Group Discussion on Game Mechanics as Metaphor

Ryan S. (Obviously)
Zia H.
Zach L.

Our group started the discussion off slowly, because we all only had one example. Zia's example was Metal Gear Solid 3, in which a certain mission offered players the choices of use infiltration, knockouts, tranquilizing, or killing. However, the level encouraged players to use stealth, to get through the level easier and to use up less time. This pushing of stealth over aggressive violence was a metaphor for the anti-war message of the game. The encouragement was to bring an end to conflict through the use of safer, less harmful means.

Zach's game was Fatal Frame 2 in which you can't see anything that is around you as a player, including enemies. It was a metaphor for the fear of the unknown. That which we can't see or understand frightens us most because there's no clear cut way to fight it. He also brought up the game Amnesia, in which a player cannot use any sort of violence or attacks. All a player can do is run away, survive, and try to keep moving. This metaphor could have many sides, as it could suggest that there are some monsters that we cannot overcome through sheer force of will, or perhaps that ingenuity is the way to overcome the obstacles in our path.

I, Ryan, chose Fable I as my game. My thought process was that the gameplay encouraged players to follow a path of good, but evil was not completely exempt. This message was conveyed through the character's image or appearance. Through good deeds and virtuous missions, characters would become shining and beautiful, and are welcomed and heralded at every city. Villainous characters become decrepit and vile looking, with villagers avoiding them and booing them, and finding a wife was also near impossible because of how devilish looking the character had become. The message, in my opinion, was that yes, evil is an option, and it might be the easier path to follow, however, much is lost when choosing this path. Many mechanics become closed off to an evil character.

It was around this point where we kind of lost things to talk about, but discussions came back around when we all agreed that newer games don't even attempt to use gameplay as a metaphor. Zia brought up games like Call of Duty, and how even though the game gives you choices on how to finish a mission, there is still a point A and point B, and there is still the same ending no matter what. Personal choice doesn't come into play, because all missions will still end the same.

I mentioned how that applies to one of my favorite games, Uncharted. Any of them. Yes, there are cinematic moments, and yes, the characters are dynamic, but the end game is still the same. The story still ends the same, the same characters live and die, and the same treasures are always found. Beat a mission however you want, whether running and gunning, fist fighting, or sneaking around, guess what? You'll still get the same game.

Zia brought up Skyrim as one of the modern day games that offers up gameplay as metaphor. His suggestion, though, was that the developers didn't necessarily have any specific message in my mind, rather, they offered up countless of outcomes and consequences and just let players make any choice they want, and watch how these choices affect the world that they are playing in. It's a new kind of metaphorical approach, but one that holds too many meanings or symbols to make it a viable option, unlike Bioshocks metaphor of the gamer really having no control, even though they think they do.

I went back again to Call of Duty. Now, I couldn't remember the specific incarnate of Call of Duty, but it has a mission that everyone remembers. It's the most controversial Call of Duty mission I'd say ever. It's the one where a US undercover operate is a member of a Russian terrorist unit. The player controlled character goes into an airport with these terrorists as they mow down civilians. Now, you, as the player, have the choice not to kill anyone, but it doesn't stop the carnage. It also doesn't change the fact that this character is shot by the terrorists as they flea. Whether you join in or abstain, death is inevitable. I suppose in a way this is somewhat existential, with existence comes truth that death is inevitable, but your existence doesn't end there, which could be said to be true in terms of the game as well, as the terrorists killed this character to misplant the identity of the killers, bringing the world to the brink of world war. Just some thoughts.

Then Zia talked about how Half-Life offers different ways to kill enemies, but even then, there's no real change to the storyline or to the world as a whole. It's more just a courtesy feature for the players. He also brought up Final Fantasy Tactics, and how one of the games features is that when you kill an enemy, they drop a crystal, and if you pick that crystal up, you can gain health or an enemies powers. It's kind of a darker metaphor, but we decided that there might be a slight implying by the game that to survive and conquer, you have to kill your enemies so that you can stay alive or become more powerful than them, but this one was more of a stretch for us.

Then Zach talked about older games such as Sweet Home and Obscure. The mechanic he wanted to discuss was the fact that in both of these games, if any member of your group dies, they don't come back, so a player is left to go through the rest of the game without certain skills and abilities. There's an obvious implication here that the game is telling you to protect your team, keep your partners alive, because teamwork and cooperation will make it easier to work through struggles and conflict.

That was when class came to an end, so that's more or less our groups discussion. I thought it was pretty insightful, but that might just be my bias.

Existentialism and Before the Law

So, after reading the two assigned pieces, I kind of find myself both depressed and intrigued by existentialism, all at the same time. In terms of how it, as a philosophy and theory, relates to Before the Law, the game and short story, I'd have to say that it acts as the very groundwork that both were built upon. Sarte's "Nausea" is the one that I truly connected to Before the Law more, and it's mainly because while both reading and playing, I found myself thinking about the games message on decision making and control over ones existence and purpose. In the story, the country man never takes control of his life, leaving it up to the guard at the gate to decide when he may pass. In the game, even when I chose to just walk through the gate, I was led to the "Law," which was just an empty book. In "Nausea," Sarte found himself in turmoil, trying to overcome or understand the idea of what it means to really "exist." He finds himself sickened by the idea that existing is just the concept of being there, of taking up space. There's no real purpose to exist other than the fact that if something is existing, it had already come into existence, and therefore could never truly escape it. To me, this felt almost nihilistic and extremely cynical, but, in terms of Before the Law, I felt like it was fairly accurate. In the story and game, the country man exists first, that much is fairly obvious. But, by using "Existentialism and Human Emotions" along with "Nausea," Sarte appears to have implied that the mans existence came first. His essence does not manifest itself until he makes the decision to wait or to go through the gate. However, the country man is then representing all of man, and what he thinks, subconsciously or consciously, men should strive to achieve or to pursue. So, by waiting, the suggestion could be made that instead of following our desires, we, as men, are at the mercy of what we are told or of a certain kind of implied authority. Then there's the game, in which I could go through the gate as the country man, showing that perhaps I believe all men should want to follow their own desires and should actively take the reins of their own lives. I am creating my essence, what/who I am, by my actions, all of this following my existence, in which I was just a man with a blank slate. The fact that the "Law" was blank might suggest that there really are no, in terms of Sarte, universal laws or guidelines for what life is comprised of, and that existence and meaning are both arbitrary things because they're both actively happening no matter what. Just my thoughts.

So, the "Before the Law" short story by Franz Kafka and the "Before the Law" flash game at http://www.theoddmanout.net/games/beforeTheLaw.html share more than just a name. In fact, they share the exact same story, as the flash game is, in truth, just an interactive way to experience Kafka's story. It's a very basic game, with rudimentary art work, mainly just dark lines and some wind blown grass. Many of the lines in the game are word for word from the short story and the whole premise is the same. You have the man from the country approaching the gate to the Law, where he is stopped by the guardian of the gate who tells him that he is not ready to go through. The first path I took was Kafka's ending, where I chose to wait and was rewarded with the man from the country growing old and dying, learning, futilely, that the gate was specifically for him, and that it would now close with his passing. The second time I went through this game, I walked up to the gate and flipped the metaphorical bird to the guardian. He vanished away, telling me that I had made a brave and bold decision. The world, at this point, kind of crumbles away into nothingness, leaving a direct path to the "Law." It happens to be a book, but when it's openend, the country man finds that it contains nothing. I won't lie, my first time reading through the short story, I was left wondering what the greater message I was supposed to walk away with was. I'm not saying that the game was eye-opening, or even correct, considering it was created by a living person, which, I can assume, means they hold their own opinions and visions of what message was supposed to be conveyed. I appreciate how the game presented the second ending in a less obscure way though, even if it can't be called "the meaning." I felt like both were similar in design, because I felt like the story was meant to be minimalistic, an unnamed man from the country could, theoretically, be anyone, and the guardian wasn't really concrete or set in stone either. The look of the game followed that train of thought, just using outlines of the two characters and never giving them faces or names. It was a nice touch. I also like how it tapped into the human psyche, like the moment when the guardian tells you to stop, so, after reading the story, the logical choice was to stop. He told me too, so I will. This leads to the larger message of the story though. If I have it right, it's implying that the only person that can stop someone is themselves. Not necessarily a new line of thinking, kind of cliche, but still a strong message that can resonate at anytime. However, even then, as the country man, even when I just walked by, the Law was empty when I looked into it, suggesting that I wasn't ready to really see the truth that was my Law. So, I walked into it learning that when I was ready to learn the truths of the world and life, the best thing to do would be to look inside, to let myself find answers inside...well...myself. Overall, I wouldn't necessarily call this a game, but it was an interesting take on an older story, and a cool way of using newer technology and media to teach a lesson. I really feel like that's what more games should strive to do, rather than keeping everything in a grey zone while trying to make the action the main focus. Yes, gameplay is important, and so is how "pretty" a game looks. However, if games are ever to be taken seriously as an artistic form, some sort of narrative must exist, and not just a narrative for it's own sake, but one that holds a microscope up to society and those who inhabit it.