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.
No comments:
Post a Comment