefit to doing so? No. Is it ever required or even recommended to the player to do so? No. Let this sink in. GTA mostly stars anti-hero gangsters who adhere to a basic honor-among-thieves moral code. They aren't much worse than the mobsters one finds in mafia movies. Of course, the player can be a total dick and kill every pedestrian during gameplay. But they can also get in an ambulance and save people's lives. But that doesn't matter: GTA is the game that gives you points for killing hookers. The news said so.
But that said, the fact is that most video games are, in fact, violent. Most games have the player shooting a gun of some kind. Oh no! What horrors! Humanity will always have games and contests--it's the way we are. Video games are a way to live out that need in ways that wouldn't be possible in real life. Take, for example, Team Fortress 2, a popular competitive shooting game where your team must shoot, explode, stab, bludgeon, and burn the other team to death. When I play this game, am I doing so because I am an aggressive person? Do I like to hurt others? No. I'm playing the game because, like all human beings who enjoy games (that is to say, all of them), I wish to test my skills against others, hoping to emerge the more talented competitor. Team Fortress is about strategy, skill, and quick decision making much more than it is about murder. I suspect other popular games like Call of Duty (which I haven't played) are similar. The satisfaction a player gets from a challenging kill isn't due to their primal, immoral bloodlust and violent nature, but the same satisfaction a chess player gets from saying "checkmate" after agonizing over dozens of moves. Really, why isn't there more controversy over violent chess games? I mean, you can kill whores in GTA, but in chess, you can kill clergy and female heads of state!
Anyway, I don't want to continue this anymore because I'm getting mad and have work to do.
The thing that most annoys me about this is that the violent video game most often cited by the anti-game people is Postal 2, a game specifically designed to be as obnoxiously inappropriate as possible. This game is A. Over 10 years old and completely irrelevant when talking about modern gaming, B. taken seriously by approximately zero percent of the gaming community and is considered kind of a crappy game, and C. Seriously, what the hell?
Worse still is the Grand Theft Auto hate. Every mention of the series is sure to come with a mention of prostitute-killing, painting a wholly inaccurate picture of the games and gaming as a whole. Here's the deal: Most of the people who have an opinion about this issue have never played video games or are so ignorant of them that they may as well not have--this in and of itself is absolutely ridiculous and makes me miserable--and therefore most of what they know is based on what has been told to them. When they hear whore-killing linked with GTA so often, it follows that they would connect the two in their minds. Since they hear little else about them, GTA becomes "that game where they give you points for killing hookers" (nevermind the fact that "points" as a game design concept have long become irrelevant and are rarely if ever used). Couple that with GTA being one of the most prestigious series in modern gaming, and you have a lot of ignorant people who associate an entire branch of media with killing prostitutes. AND THAT'S TERRIBLE
I mean, here's the deal: GTA is about giving the player freedom. They can do whatever they want. They're in a city, and, as cities are wont to do, they are full of people. The player, being equipped with weapons, is able to use them against any of said people. Some of said people are appareled in clothing befitting of ladies of the night. It is therefore possible to discharge the player's weapons upon such women. Is there any benefit to doing so? No. Is it ever required or even recommended to the player to do so? No. Let this sink in. GTA mostly stars anti-hero gangsters who adhere to a basic honor-among-thieves moral code. They aren't much worse than the mobsters one finds in mafia movies. Of course, the player can be a total dick and kill every pedestrian during gameplay. But they can also get in an ambulance and save people's lives. But that doesn't matter: GTA is the game that gives you points for killing hookers. The news said so.
But that said, the fact is that most video games are, in fact, violent. Most games have the player shooting a gun of some kind. Oh no! What horrors! Humanity will always have games and contests--it's the way we are. Video games are a way to live out that need in ways that wouldn't be possible in real life. Take, for example, Team Fortress 2, a popular competitive shooting game where your team must shoot, explode, stab, bludgeon, and burn the other team to death. When I play this game, am I doing so because I am an aggressive person? Do I like to hurt others? No. I'm playing the game because, like all human beings who enjoy games (that is to say, all of them), I wish to test my skills against others, hoping to emerge the more talented competitor. Team Fortress is about strategy, skill, and quick decision making much more than it is about murder. I suspect other popular games like Call of Duty (which I haven't played) are similar. The satisfaction a player gets from a challenging kill isn't due to their primal, immoral bloodlust and violent nature, but the same satisfaction a chess player gets from saying "checkmate" after agonizing over dozens of moves. Really, why isn't there more controversy over violent chess games? I mean, you can kill whores in GTA, but in chess, you can kill clergy and female heads of state!
Anyway, I don't want to continue this anymore because I'm getting mad and have work to do.
Woes re: Dracula
Reading Dracula makes me really self-conscious that I don't write journals (let alone well structured and narratively compelling ones).
I mean even if I were to write journals I don't think I'd remember all that dialogue.
I mean even if I were to write journals I don't think I'd remember all that dialogue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)