YOLO

After playing through "You Only Live Once," "One Chance," and "Johnny in an Art Game" I've come to a conclusion: I agree with Warren Spector. Now, those who read this blog and have no idea what I'm talking about, I'll try to break things down very briefly. All the games I mentioned above are plot/narrative driven games in which you only have one chance to reach your goal. Warren Spector wrote an article entitled "Fun is a Four Letter Word," in which he displays his displeasure for the gaming communities focus on games being "fun" rather than serving any other purpose.

Now, I say I agree with Warren because as I played all three games, I didn't have fun. At any point. Yet, that didn't leave a bad taste in my mouth. I was still invested in the games and I came away from the experience thinking, rather than just grinning from ear to ear while my mind was all static.

At first, I was extremely annoyed with "You Only Live Once" because I couldn't even play, which I now see was a gameplay mechanic. Everything was so clunky because it not only upped the challenge, but presented me with a hilarious after death storyline. The best part was, I wasn't involved in that storyline as a player! I was dead! It was all jokes and gags set up by the creators specifically because I had died instead of surviving.

"One Chance" was a much heavier game. I wouldn't call this one fun either, yet, I found myself carefully weighing each option presented to me just because the game had my attention. The choices and subsequent consequences mattered to me. My daughter mattered to me. Yet, by being such a family man, I ended up never finding a cure, so everyone died. I was shocked when I found my wife in the bathtub. I had one shot at saving the world, or saving my daughter, and I blew it. What made it even more scarring was the fact that I couldn't get a do over. I let everyone down. It was significant to me on a level Call of Duty never has been.

"Johnny in an Art Game" was probably my least favorite, mainly because it was critiquing the medium of "One Play" games. It simplified everything down, basically saying, "Oh, you only can go one direction, and none of the questions about life, existence, or choice matter because there's one end to all of these games, and that's death and disaster." This really was a "One Play" game because it presented one direction to move, one outcome, and one very bitter message. Was it fun? Not in the least. Did it get me to think? Sure, about how this was narrow way of viewing games that are in this decision making, one chance genre.

What I'm getting at is this: Spector was right. The game industry has because over-saturated with the idea of having games that are specifically competitive and "fun." The three games mentioned above, yes, even "Johnny in an Art Game," showed that the one play style of games are viable options for exploring narratives. There can still be a whole story, with emotional weight, while having very simplistic gameplay mechanics. The idea of having one chance to do something right makes everything within the game appear more immediate, and thus, I examined my options a little more before blindly running in guns blazing. There were no extra lives or do overs, and that made the narrative more realistic to me. It made me think about live, and how you really might only have one chance at things, and how decisions lead to ripple effects. I think that if more games put more of an emphasis on decisions and outcomes, then maybe Spector's opinion could be realized. Not only that, if games offered existential questions and put more of a magnifying glass back on the player, then perhaps those outside of the gaming community would start to look at video games in a different light, perhaps even seeing them as a plausible art form. Yes, it's easier said then done, and yes, these games had simple production so they were able to build more of a narrative instead of focusing on shiny effects and epic boss battles. But maybe that's what games need right now. A little more of the human element, and a little less of the hollywood production.

As for the bonus post (ignore this if you're not part of my class, it'll probably just be boring), I never tried to get around the one play mechanic. Strange as it sounds, I fell in love with the idea that I had made my grave (literally) and I would sleep in it. I didn't want a do over because I felt that would take away from the magic and originality that my first play through had provided. Along that same vein, I do think that looking for playthroughs online is kind of cheating the game maker and yourself. Why even play through if you can just go online and see every possible outcome you could have? Then the game becomes obsolete because you just read what will happen. To me, it's a lot like reading about the ending to a movie or game online, or flipping to the last few pages of a book. Yeah, the journey's still there, but guess what, you already know where the path leads, so taking the journey is just leg work at that point. Just my thoughts, as always.