'400 Days' of Loving Abuse

Since I don’t know these people very well, I’m less invested in their well being. I want to help them survive, but I also want to fuck with them.

When I was playing Telltale’s The Walking Dead, I was so invested in the plight of Lee and Clementine that every choice felt intensely personal. So personal that I was unable to go back and replay the game. Making any other choice just seemed wrong, like a betrayal of the character and myself. It’s good that Lee and Clem are nowhere to be seen in 400 Days (unless that brief flash of a photo on the billboard of a girl with a backpack and hat was in fact Clem) because it allows me to forge a different kind of relationship with the game.

I wrote a while ago about the roles that we take on while gaming: Writer, Actor, Player, and Character ("How Can I Be Me?: The Gamer's Role in Interactive Fiction", PopMatters, 8 November 2010). I spent much of The Walking Dead as an Actor inhabiting the role of Lee, trying to think like the character and make the kinds of choices that felt right for him, even if they weren’t right for me (though usually they felt right for both of us because that’s just how The Walking Dead is designed).

The short stories of 400 Days are different. That great design of the dialogue systems keeps pushing you towards personal emotional investment, but the brevity of each story makes true emotional investment impossible. As a result, I find myself shifting between roles. Specifically, the roles of Actor and Writer, between someone who wants to make choices that stay true to the character as he or she is presented and someone who wants to purposefully challenge how those characters are presented. I want to think like them, and I want to help them survive. However, I also want to fuck with them. It’s an oddly abusive relationship, but then the best stories always abuse their characters.

Since I don’t know these people very well, I’m less invested in their well-being, which means I tend to make choices that I think will lead to an interesting conflict even as I justify that choice within each character’s situation.

As Russell, I chose to stay with the psychopath Nate because he displayed a sincere trust in me. I knew he had my back even if he was willing to stab everyone else in theirs. But then I also love how much of a wild card Nate is, and I’m interested to see what kind of chaos he’ll cause. As Shel, I chose to drive away because she couldn't execute a friend and her group's leader, Roman, had become a tyrant. But then, killing that friend, Stephanie, would kind of have to end Shel’s character arc, and I’d much rather stretch it out. As Vincent, I chose to save Danny the statutory rapist because he seems like an okay dude, but I was disappointed that Danny died before he got to meet Shel’s teenage sister Becca. It’s not that I wanted to see Becca get hurt, but I did want to see her in danger, especially if that danger arose from the actions of a character I saved -- because danger like that is just more interesting than zombies or the lives and day-to-day problems of random survivors.

It’s like playing a game of D&D as the Dungeon Master and as a player at the same time. I want to help these characters survive, but I also want them to risk their lives. I want to steer them into the fire and then help them escape. I love them, but I want to abuse them.

For as great as The Walking Dead was, I don’t want Season 2 to be just more of the same. That’s what makes 400 Days so reassuring.

It uses the same excellent design of The Walking Dead to slightly different aims. Telltale can mess with pacing and narrative, free to set up stories and conflicts without the burden of having to follow through on them. This means 400 Days evokes a different relationship between player and character than The Walking Dead did, and that kind of difference is a good thing. 400 Days is more Walking Dead, but it’s not more of the same Walking Dead, which bodes well for the future.

I can’t wait to feel guilty for fucking with these characters.

The year in song reflected the state of the world around us. Here are the 70 songs that spoke to us this year.

70. The Horrors - "Machine"

On their fifth album V, the Horrors expand on the bright, psychedelic territory they explored with Luminous, anchoring the ten new tracks with retro synths and guitar fuzz freakouts. "Machine" is the delicious outlier and the most vitriolic cut on the record, with Faris Badwan belting out accusations to the song's subject, who may even be us. The concept of alienation is nothing new, but here the Brits incorporate a beautiful metaphor of an insect trapped in amber as an illustration of the human caught within modernity. Whether our trappings are technological, psychological, or something else entirely makes the statement all the more chilling. - Tristan Kneschke

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.