Shallow Depths

It's generally assumed that computer games are playful, yet highly structured experiences.  That's certainly fair comment -- there are set rules, mission structures, or goals to achieve.  Games are won or lost, and rules can rarely be changed.  Stories and events are often highly scripted and pre-determined, with at least partly set pacing.

Googling unstructured play brings up a lot of articles about the importance of a freeform style of play for kids, and the need to have time away from structured play like video games.  I don't disagree, but of course it's not really that simple.  Structured vs. unstructured play isn't a true binary option, it's just one way of looking at a wide spectrum of play.  Still, I'll run with the distinction for now, because I think it leads some interesting places.

I suppose I grew up with a fairly high proportion of unstructured play in my life.  Television hours were at least partly restricted, and computer games were rare.  There were trees to climb, thoughts to write, and many creative attempts to avoid practising piano.

When there was actually access to computer games it seemed very natural to bring more unstructured play to the game.  I drew some unnecessarily elaborate and pretty maps of the mazes in Return to Zork.  Rather than being platforming zombies staring at the screen, we made up lyrics to songs on Sonic the Hedgehog 2.  (The 'we' is important here, it was also very often a social activity, regardless of whether the game itself was designed to facilitate that.)

Games always seemed part of a broader idea of play and creativity.  I don't draw lines between these things in the way some might -- if I dress up based on a game character is that fun part of the game itself, or something else?  It didn't (and doesn't) matter to me.  It's all connected.  Note: not having a firm line between gameplay and real-world play does not limit my ability to see the difference between fantasy and reality, that would be a very different thing.

(Tangent:  Michael Abbott (The Brainy Gamer) a few months ago attempted a first draft catalogue of fun in games.  One or two of my thoughts are in the list, but my idea of costuming or other spin-off activities as part of the fun were not included.  I wasn't surprised.  I could have better clarified that I do consider those activities to increase fun within the game itself as well as outside it, but I might need to put that down as one of my own oddities.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.  I enjoy having those lines blurred in my own life, but I don't expect it to be a common point of view.  If you do agree I'd love to hear more about your experiences.)

Later, I created story and roleplaying in game worlds.  Intentionally blank protagonists, such as the hero of Baldur's Gate, were inadequate without my input.  I populated the world with my own imagination, at times complete with extra dialogue and character development not present in the game itself.  Some people create mods to weave their own stories and romances, where I already had an imaginative extra layer without blatant manipulation.

Sometimes there is a fight for control between the game structure, and how I would like to play.  In Final Fantasy XII it might look like I'm playing the journey from street urchin to hero, and the attempt to put Princess Ashe back on the throne.  But really I'm a biologist cataloguing the land's creatures (and trying to ignore those long cut-scenes which sometimes try to side-track me from my important scientific mission).  I like Biologist Fantasy much better than Final Fantasy, so why wouldn't I play like that?

As games become more elaborate there is less room for my imagination, it seems.  It can become a fight between my will and the game structure.  My Biologist Fantasy game is pushing the limits.  I couldn't really maintain the illusion, though it remains my major motivation for possibly going back and finishing the game one day.

I do think there are still a lot of unstructured elements to games.  Often, they lie off the beaten path and away from a core mission structure.  It's moments like driving off jumps because the rules of the world have scope for it, rather than because of any related achievement.

I have to wonder -- why am I fighting the game presented to me, and cherishing any hidden corners where I can do whatever I like?  Structure isn't such a bad thing, is it?  That's what allows games to tell stories, and so on.

I seem to keep encountering people asking this core question recently: are games the problem, or is it that games just aren't for me?  Then I remember I'm working with multiple false binaries here, and life is actually far more interesting and complicated.  I don't want to sell things short with such a limited question.

I'm closer to what I want to say when I consider that although games have rules and limitations, that isn't the same as having a right and wrong way to play.  If I want to run around setting fire to things instead of completing missions in Brütal Legend that's still valid, as is my Final Fantasy biologist.  At least to some extent, following the obvious structure is a choice.

Some games give me more room to move than others, but either way I don't have to see it as a fight between my imagination and playful tendencies, and the game structure.  Remembering that the unstructured play I bring to a game is just an extension of the play I have inherently in everything I do.  Suddenly it starts to feel a lot more natural, and isn't really in conflict with accepting the more structured elements of a game.

-----
This post deals with the unstructured play within myself, which colours game experiences.  Part 2 will focus more on unstructured play as intended design.

Gaming communities are not well known for their inclusiveness, but how bad are they really?  Which of the major sites are doing better or worse?  Those are big questions to fully tackle, so I can only scratch the surface a little.  You might call this a (very) rough pilot study about non-inclusive language in mainstream game blogs.

I looked through posts from this year at Joystiq and Kotaku.  I was planning to analyse Destructoid too, but their search functions are inadequate for the purpose.  From what I could see Destructoid are a pretty bad offender though.  They sometimes excuse language in the name of satire (e.g., Gears of War is Gay).  Satire can be used to reclaim language and highlight the ridiculousness of its use, but in these cases I don't think it's very clever or effective.

Posts from this year at Kotaku and Joystiq were searched for any instances of 'gay', 'retard/ed', or 'lame' used as insults or indicators of inferior quality.  Post content, title, and image captions were all considered.  Comments were not searched, though I would expect them to paint a much worse picture.  Double-up posts were also excluded.

I found no instances of pejorative use of 'gay' or 'retarded' at Joystiq this year, but did find two articles using 'lame' problematically.

Kotaku avoided blatant misuse of 'gay', but did skirt the surface of correctness a couple of times with their continued interest in the letters to "Ur Mr. Gay" visible on the Mario Galaxy cover art, as well as a dubious reference to Brokeback Mountain in their discussion of racial diversity in the Prince of Persia movie.  That article will leave a bad taste in the mouth for a few reasons.

When it comes to 'lame', Kotaku is far less restrained.  Twenty-five articles from this year were identified containing clear instances of lame used as a pejorative.  Some were reader reviews, but these by no means dominated the list.  An additional two articles included lame within quotes, which I don't attribute to the authors, but I do still consider them borderline cases.

I found 3.5 instances of retard/ed as an insult from Kotaku this year.  One of these was from a reader review from someone blatantly trying to be Yahtzee by describing the AI in Battlefield Bad Company 2 as "pants-on-head retarded".  The 0.5 comes from an article where it was unclear whether the author was referring to an actual retarded man, or just a man they wanted to insult.

This is a very limited look at the issue.  I've a larger-than-intended focus on Kotaku, and only looked at a couple of commonly-used exclusionary terms.  Probably rather obviously, I began this time-wasting little exercise with a certain idea in mind which I wanted to confirm.  That is, that there has been at least some progress towards communities rejecting homophobic language, but there is a much longer way to go for something like the ableist use of 'lame'.  Retarded probably falls somewhere in the middle in terms of community acceptance vs. rejecting it as inappropriate.

Words are powerful and important.  They are also wonderfully diverse, making these non-inclusive phrases blatantly unnecessary.  We can do better.

----
Further reading:
Addressing ableist language (Feministe)
Another reason to avoid exclusionary language (This Ain't Livin')

'Roleplaying Game' is one of those awkward genre labels meaning different things to different people.  I don't have a good personal definition, but one element I consider to be at the core of RPGs is questing.

It's a little contrived, but somehow I love being bossed around and completing tasks for people.  Preferably something more involved than being asked to kill ten wolves, but World of Warcraft is the only game I've played where grinding quests were quite so ridiculously blatant and over-used.  Usually quests are a bit more interesting, and reveal pieces of the world and its inhabitants I wouldn't see otherwise.

I'll usually happily do whatever characters ask, even when it gets silly.  I'm supposed to be on a critical mission, but apparently still have time to rescue someone's cat, or run an errand.  I don't usually question it much.  There's a time to question game conventions and motivations, and a time to just be satisfied that I'm enjoying myself.

Honestly, the core stories of many RPGs are generic and silly anyway.  I adore Baldur's Gate, but I don't remember much about the main story.  I do remember meeting mad wizards in the forest, reuniting lovers, the personalities of my companions, and a lot of other small moments.  I find the real stories tucked away in sidequests and hidden corners of the game.

It is very unusual for me to find a quest and decide not to complete it, but it has happened.  The main example I can think of was from Mass Effect 1.

The quest is known as Family Matter, and involves a couple found arguing on the Citadel streets.  A pregnant woman is concerned about the risks involved in obtaining gene therapy for her unborn child, while her brother-in-law argues for how important that therapy is to avoid a possible genetic heart defect which had recently killed the baby's father.  There is no clear advantage or disadvantage to taking one side over the other – the game itself is neutral with regard to right and wrong on this issue.

I'm prepared to accept that my Shepard is an unusually influential person.  I'm not controlling just any old peon here.  I am happy to believe she could say something about choices and genetics, and actually have it taken to heart.  But that doesn't necessarily mean she would.

As Shepard I made life and death decisions constantly.  The fate of entire species was regularly in my hands, and I was willing to take on that responsibility.  I helped shaped the beliefs of my crew in addition to earning their respect.

But when faced with this particular choice I recoiled, and gaped at the choice in front of me. Advancements in genetic technology do come with more than their share of ethical questions, and weighting up benefits and disadvantages.  I'm happy to see that tackled in a science fiction game, but not in such a throw-away scenario.  I would never tell someone how to make a decision like that.  I wouldn't advise a close friend, let alone a stranger on the street.  It's not my place, and it's not my Shepard's place.

I went with the only other option available to me.  Shepard threw her hands in the air, said 'To hell with this' and left them to it.  In the process I knowingly sacrificed some easy Paragon or Renegade points, but there is no way I was willing to make that call.

I'm insecure about works-in-progress. Whenever I'm working on something, part of me is constantly waiting for someone to tell me it's crap, or that I'm going about it the wrong way. It seems safer to put finished products up for judgement, and leave the procesesses and failed attempts a mystery.

I honestly like constructive criticism (I struggle with praise far more, because I can't learn much from it and it's hard to see the point). But in the past I've received a lot of the other kind of cricicism. Harsh, thoughtless words, often targeting unfinished elements rather than genuine mistakes. I didn't like being attacked, so I built defence mechanisms, and hid many ideas.

Yes, it's a silly thing to worry about and I could often benefit from feedback at an earlier stage, but some habits are ridiculously hard to break.  I'm working on it.  In the meantime, this can cause unexpected issues.

One of the interesting things about play is that it's always a work-in-progress.  Defining play is probably a little bit silly (although plenty of people try).  But I think it's usually about doing something more than it's about end results.  Even though there is no way to 'do it wrong' I am still inclined to keep play private, working through my own exploration and experiments.  I only give myself free reign when I'm not being watched.

I think my secretive tendencies do play a disservice, but that's very much where I'm stuck at the moment.

When I was in high school they once booked out a Timezone arcade during camp (a fairly exotic outing for us country kids). It was an opportunity to play whatever I wanted, provided I didn't mind being surrounded by classmates, as well as having to ask the staff to unlock the machine I wanted to play.

As you can possibly imagine, it was an opportunity largely wasted on me, and created a lot of discomfort.

The issue also came up strongly during this year's Freeplay festival. Getting hands-on with some of the independent games on display is an important element for many people. For me, it's a small nightmare. I cope with interactive displays by latching onto someone and following them around – I do at least enjoy watching other people interact publically.

(My partner seems to hate being followed like this, by the way, he deals with it by pretending I'm not there. I probably need to find others more comfortable with my stategy if I want to check out these kinds of displays. That or, you know, deal with it well enough not to need someone to follow.)

Computer games usually have end-points, but the journey is far more important than the destination.  I'm not comfortable with anyone else watching me while I go through the process of experimentation and learning what the game demands of me.

If I'm willing to play a game with someone it's a huge sign of trust, and even then I'll probably put in enough solo-time first that I'm confident of my ability to be an asset. That avoids other people having to witness quite as much of my learning process.

So, I have some things to work on there.  What is possibly more interesting is that it forced me to consider the kind of process play might be, and why it's important.  It's not serious, but that doesn't make it unimportant.

This is well-worn ground, perhaps, but something I plan to think about some more.

I have an article up on Screen Play today. It was fun to write, and looks at playing games with my parents.

There always seem to be more layers to uncover where family is concerned. There is another half to the story. It involved me becoming traumatised, and I haven't played Uncharted since for fear of association. Shame really, I was surprised by how much I enjoyed the beginning.

But I'm sure no one wants to hear the details of my Mum's knack for pushing buttons, or the kinds of things that can happen when I'm hormonally unbalanced.

Such is life, and it doesn't invalidate anything I wrote in that article. And when I say I'll take any victories I can find, I really mean it.

Okay, that's just about enough messing about with things (and possibly losing the few followers I did have). Time to be getting on with things. I haven't said much about my 'reviews' recently. Since my last post about this I have tackled:

• 3D Dot Game Heroes
• Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's Tag Force 4
• Demon's Souls
• Flower, Sun and Rain
• Faceez
  
• Pinball Pulse: the Ancients Beckon
• Shank

I've been learning more about how to approach games (and applications) that aren't my usual thing. I don't mind, because it's a challenge and I might discover something interesting I wouldn't otherwise. But it also means suffering through some things.

3D Dot Game Heroes relies heavily on nostalgia for old Zelda games. Since I haven't played those games it was never likely to work for me. Twilight Princess is the only Zelda game I've played. It was interesting, since it was all so new to me, but didn't make me urgently want to play any other Zelda games, let alone the 2D ones.

I did really like collecting the glowing bugs in Twilight Princess, though. Maybe 3D Dot should have catered to my inner entomologist, then I might have appreciated it more.

Tackling Yu-Gi-Oh! was a scary prospect, and Faceez was even scarier. The less said about Faceez the better, I think.

In the case of Yu-Gi-Oh! you can tell I'm stretching because I resorted to lazy reviewing strategies, like beginning with a quick history of the series and its spin-offs. I'll have improved noticeably when I no longer have to fall back on that sort of thing. I know for a lot of people that's just part of the standard review formula, but it isn't the way I usually operate.

I wasn't planning to write about Flower, Sun and Rain but I was asked and it's an interesting one. It's yet another example for the list of games-Cha-likes-which-a-lot-of-people-hate, but that's okay. It's also a Suda 51 game I actually finished, which makes me feel a lot better. I have an unreasonable amount of guilt about killer7 and No More Heroes. I didn't even make it past the tutorial in killer7 *sigh*. Pretty embarrassing.

I also wasn't planning to review Demon's Souls, but after criticising 3D Dot I felt like giving From Software credit where it's due. The Demon's Souls review took me ages. I re-did the structure completely many times, trying to get the right messages across.

I think that was a useful process, but since then I've also been learning to limit the time I spend writing, not just improving the quality. It's a tricky balance, and I need to be strict with myself. I can't afford to spend that much time on everything.

Making myself write faster has been good for me, I think. Short term the quality suffers, but I think I'm starting to get better at it. Thankfully I also started on this particular challenge while reviewing some shorter download games.

Shank was an interesting prospect. I volunteered to look at it, even though I'm a beat-em-up novice. I enjoyed writing a harsh opening paragraph, maybe a little too much.

This is a bit annoying, I realise, but the longer I put it off the more annoying it's going to be.

I'm currently in the process of consolidating some of my online identities. As part of this I'm rebranding this blog, including a URL change. I assume RSS users will also need to resubscribe.

I began this blog largely to avoid spamming my real life friends with a lot of game talk. It's my small and self-indulgent playground (and probably always will be), but it has also gathered a little more interest than I expected.

I've begun to work harder at my writing, and become more aware of game-journalists worth admiring. Suddenly it seems like I should have put a bit more thought into this blogging and where it fits into my life and other projects.

I am definitely a personal blogger at heart. My core audience are myself and my friends. Maybe I can also build new friendships -- that's always nice. So, it's time to ditch the silly name and embrace... what may still be a silly name, but I like it so I don't care. More importantly, I feel it.

New URL: http://shallow-depths.blogspot.com

Shallow Depths is something I've been trying to work out how to be for the last year or two. An artist, blending meaning and triviality; safety and fear. I think it's time to stop working it out and just be that anyway.