Minds Of Their Own
Browsing through Zach’s latest stack of comic pick-ups, I stumbled across a new title: Unwritten, a kind of Pinocchio-via-Harry Potter story out now from Vertigo. The book starts in the middle of a fantasy story. A bunch of wizard kids are trapped by a villain, and their ringleader, Tommy Taylor uses a spell that seems to transport him … to the real world?
Characters who leave the page, the stage, or the picture frame and come to life are not a new idea. But Unwritten puts a little bit of a spin on it by letting the characters bring themselves to life. You can imagine that there they are, in a book about magic, finding a magic so powerful that they can propel themselves off the page - our dreams coming to life whether we want them to or not. The comic itself is the story of the grown-up Tommy Taylor. Real-world Tommy is a kid whose dad wrote those books, and based the hero on his son. But now Tommy’s starting to wonder if he’s not the inspiration for the hero, but the hero himself, come to life.
Fictional characters live in the hearts and minds of the people who read about them, or watch them, or lead them around in a game. That’s the conventional wisdom: if it weren’t for the creator and the audience, there’s nothing there. At the same time, we also expect characters to bring some quality that’s beyond what any of us can give them.
Hence, Tommy Taylor apparently willing himself into life. (Caveat - the real story may differ: they’re only on issue #2.) Also hence, the characters on Joss Whedon’s Dollhouse. On that show, real live human minds are wiped clean, and new, made-up personalities are planted in their place. Based on season two previews, the question of what’s “real” will drive the show next year. Eliza Dushku plays a girl named Caroline who agreed to have her real self stuck in a closet somewhere while new minds are stuck in her body; add lingerie and dominatrix costumes, and you’ve got the protagonist. But as we’ve seen in Season 1, her fabricated personality has taken on its own life, or at least, is alive enough to look for the real life that’s buried under the surface. Meanwhile the antagonist, Alpha, is still a messed-up mix-up of 40+ different minds shoved into the same body, forming one new, superhuman, super-screwed-up - and totally self-willed - identity. He’s the dark side of Tommy Taylor, a fictional person who’s as out of control as a real one.
But we like that danger, because like I said, we want to believe that fictional characters have a will of their own. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be believable. Characters feel flat when they’re not surprising. Capricious and dangerous characters excite us, because surely even the author doesn’t know what they’re up to?
Yet at the end of the day, it’s all make-believe. We want the characters to dance for our entertainment, but we know we’re in charge. For example, it’s kindergarten-easy to see a male power fantasy in stories of made-up girls coming to life - going backaways to late night cable, see Mannequin or Weird Science, but also Dollhouse and Caprica. Girl comes to life and seems life-like, which makes her sexy and exciting and a plausible love interest. But girl is constrained by not really existing, or by potentially turning into a pumpkin when midnight hits, which means the male interest not only controls her, he gets to save her.
This goes beyond men wanting to meet the girls of their dreams: the central hook of any fictional character is that we can love them like a real person, and yet, we can also put them in the attic when we’re tired of them.
But stashing them in the attic is harder than it sounds. These characters come from, and speak to, the collective unconsciousness. There’s something truly awesome going on that we barely fathom and don’t really want to.
Jim Rossignol just argued on Offworld that “artificial life” will be an increasingly powerful part of modern gaming. He’s right - but the challenge will be to make artificial life that we can believe in. Playing off that tension of control and independence will be the first key. Nowadays, fictional characters are texting us and hanging out on our Xboxes. They haven’t become more commonplace: if anything, they’ve become more mysterious. They’re reaching us in new ways, bringing new wrinkles to their roles as spiritual advisors, archetypes, avatars, love interests, surrogate pals, comfort toys, commuter distractions, satires, hoaxes, and cash cows. They’re everything they used to be, but on unfamililar turf. And we need them, and we love them, and with any luck? We’ll never understand them.
22/06/2009 at 8:04 am Permalink
First, I love both Whedon and Dollhouse.
Second, this is a particularly interesting topic to me, especially as I’ve been kicking around a short story concept from the other end. That’s to say, what happens when a character truly dies?
When I was in eighth grade, my lit teacher asked the class how Sherlock Holmes died. Most of the students just sat there with blank stares but I and a couple of other geeks kept raising our hands and answering that Holmes of course died by falling over a waterfall with Professor Moriarty. Each time the teacher would shake his head and with each head shake we became more persistent and more frustrated.
Finally he said that Holmes died because the author stopped writing him. I remember at the time being completely let down by this answer. Where was the imagination in that? Where was the romance? On a very technical level, this was true, but it was a terrible thing to say, especiall for a literature teacher because literature, and later television, radio, movies, and video games, the whole lot of it is all make believe. It’s in the hearts and minds of those who invest themselves in the characters and the plots.
Now, in my thirties, I know the teacher is STILL wrong, but for a different reason–the author is not the only person who holds the life and death of a character in his hands. Indeed, we know that some decades after Doyle killed off his character, radio resurrected him again, and not by merely telling stories that Doyle never told during the lifespan Doyle plotted out for the character. No, the radio shows of yesteryear started to make the case that Holmes actually survived the battle with his nemisis. Movies have been produced and television dramas aired. Frogwares has a fairly long running series of adventure games dedicated to the sleuth, and there’s a new summer blockbusterish movie set to come out Ithink at Christmas starring Robert Downey Jr.
The point being–we know that fictional characters don’t actually come off the page as might be suggested in Zach’s comic. But they do take on a life of their own that is separate from even the author’s intent as my lit teacher tried to brutally force upon us. A character lives for as long as there are people around that still love him or her. Holmes continues to solve crimes all the way from boardgames to major motion pictures. Alice will continue to fall down the rabbit hole for my children’s children, and their children after that. Atticus will still be pleading the case of an innocent black man before a racist white jury, and Commander Sam Vimes of the Night Watch will still be smoking a cigar as he confounds the most cunning political minds of the Discworld long after the people who created them have shuffled off this planet.
But what happens when a character truly dies? How does a character die? If you read the Discworld novels, you know that gods only exist if there are enough people to believe in them and aren’t fictional characters essentially the same? What if you have a character and/or a story that just failed to capture the hearts of generations?
Because I mentioned the short story at the beginning of this impossibly long comment, I will say that the point of the story is to come at this concept from the other end. Not to discuss the lengths to which a character lives, but what happens when that character truly dies. Just such a character, one who enjoyed the fame of being a summer blockbuster, but whose trilogy plunged him into the world of derision and outright mocking, stands at the end of his three movie long struggle and admires and contemplates his work.
Then comes the Ender–an anthropomorphic realization of the Death of Characters. His job is to go along and kill all the characters who will not ultimately live on, who, through the excesses and failures of their creators, won’t be passed down generously from generation to generation.
But in truth, it comes to just that. A character does live as long as there are those who are willing to tell that character’s story, and those that cherish the stories that are told. They may not walk off the page, but they exist nonetheless. Only when the love of the creator and the beholder dies does the character die also.
22/06/2009 at 6:56 pm Permalink
Kyle, I’m with you - characters die when they’re forgotten. And it’s fascinating that your teacher used Sherlock as an example when the character’s still going.
But I love that story concept and I love the idea of materializing the Ender - and the idea that the characters die, not because the fans got bored, but because their creators messed up. Sends chills. Please send me a draft when you’ve got one!
22/06/2009 at 10:05 pm Permalink
*nods*
23/06/2009 at 6:22 am Permalink
There is two neat things I want to comment on the first being the oddity of all of them, and the other on where the game ends.
The odd thing is as neat all are they fall under the already existed the only new thing is combining them is something I find a bit odd. As neat as Weadon is, the only thing he has done for the most part being the first to mix two things together that weren’t before. For Firefly it was a combination of after a civil war western of the losing side and space where all things of wonder seem to meet.What made him so great is that he mixed these two together and filled in the gaps with his own imagination. Is that really creating something new? This is something of late I have been wondering since it is what falls on a sandwich I made recently. Toast, apple butter, cheese, and hamburger meat. Comes out with such a sweet taste, that it makes ice cream dull in comparison. With this sandwich did I create something new or not? Which seems to be the case with Dollhouse in that it looks to combine the anime Ghost in the Shell and Serial Experiment Lain. What he has created is something new simply because no one else thought to combine the two? That is what I am wondering here with this THE UNWRITTEN same as I have been wondering with Dollhouse. I don’t have an answer at this point, if I did I would give what I think to give the answer.
It is the same question I ask with user created content since that is what it fits into. The whole was not created by you, but what it becomes is. I am sorry if I am meandering about with this, but that is the thoughts about the two are. It is the same question I ask every time I have played with legos. Is it your own creation if you are simply making something new out of others parts?
Now on the game ending and it appearing to go on forever with the character having its own life has been one that has been around for a good while. The trick to figure out is how to get it to go outside its confined programing. The simple question of where it appears to have life has been answered in the past by the interaction. If the interaction is dependent on the user interface there is a sense of weight to it. Gigapets is what I am reminded of here. The user determined if the pet lived or die because the interaction determined it. If the user did not play with the pet, did not feed it, or take care of it the pet would die. So if the data it is dependent on the user, the user feels as though there is a life since it could die. Death meant that all one had to do was reset it for it to live. Now most didn’t get this so the death had meaning, for as far as they knew there was no reset button. Making the data input determine the output a rather simple idea if one can determine all the possibilities.
So once all the possibilities of input are determined output can be determine. So once an AI is given a mind to figure out all possible data for input then all possible output will be possible. It starts to get Terminator scary when it can choice not to give an output when an input is given. Though there is Your Love Plus http://kotaku.com/5299243/your-love-plus-virtual-girlfriend-experience-trailer which does look to be a date sim and an alive ai combine. So where that leads to might be that of Lain or Real Dive in that the internet is simply another dimension of our lives.
Is neat in concept, hopefully there will be more continuation of the game that make one wonder where does the game end. Then again Microsoft calls XBL an MMO game which gives a reason why there is joy in a game having an end.
23/06/2009 at 8:17 am Permalink
Mykal: Of course it’s all still new. I mean, the line of thinking you’re going along is one that depends upon a matter of degree, that’s to say that, if you keep digging small enough, you will eventually find common pieces shared between separate wholes. Aren’t we all just combinations of carbon and hydrogen atoms?
At the same time I recognize that this concept blurs the line of copycats and innovation. We can say that Whedon took various components of different things to create something new with all of his works, and be done with that. But, as a fan of the show Psych, i see the Mentalist as nothing more than a rip off, and an inferior one at that.
What makes something new isn’t the pieces parts from which it is constructed. If it was, then there would not have been anything really new constructed in the entire history of mankind. Sure, we discovered fire, but there are already billions and billions of balls floating out inspace that had us beat billions of years before we crawled out of the oceans. Yeah, the atom bomb, but you can’t tell me that that was the first thermonuclear explosion in the universe. The wheel, telescopes, etc, all of them physical manipulations of matter that has been in the universe long before we were here and will be long after.
What makes it new is the effect it has on the user. Does the theatergoer stare at the screen before him, breath hitched in his throat as he thinks, “I’ve never seen anything like this before?” Does the gamer grip the controller so tight her knuckles turn white as each leap and sword slash presses her own to see what’s behind the next corner? Does the reader look away from the page anxiously towards the lamp for just a second because this is the first time the written word has really put him on edge?
That’s where new lies. Not in its construction, but in its effect on those watching it at work. The universe is just too old to look for the newness of a thing in its blueprint.
23/06/2009 at 9:15 am Permalink
I know that Kyle, that is why I didn’t have an answer. Creation seems to be just a new flavor that wasn’t there before out of what is liked or seems new. The only flavor I have found in writing that I have been working for awhile on is having the story looped so there is no ending. The end is the beginning and the beginning is the end. I know it isn’t a new idea, many science fiction writers probably used it already. The way to do it so that the story is moving forward is the challenge.. Still working on how to do it rather then what to do it with. I know no idea is purely original, Paperiki is an example of that for me. Had a similar story being worked on that wasn’t half as good. Proved that no idea that you have is original, and can stand on the idea being that. Any idea needs to stand on how it is done, how well it is presented, and how well it can be marketed.
I do agree with your fully on the Mentalist. I tried to show this to my grandparents and found out it is Psych for old people since they like Mentalist better. That is why Psych is better is that it isn’t tailor made for one set audience.
24/06/2009 at 5:13 am Permalink
Mykal: I agree with just about everything you say. The truly creative folks out there in any medium are the ones that come closest to showing us the freshest stuff, of finding perhaps the keenest ways of reassembling that which we already know, innovating.
And yet, well, it’s not that easy, is it? The mainstream doesn’t LIKE innnovation, not really. This is why I’ve “gone indie” when it comes to my gaming. I mean, the only console of the current generation I have is a Wii. This is partly because my wife isn’t a fan of me getting sucked into a twenty hour slog required by mainstream games, but also because I’ve lost interest in what the mainstream has to offer.
There’s an awful lot to be said for creativity, but when it comes down to it, people tend to prefer the familiar in their entertainment. Example: My next door neighbor, Dave, is a musician. He plays clubs and bars in the local area and I remember him telling me that it’s next to impossible to play original stuff in these settings. It doesn’t matter if you have the greatest songs in the world, the people sitting at the bar don’t want to hear them. They want to hear the stuff they can sing along to. I remember him telling me he would kind of trick the audience into listening to his own stuff by saying “You wanna hear some Dave?” making them think Dave Matthews when he was in truth referring to himself.
The point I’m trying to get around to is that the stuff that hits the mainstream isn’t necessarily new even in the context we’re talking about. Take some of the biggest games out there: Halo (Ooh, military guy fighting aliens, I’m SURE that’s never been done before),MGS (Wow! A STEALTH based military game!?), Resistance (no, see, the originality here is that the military guy fighting the aliens HAS ALIEN BLOOD IN HIM!!!), etc. And it’s a symbiotic relationship. People want to be entertained by stuff they know will entertain them. Execs in gaming companies want to produce games they KNOW will bring in dollars–taking a chance on something truly original is just too big a risk on the profit margins. And so it all gets very stale.
That’s why I’ve gone indie. In indie games, the barriers have been removed. Sure, indie devs want to make good games and want people to like them, but there’s more creativity there. I mean, look at Cactus’s Mondo games. That’s some solid psychological thrilling first person puzzling, but because of the oddities surrounding the duo there’s no way a publisher would touch them.
I’m rambling, I don’t even know how far off topic I just went, but there you go. I’ll leave it at that for now.
24/06/2009 at 6:45 pm Permalink
Mykal - What’s Paperiki? I’m not familiar with that. Would love to check it out though, and I like what you say that one way to keep it fresh is to look for an alternate structure, like a story that has no end or beginning.
Kyle - Completely agree, but isn’t the indie scene also full of retro riffs, and clones, and experiments that come from familiar turf? People want the new couched in the familar, and I find that tension really interesting. But I also get cynical sometimes. I love indie games and indie creators but I keep jumping to all the bummer questions about how they’ll make a living. (Sites like yours definitely help though.)
It’s funny too, I’ve written a few pieces on fictional characters in pop today, and in some ways I feel like I’m seeing something new, and strange, and surprising - and in another way, we’re riffing on ideas people have already had. I guess what’s surprising one year is predictable the next, and you wait five years and it can come back.
I love this discussion - I feel like we’re all lounging in my living room at 3 AM. Gimme a sec, I’ll make us some nachos.
24/06/2009 at 9:16 pm Permalink
OOOH! NACHOS! Yeah, I’m lovin’ it over here, our site isn’t really set up for discussions like this much.
And yeah, it really is an interesting balance between couching new in the old, especially with a lot of developers these days because we’re talking about people who grew up with an NES or SNES and the look and feel of those games has a deathgrip on the hearts of a lot of gamers out there. It really does take a discerning eye because you get a lot of kids who will riff on the old and forget the new. Sometimes you’ll get devs who forget what made the old magical.
Case in point: one game that came across our desks recently was Raider Episode 1 (linky-poos: http://www.kongregate.com/games/Pseudolonewolf/raider-episode-1), and I ended up reviewing it. When we were evaluating it, we instantly picked up on a Mega Man or Metroid vibe, but there is a depth of story and characterization at work that goes beyond what the games of yore managed. So, at once it captured the heart of what it was riffing off of while at the same time bringing some serious respectable new to the scene.
By contrast, there was another game that came across our desks. We don’t speak ill of games, and I’ll go ahead and keep that practice for now so I won’t say WHICH game it was, but it was a Zelda clone. I remember evaluating the game and talking with one of the editors and he hit the nail on the head. That developer in particular had a habit of shooting for classic gaming, but eventually missing the heart of the game, missing that essential element that made the originals so popular to begin with. When it comes to the specific game in question, you have to remember the sense of exploration that you felt when playing the original Zelda games, and that was what was missing. All the monsters were essentially the same thing, the dungeons were few and far between, and it was just slow and boring.
To make matters worse, the plot was one of those silly plots you almost expect to come out of a 4chan convo. I swear, if the Flying Spaghetti Monster ended up being the final boss, I would not have been surprised.
Ultimately, though, I think when indie devs do hit the older styles, it’s partly all the stuff I just mentioned, and another part necessity.
And, I like chili on my nachos, btw.
25/06/2009 at 1:57 am Permalink
Here is the IMBD for Paprika http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0851578/ and the key marks we had in common were that dreams be another level of living much as the internet is. That the more that we connect the less we become, so the fracturing of reality occurs. In searching for the fracturing does the true connections are made. My version was more of just an average story that would allow what was love come out in a story. The same idea of playing with toys and coming up with a story with them, just swap out toys for things loved. Rather simplistic in comparison, and I never got real far with it since it keep falling into things loved was all. It was the story I had fun with because when stuck alone by myself after lunch when recess was going on. The whole trick to being alone with nothing to is just let the mind ride along your imagination. The trick for it to be enjoyable every time is just to have it set on different rails each time.
Which is the key to success I know, the game I have been looking forward for a good while is Brutal Legend because it does simply that. The whole hack and slash deal in itself is the same old same old. The fact the rails this time seem to be of humor and rock is why it looks so appealing. If Tim wasn’t behind it and someone else was doing the same game I probably wouldn’t be looking forward to it as much.
Now personally I envy both of you because you can go out enjoy the indie games that comes out on the PC. There is a simple deal with the controls that has made it tough to tough to enjoy it. Burn the Rope was the last game I enjoyed on the PC and before that was Grim Fandago, and before that was a Cookie Monster game when I was younger. I haven’t been able to judge any game fairly simply because of the controls. It may be the simple fact I haven’t played games as long,(I’m 21 been playing games since I was 5 or 6 making it 16 years I been playing video games.) or the first game I enjoyed was on a console. Simply because it is my first love when it comes to games may be why. When it comes to console games I don’t have to look at my mouse constantly to be reminded what I am doing. I know sounds like complete insanity to have to look at the interface, to figure out what you are doing in real life, to figure out what you are doing in the game.
So maybe because of that I may be outside of the true sight of what is great when it comes to games because of that. It may be why I am bullet ridden with errors when it comes to reviews, still I try. Something which I think is the best one can do when it comes to creating something new. Even if it fits the bill of a storyline of a 4chan conversation, the simple combination of things creates a smile that wasn’t there.
That has been why I been working on this idea of having a movie(simplistic way to work on it) that never ends. Best I have worked so far is that the beginning and the end have to be the same shot, same word. The opening credits in the same format as the end so that it is the tape. So the credits have to have their own reason to being watched. The best example I think would be of Wall-e ending credits. Some small animation going on while the credits going threw. Since there is the tape to connect the beginning to the end is in the beginning and the end have to be a bit vague. Something along the lines of “I wonder” or “I think”. Now for the two to work naturally from that the beginning has to lead to the end as well as the end leading to the beginning. So the real end is actually the climax. The central point is the turning point quite litteraly. So it has to flow in as well as out then with a single point of reference for the audience for it all to make sense. I know that it isn’t much but that is what I got on the idea. Still on the how it would work part of it, and not onto what it would be part.
Nachos are good, best bet is to go with a nice base of chips. The cheese should be a bit overflowing in the center out, like maple syrup on pancakes. Then round it with meat and veges, then finish the rounding with the chili so there is a good mix of everything. The real trick with nachos is not to have to much of anything, balance is the key. Nachos are great, but get too much of one thing then you get tired of eating the whole deal.
Though I have no mind doing this in real life if you ever swing by the Dallas/Fort Worth area.Though it is more likely to have burritos instead of nachos because it is cheaper to cook up a deal of hamburger meat and make burritos every time you are hungry.
25/06/2009 at 7:50 am Permalink
No. Please not YHTBTR. I know, I know, it hit like wildfire and it was a joke that everyone thought was absolutely hilarious–except me. I felt like it was a scam. My apparently unpopular opinion is that Burn The Rope was just lazy.
But I’m intrigued at what you say, Mykal. You don’t get to enjoy indie games much? Okay, I’ll grant you the bit about controllers vs. keyboards. I don’t know why but I just managed to make that conversion rather easily, probably because my dad was big on emulators when I was a kid and I had to start learning how to play controller games using a keyboard way back then and have a lot of time to practice since. But there are still a lot of offerings out there that you should see that don’t require twitch reflexes and an intimate knowledge of using your keyboard like a controller.
One of my favorite genres in independent and casual gaming are the point and click adventures because that’s where we see an awful lot of creativity in stories, both in broswer based flash games and in free downloads. Of course, this is also something that comes from my childhood as I cut my teeth on games like Leisure Suit Larry and Sam and Max. But you know if you really want to see some excellent innovations on old themes and styles, I think one of the richest depths to plumb would be in the item based point and click adventures.
Some titles to check out:
Ben Croshaw’s Chzo Mythos series. Old school LSL style graphics but a hardcore horror story that take their inspiration from Clive Barker and HP Lovecraft. We’re talking sub NES graphics and STILL the game manages to give me the willies.
Jonah Kyratzes’ The Strange and Somewhat Sinister Tale of the House at Desert Bridge. Another free download game. And I’ll tell you, Kyratzes can tell a damn story. The game starts off like a child’s dream and at the end of it, I swear I had to hold back tears. This guy is one of my favorite story tellers in the indie world.
Looking at browser based games, I would recommend Zeebarf, especially since he’s picked up a programmer so he can focus more on the storytelling and the artwork. I found his newest game, A Small Favor, to have a few cool innovations.
And Morningstar. This game was simply amazing. No browser based game should have opening and closing movies that slick and be that engrossing.
Yeah, man, there’s a lot out there to enjoy without having to be a whiz on a keyboard or should you find yourself lacking lightning reflexes.
26/06/2009 at 4:02 am Permalink
Well the problem of the computer interface make it a pain to play. I know the deal with Burn The Rope was a jest, but the rather shortness of it allow it to be fun without being a pain. For Grim Fandago the music and the humor(just listening when I fail or do something wrong) was what kept me playing. I never gotten past getting some balloon animals in the game. The Cookie Monster game I remember as being a joy because every choice no matter how minute changed the game. Simple as it might of been with just word choice. Each having this simple effect that allow it to overcome the pain of trying to figure out what does what every few minutes or two. I know that there are a lot of games out there, that should be fun, but aren’t simply because of the interface I have trouble with. I have no problem having fun in photoshop, or chatting with someone like I am with you. Outside of games on the computer I have had fun, but when it comes to games on the computer I just have not had fun or enjoyed it.
Braid is the perfect example of this. I tried the demo(this could be Peggle I am thinking of not Braid) on my computer, but couldn’t have any fun at all. The demo on my Xbox I had no problem having fun with. Although it was enjoyable, didn’t see it worth the purchase when I had to pay 20 bucks to get the card to buy the game. This is mainly because I can only deal with cash, so I have to buy the card with the credits rather then just pay for the game. Even still the two were exactly the same, so why would it be fun on the console but not on the computer makes no sense. It may be a simple deal of my mindset I have, but I haven’t been able to enjoy a game on the computer. The logic I have been able to understand of this is the controls. I know this stops me from playing a lot of great games because of this. It is something that has left me only as a viewer, never able to really interact with. I hate this, but I haven’t found a way to overcome this flaw. If I could I would. It doesn’t make much sense, it may be why I couldn’t find the fun of the wack-a-mole feel MMOs have and don’t find them fun.
That is unfair to judge games as being fun or entertaining in a way to determine there worth. I am using it more that it for the sake it is the best way to describe the desire to continue playing a game. I haven’t had a game that I had the desire to keep playing.. Grim Fandago and Burn the Rope I might pick up but I don’t play either for real long since there is no real desire to keep playing it. Burn the Rope is more because of how short it is, but that might be why I was able to enjoy it. Grim Fandago it was more of the music then anything else, and why I have the soundtrack. Even so there was no real drive to keep playing either of the games.Maybe the fact I can’t find that drive in PC games may be why I don’t enjoy them and keep away from it.I think the reason might be that the controls, and nothing else. I don’t have a better reason then that to explain it. Wish I could, cause I do know there is a lot of good games I am missing out on simply because I can’t overcome the problem of the controls.
26/06/2009 at 5:14 am Permalink
Hmmm… Well, first, let me say you are totally not alone in the way you feel about MMO’s. I started off on Ultima Online, then I moved to Everquest for about six months and that’s when I realized just how whack a molish the MMOs are. I haven’t gone back since, no matter how many friends tell me that, no Worlds of Warcraft is different.
As for Braid, two things. First, the deal behind getting released on PC isn’t because they thought it would be better on PC so much as they were trying to broaden the audience. A lot of folks (myself included) don’t have XBOX 360s and so when Braid came out for PC, it wasn’t that it was trying to compete with itself so much as make it more accessible. The other thing about Braid, and this is just me, I don’t seem to have the same boner induced excitement over this game that a lot of the indie community has. At the same time, I recognize how big the title is in indie games, and grudgingly, I guess I’m going to have to buy it. As a freelance gaming journalist, I suppose I better play what is perceived to be a landmark title in indie games.
Regarding the rest of the stuff, I dunno man. I wish I had more I could tell you. I know for me, my immersion into the world of independent and casual games online stems largely through necessity. My wife has finally won out and it’s unlikely I’ll ever net another high end main stream system outside of the Wii (and future generations should the Wii’s posterity continue to have the same focus on casual gaming and interactivity). So in order to get my kicks I almost had to move to the realm of the independent world. I think all I would say for you is to just keep trying. The production value of most indie games won’t match what you’ll see for a ps2 or 360, but as I’ve been arguing since I started commenting here, there are just so many happy surprises it’s a shame to miss.