Category Archives: The Games

April 27, 2015

Teenagent (1995)

Teenagent-cover Teenagent-UScover
Teenagent-title
developed by Metropolis Software House (Warsaw, Poland)
first published by Metropolis Software House, February 26, 1995, for DOS, 49 zł (= $20 (1995 rate))
first published in the US as “shareware” by Union Logic Software Publishing, April (?) 1995, for DOS, $29.95
GOG package ~25MB. Actual game ~15MB.

Played to completion in 3 hours, 4/25/15–4/26/15.

[video: 2-hour complete playthrough]

Still working through the GOG free-for-all. This one was added to GOG on April 1, 2009 as the 100th game in their catalog.


Though it isn’t at all obvious from their friendly English-language website, GOG is actually based in Warsaw. It is a subsidiary of an older Polish company called CD Projekt. In 2007, CD Projekt had bought and absorbed Metropolis, the developers of Teenagent. Metropolis had declared Teenagent freeware way back in 1999; it only took four years for the company to feel they’d advanced so far beyond it that selling it actually detracted from their reputation. So basically: the parent company of GOG had this extremely silly game in their pocket, of sentimental value to Poles generally and to its developers specifically (some of whom are still on staff), so they decided to make it their 100th game as some kind of April Fools’ goof, or at least half-goof.

Going in, I knew this was going to be a clumsy old third-rate Polish adventure game, resurrected as a nostalgic indulgence for the Warsaw office that grew up with it. Even if you haven’t watched any of the gameplay video, just the box images above should give a sense of the production quality: verging on the homemade. So it was to my surprise that I found myself genuinely charmed and amused.

There were tons of intensely clonky amateur adventure games being passed around in the 90s, made by teenagers who, like me, were totally enraptured by the LucasArts games, and then, unlike me, felt compelled to try their hand at the craft. Generally those games were riddled with compulsive references and quotes from Monkey Island or Zak McKracken or the like. The real LucasArts games already had an offhand, self-deflating manner that frequently descended to frame-breaking “in-jokes.” So fans who were eagerly following in their footsteps felt all the more encouraged to indulge their impulses toward geeky mimicry and allusion; it was already a part of the style. Unfortunately it also made most of those games basically unbearable. Well-made adventure games appeal to the 12-year-old boy in me, but the creations of other 12-year-old boys don’t.

(It always seemed dumb to me when things like Stone Soup magazine implied that kids really want to read the writings of other kids. Trust me, they don’t; they want to read things that are good. So much stuff is directed at kids with this clueless and insincere message of “empowerment” based around the premise that kidhood is a political identity like race or religion, and that kids inherently want to band together laterally and form a community of mutual respect. Pshaw!)

Teenagent has very much the naive look and feel of those games. It initially seems like something made by 12-year-olds. But it quickly becomes clear that if so, they’re the very best kind of 12-year-olds, the kind who pounce on any opportunity for silliness and never settle for mere good form. In the game, you get a feather from a chicken. When you examine it in your inventory, the game says “It’s kicking ass.”

I feel like that about sums it up.

Because the game was not made by actual American 12-year-olds, whose attention would falter at some point and leave gaping holes, but rather by totally goofy Polish programmers who were capable of following through, there’s actually a completely functional game here, surprisingly generous of graphics, animation, and dialogue. For complete artlessness it’s fairly skilled. So it’s sort of the ideal 12-year-old’s game, something that could only be made by adult (well, at least college-age) Europeans. Europe has less of a stigma against childlike silliness. It’s kicking ass.


Okay, but the game is not in fact ideal. I wish I could say that it’s a folk-art delight through and through but it’s not; it’s got actual problems. First of all, it has super-dopey music that, though amusing at first, unfortunately exists only in very very short loops, which repeat incessantly. After 45 minutes of a particular 30-second inanity, there’s no longer any way of construing it as naive charm: it’s undeniably a flaw.

More importantly, I can’t recommend anyone sit down and play it through because it’s not fair enough. I had to cheat eleven different times, which I think is a record for me and adventure games. The logic is absolutely ludicrous, which is all in good fun (and par for the course), but there aren’t nearly enough hints built into the game to nudge the player toward the correct nonsense and away from the incorrect. There are lots of actions that if you attempt them, you just get a generic “That doesn’t work” type response, when you ought properly to get a “Good idea, but I think I need something a little smaller” type response that would help guide you where you need to go. When your inventory fills up with 20 objects and there are 17 different rooms available full of stuff to “use” them all on, trial and error is not a viable way of proceeding, and yet players will inevitably have moments where they feel they have no other option. I had eleven such moments — well, actually, many more than eleven, because a lot of the time my trial and error paid off. The eleven cheats came when even my attempts to exhaust all likely possibilities came to nil.

If you gave me just the game text to revise, without adding any new animations or interactions, I think I could make it much more fair, by adding lots of little nudges to narrow the options. I could also fix various infelicities in the Polish-written English (“All I care about is the respect of the science society respect.”), although I must say I was impressed by how few there were, and how idiomatic a lot of their goofiness had been made to sound. Even the pun of the title (get it?) suggests an impressive fluency. Sort of.

I counted roughly 100 actions in this 3-hour game. That comes out to better than one every two minutes, which is so markedly different a pace from the four-minute trudges of the prior two games that it feels almost like a different species. It reminded me a little of those French Gobliiins games, which packed the maximum number of silly puzzly interactions into each area. In such a game, the sense of flow becomes quite different: most of the gameplay overtly takes place in completely frozen narrative time, like song-time in a musical, whereas in the American games (and the UK games I’ve just played) there is more of an attempt to keep alive the strained impression that every puzzle relates directly to the narrative and that the narrative is always in motion, even though it has to slow to a crawl while you deal with the details. I find the European style more conducive to daydream-y play, but the impression they make is also more frivolous.

Of course “frivolous” doesn’t even begin to describe what goes on here.


The second part of the game is all about trying to get into the mansion of the villain; you have to attempt to get in five different ways, one of which is to sneak in through a secret tunnel, the entrance to which is a trap door.

The trap door is in a clearing in the forest, under a beehive surrounded by bees. You refuse to go near enough to open it while the bees are there. The solution is to throw a dart at the beehive, which pierces it and lets some honey drip out, instantly attracting a bear from offscreen, who lumbers on and then quickly exits pursued by the bees, clearing them from the scene. There is no actual dart in the game: you create a makeshift one by sticking a needle in the front of a pinecone and a feather in the back. The needle you find by searching a haystack. The feather you get by kicking a chicken. The pinecone is initially seen stuck to the back of a hedgehog, from whence you refuse to simply pick it up, because you don’t want to poke yourself on the quills. The way you get it is by bringing the hedgehog a fake plastic apple and telling it you’ll exchange the apple for the pinecone; the hedgehog accepts this deal and turns over the pinecone, then storms off in dismay when he finds the apple is fake. You get this plastic apple from a bowl of imitation fruit in an old lady’s living room. She won’t let you take it without listening to a tedious story, which you refuse to do; the only way to get it is to surreptitiously swap it, so quickly that she doesn’t notice, replacing it with a “large nut.” The nut is initially found on a high branch of a tree, out of reach, but next to a squirrel. If you talk to the squirrel and ask it for the nut, it refuses. However, if you talk to it four times in a row, eventually you anger it so thoroughly that it hurls the nut at you… but it falls into some grass, in which it can’t be located by hand. To retrieve the nut from the grass you have to rake it out. Unfortunately when you first find the rake, it’s old and damaged and its remaining teeth are too far apart to be effective. To restore it to usability, you have to bind the teeth closer to one another with a ribbon. The old lady’s pretty granddaughter gives you the ribbon, to remember her by, as thanks for having given her a heart-shaped chocolate in foil. The foil wrapper is found loose on the ground and you must apply it to the chocolate yourself. Furthermore, the chocolate, which is given to you by the guard in front of the mansion as consolation for your not being allowed entrance, is initially round rather than heart-shaped. You must bring it to a cabinet with heart-shaped holes, and push it through one of the holes, which trims it.

That’s how you get in the trap door.

If you are chuckling and shaking your head at such a cavalcade of stupidity, you are in fact enjoying the game as it was intended to be enjoyed. Maybe you’d like it after all.


Credits. The leads here are still in the industry and making prominent games.

Adrian Chmielarz: programming, “ideas”
Grzegorz Miechowski: animation, “ideas”
Andrzej Sawicki: “ideas”
Tomasz Pilik: additional animation
Andrzej Dobrzynski: backgrounds
Radek Szamrej: music
Peter Wells: “translation help”

April 25, 2015

Beneath a Steel Sky (1994)

BeneathASteelSky-cover BeneathASteelSky-coverUS
BeneathASteelSky-title
developed by Revolution Software (Hull, England) with Dave Gibbons (St. Albans, England)
first published by Virgin Interactive Entertainment, March 7, 1994 (maybe?), for Amiga/DOS, £34.99
(£34.99 = $59 at 3/94 conversion rate. 1994 $59 = 2015 $94.)
(not sure about the US price but what I’ve found suggests that it was probably $49.95. (=2015 $80))
[current website]
[closest thing to a trailer that existed in 1994]
GOG package ~100MB. Actual game ~70MB. (Original non-talkie version ~8MB.)

Played to completion in 5.5 hours, 4/21/15–4/23/15.

[video: a 3.5-hour complete playthrough that tries to show everything of interest including deaths etc.; or a 2.5-hour playthrough that doesn’t. Both unfortunately use the talkie audio.]

More mesmerizing clunkiness from the king of game genres.

1992–3 was probably the peak of my teenage intoxication with computer games, but 1994 wasn’t far behind. Those were years when I compulsively watched the shelves at the stores that carried games, and would eagerly accompany my mom to the mall, at any time, at a moment’s notice, for no other reason than to examine and memorize the current boxes yet again. There are many games that I never actually played that nonetheless loom reasonably large in my imagination because of my ravenous attention to stores and magazine ads in those years. (I have in fact put off playing this game for decades because the mediocre game will surely be of less value to me than my 1992 memories of contemplating the box and hoping against hope that inside was something indescribably immersive.)

So I’ve been well aware of the present game for twenty years: “Sure, Beneath a Steel Sky, British cyberpunk game by the people who later made Broken Sword. Guy in a futuristic suit walking around a futuristic city, escaping from a conspiracy or something. I can picture the box; I can picture the graphics. Supposed to be pretty good. People online call it ‘BASS’. Someday I’ll probably play it.”

Okay, now I did! Another 20-year curiosity brought to ground. That’s really the only news here.


The title screen you see above wasn’t actually part of my experience, because the “CD-ROM version” of the game as provided by GOG has no title screen. It says “Virgin Interactive Entertainment / Revolution / in association with Dave Gibbons PRESENT” … and then the game just begins with no further titles. I guess the game becomes its own signifier. “We present: [this].”

Or more likely it’s a mistake. What I glean (from the surprisingly scanty information available) is that the game was first released on floppy disks without speech and with a physical comic book serving as prologue (in March 1994? Earlier?)… and then some time afterward (in April 1994? Later?) was released for PC CD-ROM with full speech added, and with scans of the comic book incorporated as an onscreen intro, which is the version I played. However, the voice acting is badly done, as such things often were, and I turned it off after half an hour. Everything’s either ridiculously broad or else completely flat and uncomprehending. It sounds exactly like what it is: a marathon session of standing in a booth and plowing through hundreds of pages of disconnected sentences. I can only pity the poor actors who had to do these jobs back when nobody really knew how to produce them.

Here, you can try your own skill — here are three real lines from among the thousands, literally, in the massive non-linear spreadsheet script:

• He was carrying an ID card!
• No — I’m a stranger here.
• Don’t worry — I’ll fix everything.

Good luck coming up with some really compelling, committed, and context-appropriate readings. Understand that given our time constraints, we’re probably going to go with your first take. Also keep in mind that twenty years from now, people will still be playing this game — on their phones, in fact. I know that sentence doesn’t make sense to you yet… but your kids are gonna love it.

Anyway, I downloaded the floppy version to grab a title screen (because my responsibilities to this site demand it), and in retrospect maybe I should have just played that instead of the GOG package. Again. As with Lure of the Temptress, this is a game that Revolution saw fit to set free in 2003. Though interestingly they later found an opportunity to make money with it again, by selling an iOS version starting in 2009. Currently going for $2.99. The mobile market can be ahistorical that way.


As usual, the meaning of the game is mostly implicit in the aesthetic value of the graphics. The backgrounds were drawn by Watchmen artist Dave Gibbons and then converted into that distinctive “scanned-and-processed” style, with its mottled stucco textures: everything looks like it’s been spread as smoothly as possible over rough pixel toast. Somehow, that sandpapery substratum of scanned artwork always makes me particularly attuned to the emotional values of color, which can make a game intensely engaging if it has well-chosen palettes. But the colors in this game are just okay; in nearly every room I had the feeling of a missed opportunity to be more delicious. And I don’t particularly love Dave Gibbons’s draftsmanship, which can feel a little prickly and unstable, including in Watchmen, which I put off reading for years specifically because I found it so unattractive. (Then I finally read it a few years ago. It wasn’t terrible, but it sure is overrated.)

On the other hand, that itchy, un-delicious quality creates a certain synergy with the ominous cyberpunk tone of the story, which is not very elaborate or well written and mostly has to be felt between the lines. This is one of those works where its flaws sort of get subconsciously folded in with its intentions. (I’m thinking of Herk Harvey saying that the shoddiness of Carnival of Souls ended up being essential to its power.) As a piece of craftsmanship, Beneath a Steel Sky is actually a lot iffier than its fans would have you believe, but iffiness can become a kind of seedy noir atmosphere, if you are susceptible. And as I’ve said, one must already be profoundly susceptible if one likes adventure games in the first place.

The adventure gaming here is a very mixed bag. I counted about 90 actions, of which only a few were outrageously stupid — which should be taken as high praise in this genre. But at least a third of them were pretty stupid.

Pacing is actually a more important gauge of entertainment value, I think. 90 divided over 5.5 hours of play comes to an average of 3.7 minutes between successful, game-progressing actions. However my notes actually indicate that toward the beginning of the game, meaningful events came slower, more like one every 5 minutes, and toward the end of the game more like one every 2 minutes. This correlates pretty directly with my impression of the game’s quality, which was that it was really drab at first but then somewhat redeemed itself later on. I think there may be a general principle of narrative game pacing here: I want to feel that I’ve flipped a new card at least once every 3 minutes.

3 minutes feels to me like a good long time to be completely stumped, but not so long that it won’t seem worthwhile in retrospect. I guess this is an answer to my question from some entries ago about how much resistance I want before something gives way. All things being equal — i.e. in an adventure game where the “puzzles” might as well be Mad Libs (use [noun] with [noun]) — it seems like the answer is: about 2-3 minutes of resistance. Less and it hardly qualifies as getting stuck; more and the getting stuck starts to be an event with its own identity, a moment in my life that I might well as negative even after having reached a positive outcome. 2–3 minutes of problem, followed by success: that feels significant but also without any aftertaste of regret.

Of course, internal clocks tick at different speeds depending on one’s mood. If my brain is already on overdrive, I can’t stomach being stuck for even 20 seconds. Sometimes when I’m playing the piano I notice that I am intensely irritated at myself for having to think consciously about what I’m doing for even a tiny fraction of a second — that’s always a sign that it’s time to let go of whatever my goals are in that moment. Contrariwise if I am my most relaxed, slow-pulse, delta-wave self, I feel no angst about being “stuck” on a problem for days or weeks, because I don’t actually see it as “a problem.” But of course to that enlightened self, the only value in an accomplishment is whatever is intrinsic to it; the fact of “overcoming resistance” is not itself meaningful. Which is to say that adventure games would not have much to offer.

Maybe. It’s important for me to keep in mind that when I was a kid and was having my most transporting experiences with computer games, I never finished any of them, and didn’t aspire to. I fantasized about the games a lot, but it was never about winning or overcoming anything. Mostly it was just about what kinds of further wonders might spontaneously emerge from that charmed space.


Beneath a Steel Sky is about the big evil computer that runs the city, which is sci-fi plot number 12. In this case it turns out — Spoiler Sam here, wearing his Spoiler Sombrero! — that it turned evil because it merged with a human. The scientists thought this would be a great way to improve the computer because of how great man is, but actually the computer gained man’s wickedness, his greed and cunning blah blah blah, and became a world-domination monster.

Sci-fi stories are basically all just rigged debates about the relative virtues of the left brain (Spock) and the right brain (Kirk). The “evil computer that runs the city” archetype is an exhibit in the case for the right brain, for the primacy of emotions over cold logic. (See e.g. A Wrinkle In Time.) An “evil computer” story is generally supposed to end with the restoration of warm, emotional, mortal man to the center of the social order where he belongs. But that’s not what happens in Beneath a Steel Sky.

Here we have what I would describe as a neo-nerd inversion of the archetype: actually, the computer’s only evil because it’s not a pure computer, it’s sort of a person after all. In the last areas of the game, it’s seen that the computer has somehow sprouted a huge tangle of icky organic growths, veins and tendrils and whatnot, revealing that we’re not in a sci-fi number 12 after all, we’re actually in a number 7: “organic life is a creepy-crawly nightmare; get out the guns,” which is a case for the left brain, for the necessity of cold steel and no mercy, to keep disgusting flesh from overrunning everything.

The happy ending in this game is that the computer is tricked into giving up its link to humanity and is restored to its proper status as friendly inorganic appliance that, yes, runs everything. This surprise philosophical parity swap felt sad to me, because I got the impression it wasn’t calculated, just arrived at intuitively by the game’s creators, who were still imitating stories made up prior to the rise of computers, but could no longer feel the sense of them. “Cyberpunk,” I see in retrospect, was sort of a generational transition, with cultural fantasies passing uneasily from right to left, learning to love the spooky computers when betrayed by a world of seedy humanity. Maybe now, with stuff like Her (and maybe Ex Machina, which I have yet to see) we’re beginning to undergo the reverse transition — learning to love seedy humanity when betrayed by a world of spooky computers.


To psychoanalyze a bit further — and finish spoiling the game utterly — the actual final scene is sort of ripped off from Return of the Jedi: it turns out that the man brain-plugged into the computer for all these years is the protagonist’s (i.e. your) father, and that the computer has suckered you into this whole adventure of making your way to the inner sanctum so that you, being a blood relative, might replace your father now that he’s dying. When you win the game and escape the computer’s evil tendrils, you get to watch your father die in your arms, begging forgiveness for his error in creating this monster.

The only way I can see of interpreting this (which is to say of feeling it, if I try to feel it): the protagonist’s great victory is meant to be that he breaks the family chain of being all-too-human, and heroically manages to avoid his father’s mistake of letting gross veiny emotions interfere where pure techno-logic should rightly prevail.

That seems unfortunate. The real Return of the Jedi had a much better message: dare to love your dad, even though it might mean submitting to the zappies. But I guess a lot of Star Wars geeks (like the ones who wrote this game) still manage to read it the other way: do better than your dad, resist what he was unable to resist. I think that’s getting it backward.

The script for Return of the Jedi is pretty smart, all things considered. Boy, I really hope Lawrence Kasdan hasn’t gone nervous in his old age like the rest of them.


Anyway, I had an okay time with Beneath a Steel Sky, but I was expecting a lot better based on the game’s reputation. Sure, this was stronger than Lure of the Temptress but that’s not saying much. It’s still just a middling UK also-ran, not at all in the same league as the LucasArts games of the same period in terms of charm, polish, or entertainment value. The animation is probably its strongest suit and there’s only so much of it; the genre setting and some of the story ideas are really a promising match for an adventure game, but that’s all you get; it’s fleshed out with a lot of abrasive “comedy” and moronic digressions. (Give the motorcycle magazine to the motorcycle-loving travel agent in exchange for a tour ticket? This is cyberpunk?)

Your mileage will depend entirely on how willing you are to run with what they give you. I didn’t run, just strolled. Just like the slow-ass protagonist. I’ll be honest, I was usually thinking about other stuff while I played.

Good enough for free. More of the same coming up! Or worse, in fact!


Credits are basically the people who made Lure of the Temptress plus a few more plus Dave Gibbons.

Charles Cecil: director, design, system concept
Daniel Marchant: producer, design, system concept
Dave Cummins: design, writing, music
Dave Gibbons: design, art, background drawings, comic book
Tony Warriner: system concept and design, programming
David Sykes: system concept and design, programming
Les Pace: background paintings
Steve Ince: background paintings, graphics and animation
Tony Williams: music conversion, sound effects

And a few more.

April 13, 2015

Lure of the Temptress (1992)

LureOfTheTemptress-cover
LureOfTheTemptress-title
developed by Revolution Software (Hull, England)
first published by Virgin Games, June 1992, for Amiga/Atari ST/DOS, £30.99
(£30.99 = $59 at 6/92 conversion rate. 1992 $59 = 2015 $99.)
[current website]
GOG package ~40MB. Actual game ~2.6MB.

Played to completion in 4.5 hours, 4/10/15–4/11/15.


Finished with my 2011 purchases and moving right along.

On April 8, 2012, I read a blog post telling me to play a new game that was free at GOG.com. So I signed up for a GOG account, which was instantly populated with their seven free games.

Six of these I didn’t really ask for, but since I went on to be a fairly loyal GOG customer (well done, GOG! the promotional freebie tactic totally worked!), I’ve come to think of them as actual possessions and not just welcome-spam. So they’re on my list; they count. Here we go, in the order they were added to GOG in the first place.

Lure of the Temptress was added to the GOG catalog on December 18, 2008, only a few months after their launch. This was back when GOG officially stood for “Good Old Games,” unlike now, when it stands for “KFC.” Revolution Software officially declared this game “freeware” back in 2003, so when GOG worked out terms with Revolution for distributing their non-free games, the idea of “you get free games when you sign up” was just dropped in their laps. In the coming years they’d really run with it.


Lure of the Temptress is a quintessentially 1992 second-tier adventure game in which a medieval everyman wanders around a medieval everyvillage. He gives gem to bartender, uses tinderbox on oil burner, etc. etc. Eventually he winds up in “the castle,” and in the very final (non-interactive) moments of the game, uses a magic rock to zap a villain. Them’s the plot.

Now, this villain happens to be a woman in a dress, “the enchantress Selena.” But Selena does not appear until the last 10 seconds of the game, never speaks, and is of no consequence to the gameplay or even, arguably, to the story. The functional bad guys in the game are these orc-ish monstermen who are oppressing the townsfolk. We’re told at the outset that X commands the monstermen, where X is “Selena,” but apart from those last 10 seconds (and a brief Polyjuice Potion bit in the middle where the player assumes Selena’s appearance), X could just as well be any other quantity, including 0.

Here is a word that never appears in the game: “temptress.” Here is something that Selena never does: “lure” (or “tempt”) anyone in any way.

The story behind this game’s hilarious name: a few weeks before the release date, the publisher asked the developer to submit possible titles for the nearly-completed game (which did not have Selena in it at all). The project director wrote up a list, and included “Lure of the Temptress” on it as a joke. The publisher called him back and said they really liked that one, thought it would really sell. The director said, “But that was clearly just a joke; there’s no ‘temptress’ in this game.” The publisher said, “Well, you can put one in.”

And so they did.

This is coincidentally very similar to the way Leather Goddesses of Phobos came to be a game: the title originated as a “ha ha, can you imagine us being so unthinkably tawdry?” joke, and then someone said, “Yes!” And the jokester responded, “huh, I guess I can too.”

Or maybe it’s not such a coincidence. Humor is the magic mirror through which repressed emotions can sometimes reach out and become real; for nervous types (such as 80s computer professionals tended to be), scoffing at the outlandish tackiness of lust can be a natural sublimation of, and gateway to expressing, actual lust.

But of course, once you’ve committed to a public show of mocking the power of sex, any concessions you make to it are going to end up being severely cramped by shame. Cramped in scope but not necessarily in intensity! Which is what leads to the much-commented sexual cartoonishness of so much geek culture. Like I was saying about Shank, you aren’t going to have a lot of images to work with, so you’re going to overinvest in the ones you do.

God knows there are a lot of video games that reveal the stunningly limited sexual preoccupations of computer geeks. But for whatever reason — probably just time constraints — even after deciding to run with a ridiculous “we don’t care” title and cover, and shoehorning a dress-wearing villain into the nearly-finished game, the makers of Lure of the Temptress didn’t actually put in any hint of sex. It really is just pure marketing bullshit.

Okay, well, maybe a hint. When, in those final 10 seconds, Selena transforms (rather grotesquely) into a scorpion-demon-thing and then, after being zapped, back again into a woman, the animation includes the suggestion of naked breasts, in passing — something never lost on the target market. I guess that’s as much smut as they could manage on such short notice.

Anyway, seems to me the proper title of this game should be something hardcore bland like “Village Quest” or “Fantasy Adventure #2,” which were the kinds of things games were called back in the earliest days of home computers.

I bet you one of the real submissions for the game title was “Turnvale,” which is the name of the village, or, say, “The Secret of Turnvale.” That has the right lame-ass ring to it. Imagine that’s the title.


But enough about the title. What about the game?

The graphic adventure is probably my all-time favorite genre. It is also one of the most absurd and awkward forms of entertainment imaginable. An adventure game purports to tell a story, but the story is almost always somewhere between yeesh-not-very-good and that-doesn’t-even-qualify-as-a-story. It purports to consist of “puzzles,” but the puzzles are almost always somewhere between yeesh-not-very-good and that-doesn’t-even-qualify-as-a-puzzle. It purports to be interactive but the actual interactions are never of any interest; it purports to be dramatic but most of the player’s time is spent waiting while the character walks across the screen.

When I was a kid, my enthusiasm made me certain that if only my friends, parents, grandparents, sister, whoever, could just be made to sit with one of these adventure games for a little while, they’d come to love them too, and I’d have someone I could share this world with. But whenever I’d cajole someone into sitting next to me and playing, what would actually happen is they’d immediately sense the clumsy pointlessness of it all, and then look to me for some explanation of what they were missing. I wasn’t an idiot, after all; if I liked these games, there must be more to them than meets the eye, right?

And there was nothing I could say. There is no more to these games than meets the eye; in fact generally there’s less.

I think to love adventure games like I did, you have to have an overdeveloped sense of the mystique of the unseen. If you go into a guest bedroom and there’s a locked trunk in it, how much of a frisson does that give you? If the answer is “none — it’s probably empty or has old blankets or clothes in it or something, who cares” then there’s no point in your playing adventure games.

The real game that adventure games most resemble is “Memory,” an important pastime from my early childhood that’s somewhat undersung in culture today. “Memory” is the mystique of the unseen in its simplest possible form. What’s under each card? You don’t know; you can’t know; it is overtly secret. But bit by bit, you will unveil what is veiled! Tarot readings are the same, except they claim that what is revealed when the card is flipped will be important and have power; “Memory” makes no such claim, because there’s no need. It’ll just be pictures of apples and flowers and buses and whatnot, the same old pictures, but they start face-down and must be coaxed face-up, and if you have a certain type of mind, that is importance and power enough. This is the appeal of adventure games. They start face-down, and by applying your concentration, you gradually turn them face-up.

“Memory” is also exactly the mechanism of adventure games. In one room, a character is leaning on a shovel. Remember that! Now you walk on past a pig and a laboratory and a pirate to another room where a character says he needs a shovel. A-ha! Flip both cards at the same time and you can claim them.

To this very sturdy core, adventure games slather on set dressing and story dressing, heaps of third-rate showmanship that could never stand on its own, and doesn’t need to: it’s just there as a thickening agent, to enhance the satisfaction of turning everything face-up. When any sort of simple satisfaction has been made thick enough, baroque enough, it takes on a feeling of depth: gosh, you could get really spend some time in here. There’s something to this! “This is important. This means something.


For me, a born locked-trunk fantasist and adventure-game sucker, even a piece of badly-dated junk like Lure of the Temptress can be gratifying. The graphics, firmly in the Amiga/DeluxePaint school of the early 90s, do their very best to seem lush and inviting. That was an era whose technology made it immediately clear how labor-intensive a given piece of bitmap artwork was. Even when the craftsmanship falters, the mere show of effort creates its own kind of mystique: “these images required great care to create, so who knows what they might hold?” As you look at the same backgrounds again and again in the course of playing, they begin to deepen, to contain more and more potential for investment, the way a jigsaw puzzle does as you work on it. To my overeager mind, every stippled shadow holds nameless implications.

In those years, whole games got by entirely on this sort of thing, and oddly enough, they haven’t aged as badly as maybe they ought. That impression that care = meaning is still powerful, even within a completely outdated context. And maybe in some deep human way it’s true. Someone applied conscious artistic judgment to every single one of these pixels, so every single one of them becomes a place where daydreaming is possible.

Lure of the Temptress has an attractive intro sequence with well-animated silhouettes, a classy technique that’s never again used in the game. It establishes a (false) sense of promise and depth at the outset. Yes, yes, it’s very obviously just smoke and mirrors — but smoke itself can be interesting, and so can mirrors!


To be clear, the particulars of this game are pretty lousy.

I counted about 40 discrete things you have to do, cards you have to flip, to get through the game. Of those, 3 or 4 are passable adventure-game fare, involving some slight modicum of forethought. About 30 are of the lowest order, an arbitrary linear chain of bland trial-and-error tasks: “talk to the blacksmith and he’ll tell you about the girl; now you’ll find that you can ask the drunk guy at the bar about the girl…” And another 5 are really asinine and irritating. (You need an empty flask, whereas you have a flask full of strong liquor. Pouring it out apparently isn’t an option. The only way to empty it is to walk around offering it to everyone until you find the one guy in town willing to drink the liquor for you.) All adventure games are dumb but that’s a particularly bad ratio.

The most distinctive thing about this game, heavily touted in the manual and on the packaging, is that its engine manages the independent activities of eight NPCs, whether they’re on- or off-screen, so that the village seems to bustle with free-roaming characters genuinely going about their business. This engine also allows NPCs to be given orders by the player, using menus to laboriously construct sentences like (spoiler for by far the hardest and most interesting puzzle in the game!): “Tell Goewin to go to Entrance Cave and then pull left skull and then pull right skull and then go to Green Cave.”

That might sound like a pretty cool engine with a lot of potential, but it’s more ambitious than it is polished. After an initial “hey, this village does seem kind of bustling” payoff, the system mostly becomes “that stupid buggy thing where the characters are always in each other’s way and can’t figure out how to step aside.” Half the time when you walk your character off the screen — whoa there, first he’s got to back up and walk automatically in a big circle for 10 seconds, to get out of the way of some free-roaming NPC who happens to be arriving from that direction. Okay, now try walking him off the screen again. Good luck!

So all in all this is a pretty lame little game, both sloppy and unoriginal, and I understand why after 10 years Revolution felt it was no longer something they could rightly charge money for (certainly not the original asking price of £30.99, good lord!). It was their first game, and one of the very first UK entries in this genre, and it feels like what it was: hopeful, not authoritative. 90% awkwardly derivative, 10% awkwardly ambitious.

But still, mostly nice pixels, and a little deck of Memory cards to flip over if you’re into that, which I am, so I didn’t mind.

Here are some parting questions from Marlene M, who seems to have put more thought into it than I have.


The GOG version is a reimplementation of the DOS version courtesy of “ScummVM,” which fixes a couple of bugs from the original but adds a couple new ones, and, crucially, does not emulate the audio hardware that the game was designed for, so it ends up producing a lot of weird tinkling instead of proper sound effects. I followed some advice in the GOG forums and ended up playing from the original files in a DOS emulator, using a Roland CM-32L emulator for the audio, which meant the game used the built-in “dog bark” and “bird tweet” and “fire” and “droplet” sounds. Pretty state-of-the-art stuff for 1992. Unfortunately GOG can’t package it this way because the legality of the CM-32L ROMs I had to download is dubious.

This is to admit that I only played this dumb old free game because it was in my GOG library, but I didn’t even end up playing the GOG version, I downloaded it from elsewhere. So it’s almost like I just freely opted to play it, which of course would absolutely have been a waste of time. I mean, of all the games in the world, why this? Nobody needs to play this.


Elephant-memoried readers will note that this is in fact the second stupid adventure game from Revolution Software to be covered on this weblog. Stay tuned!



I’m aware that my word-to-interest ratio in recent entries has been exceedingly high. But that’s just a state in my process and must be borne. If I try to edit these things into shape, I make them outwardly better-written but the process makes me a more anxious writer when the next one comes around, so it’s a vicious cycle. Better to place trust in what’s there and let it settle and clarify over time, of its own accord.

That was the original project of the blog: get used to being seen as I am. Well, this is me as I am when getting used to being seen as I am: skittish and verbose and dull. Hooray, I’m finally doing it!



Oh right, the credits:

Charles Cecil: managing director
David Sykes, Tony Warriner: system design, programming
Dave Cummins: game design, writing
Adam Tween, Stephen Oades, Paul Docherty: art
Richard Joseph: music, sound

April 7, 2015

Shank (2010)

Shank-cover
Shank-title

developed by Klei Entertainment (Vancouver, BC, Canada)
first published by Electronic Arts, August 24, 2010, for Playstation 3 (August 25 for Xbox 360), $15
PC version first published by Electronic Arts, October 26, 2010, for Windows, $14.99
[trailer 1, trailer 2, trailer 3]
[original website]
~1.8GB

Played to completion (of “Normal Mode”) in 5.5 hours, 3/30/15–4/7/15.


Sixth of the seven games in “Humble Indie Bundle 4″ purchased on Tuesday, December 13, 2011. This is the last of them that remained for me to play.


Here are my notes verbatim:

Quentin Tarantino was referring to schlock action movies of 30–40 years ago. These dudes are referring only to Quentin Tarantino, without understanding that the value is supposed to come from the milieu, the video store and the late-night TV. This is trash fantasy done without any apparent feeling for trash, which is a much grimmer thing than Kill Bill ever was.

“Over-the-top” is an interesting expression. Whose top?

Comic book artists like these guys, art-school whiz kids, clearly have a feeling for something, but what is the essence of the something? What is the thing they really know? It seems like they have an intuition for art, but maybe they just have an intuition for whatever life has thrown at them, what’s traumatized and transfixed them… and maybe we should hold up a sense of art as something bigger: not “what’s in your head and how does it go” but “what do you feel is good and how does it go?”


That’s the extent of what I wrote down. You can see how there’s material for spinning out an essay there, but boy, I sure don’t want to be the one to have to do it. This is how I always feel when I sit down to write these. Why can’t my notes be enough?

So, maybe they can. I announced as much a couple months ago. This sounds like a good scheme to me… except for the editing part.


The genre here is the “brawler” or “beat-em-up”: another one, like the vertical shooter, that was once a mainstay and is now a throwback. But unlike vertical shooters, I never really cared for beat-em-ups. I was sort of intrigued by what they looked like — those streets and alleyways of Double Dragon always seemed like streets of mystery, promising something special and unexpected just beyond the next scroll point — but in practice the emphasis on fight-fight-fight-fight-fighting was of no interest to me. If you didn’t think punching was awesome, there simply wasn’t enough to get you through. I never cared about memorizing all of my tough dude’s “moves,” never actually wanted to try my mettle against the next crew of two small bad guys and one giant one, or the next one, or the next one, or the one who throws the steel barrels, or whatever. All I wanted was to find out what was going to be in the background art when you got around the next corner, and once I got the gist — it’s basically all the same — I wrote off the genre.

So Shank is the first one of these games I’ve ever sat with and pushed through to the end. I think it probably wasn’t a great choice, because it seemed awfully shallow to me, and watching other people playing it on Youtube I get the same impression. You just keep hitting the different weapon buttons and keep killing people. The more you master the controls, the more effective you’re able to be, but being ineffective is fine too, because all the game really cares about is looking slick like a comic book, which it does. It was like moving my thumbs and watching an incredibly repetitive murder cartoon on Adult Swim, for 5 hours.

Since it really is explicitly a cartoon, with a fair amount of out-and-out non-interactive cartoon in it, here at least was an opportunity for the developers to load up a game with some wild and colorful writing. They could have gone the full Tarantino and had Shank go off on tangents about Chinese food, or whatever. They could have made it like a really entertaining episode of, you know, a real show! But no. It only looks like a cartoon. The stuff that actually goes on is just some horseshit that fell out when they shook their comic books.

Their idea of content is: “over the top,” which, as I said, is no sort of standard at all. Duuuude he just blew that guy’s head up by putting a grenade in his mouth!

Wow, astounding. Unthinkable. Saucy. Sick. You name it.


Here, on the DeviantArt page (!) of one of the lead developers, is a recent drawing he did of Skeletor. You know, from He-Man. As one of the commenters says: “YES!!!! This is exactly how Skeletor should look!”

That’s about the size of it. What does this “should” mean, exactly? I don’t know, and the commenter doesn’t know, and the artist doesn’t know, but whatever it is, that’s the name of this game. When Shank cuts off a Mexican wrestler’s head with a chainsaw, it looks exactly like it should look! Therefore this game is exactly like it should be!

I use the word “pornographic” a lot for this kind of thing, because I tend to think of the pornographic element as a convenient key to recognizing it for what it is. This same guy has some ideas about thighs that sure don’t come from art school anatomy class; they come from the deep prerational part of the brain that stores up images, and nurtures them, and distorts them, and invests them with power. The culture at large isn’t very comfortable with this image-hoarding part of the mind, but we’re at least willing to recognize its influence on sex, the last approved haven for irrationality. Yet it seems like now, in the era of Dan Savage, even the weirdest fetishes are supposed to get names and bumper stickers and Wikipedia articles and conventions and come out into the light of the social and the rational. Which surely has to wring all meaning out of them, right? I can’t imagine that all those furries are really and truly tapping into their spookiest private inner energies when they’re in Pittsburgh attending Anthrocon 2014, “with a fursuit parade of 1,326 and an economic impact of $6.2 million.” They’re just trudging their way through one more alienating social construction.

What I’m saying is: the culture at large is basically willing to recognize the role of the image-hoarding part of the mind on sex, but even there, it doesn’t want to face up to the fact that there’s no catching it in a rational bottle. The internet proudly trumpets to us that obscure fetishes aren’t dirty anymore!… and yet unnamed, unnameable fetishes still are. We’re all still expected to be ashamed of our images that have no names. So we end up with a very repressed, restricted sense of how our images relate to the conscious world.

That’s where the comic book dudes come in: they’re people who know how to tap into their image-centers and show exactly how things “should look,” but all they’ve got in there is Shank and Skeletor and “Slave Leia”: thirdhand caricatures of fear and lust and power that managed to slip into their spiritual life before social puberty finally and utterly slammed the door on unabashed emotional experience.

This is all very discursively to say that the art and animation of this game is done with true artistic skill and intuition, but within bounds that are to me depressingly narrow. Even mere pulp-enthusiasm is, for me, too big and three-dimensional an emotion to fit through this needle’s-eye of a worldview.

It sure does perfectly and exactly look like a Cartoon Network show that looks like someone’s fetish of a comic book that looks like someone’s fetish of a Quentin Tarantino movie that looks like his fetish of an old exploitation action movie that was made as a fetish of someone’s festering resentments. And I don’t think that’s true of any other game. So yes!!! Kick-ass!!! You did it!!! Great Skeletor, too!

“Revenge is a dish best served cold!” “Revenge is sweet!” “Revenge is mine!”

Y’all should know that in the course of playing, I got 100 chainsaw kills, which unlocked the “Grindhouse” achievement, which unlocked the “Grindhouse Shank” costume with the hockey mask!


I don’t know, maybe I’m being too cynical, maybe it’s all in some kind of good fun. But I am solemnly committed never to say “well, maybe I’m just too old to get it.” Maybe I’m just too sad or scared on a given day, sure, but one is never too old to know whether something is good. This has fancy pro-style animation but clearly isn’t very good. Review complete.


I’m including a whole bunch of the credits because it’s hard to tell how the power breaks down here. This one is sort of a notch higher in scale than the last few Humble Indie games we’ve seen here. Still a small developer, but one with the support of a big powerful publisher.

Created by Jeff Agala, Jamie Cheng
Aaron Bouthillier: lead animator
Meghan Shaw: lead environment artist
Daniel Yu: design and storyboards
Alex Colbert, Chris Costa, Kevin Forbes, Ju-Lian Kwan: programmers
Marcus Lo: game designer
Chris Worboys: junior designer
Gary Lam: design director
Marianne Krawczyk: writer
Vincent DeVera, Jason Garner: music

April 6, 2015

Super Meat Boy (2010)

SuperMeatBoy-cover
SuperMeatBoy-title
developed by Team Meat [= Edmund McMillen (Santa Cruz, CA) & Tommy Refenes (Asheville, NC)]
first published October 20, 2010, for Xbox 360, 1200 MP (Microsoft Points) (=$15)
PC version first published November 30, 2010, for Windows, $14.99
[“90’s commercial”, trailer]
[website]
~260MB

Played to completion of the core game (the “light world”) in 9.5 hours, 3/29/15–4/4/15.



Fifth of the seven games in “Humble Indie Bundle 4″ purchased on Tuesday, December 13, 2011.


Broomlet has backlog! Backlog. Four backlog. Gotta get through all this stuff and not make such a big deal about it. This is a perfect opportunity to take another stab at being brief and only writing what it occurs to me to write.


Once again, I only took one note on my playing experience: “There’s no such thing as ‘hard.'”

What does this mean? Yoda will explain.

Super Meat Boy is all about ‘hard,’ but what if there’s no such thing as ‘hard’? Super Meat Boy is actually all about learning. “Learn to do this thing. It might take you a while. Okay, now you can. There, you did it.” Repeat. At the end of each level, once you’ve learned to execute whatever it requires, it puts on a victory show of all your prior attempts played simultaneously: here’s what learning looked like.

I liked this about it. I liked knowing that each failed attempt was seen not an occasion for shame but as one more tick mark toward my inevitable victory replay. This was what the game was designed to expect: a final tally containing many many failures and only one success. I felt my efforts, whatever their results, were welcomed. I felt included.

And yet the game really believes itself to be about ‘hard,’ and that’s a cult I don’t belong to. Why, after all, were these the things I was supposed to learn to do? Why so many spinning saws slicing my bloody meat? If you want the psychoanalysis of this game, just watch Indie Game: The Movie, because it’s all laid out very clearly. Meat Boy sloshes blood everywhere because his woundedness is a point of pride. “He’s a survivor,” as the saying goes. But that’s not a saying I ever use. I’m here to have dreams and have fun. Was this fun?

Of Hammerfight I said that the tininess of all the stuff in the game felt like a deep psychological proclivity, a kind of aesthetic micropsia, and here we have the platformer equivalent. I think this started with the notorious I Wanna Be The Guy, which is obviously a joke game, but a joke with some teeth in it for the target audience: you are a tiny little crushable bug making your fragile way through an absurdly cruel world meant for normal-sized Nintendo characters.

The premise of Super Meat Boy is basically “What if I Wanna Be The Guy were actually fair?” (That’s like saying “What if we made a really fun prison?” — the proposal doesn’t make sense unless you’re in the right psychological pocket to begin with.) Here as there, instead of your character having the standard screen presence and weight of Mario or Mega Man or whoever, it’s more like you’re the ball in Pong: just a delicate speck that spends most of its time precariously zinging through empty space.

The crazy physics of platformers going back to Mario, wherein the trajectories and speeds of jumps can be altered at will in midair, have here been brought to such an extreme that it hardly feels like what’s going on is “jumping” at all. More like you’re pushing and dragging Meat Boy through the screenspace, subject to various obscure laws, one of which is sort of like gravity. Often I felt like what I was doing was more like freehand drawing than platforming — e.g. when you draw a circle in one sweeping motion and hope the ends meet up exactly. That’s very similar to the skill set, and sense of kinetics, at work in this game. To have such tininess and floatiness replace that good old thick, hearty Mario gravity (or even Jasper’s Journeys gravity) was strange, and never stopped feeling strange. It was like wearing someone else’s prescription. Both visually, and, as I’m saying, spiritually.

Once again, I certainly had no use for all the blood and poop and fetuses, but I get whose company I’m in and where it comes from so I’m not going to dwell on it.

The above is all just mixed feelings. My creed is that level design is where games live or die, and the level design is good, well graded, mostly unrepetitive, mostly stimulating. So, really, all’s well. I can understand why this game was a huge hit: it’s thoroughly attentive to detail. If there’s something in the game, it’s there with intention and care. That goes a long long way toward earning my goodwill, even when I don’t feel like I’m the target audience. This game knows what it’s about.


Here’s the one and only thing about Super Meat Boy to which I firmly object: those damn completion percentages.

I finished less than half of the content in the game, and yet I saw the end of the story, I saw the credits, I “beat the final boss.” But there are — hidden away in various cute ways I needn’t go into — more than 200 other levels, plus 100-some additional challenge items to try to collect, etc. etc. I think that’s all great: you finish the game, you want more? you’re in luck: it keeps on going and going. But for that magical sense of extra-ness and bonus-ness to apply, the game needs to be very explicit about how extra and bonus it all is. Like a store that has all its items on ‘discount’ all of the time — you only get to elicit that good “ooh, a discount!” feeling if you never ever waver from your claim that the higher price is the real official price. Super Meat Boy stupidly gets overexcited about its bonus content and crosses its own line, by announcing at the top of each level-select screen: “COMPLETE: 29%”.

That’s the number it showed me for “Chapter Two” after I had finished that chapter to the story’s satisfaction, beaten the boss and moved on to Chapter Three: 29%. How pointlessly demoralizing! Instead of being able to be pleased with my progress (as encouraged by, among other things, the game’s own narrative), I am forced to be aware of how I stack up against an obsessive completionist standard. This is like a “hardcore gamer” snob sticking his nose in before I’ve even finished playing the basic levels: “Yeah, you think you’re playing, but you’re really only 29%ing, newb.” Dude, you’re not impressing me, and this is my house! Leave me alone.

That percentage can exist on some stats screen, for the compulsive types that want it, but please hide it away from me. I should get to say what constitutes 100%. Or make the highest achievable amount be, say, 500%. By default, 100% should be the end of the game.

Basically, this is just another case of game designers forgetting the difference between OCD about games and games themselves. It’s a very important difference, and one that affects people’s lives. It’s an ethical issue! Don’t bring the OCD to us; we’ll bring it to you!


Of the game’s Chapter Six, the dedicated Super Meat Boy Wiki says, and I quote (sic): “The main diffuculty is that the levels are significantly more time consuming, so death is less of a slap on a risk.” The whole internet can be like wearing someone else’s prescription.


You can watch the documentary to get a clear sense of where this game came from. The credits are:

Edmund McMillen: art, design
Tommy Refenes: code, design
Danny Baranowsky: musical score
Jordan Fehr: sound effects

March 30, 2015

Bit.Trip Runner (2010)

BitTripRunner-cover
BitTripRunner-title
developed by Gaijin Games (Santa Cruz, CA)
first published by Aksys Games, May 14, 2010, for Wii, 800 Wii Points (=$8)
PC version published by Gaijin Games, February 28, 2011, for Windows/Mac, $9.99
[trailer]
[original website, current website]
~60MB

Played up to level 3-2 (i.e. level 26 of 36) in 5 hours, 3/24/15–3/29/15.

[2-hour video of a guy talking his way through a complete “perfect run”]


Fourth of the seven games in “Humble Indie Bundle 4″ purchased on Tuesday, December 13, 2011.


I don’t entirely hate this game. But it is very irksome.

You’ve heard me complain repeatedly about nostalgia-as-design — or, actually, you’ve heard me make explanation after explanation about how I disapprove of nostalgia on principle but such and such game, despite seeming like a nostalgist offender, actually isn’t for some subtle reason. Well, folks, this one is. This is offensive.

Bit.Trip Runner (and, it would seem, the other six “Bit.Trip” games, but I haven’t played any of those) is full-bore phony “retro.” It’s all affectation, affectation clambering over affectation to make a giant pyramid of affectation. Remember the 80s? Remember Atari? Remember pixels? Remember rainbows? Remember simple? Remember mom and dad? Remember second grade? Remember “awesome?” Remember you?

The game is hipster hooey. The developers are so aggressively convinced that they can tap into something great with their sweet sweet precious memories that they just barely have room to think about anything else. The game itself is a stunted little thing. “Sure, sure, it’s deliberate, a sentimental homage to the days when every game was a stunted little thing but we were devoted to them anyway! Atari 2600, baby! Betamax! Shag carpet and Hi-C! The best, the best, the best!” Argh. Screw you.

After every level, if you earn it, a message pops up saying “BONUS GET!” and there’s a bonus stage meant to look like Pitfall! (1982), done in a totally condescending and reductive way, with a fake “bad video signal” overlay on the graphics. Also, over the course of each level, the protagonist (“Commander Video”) gradually acquires a rainbow trail like the one seen on the cover of Pitfall! and other Activision games of that era. “Commander Video” is drawn to look sort of like the ninja from the Commodore 64 Bruce Lee game, an allusion that becomes explicit when he goes into his flat-on-his-back posture.

I originally wrote the paragraph above with “Screw you” inserted after each item.

The look of the game is an ugly mishmosh of “pixel-inspired” bullshit — note: not pixel art. The game is not a low-resolution game with a fixed pixel grid; it is a high-resolution modern game running in 3D engine where the objects are all… “you know, blocky and awesome.” They aren’t blocky to the same resolution or even in the same style as one another. They’re just various things that variously fit the description “blocky.” It’s as though someone with a kind of fuzzy memory of pixel graphics described them to an artist who’d never seen them, and missed some of the essentials. That is to say, Bit.Trip Runner is to Atari graphics as a medieval European drawing of an elephant is to an elephant.

“Sure, sure, it’s deliberate, it’s a crazy homage to, uh…”

Meanwhile, it’s worth pointing out that because of the lack of anti-aliasing on the ugly blocky 3D objects, it’s entirely possible to see the actual pixels that make up this game’s graphics. We still have them, you know! They’ve just gotten somewhat smaller than they used to be. To me this a perfect metaphor for the philosophical ailment that seems to be everywhere: the game obsesses self-consciously over being “pixelly goodness to the max” so much that it doesn’t pay good attention to the ways in which it is actually made of real live pixels. It’s the grotesquely clueless reification of an abstraction that ultimately usurps the thing itself. (You can say that again!)


(By the way, I want to note here that in all my childhood, I only once was able to get to the point in Bruce Lee seen at 8:04 in the video above, and never further.)


The game is sort of a “platformer,” but one that’s been grated down to the rind, so that you might be tempted to call it a “rhythm game” instead. Basically, the dude runs at a fixed rate from left to right but never moves across the screen; the scenery with its obstacles just slides past him to the left, like a piano roll that he has to play (cf. rhythm games like Dance Dance Revolution and Guitar Hero). The piano roll consists of obstacles that he has to either jump over, spring off of, slide under, kick open, or block with a shield: five different buttons to press, exactly at the right time, when necessitated by the scenery. That’s it! You screw up, you start again. This is all synced to the music so that every successful jump and slide and kick makes a little “boop” that matches the harmony.

I said you might be tempted to call it a rhythm game. If you watched someone else play it, you’d be tempted, because it would seem like playing the game was a kind of satisfying dance to the beat. But that’s an illusion. The music is actually a big red herring. The design is such that the little guy’s jump will take him flying over an obstacle on the beat, which means that the button that makes him launch into the jump had to be pressed some perfect fraction of a second earlier. Do you understand the implication? This is a game where everything happens in a musical rhythm except for the thing that you have to time exactly. Instead of the experience being one of the player’s thumbs dancing to the beat, it’s one of the player stressing out about pulling the strings just before the beat so that Commander Video gets to dance to the beat. The music doesn’t show you the way or help you out; it presses upon you as you rush to anticipate it. It impends.

It’s actually an anti-rhythm game, which is basically the purest form of anxiety: YOU had better stay off of the rhythm, ahead of it, so that everyone else — Commander Video and all the moving mine carts and fish and buildings onscreen — can have a happy dance party and sync up like a joyful Silly Symphony world. YOU are not invited to the party: you have to cater the party like a servant. For god’s sake, use your stoic professionalism to block out the urge to dance; it’s not your place, as you’ll quickly see. And if you drop anything, a slap in the face for you! You ruined it for everyone, you dolt! Now thanks to you, we all have to start again!

If staying in the game’s groove were rewarded and falling out were punished, that could be gratifying; or if you had to establish your own groove for the game to follow. But this is a game where you’re obligated to resist the game’s groove on its behalf, but failing to service it is punished. It’s really very demeaning.


The music also offends as music. The callow use of magical sentimental nostalgic sounds always makes me feel like the pleasure of those sounds is being stolen out from under me. Goddamn it, this might have been something I could have enjoyed if only it weren’t so completely contrived, disingenuous. I used to feel exactly these harmonies, get something out of them, but I can’t because you’re so clearly trying to milk them for, ahem, “all the feels.”

The whole game feels like a nightmare where you want to go home but instead you find that there’s a costume ball going on, where self-serving strangers have dressed up like your family, and they’re really into how great and “authentic” and “old school” they’re being. “Woo-hoo, feel all the feels, dude! Home is where the heart is!” Goddamn it.

(For what it’s worth, I just made that up; that’s not a nightmare that I’ve actually had. Not while I’m asleep anyway.)

This is what people mean when they complain about their favorite band getting too popular, or “selling out,” and why hipsters are so quick-tempered about such things: it’s the sense that other people are being more anxious and self-regarding than they are sincere. Each hipster is hyper-aware of this in others because he/she is lonely and desperate to find someone who isn’t so thoroughly guarded and constructed, with whom connection is possible… but of course from the inside, it feels different. To the person who’s doing it, self-branding feels like a necessary bulwark against the floodwaters of shame. To everyone around them, it looks like a weapon of intimidation or an antisocial suit of armor.

Slogan for the world: Defensiveness and aggression are the same thing! All your enemy’s hostility feels to them like defense. All your defenses appear to others as hostility!

I said of Wes Anderson that I want to choose to focus on what’s delightful about his work and not on the vein of self-regard that tends to draw my anxious attention like a magnet. And I would love to be able to do that for everything, including this music, and including this game. But under the circumstances, I can’t. The circumstances being while playing this game.


It’s really remarkable just how bad playing this game makes me feel.

The essential task here is to reduce the impact of frustration on the body. Each time you screw up and are instantly zipped back to the start of the level to try again — levels which can be several minutes long! — your zen challenge is to find it in yourself to proceed as though for the first time, with full and optimistic attention, and not let the fact that you’ve just been slapped in the face affect your level of strain. This is very, very difficult! I remember noting this at a very early age while playing computer games: that despite acquiring experience as I practiced a difficult challenge over and over, I would in fact perform worse and worse; the first run in a given sitting was almost always the best. This was because I became more and more devoted to an insistent kind of hope, that this time would be the triumphant final time — okay, well, then this time… and this increasingly intricate and superstitious “hope” would start to fill up my brain and blot out the part of me that had any skills at all. I knew this then, but I didn’t know how to stop it; anything I did seemed to make it worse.

What I didn’t know, but know now, is that this so-called “hope” is really just a way of trying to suppress shame, and what it actually does is prevent the shame from being processed. It would cause it to accumulate and accumulate as I failed and failed, until I was completely incapacitated and would have to stop, in a confused state of high agitation.

So now I recognize that difficult video games, being as they are completely inconsequential to anything else in life, are a great opportunity to practice experiencing this shame and learning how to let it run its course and leave my body. Unfortunately this is still very hard because games are designed to trigger this shame. It’s not just frustration that I happen to experience alone; it’s pre-programmed frustration being intentionally delivered upon me.

Last week, the free iPhone app in the iTunes store was 8-Bit Doves (trailer), a very nicely produced game meant to be simple but bracingly frustrating (in the vein of the infamous Flappy Bird). I found myself enjoying it and enjoying that I was now able to let the frustration flow through me and out, rather than clogging me up… and yet that sound they put in when you crash, that harsh chomp sound, sent a little electric jolt through me every single time. I played and played waiting to become inured to it, but I never did. “Well,” I thought, “they did design it that way, after all. This is how it’s meant to affect me.”

I guess I don’t know for sure if that’s true, but it seems like it is. And so that’s how I feel about Bit.Trip Runner. It felt demeaning and infuriating, and I did my best to become like a stream of clear water, but it sure seemed like it genuinely didn’t want me to.

Maybe that’s all in my head. I have to keep experimenting, practicing. But probably with different games.


I declared myself done after spending an hour unsuccessfully trying to get through the outrageously long level 1-11. But then a few days later it occurred to me that I might get closer to enjoying the game if I muted the sound and did something else with my mind. Sure enough, while listening to conversational podcasts and playing the game passively, I was able to make a great deal of progress. It’s not that being distracted by podcasts made me a more accurate player — if anything probably the reverse — it’s just that being distracted by podcasts limited my capacity to hold on to frustration, which meant the level of my performance didn’t fall off over time. After two hours of listening to people talk about poetry and politics and other stuff, I found that I had gotten through the first two thirds of the game. Important principle: not attending to things gives one unlimited endurance!

Probably if I played for a few more hours, I could get to the end. But there’s really nothing there to see — I confirmed as much by watching the end on YouTube. And for the moment I’m out of podcasts. So we’re done here.


The credits:

Alex Neuse: designer
Chris Osborn: engineer
Mike Roush: artist
Danny Johnson: PC/OSX/Linux design
Petrified Productions [Matthew Harwood]: music & sound design

March 28, 2015

Jamestown (2011)

Jamestown-cover
Jamestown-title
developed by Final Form Games (Philadelphia, PA)
first published June 8, 2011, for Windows, $9.99
[trailer]
[website]
~200MB

Played to completion (plus a bunch of the bonus levels) in 5.5 hours, 3/18/15–3/23/15.

[video of a 30-minute complete playthrough]


Third of the seven games in “Humble Indie Bundle 4” purchased on Tuesday, December 13, 2011.


The only note I took while playing this is the word “exuberant,” which is a pretty good word, but I probably ought to say a little more than that.

This is a vertical shooter, which was once a dominant genre and is now fairly niche — although in our present videogame boom times, even niches can be pretty well-populated. But I’ve just flipped through my list of games to come, and of the nearly 200 games I still have in my sack, there’s only one more vertical shooter. And it’s an old 90s game.

Yet once upon a time, the foil-wrapped look of vertical-scrolling explosion-fests was the quintessential arcade machine sight. If I think back to the 90s and imagine I’m in a college dorm rec room, or a pizza parlor, or a bus station, and there’s an arcade machine, my imagination supplies the screen with the image of a vertical shooter. (You know, like this. That’s chosen at random — anything else on that playlist would do equally well.) Seeing stuff like that I feel like I can smell bus fumes and bad pizza.

I think they’re great; I love the space they inhabit. But only in a sort of abstracted way, where I know I’ll never actually pay direct attention to them, never become an aficionado. In fact I almost don’t need to play them to get my fill; the “attract mode” is plenty. It’s the way I’ve always felt about jazz: I really like it when it’s on and of course I like it better when it’s good, but I don’t think I’ll ever want to obsess over it, the way I do over other things.

Maybe what vertical shooters have in common with jazz is that I experience both of them as a kind of pure texture. When it’s pointed out to me that a piece of jazz has form, or that what’s being done is musically sophisticated, I always feel a kind of irritation. I want to say no, it’s not; it’s just this feeling it’s giving me, and no more. Yes, even when it’s the other half of my own brain doing the pointing out; I still wish it would shut up, because it doesn’t add anything.

And these vertical scrolling games feel the same way. They unfurl like a great dream carpet into infinity. Yeah, everything might be all choreographed and predictable, but I don’t choose to predict it. I wouldn’t really want to be attentive enough to get good at one of these games. I like that it’s just a world sliding downward forever and throwing up new artifacts of the imagination as it plows onward. Spaceships spewing gemlike bullets, or whatever, that make their theatrical entrances, are induced to go kablooey, and then make way for whatever’s next. It’s a parade, and when the parade is going by you just take it to be a way things can be, not a specific and finite phenomenon.

Or it’s like a David Lynch dream vaudeville without end. “And the next act is; and the next act is; and the next act is…”


The emphasis in these games is always on sensual values: does each explosion feel like the perfect first bite into a cookie? Do the things that blow up look like little toys, and do they do fancy tricks before crumpling impeccably? In a word, is it all tasty?

That tastiness sometimes goes hand in hand with a cosmic anxiety. If the enemy spaceships are even a little bit creepy, the whole endless cavalcade becomes extremely ominous. Not to mention the vertigo of traveling into infinity while watching nebulae and blasted planetoid surfaces and pure void drift by, ad infinitum. Sometimes I feel it philosophically in the pit of my stomach when a game starts with a little anime dude putting on a helmet and getting in a spaceship “for great justice” or whatever, then followed by hours of a tiny spaceship icon on a completely dehumanized cosmic explosion parade in deep space. How overwhelmingly lonely and grim! What must the dude be thinking while all this is happening? Is he still thinking? What happened to his soul, when the game started?

Sort of like when 2001 goes off the rails and before we know what’s happening, we find we’ve lost contact with Dave as a mortal with mortal concerns. Kubrick knew that would unsettle and it does. Well, it happens in pretty much every video game.

That’s an apt reference, because that forward-hurtling stargate sequence is the direct aesthetic precursor to so much of what goes on in video games. Everything I’ve said here about what I like (and fear) in vertical shooters applies to that sequence, too.


Jamestown has been attentively designed so as to be 100% tasty. It’s actually quite a short game, but each inch of it has been polished ’til it shines like the top of a chunky pixelated Chrysler building. Nothing on screen feels obligatory; it’s all there out of love. It’s got an exuberance to it, there’s the word.

Yes, the 90s pixel style is clearly a slavish imitation of yesteryear — they’ve even gone so far as to put in slightly wonky, unsteady scrolling in the opening animation, faithful to a fault. But the imitation is so fervent and utter that it doesn’t really feel like an affectation. It’s too slavish for that. They don’t seem to be trying to get credit in the present day for their “retro”-ness or their sentimental memories; they just seem to be devoting themselves to an old ideal that they’ve managed to carry with them, intact.

Interestingly, they advertise the game as “a neo-classical top-down shooter,” which is the only place I’ve ever seen the term “neo-classical” applied to modern videogames. It feels good to me, much better-intentioned than “retro.” I called Jasper’s Journeys “anachronistic” because it genuinely felt divorced from concerns about the present day. Jamestown isn’t quite so serene as to be anachronistic — it knows very well that it’s doing something the hipsters will eat up — but it still feels pretty firmly grounded in its 20-year-old milieu. In any case, it never made me feel queasy about fashion and history and all that; it just felt cohesive, I played it as it stood, and I enjoyed myself. I take that as significant.


Jamestown falls into a vertical-shooter subgenre known as “bullet hell,” where the screen can sometimes fill up with literally hundreds of deadly projectiles at a time, spinning outward from enemies in mandala formations that seem impossible to avoid, but in fact can be snaked through if you’re precise. When these attacks burst on the screen, they can give a truly alarming sensation, like being in the ocean and seeing a wave coming that is much much too big for safety. But that can be a thrilling sensation if one does in fact survive.

I’d never played one of these “bullet hell” games before — I’d only seen images that made them look completely masochistic and unappealing — but having played this one I now understand what makes the genre work: unlike most video games, your hitbox (i.e. the area that the program checks to determine whether you’ve been hit) is not the size and shape of the ship as seen on screen, but is in fact much smaller. Only the very center of the player character is actually vulnerable. This means that you are actually much safer than you feel; when a mess of bullets is coming at you, you actually stand a moderate chance of surviving just by luck. But it doesn’t look like it!

This dynamic — where the game feels more dangerous and difficult than it is — seems to me a wonderful thing. It means that the feeling of exhilarating, significant success can be yours at a much lower cost in real-world time and tension than in other games.

The other thing I hadn’t fully taken in about the “bullet hell” games is that when a good deal of the game consists of threading your way through geometric radial blooms of bullets, the dream-parade quality I’m talking about gets supplemented by some downright psychedelic investment in awed abstraction. When you get to the boss at the end of each level, what you’re looking at is not infrequently exactly like a “go to sleeeeeep” hypnosis spiral. (I am reminded of the notorious Super Hexagon.)

I guess this is becoming a recurring theme here: video games are one of the most overtly hypnotic of cultural forms, and I like that about them.


The premise of the game is: colonial America on Mars. This is deliberately gonzo tongue-in-cheek (I think!), but it sort of revealed the underlying sense of steampunk to me, something I’ve been hunting for a long time. To me, “the Jamestown colony” is the quintessential public school “Social Studies” subject. I’m pretty sure my first “research paper,” in 4th grade, was on Jamestown. (Bibliography: “Jamestown,” Encyclopedia Americana, 1967.) And I think this is the key to steampunk: it is the exhilarating juxtaposition of the authoritarian world of Social Studies with the private world of comic books and video games. That is to say, the essential thing is not that it combines 19th (or 18th, or 17th)-century realities with fantasy technology; it’s that it combines stuff that grown-ups insist on with stuff that you like, thus ostensibly reclaiming Social Studies for the impish forces of vitality and happiness, but actually premised on a subconscious belief in the absolute impossibility of such a thing ever really happening.

My theory is, effectively, that Steampunk is a symptom of the alienation of American anti-intellectualism. It is a flaunting of supposed affection for “old-timey” stuff that reveals an underlying disinterest in its essential content. The only real affection is for its status as “old-timey,” which is to say as dry and inaccessible, official, imposed by the hollow public school authority of which one’s classmates are so suspicious, but for which one is seeking gold-star credit for one’s relative intellectualism. As long as the stuff satisfies this profile, it fits the bill, and all “old-timey” stuff becomes effectively alike.

There’s something revealingly tin-eared about steampunk’s supposedly loving evocation of 19th-century ideals. It’s as though someone said they OMG looooooved French language and literature, Mallarmé! Flaubert!, and then demonstrated it by doing a gobbledygook doubletalk impression of French (“Ah je je les vous? Ah vous sais vous le mais jeux?”).

The laboriously antiquated multipartite titles of the levels in this game (“Chapter II: JOURNEY THROUGH THE DARK SECTOR in which RALEIGH IS PURSUED by The VIGILANT SPANISH BORDER GUARD and The AWFUL TRUTH stands REVEALED”) are typical. They know there’s definitely a thing you’re supposed to do that has to do with unpredictable capitalization and the phrase “in which.” Beyond that, who cares? That’s certainly attentive enough to put them into “good student” “nerd” territory, and that’s the only real goal. The point is that from there, the leap into the videogame stuff they actually care about becomes literate, witty, fringe, creditable, rather than junky, self-indulgent, mainstream. Kid-tested and mom-approved.

This is something I harp on because it’s become a much broader and more insidious issue (consider the prevalence of “Well played, sir”), but also because I feel like phony sympathy for 200-year-old ideals obscures the potential for real sympathy for 200-year-old ideals, and that saddens me. “Creative misreading” is all well and good but when it begins to be so habitual that it gets in the way of “reading,” that seems wrong.

But that’s all very much a digression. This is a shooter videogame with giant monsters. If they want it to be about Sir Walter Raleigh on Mars, obviously that’s fine.


The music is sort of the musical equivalent of steampunk: an “epic” “classical orchestra” “cinematic” soundtrack. But again, this is a vertical shooter, an extremely spaced-out thing, so I have no real problem with that. In fact, I thought the score was very well done, for one of those, with a real sense of craft. Here’s the final boss battle music, which seems to me to be a lot classier than most final boss music.

A nice thing about this genre of game is that progression through each level is pretty much on a fixed timer, so the music can be made to sync up with the game events and actually accompany them. This score takes advantage of that on several occasions, to very good effect, like in level 2, when it starts to rain and then the lost colony of Roanoke is revealed.

Yes, it’s ridiculous.


Jamestown is noted for having very satisfying co-operative play, for up to four people. But I don’t do that so I can’t comment.

Final word: this is a very attractive and polished piece of work. I enjoyed that it was short enough that I got to see it all, hard enough that I had to work at it, easy enough that 5 hours did the trick. Of course, there are more bonus challenges and higher difficulty levels if I want to go back some day and keep upping the ante on myself. Sure, maybe! But maybe not! I appreciate the way it’s all been packaged so that, having seen the ending and the credits, I don’t feel I’m leaving it incomplete, even though there’s plenty more to do if I want there to be. There is, for example, no big “57% completion” display in the main menu, to make sure you feel that you have more to do until you’ve OCDed it to death. I don’t have more to do. I had fun, I’m moving on, and Jamestown is comfortable with that. Like a true friend!

I feel that I here have something worth well more then $0.71. Since I got nothing out of the previous game, I’ll say that I spent $1.42 all on this. Still a good deal!


Before we go: I’ve just been checking out various infamous “bullet hell” sequences on Youtube. Get a load of this one. Good god! Doesn’t the very existence of this make you feel like the entire nation of Japan could use some therapy? Some quiet time? The patterns are beautiful, but the construct is tiny vulnerable you vs. overwhelming cruel cosmic beauty, a flea crushed by a galaxy of awe.

Yeah yeah, I know, there’s a sexual reading to be had too, but they’re actually one and the same.

Basically, submissives and dominants are exactly the same people: the people who carry around a sub/dom dichotomy in their minds. Which side they choose to embody and which one they choose to project is immaterial. The people who make these games — effectively, the people who are spewing out the bullets — are the same people who identify with the player who has to dodge them. Too much deferent investment in the vital importance of authority structures can make you go crazy. That’s a video of what it feels like!


Jamestown was made by three guys in Philadelphia, with help. The main credits as they appear in the game:

Timothy Ambrogi: design, engine, chieftain
Michael Ambrogi: design, art, soldier
Halsted Larsson: design, gameplay, shaman
Francesco ‘Foco’ Cerda: music

March 27, 2015

Gratuitous Space Battles (2009)

I’m not going to include the cover and title screenshot like I usually do, because that would give the false impression that I played this game for more than 17 minutes.

Here’s the standard data and links though:

developed by Positech Games (Lightwater, Surrey, UK)
first published November 17, 2009, for Windows, $22.99
[trailer]
[website]
~260MB

Played for 17 minutes in utter dismay, 3/17/15.


On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, at 2:40 PM I get an email alerting me to the launch of “Humble Indie Bundle 4,” containing seven games, and at 11:14 PM that night, I buy in for $5 = $0.71 per game.

Among the seven games are Cave Story+ and NightSky, both of which I’ve already completed and needn’t revisit. Then there are BIT.TRIP RUNNER and Super Meat Boy, each of which I played for several hours some years ago, but didn’t come close to completing; I’ll be revisiting those at least briefly to see whether they deserve more of my time, because I don’t remember. And then there are Gratuitous Space Battles, Jamestown, and Shank, which I haven’t touched before.


For a long time my pride was “throw anything at me and I will manage to consider it the way it wants to be considered.” That’s the subtext of a lot of this blog. It’s what drove me to start the Western Canon reading project back in 2006; I thought I was ready to read everything because I was ready to be any possible reader.

Now I see that my pride ought to be “throw anything at me and I will manage to consider it as myself.” This is actually the harder task, and far more rewarding.

Molding oneself into the ideal audience member for a given work is a social adjustment, and social adjustment can only give you social rewards. Whereas asocial, existential adjustment gives you the world; you just have to be ready to accept that sometimes it means friction and alienation in relation to things (and people). At least temporarily. In the long run, though, it means your relationships improve, because you’re really in them.

I had learned to will myself to pay attention to any possible book because it felt like it was the skill that would get any possible book to pay attention to me. But it doesn’t work that way. The Western Canon, History, The Hall of Fame, might seem like they demand from us a perfectly agreeable malleability, but actually they just welcome our company, and they’ll be fine if they don’t get it. They never say it out loud, but the invitation is “Come as you are.”

That goes for all culture, high, low, and otherwise.

I am me and I do not want to play Gratuitous Space Battles, not one little bit.


Something I love about movies is that at first you’re just living your life, not watching them, and then they start, and they have to make their case from there. There are titles, and a first image, and first words, and you just sit there with these things in front of you and think whatever you happen to think. Movies have been designed such that by doing no more than this, in time you will end up caring about them, freely and involuntarily. This is a wonderful gift!

A few years ago I was at a bar and a fairly drunk acquaintance of mine, a pinball aficionado, was waxing to me about the particular pinball machine at the back of this bar. He gestured to it, with all its lights and ramps and mechanical gizmos, and said, “It’s a gift, you know? It’s a gift that this exists.”

That’s what all culture is. It’s for you.

So when you get nothing out of it, you’re still doing it right.


In case you didn’t watch the trailer, the gist of Gratuitous Space Battles is: you set up a bunch of spaceships to face off against a bunch of bad-guy spaceships, and then you press “fight” and the battle plays out automatically, and you sit back and watch it and see if you won. So the gameplay is all contained within “you set up a bunch of spaceships.” It basically entails designing the ships by putting weapons and shields and engines and things on them, arranging them on the battlefield, and giving them each elaborate orders. Everything is extensively configurable, and everything comes with lots of “stats” that need to be taken into account. It all comes out of a big ol’ catalog of make-believe technology, and, naturally, it all costs money and must be fit within a budget.

In some ways this is like Frozen Synapse: do intricate prep, and then hit “go” and find out how well you did. But in Frozen Synapse, there are really only a couple options for each soldier, and they all correspond to intuitive real-life stuff: move, stand still, aim, duck: the intricacy arises only from your own anxious effort to find some way of covering all the bases. Also, you’re stuck with the soldiers the game gives you, and have to work with what you got. Here, there are lots and lots of things you can do, a whole catalog’s worth plus lots of pop-up option windows, and they’re all make-believe, and they all cost money, and it’s entirely up to you to pick which ones you want.

Well, I don’t care about that stuff! I’ll play a game, or I’ll watch a story, but I certainly don’t actually personally care which ships I have, or what lasers they have, or how many distance units from the enemy cruisers they should be before firing weapons of however many hit points at whatever fire interval requiring whatever number of crew. That stuff is all just data to me. I don’t actually care about data! I would only suffer through learning it all in order to get to some goal, some kind of locus of human or aesthetic interest.

But right there in the title, the developer is telling us outright: there’s nothing else to care about. There’s just this data for you to assimilate through trial and error; that’s it. The title is a joke, and the joke is: “We all know that it doesn’t really matter what any of this stuff means, so it will be nerd-droll of me to admit it openly. For there to be a ‘point’ would be an insult to your intelligence, am I right?”

In other words, he expects me to see spaceships shooting lasers, and look at this catalog of spaceship add-ons and just start to salivate.

The battles look more or less like Star Trek cut scenes (2D-ified), and the music sounds pretty overtly like the Star Wars prequel soundtracks, and obviously all the jargon of “ion pulse cannons” and whatnot draws on those same traditions. So there are some allusions to a wider world of cultural investment there. But that’s really all you get; that’s the full extent of the game’s sell, its seduction. That stuff is apparently expected to trigger a response so strong that we look at the title and chuckle, “Yeah, ‘gratuitous’ according to respectable rules of culture, but not according to our shared compulsions, we the nerdy few! Ha ha ha: guilty pleasure, decadent inguldence, brain candy, FTW, am I right?”

To that I say, Shut up, lady! I don’t want no part in your stupid repressions.


Is there another kind of person who might have given Gratuitous Space Battles more of a chance and ended up loving it? OBVIOUSLY YES!

If I chose to, could I contort my soul to resemble such a person, and consider the game the way they would? YES, I COULD.

Would I then sound thoughtful and open-minded? SURE, MAYBE, SUPERFICIALLY.

So do I choose to do this? NOT ANYMORE I DON’T!

I started it up, played the tutorial levels for 17 minutes, and knew it was time to go. That’s one of those things you just know, when you’re you.

So that $0.71 was a bust.

But dissatisfaction is the price of freedom. I’ll take it!

March 22, 2015

Jasper’s Journeys (1997/2008)

JaspersJourneys-cover
JaspersJourneys-title
developed by Lexaloffle Games (Wellington, New Zealand)
original DOS version released 1997
present version first published February 14, 2008, for Windows/Mac, $19.95
[trailer]
[website]
[play the entire game in your browser!]
~30 MB

Played to completion in 7.5 hours, 3/11/15–3/18/15.

[30-minute video of the first half of the game. (The only complete playthrough on YouTube is this 2.5-hour one in three parts, which has oppressively heavy player babble throughout.)]


Fifth of the seven games in the “Humble Voxatron Debut,” purchased November 9, 2011.


Everything about this game comes out of the past, but I’m not sure it can be called nostalgia. It seems to have been made in a spirit of genuine anachronism, which suits me fine.

Jasper’s Journeys overtly resembles games from the early 90s, games that I played, but it doesn’t actually depend on the player tapping into those memories; it just creates the same effect those games did. If you visit the same place 20 years apart, you aren’t taking a trip into the past. The place is continuously in the present.

This was another theme covered in that videogame book I drafted: games live eternally and don’t age, so they frustrate nostalgia even as they court it. Boot up Super Mario Bros. and you will see exactly the same thing you saw 30 years ago, which is to say you will not see the passage of time, or yourself, or anything else that’s necessary to sustain a sense of loss. Mario is responding to what you are doing only in this moment, always. Even movies leave more room for dreaming about one’s past viewings, because they go all by themselves. Games don’t; for them to work we need to be in them, which is why we can’t also be in our memories.


When Jasper’s Journeys was first made (by teenagers) in 1996 or so, it was imitative of trends from a few years earlier, as so many amateur productions are. We don’t tend to call that “retro.” When it was revamped in 2008, none of the essential aesthetic choices from the original were changed, because the designer’s tastes hadn’t changed. Since more cultural time has passed, it now becomes “retro” (and he advertises it as such), but really it’s the same thing it always was.

A lot of my fond memories of computer games from my childhood revolve around their eerie selfhood-erasing atmosphere, somewhere between hypnosis and fun. From our present vantage point, it’s tempting to look back at those games and say that a lot of that atmosphere was inadvertent, that it arose from technological limitations and naive aesthetic choices; after all, most of them were designed by technicians rather than artists. But I think that’s wrong. Pop culture in the 80s was full of surreal, somnambulistic stuff; think of all those spacey synthesizers in the pop music of the era. Games that induced a mild spooky trance knew exactly what they were doing, I say. (Hm. This was yet another whole chapter of my book, which again I’d rather not completely repeat/give away here.)

My point is that this game knows what it’s doing, and I put it to you that it’s exactly the same thing its forebears were doing. So it’s like a game from 1992, except a little softer and more polished in some ways.


The very sparse use of music creates an excellent effect, calling attention to the pregnant possibilities of silence. The general absence of music becomes dreamy and ominous. This effect does indeed remind me of Commodore 64 days — but only because I haven’t seen it used since then, not because it is somehow anchored to the 80s or to my childhood. I like it now too. More developers should take note!

To belabor this point further: this is not nostalgia; just the opposite. Nostalgia is an excuse to not learn from the past, because it’s so wrapped up in its pastness. Actually resembling the past means erasing the difference between now and then, which for some psychologies is undesirable. “Retro” fashions are almost always fueled by a smug sense of superiority over the past from which they borrow — undeserved, of course. The idea that we do not actually have any real leg up on the people of the past — that they were not “adorable, but wrong about a lot of things” but were, in fact just like us — can be a hard pill to swallow for a lot of people. I’m actually not sure why. Perhaps because the people of the past are dead, so we’re afraid to see ourselves sitting next to them in the Haunted Mansion mirror?


Anyway, I’m saying that this game has some of that magical subterraneanity I mentioned a few entries ago. This time I’m certain it’s deliberate, and I admire that. I also appreciate that the level design — which really is the soul of most games — has been done with care so that everything counts: secret passages to huge underground chambers; roundabout secondary routes; glimpses of treasure rooms on the very edges of the screen, out of reach; hidden worlds in the clouds directly above the place where you start but accessible only after obtaining the high-jump potion from far away. Large spaces that make the frame of the screen feel like a small bubble against the wide world; a constant sense of pushing outward, exploring, earning new information.


So in terms of feel, spirit, and space, this was something quite charming. And yet there was also a thinness to it, as though it wasn’t really a real game, just someone’s project. Chocolate Castle, by the same developer, had a very similar anachronistic look and feel, but it was also made up of new and excellent puzzles. Jasper’s Journeys is just made up of the stuff it looks like. It’s like the gameplay itself is just another part of this exercise in evoking certain mysterious feelings. And it does evoke those feelings; it just doesn’t do anything much as a game.

The game refuses to be given too much attention. The plot is that you’re an elf or something, and a witch kidnapped your cat. That’s it. At the end the final boss is the witch on a broomstick; otherwise it’s just a bunch of platformer worlds and platformer enemies: jump, get coins, get “fruit,” don’t touch monsters. This constitutes a kind of intentional, affectionate emptiness, which is quaint but also genuinely empty. So there’s a limit on how much I can get out of a thing like this. This is sort of a homey poem, so it ought to be short like a poem. I would have liked to spend about 3 hours with this game rather than 7. It probably didn’t need to be 15 levels long and brimming-full of “secrets” that seemed to need discovering.

But ultimately, even that was okay. The game had the great virtues of being gentle-hearted and, to borrow a word that another site used to describe this developer, earnest. That’s an apt description of the impression the game makes: it is a watery trifle, but made by someone who really cares about watery trifles and has thought a lot about their value.

I’m a big fan of earnestness, which is different from seriousness.


Somehow, this 30 MB game has been packed into a 2 MB zip file for distribution. The main data file is packed at a 92% compression ratio. I’ve never seen such a thing before and have no idea how it was done.


Credits as they appear in the game:

Joseph White: Code, Music
John White: Graphics, Map Design
Tomas Pettersson: Sound

March 15, 2015

Gish (2004)

Gish-cover
Gish-title
developed by Chronic Logic (Santa Cruz, CA)
first published May 4, 2004, for Windows, $19.95
[trailer]
[original website, current website]
~175 MB

Played through first two (of five) zones, got fed up in 3-1, in 2 hours, 3/8/15—3/12/15.


Fourth of the seven games in the “Humble Voxatron Debut,” purchased November 9, 2011.


I’ve said before that I don’t much care for “physics” as a feature attraction — it just exposes how limited and artificial our control schemes are. Gish doesn’t go the full QWOP, but it does basically consist of wrangling with the controls. Want to make the blob jump and stick to the wall? Great, but can you? Dammit. Dammit. Dammit.

Dexterity puzzles have always been a touchy business. They’re designed to be used a certain way, but they’re also designed to be frustratingly hard to use that way, which goes against the spirit of “design.” What constitutes a well-designed frustration and what constitutes frustratingly poor design? It’s in the eye of the beholder, naturally. But it does help that marble labyrinths and the like are physical, so our struggles with them are genuinely part of our lifelong struggles with physical existence. Video games can’t claim that.

I suppose all platform games are dexterity puzzles of a sort — want to get Mario across the gap? great, but can you? — but to the player there’s a big difference between a game where the challenge seems to be in the character’s environment and one where the challenge seems to be in the controls. I guess that’s really just a measure of how fluent the player is in the controls. Perhaps with enough time, QWOP would really feel trivial, since there are no actual impediments to be overcome. (Actually not true — if you get good enough in it, I’m led to understand that there are hurdles somewhere way down the track.)

But this is the process of learning anything: what is at first a challenge gradually becomes a method, for addressing oneself to the next challenge. Mastery creates transparency. A kid has considerable trouble staying upright on a bicycle, but cycling competitions are not about facility at staying upright. Cycling competitions are based on having completely forgotten that it was ever a discrete task at all.

I try to remind myself of this when I come up against something difficult while playing the piano: yes, it is difficult for me right now and I aspire for it to be easy in the future, but it’s important to envision that properly. The goal is not some kind of glorious triumph over the difficulty; the goal is for the thing itself to have ceased to be a discrete “thing,” such that I am once again only aware of music.

This is what “leveling up” in games is supposed to represent, and why it fails. Real leveling up, in life, feels like always being on the ground floor; difficulty rolls out of existence beneath you while your experience stays center. I aspire to play the piano with such effortless facility that I am unaware of that facility as even constituting a phenomenon, and the only object is the music itself.

What happens to a video game when one gets this good at it, so good that one can always simply do whatever one wants, effortlessly and without awareness of the possibility of “difficulty”? Does the game disappear? I say no, because there is content in video games, and it’s this content that interests me in the first place. But to many people it seems the answer is yes, which is why we have all these “achievements” and “speedruns” and high score competitions: things to do after you’re too fluent for the game to exist as such. The idea there is: without resistance there is no being. I disagree.


Let me respond directly to this video by the guy who (probably) put Gish in the Humble Bundles in the first place — this is the same guy who made a similar video extolling the control scheme of Hammerfight, if you remember that one.

He talks about “shallow controls” vs. “deep controls,” which probably wouldn’t irk me as terminology if I agreed that “deep” controls were inevitably superior, but I don’t. In his words: “Gish has deep controls, because they work at a level below what you explicitly intend to do.” The implication is that this makes them more rewarding, because when one engages with something at this subintentional/subconscious level, the experience becomes more full. The problem here, as I see it, is that the subrational mind is a very slow learner and requires much greater time investment to find its footing — an investment for which most games aren’t ready to take responsibility. They are after all just games. It’s akin to saying that Swahili is “deep” where a cryptogram is “shallow.” Absolutely it is, but that’s exactly why I wouldn’t learn Swahili for fun while I’m eating breakfast. It’s better as a language and much worse as a puzzle. Which is Gish?

More of his words: “In most games you have a ‘use’ button, and if you press it while near a switch, you flip it. However, in Gish, you have to physically move it from one position to another. This is more work, but it’s fun because there’s so many different ways to do it. You can stick to it and pull it, or become heavy and push it, or knock an object into it.” My words: Why is ‘different ways to do something’ fun? We have all those same options in relation to real switches — do you have fun flipping them? In fact, we have all those options in relation to real everything — do you have fun doing everything?

If so, great! I’d like to have fun doing everything.

His words: “The physics-based controls are almost impossible to master, so they’re great for multiplayer.”

My words: Yeah, that’s probably so; struggling to cope with the same arbitrary system can bring people closer together. That’s also exactly why they’re not great for single player vs. computer world, which is how I was playing.


So what is the content of Gish? It’s recognizably an Edmund McMillen game — the eager adolescent juxtaposition of cuteness and brutality — and also very clearly an earlier effort. Things feel a little diffuse and repetitive, and the design isn’t tight or polished. It feels like “Yeah dude, we made a game!” 2004 was, I think, right at the beginning of the rise of small independent game development as a mainstream cultural force, sort of like the late 80s were for movies (the Sex, Lies and Videotape era). This game has some remnants of the previous, less self-respecting era, when there were no “indie” games in a hip sense, just amateur games, underground games. This is sort of a grunge game.

Listen to the music: doesn’t it sound like the game is probably from 1993? Maybe it’s just that that’s the era when I was made aware of Mr. Bungle, whose sound this is.

Anyway, as far as meaning goes, I didn’t believe that I was really supposed to care about Gish the blob of tar and his human girlfriend — certainly I wasn’t supposed to care about them as much as I did about the gameplay. It all seemed deliberately like something that someone doodles and then explains in retrospect. Don’t get me wrong; I love that kind of creativity, and some of the best games have been just that! But it means the “story” and the “setting” were meant to be secondary. And as I said, the content is generally what interests me in the first place. Not a lot to see here: just physics and a goofy attitude. So, with no ill will at all, I think that means I’m done.

If I had spent more time with it, might I have gotten more fluent? Well, sure! Same with Swahili, but it hasn’t happened yet. There has to be a reason, you see?


Here’s a postmortem article; always sort of interesting even when I don’t care much about the game.

The basic credits are:

Edmund McMillen: design, art
Alex Austin, Josiah Pisciotta: design, programming
Game Audio Magic (Tim Smolens & Jeff Attridge): sound, music

Plus a few.