DAVID CAGE - GENIUS AUTEUR OR INSUFFERABLY PRETENTIOUS QUACK?

Posts

Pages: first prev 12 last
I think we might have a fundamental disagreement of definitions. Mostly summarized in this line:
What about every survival horror/survival whatever game ever? You kill plenty of stuff in those. But when those games are doing their jobs right, you feel like you're barely surviving, no matter how much firepower you might bring to bear. Doing everything you can to barely survive is again the opposite of a power fantasy.

I, and I believe a lot of other people too, would definitely put this under the lists of "power fantasies". It is... Essentially about... overcoming... Or something. I think this is sort of what was meant by Cage's comment about how games generally are power fantasies. Because games are nearly always about success. The player doesn't really fail. The characters in the story of the game might fail, but their failure is always the result of the player succeeding.

I mean otherwise it is a game over.


A slightly different discussion probably: This is a difficult pattern to break out of. But I'd love to see more games where failure is not the end. But the mindset of players is often that it's "bullshit" to fail. I fall into that too. An unbeatable boss? Bullshit, there has to be a way to beat it. Save-reload on an unwanted minor failure. But sometimes failure is more interesting than success. That's why in story-based games there's loads of failure in cutscenes even if the players don't fail. (see Tomb Raider 2013, a game where you are amazing at everything until a cutscene happens and you are ambushed by two goons that appeared out of nowhere, after literally killing fifty of them two minutes ago)

Now I don't know how to make games around this innate power fantasy of video games. I too want to succeed in my games and find it frustrating to fail. But I think there's a huge mostly unexplored bit there where it'd be okay for the player to sometimes fail and sometimes succeed.

One example of interesting failure that I quite like is Crusader Kings 2. Where the game is actually quite boring if you succeed a lot. But built into it are a number of crises that can upend things and sometimes it's actually fun to try to maneuver to get those crises triggering. Losing a civil war and breaking a kingdom in two might not sound fun but a lot of interesting will happen as a result of it over keeping the kingdom at peace and prosperity for another hundred years.
Yeah stuff like The Last of Us is still a power fantasy, no matter how many sad dads you put in it. It's usually a form of escapism or wish fulfillment even if the setting/circumstances are undesirable. You can probably write or implement characters that are cowardly or flat out weak and getting by through luck, but it's far from the "opposite" of power fantasy. Power isn't just violence or dominance, it can be social capital, getting paid, acquiring a diploma, gaining success, going against the odds. (IN MY OPINION fyi js)

Something like Eurotruck Simulator might not be a power fantasy on it's own at first. But it could be argued that if you don't have a drivers license IRL, or don't have a job that you like, Eurotruck Simulator could provide some wish fulfillment or some kind of control over a virtual life without worrying about consequences. Though maybe some people just want to chill out and listen to podcasts and doesn't get too much validation out of virtual driving. I think that's where the line gets blurry. Where the media in question isn't that remarkable and it depends on the person what they get out of it.

Trying to think of non-power fantasy examples and the only thing that comes to mind are the really artsy indie games that people think are boring like The Graveyard. Me describing it as "artsy" is probably connected to the fact that there's not any winning or things to overcome. Walking simulators come to mind, where there's no resistance or any way to become "better" than other characters in the world. Something like Journey though, where you basically climb a mountain or gain cooler scarves does still contains conquest elements. I personally don't even categorize it as a walking simulator in that way. A lot of these types of games really do upset people though, probably because they're not the best vehicles to feel empowered or resisted.
It's not the initial discussion, but sure. I can think of Papers Please at the top of my head. There's also games like 60 Parsecs and the older penchant which do have you in control tho, so definitely a power position, if perhaps not a fantasy to all. (definitely to some. guess why apocalypses are so popular)

So uh, long ramble short: What DO you want to see rather than the power fantasy? What is the thing you are looking for? What's that even supposed to look like? 'Cause I'm not seeing it. Knowing what it's NOT supposed to be is saying very little.
Cause if the answer is FEELING powerless, then you have far more things at your disposal even though you have full power. (and that's a more realistic goal imho. Hi life!)
If it's about having less impact and power, then smaller roles and stories are the thing. Following only a portion of the big thing. (like the Papers Please). Some people will like it (I know I do), other people need some sort of world-altering state to start caring (I know someone like that. Felt the most emotionally packed incredibly fast-paced series I know of had 'nothing happening').
Want to have fail situations you can recover from? That'd be cool, tho some games do have that. Dark Souls literally has the least punishing 'u go peep!' death in any game I ever played. Dying isn't the end, it's just a mechanic and you just try again and see to it that you recover your progress (souls). You lose nothing, if very little. All your equipment is there, you can recover your souls if you keep at it. It's only when you give up and say 'screw this' that you truly lose progress.
There's games where you can fail to save chars and they die and the story is still fine, though it'd take some more intricate stuff to like emotionally recover or restores friendships etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's hard not to have some degree of power when you do have the ability to enact something, which is at the core of any gameplay. And lack of gameplay can be good or bad.
There are moments where certain games do try to embed things into a nice package. I remember Soul Sacrifice having a GREAT main menu. You could read lore and backstory there, with wonderful music, while imprisoned in some form. You hear the noises, things outside, behind prison bars. You couldn't move, but you could flip your book. That's where you read stuff, and eventually the story characters you follow end up there where you are. The gameplay is normal beat things, although every tale had sad setbacks and things (+ tragic positive ending). It's small bits, but it contributed to a wonderful atmosphere to sink into, and to witness a story, rather than to BE the story (fights were kinda dull and more a means to advance the story anyhow).

It's a good criticism to make, but that doesn't mean the dude is any good, original or making good things just because he said that. (obviously because he hasn't spent a second examining why that is such an omnipresent thing to begin with, nor found ways to navigate around it). You can argue turning into a movie with just quick actions in it takes away a lot of the gameplay 'power problem', but then you have a clear win and fail state, and I imagine there are plenty scenes where you are put back to nail it should you fail. Didn't play his games tho, so..

Lack of control is hard to express during gameplay, where you literally control the camera, character or whatever menu you are traversing. Games literally put your decisions into action. Whatever they may be, and that is incredible power at display. Quite literally, when comparing addicts, game addicts are far better at coming up with plans, schedules and solution compared to other types of addicts, but are far worse when it comes to actually implementing these solutions. (I'd need to look up statistics though, a lot of that was conducted within addiction focused facilities and I heard it from there). Games tend to make one think about which actions to take, not how to execute them. That's what the game does for you. That's why it's so easy to just have Sims be absolutely efficient machines *shrugs*

Walking simulators and the like can be tricky because people like gameplay in games, and it's hard to separate gameplay in bits where you can do or can't do things WHILE STILL DOING EVERYTHING. That's why cutscenes tend to take on this role, for better or worse. The best I've come across I can think of is just random reverse control effects that make you literally unable to do much (until or unless you trained lots in that state, which may or may not happen). There are also wonderful insanity meter effects in Eternal Darkness (Gamecube). None of them strip away any fantasy elements otherwise present. The fact that you switch characters and most characters DO NOT have happy endings does help though. Running into an irreversable, unavoidable death is pretty neat.

Ramble:
Story-wise, I believe what the conflict here is, is that creating a story that's tragic or unhappy whilst keeping the player perspective is hard. There's plenty stories you just follow along, but to be truly immersed AND be affected by it is often more an individual's players feeling, rather than a mechanically enforced state. Also individual's experiences and fears that's hard to play into. Also, ending on an unsatisfied, dis-empowered note might be tricky because life doesn't necessarily work that way, either ('lest you die and even then many beliefs say it ain't the end). Sure, there's plenty peeps who do give up, but just as many people keep fighting for a better life, better friends, better partners, better relationship with themselves, etc. etc. and eventually do succeed in various things, even if it's as simple as gaining experience at your job. Creatures learn things, sometimes we just call those things 'negative' and other times 'positive'. We have a lot of power in our lives, even if it's only in limited ways and spheres. We do. It's certain spheres and situations where it might be taken away (overcoming trauma literally is relearning things that empower you). Not saying that that makes things nice or ugly, but there's a part we play in our experience, internally or externally. To play with that, how long does the story need to be? Should you end it on a low note without being given the chance to do it better if it is within your power? If it's outside your power, it often isn't your decision that made it happen (Papers Please closes the gap quite a bit, I should think, which is what makes it so interesting).

Pages: first prev 12 last