Call for Essays About Any Aspect of Popular Culture, Present or Past

 
Bookmark and Share
Text:AAA
Tuesday, Jul 7, 2009
A twitter poll to see what annoyed people the most about game reviews revealed a lot of surprising complaints.
From southerliving.com

From southerliving.com


Writing an in-depth outline of some common sloppy arguments in video game reviews is basically an exercise in shoving your opinion onto someone else. To try to compensate for this, I shuffled around on Twitter and got advice from several people on the most flawed arguments they see in game reviews. Contributors include 10rdBen, Nelsormensch, SparkyClarkson, mrduranpierre, PopSchiller, mkrpata, Iroquois Pliskin, traceylien, 8bithack, plushapo, Simon Ferrari, and several others. The consequence of using these outside opinions is that I’m personally guilty of several of these flawed arguments in my own reviews. Objectivity is, in many ways, impossible for any one person to manage. But that doesn’t mean we can’t strive for it. Inherent in all of these critiques is the notion that a video game should be judged by the intent of the developers and how well it delivers that experience rather than some personal view that all games should be X or Y.


From dummcomics.com

From dummcomics.com


The controls suck.


Declaring that a game’s interface is bad is usually dependent on comparing it to another game. This game controls like this and I like it, this game seems similar so it should control the same way. Kane & Lynch, for example, got a lot flak for its auto-cover system because it was contrary to how Gears of War worked. The best way to elaborate on the controls sucking is to explain that the game wants you to do X and the controls are making that hard. The issue that comes up is gauging whether or not you’re trying to make the game do something its developers didn’t really intend. It helps to remember that for the average AAA game, a lot of people have played it before it reached you and they all seemed to think it was fine. Assuming they aren’t serving paint chips in the cafeteria, there is usually an ideal way of playing a game that the developers really wish you’d adopt. Do they get that across? Why not? Why would it be better for them to do it your way?


I’m not having fun.


A game review is a consumer report that explains how well a piece of software generates an artificial experience for the user. If you’re not having fun, the game is either trying to give you an experience that doesn’t revolve around making you happy or something is broken in the system. Your job is to explain what’s busted, not tell us your feelings that day.


The graphics are terrible.


We’re talking about an artistic medium that started out as a green dot on a round screen. Everything from text to blocky 8-bit graphics has at one point been considered a great video game. The question is whether or not they communicate the information the game needs properly so that it doesn’t inhibit gameplay.


There are no new game mechanics.


Video games by their nature rely on the pre-existing skills of the player. Part of the way a game appeals to an audience is by being like other games, an FPS plays like an FPS and a Third Person game works on the same basic principles. So it’s inherent for there to be a lot of overlap in any game while changing up weapons and play styles. If you find yourself thinking that the game needs new game mechanics, it’s probably due to dull level design and not working with what it has creatively. Also, complaining that there is no new gameplay in an episodic game series is pretty mind-boggling for the exact same reasons: episodic games by their nature are content delivery systems. The person who plays them does so because it stays familiar, not because they want to play a tutorial every time they fire it up.


The game is too easy.


The odds are that someone who writes reviews of video games has probably been playing them a long time. They are, as a consequence, better at video games than the average person. Staying objective here usually means just playing a game at its normal setting and having some kind of standard based on the game’s intent. Call of Duty 4’s difficulty works because if I go running ahead of my squad and start firing everywhere I’ll die. Bioshock’s kinda breaks down because I can just kill a Big Daddy with a pistol on Normal. If anything, a game that’s too hard even for a game reviewer is the most problematic because it’s catering to a niche audience way more than a game that’s too easy. Does the difficulty stay rational and maintain a sense of fairness about what’s expected of you?


The mini-games don’t have any depth.


I’ve actually read this before so there is apparently some kind of expectation that a mini-game be anything other than a short diversion. The basic use of these things in something like Grand Theft Auto or Zelda is to give you something to do when you get stuck or tired of the main game. Beyond Good & Evil took it one step further by having the entire game be made out of a string of mini-games, but that’s a different bag. The point is that they’re functionally icing on the cake. You aren’t supposed to automatically want to sit there and play them for hours. If you do, like a fishing game or bowling, then the more the merrier. But it’s not really a valid complaint to say that a superficial diversion is, in fact, a superficial diversion.


Criticizing gameplay elements in isolation.


This would be the classic scenario of “Resident Evil 4 sucks because you can’t move while shooting” or “Bionic Commando sucks because you can’t jump”. Which is a totally legitimate reason to not like a game and people should be told that. But taking it as a reason to knock the entire game misses the point the design is trying to make. Bionic Commando wants you to use the arm, Resident Evil 4 stays scary by making you vulnerable when you’re shooting. If the overall game design doesn’t really come together that’s one thing, but taking one tiny portion and considering it inherently bad misses the forest for the trees.


Complaining that a fighting game doesn’t have a deep story.


Seeing this in a review gives new meaning to the term “reaching”. For some genres plot is very important, for others it’s barely even a factor.


Complaining that a Game Doesn’t Have Multiplayer.


This is one of those criticisms that didn’t even make sense back when people made it ten years ago. When the original Darkforces came out, most magazines labeled it as inferior to Doom because it didn’t have multiplayer. The problem with that complaint is that 1) the levels wouldn’t even remotely work for multiplayer and 2) the guns were ridiculously unbalanced. It was an FPS trying to deliver a solid single-player experience and they didn’t have time to balance and organize a game that wasn’t one-sided. Now, thanks to years of people dropping this mindless complaint, games will add piss-poor multiplayer without much development or planning. Should the price change if the game doesn’t have multiplayer? Definitely. Is it a flaw to not be able to go online inherently? Not really.


From universal.com

From universal.com


Complaining that a re-released classic title is old.


This is a real head scratcher. Complaining that ChronoTrigger is the exact same as it was 16 years ago is a bit like whining about Oliver Twist still being the same old book. The game is a JRPG classic and when someone buys it, that’s what they want. The same applies for retro-remakes. If they’re blatantly trying to remake a 1980’s style game for older gamers (the average age is 30, remember?), that’s what they want. Getting annoyed at The Dark Spire for making you need graph paper, being ridiculously hard, and requiring tons of grinding misses the point that it’s a pitch-perfect homage to Wizardry. If the developer’s intent is to appeal to nostalgia, you have to gauge how well they do it, not compare it to today’s standards. A younger gamer can just read “It’s old school design” and know what they’re getting into. There are, believe it or not, people of all ages and backgrounds playing video games regularly.


Bookmark and Share
Text:AAA
Friday, Jul 3, 2009
Sometimes play is its own reward.

When starting a new game in Tom Clancy’s EndWar, the player is faced with three options for difficulty: Normal, Expert, and Hardcore. When I saw the choices for the first time I immediately choose Expert because I had been conditioned by numerous games over several years to know that the middle option was always the medium difficulty. Sure it was labeled “Expert” but I knew it was just a label. Before getting into the game proper, the player is encouraged to play through the Prologue, what is essentially a series of tutorials familiarizing the player with the various mission types. I did, and I could not beat the third mission. I lost so fast, so many times that I turned off the game in frustration and didn’t touch it for a month. When I finally went back to it, I started a new game on Normal. I beat the Prologue, I won World War III, and I had a blast doing so. As someone who usually never plays a game on the lowest difficulty setting, it was easy for me to rationalize the switch because the setting was labeled Normal. This was the setting the game was meant to be played on, right? Be that as it may, there’s no denying that I had to switch to lowest difficulty setting in order to get past the third tutorial mission. But I don’t really mind anymore, because I loved conquering Europe and Russia and I’d gladly choose that experience again any day.


Mitch Krpata at Insult Swordfighting wrote a series of posts in which he tried to come up with new words to describe people’s gaming habits since “casual” and “hardcore” are horribly inadequate. He wrote, “Some people play to master a game—to perfect its mechanics, to explore every inch of the game world. Some play to “see the sights”—to hit the high points and not get too caught up in the minutiae. Let’s call these groups ‘Skill Players’ and ‘Tourists.’” There are further subcategories, but for now these two terms effectively describe two distinct (though not mutually exclusive) styles of play. One plays for the experience, the other for the challenge.


These differences in play are exemplified in the blogosphere in people’s reactions to Red Faction: Guerrilla, and the news that New Super Mario Bros. Wii will incorporate Nintendo’s new “demo play.”


Russ Frushtick at the MTV Multiplayer blog and Chris Kohler from Wired’s GameLife blog both write about why they played Red Faction: Guerrilla on the Casual difficulty. Kohler describes what a difference the switch made, “I could absorb far more of the enemies’ bullets, meaning that instead of having to hang back and pick them off from afar, I could run up to the soldiers swinging my sledgehammer, taking all of them out with brutal bashes to the head. I could destroy enemy buildings with impunity, not having to worry that I’d be sniped as I was gleefully reducing a communications tower to splinters.” Frushtick writes about his frustration with the game on Normal, “What did get old was getting shot and dying. Having to run around corners to wait for my health to recharge. Having to take cover and use strategy when all I want to do is rush forward and bash the world in the face with my large hammer. If the difficulty impedes access to the greatest part of a game, just toss the difficulty!” That sentiment more effectively describes the Tourist gamer than any dictionary definition. Sometimes it’s fun to just play.  The mere act of messing around, of shooting and jumping and climbing and smashing and exploring and discovering and dying and doing it all over again, is enough.


But what then, if free play such a good thing, is one to make of Nintendo’s “demo play,” which clearly takes that away from the player. “Demo play” is a kind of help system that would allow players to get past a certain parts of a game by essentially letting the game play itself, and then jumping back in when they’re ready. Reactions by gamers have been mixed, with some supporting it, some indifferent, and some despising it, but the one complaint that caught my attention was the worry that certain players would just watch the game play itself all the way though, treating the game as a movie.


Even if a player watches a game play itself to the end and only jumps in to participate in the final battle, he’s still embracing the very thing that separates games from movies: Interactivity. The player is being given the option of choosing which challenges he’ll face. Skipping certain sections of any game will certainly change the experience for the player, but changes it for the better. For players who find pleasure in watching a game unfold, and not in the challenge of beating it, skipping a hard part only adds to their experience.


Maybe I’m alone in this, but I like the more extreme possibilities of “demo play.” As much as I would like to play Mass Effect, BioShock, Assassin’s Creed, Call of Duty 4, or any of the Splinter Cell games again before their sequels come out, I just don’t have the time. I would love to experience those games again in some condensed form, to refresh myself on the stories and characters without having to commit eight to twelve hours to each game. Maybe just a half hour here and there to fight a Big Daddy, assassinate a 12th century politician, or shoot down a helicopter. Just for the fun of it.


Bookmark and Share
Text:AAA
Wednesday, Jul 1, 2009
With a lot of hard work and elbow grease, not only can one survive, but the individual can eventually land the princess.

Mario has always confounded me.  Video gaming’s first sex symbol, Lara Croft?  I get her appeal.  Solid Snake has that Clint Eastwood vibe.  And over 80 years of American cinema has clearly established the irresistibility of large apes with the surname Kong.  But, a stout plumber with a great deal of facial hair?  What makes him a superstar?


Certainly, there is something to be said for firsts.  Mario is one of the first video game characters to become recognizable in part because of his persistent appearance in Nintendo arcade games like Donkey Kong (1981), Donkey Kong Jr. (1982), Mario Bros. (1983), and Super Mario Bros. (1985).  Part of this persistence of the character may be due to his original conception. 


While Shigeru Miyamoto initially imagined Mario as a carpenter in Donkey Kong, he was reconceptualized as a plumber by the time he and his brother Luigi were to appear in a game titled for these two regular joes.  Indeed, Miyamoto reportedly designed Mario with an eye to creating a character that would be relatable to players as an emblem of the common man.  The traditional uniform of the labor classes, overalls, seems a simple enough visual sign to send the message of who Mario was intended to be. 


While I have often found myself baffled by his iconic stature, perhaps, I shouldn’t—especially as an American who should easily recognize the especially American appeal of a hero based not on the traditional qualities of a hero but instead on Emersonian and Puritanical work ethics.  Mario’s first official appearance as a plumber in Mario Bros. contains more than just a brief nod to the uniform of labor.  Its gameplay is wedded (maybe “welded” would be a better choice of words given the blue collar roots of this “American” hero) to the ethics and heroism of work.  Mario and Luigi spend their working hours cleaning out pipes from invading reptiles. 


Interestingly, the game suggests that the work of plumbing is its own reward.  Points in Mario Bros. are accrued by doing the dirty work of keeping the tunnels clean by ridding them of turtles and through the acquisition of spare change (coins) that emerge from time to time from the pipes above.  Turtle extermination and gathering pennies lead to more life for Mario as this work and coin is translated into points that earn “extra lives.”  In Mario Bros., work is performed only so that work can continue. 


Working to acquire money for the sake of survival becomes a persistent theme in the adventures of Mario through this mechanic of money being used to purchase life.  The value of money for survival is established more directly in Super Mario Bros..  Defeating fungus and winged turtles no longer gains Mario anything other than points, but 100 coins always translates into an extra life.  Thus, the practicality of a working class experience is more expressly represented in the economics of the franchise.  The working man is always working hand to mouth.  With every nickel and dime, Mario ekes out a continued existence.


If Mario is heroic as a hard worker though, it is in a kind of Faulknerian sense—because he “endures” through his persistent labor—he is also a hero rewarded in less pragmatic ways.  If perseverance is the practical means to an end in the American mythology surrounding work, the end goal that hard work is intended to realize is one much more ideal in nature, the realization of the American Dream.  The notion that success is a “dream” (as American nomenclature suggests) removes the concept from the realms of pure pragmatism and more clearly recognizes its idealized and romantic nature, the stuff of transcendental dream.  This romanticism may explain why Mario finds himself in such extraordinary circumstances in so many of his appearances.  The blue collar worker rather than a knight in shining armor (the kind of traditional romantic hero of European culture) is the one who will save the girl from the giant ape in Donkey Kong.  Yet, this image is further romanticized in Super Mario Bros. because he is the regular guy who will save, not the girl next door, but the Princess herself. Unlike, the goal of saving Pauline from Donkey Kong, Mario does not simply get the girl—he gets the girl that is emblematic of wealth and prestige, seemingly the end goals of American sticktuitiveness.  That Mario has to traverse seven worlds in Super Mario Bros. and defeat seven incarnations of Bowser and yet is consistently met with the anti-climatic announcement, “Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle!” speaks to Mario’s perseverance as a man committed to keeping his eye on the prize.  If you keep working, eventually you will get to World 8-4 and real success.


In other words, Mario is not merely relatable as a regular joe, but his progress from the labor class to a a man capable of mixing with the elite is a familiar claim of the American dream of upward mobility.  With a lot of hard work and elbow grease, not only can one merely survive, but the individual can eventually land the princess and everything that she represents.


So, while lacking sex appeal, a laconic presence, or even some basic semblance of cool, I guess I can understand that Mario’s appeal stems in part from his possession of true grit and a dream.  Forget G. I. Joe, Mario seen in this way is the real American hero.


Bookmark and Share
Text:AAA
Tuesday, Jun 30, 2009
A closer look at The Path and its various elements.

Discussing The Path without discussing spoilers is mostly an exercise in generalizations. The entire game design is a weirdly subversive content delivery system and abstaining from explaining that content doesn’t really do the game justice. Spoilers Abound, as always. The Path is a video game variation of the oldest known version of ‘Little Red Riding’ which you can find here. The moral at the end explains that girls who are just reaching maturity and are taken advantage of by, “The Wolfe, I say, for Wolves too sure there are of every sort, and every character. Some of them mild and gentle-humour’d be Of noise and gall, and rancour wholly free”. The wolf in the story is a metaphor for those who relieve young girls of their innocence, often as the story notes often by acting nicely as well as cruelly. The game is a literal manifestation of this: you play as six different girls walking to Grandma’s house. The game design entices you off the trail to discover a wide collection of secrets, one of which will prove to be the end of the child’s journey and the beginning of another.


The game design is setup to give the player a few key choices about how to conduct themselves. If you stick to the path you will make it to grandma’s house and see your young self sitting on a bed while an old woman still lies dormant. Off in the corner is a wolf frozen in motion. The game will rattle off all the secrets you missed and point out that you did not encounter the wolf. It is preying on the typical gamer habit of collecting secrets and the curious power that telling a gamer “You didn’t win” seems to have over them. Fire up the game again and you can wander off the path into a forest full of secrets. There are 144 randomly placed flowers that can be collected along with a set number of unlockable secret events for each girl that are unique. Throughout this exploration section a girl in a white dress will run about who will occasionally take you back to the path if you engage with her long enough. The forest itself is disorienting and visually difficult to navigate but eventually a mapping system takes over in the form of symbols of various wolf sites. Running causes your view of the surroundings to go away because the camera moves up so the best way to travel is walking very slowly. Depending on how many secrets you collect the final montage at the end of the game will change, particularly if you find the wolf event.


Finding a concrete interpretation of the game is surprisingly difficult for two reasons. The first is that the wolf varies from being metaphorical to literally drinking a few beers with a guy before the screen fades to black. Dark and disturbing noises follow before the girl wakes up on the path disoriented and walking slowly to Grandma’s house. Inside the house a linear rail sequence starts up that has you looking through a variety of disturbing rooms while lights flash that all echoes of David Lynch cinematography. There is, to put it lightly, a great deal of room for interpretation about what this is supposed to imply. The other problem is that all of this symbolism changes depending on how many secrets you chose to discover. 8 Bit Hack argues that each girl is a stage of the grandmother’s life. He explains, ““Each of the Riding Hoods play the role of one stage of the old woman’s young life, from the bright eyed Robin to the learned Scarlet. The wolf, in his many forms, represents the betrayal and cruelty waiting out in the world when you stray from what you know, what is safe, and what is easy.”


We got into an argument about how many of the girl’s scenes were implying rape (a similar one came up at Brainy Gamer) and realized that we had both seen very different imagery. Whereas he saw one of the girls tied up with razor wire and bleeding, I saw an image of a scarecrow chasing children underneath a bed. This then becomes problematic because although I usually tried to get two or three secrets per girl I rarely bothered to find every single one. Given how difficult such an act would be, the designers seem to have created an interesting method for insuring their imagery always remains vibrant or unique for each person. With the exception of the wolf scene, the game is actually quite open to interpretation because the game design generates its images based on the player’s actions.


It is also worth noting that the game plays with your relationship with these girls in a very unique way. The initial tropes of the game start off as role play, we empathize with the girl in the way one normally does with their avatar in a game. The initial shock and horror begins to fade as one becomes accustomed to the system however, leading to a certain kind of transformation in the player. The 99th over at Play This Thing! argues that the player themselves are becoming the wolf. He explains, “The core gameplay involves figuring out what the 3rd person characteristics are of each of the girls. Figuring these things out enables you to say “ok, I bet this girl would interact with that object”, which leads to results.” In this way we are a kind of seducer, studying the girl and taking her to the places we know will resonate with her. We discover little bits of information about them through poetic reactions to the items they discover or by what they’re wearing. And with this knowledge we guide them to their inevitable wolf, their violation and loss of innocence.


What is at the core of these numerous choices and unlockables is a story about the loss of innocence. When Scarlet sees flowers she opines about how dirty nature is, when she approaches a piano in the woods she muses, “Art is where the nobility of humanity is expressed, I could not live in a world without it.” As the grey haired musician teaches her to play the screen fades and we awake outside Grandma’s house. The final scene is to a clapping audience, a green curtain rising up, and a thud as the screen goes to black. Her juvenile views of music and art are gone, the child that would’ve been sitting on the bed next to the dormant old woman is gone. The young Robin contemplates, “People die. It’s hard to imagine for a kid like me. They die and we put them in the ground. Like flowers.” A hulking wolf wanders about the graveyard when we approach and Robin leaps onto his back just as she does every secret she has found in the woods. As funeral bells begin to ring out, wolf carries us to the top of the hill, and gives out a great howl in triumph. The final scene is us falling into a dark hole, a grave. Robin’s innocence is lost as she realizes the true nature of death and its inevitability. So it goes with the other four girls offering a new take on a development in a person’s life. Impressions about art, death, and for several sex are all explored.


I would ignore reviews that complain it is not a game or who take the imagery literally. Death is symbolically the mechanics of change in people, the current personality must die in order for the new one to grow and take effect. Michael Abbott once wrote that you can’t ever dictate the meaning of imagery to someone in a game because our relationship with these things is always unique. The point has merit, particularly in a game like this that is full of so much nuance and ambiguity. You can, however, accurately predict people’s relationship with game design elements. There is a path and if you stick to it the game will tell you that you did not discover all sorts of secrets. Irked, the player will go exploring on the second round, collecting items and trying to navigate the confusing forest. Making the controls minimal and passive will generate uneasiness in the player while large amounts of conduct and action continue to happen with little input from them. Eventually, you will be placed in a situation where you have no control at all and can only watch as the inevitable happens. Like a dream where the subject is helpless, The Path is a game that frightens you not with thrills but instead with how it makes you feel.


Bookmark and Share
Text:AAA
Friday, Jun 26, 2009
Consequences are better represented through story than karma systems.

The opening scene in Indigo Prophecy is one of the most memorable moments in gaming for anyone that’s played it. The main character, Lucas, goes into a trance and kills a man in the bathroom of a small restaurant. Play it once and it seems fairly unremarkable: You clean up the murder scene and flee out the back door. Not much happens. But on a second try, when the player realizes the wealth of options available, it’s impossible not to feel a sense of wonder. Clean up the murder? Hide the murder weapon? Wash your hands? Pay your bill? Call someone? The vast number of small choices is impressive, but the real accomplishment of this scene is that all these choice are presented to the player without any moral implications. There aren’t any “good” or “bad” options. Cleaning up the murder doesn’t make you a bad person, and paying your bill doesn’t make you a good person. The game presents the player choice without morality.


Unfortunately the rest of the game failed to live up to that level of ingenuity. The story of Indigo Prophecy was split into several scenes, and while each scene has its own variety of choices, their consequences had little effect on the next scene. The game was structured like a series of sandboxes, giving players a false sense of control when really we were being pulled along a traditional linear narrative. For all the choices we had to make, the consequences ultimately didn’t matter.


A karma system would have fixed this dilemma by putting our actions in a larger context. Even though players would essentially be leveling up their character with arbitrary points, we would at least know that our actions were contributing to something greater than our current situation. A karma system lets us know where our actions stand in the grand scheme of things. If game doesn’t use arbitrary points to give our actions consequence, than that consequence must come through in the story: The consequences of any decision must directly affect the story for the player to feel like their input genuinely matters. If we can see the results of our actions on the plot or the characters, than there’s no need for a system of points.


The flash game Storyteller by Daniel Benmergui takes this approach to consequence in games. It’s beautiful in its simplicity: Told in just three panels, it distils the classic adventure story into three pivotal scenes and three pivotal choices. It revolves around three characters, and depending on how the player rearranges them within each scene, the outcome of the story changes. Does the knight kill the wizard or does the wizard kill the knight? Does the prince save the princess or does the princess save the prince? We could make a story with no conflict and a happy ending, or one in which all the heroes die. There’s no need for a karma system because we can immediately see the short-term and long-term consequences of our actions on the lives of these characters. The downside to this is that there’s not much of a story to tell. The characters have no names and there’s no plot, the only real story is the one we make up and it can be as complex or as thin as our imaginations let it be. Bernmergui is giving up authorial control in order to let us experience the full breadth of choice and consequence.


So consequences free from morality must affect the story, but giving the player too many choices can dilute the story. A middle ground can be found in Mass Effect, which strikes a nearly perfect balance between these two options. We don’t have nearly as much control over the story as we do in Storyteller; Mass Effect, like Indigo Prophecy, is very linear. When we’re finally able to explore the solar system, we can only choose the order of which story-progressing missions we accept, but we still have to complete all of them before we can advance. We can change how the story is told, but not the story itself. To make up for this we’re given choices at key moments with dire consequences, such as the possible deaths of central characters. Since death is a real possibility, the tangible consequence of our actions can be felt in the main story. There are also several short stories within the game whose endings are entirely dependant on our actions. There’s the mourning man who wants the military to give him his wife’s dead body, the gambler who wants us to test a device that will help him cheat, or the waitress worried about her sister working as an undercover agent. By giving the player choices within these short stories, and consequences that play out with these minor characters and sub-plots, we don’t notice how little we actually affect the main story.


But there’s no ignoring the fact that Mass Effect does have a karma system. Every choice we make gives us either Paragon points or Renegade points, and for most gamers these easily translate into “good” and “evil.” Such associations are unfortunate because the Renegade options are hardly evil. Some actions may make Shepard act cold, but never truly evil. The game does a commendable job giving us a range of emotions in our choices without making those choices blatantly good or bad, but the presence of the karma system undermines everything the game does right by separating all the consequences into only two categories. Sometimes the Renegade option is the best choice, but it may be difficult to convince a player trying to play through the game as a good character to go with that option simply because of its unwarranted assumption of being “evil.”


The karma system is a narrative shortcut: Instead of writing consequences into the story, a player is given points and measures consequence by how full the “good” or “bad” meter is. Yet it’s become an established feature of open ended games, sometimes to the detriment of the game. Even though it’s a relatively new mechanic (at least in its more comprehensive forms) it’s already outdated as games like Storyteller and Mass Effect prove it’s possible to represent consequence without the morality.


Now on PopMatters
PM Picks
Announcements

© 1999-2014 PopMatters.com. All rights reserved.
PopMatters.com™ and PopMatters™ are trademarks
of PopMatters Media, Inc.

PopMatters is wholly independently owned and operated.