Reviews View More
this synopsis makes me rly angry. as a devout follower of the capitalist truth, it is incredibly offensive to me. i believe this person is only saying this because they cannot make a steady income of any kind. work harder and you'll see better results. dont bite the hand that feeds you bitch!
i think i'm too asexual
CW: Critical Waffling on Gaming as an Artform, Mental Health Discussion
Est. Read Time: 14 mins
------------------------------------------
A twine game in which you as the unnamed player character have 10 seconds left to express all your love to nameless lover before everything ends. Refreshing in how absolutely information overload a romance in the face of desperation is.
Game is actually sort of simple and what you would expect here, there's no ending or bit of information in an ending hiding that 'reveals the whole story', instead you just scramble to love as fast as possible. Love turned into a warioware game with high replayability 'kiss me', 'love me', 'fuck me'', 'just look into my eyes'. It's all the same in the manic compression of the apocalypse, all action drowns into 1 and speed reading is the name of the game.
I wont say I have anything particularly novel or unique to add to this but I do want to hone in on 1 point. In particular, when you strip back the queer traumabonding innate to this there's one other factor the game here reveals upon play. On a mere ludomechanical level, the game is a meditation on how the size of a games possibility space is maybe one of if not the core aesthetic axis on which a game functions as an aesthetic argument to the player that they assess from.
In the gaming mind, games with a low amount of possibility space and games with high ones often seem to be deeply at odds. In a derogatory sense you have the perception against works with a low possibility space as being insulting. What I'm referencing here is not genre locked at all. It can be walking simulators, kinetic novels, 'waiting games', as long as its keeping the players input actions minimal thats all that matters. For a lot of gamers this lack of optionality, of having to wait out a story prepared for them, is deadly similar to a tutorialized hand holding. It's despicable in the sense that it robs the player of seemingly the only 'point' of the interactive simulation, the ability to interact.
In direct contrast games that are highly dynamic and have high possibility space require an actively information comparative effort on the behalf of the player. This can be anything from playing a game with a high number of multiple endings, or trying to make use of limited information on the fly in a rouguelite or an FPS game, at the end of the day it seems that a lot of games criticism is about assessing the relationship of possibility space in the form of immersion.
The conclusions drawn from this are not obviously 1 size fits all, and it would be easy to problematize the point I've made, after all a lot of people including me appreciate low possibility space games. However, on a base level the sentiment seems to be that a kinetic novel or a walking simulator is 'less of a game' (or at least quarentined as an 'art game') and that those high information vector prediction and/or comparative assessment points are 'more of a game'. Within the twine genre for example 16 Ways to Kill a Vampire at McDonalds (2016) which has you solving a problem with 16 outcomes is 'more of a game'. That on the other hand, another in the same engine, The Tower (2018) with its 1 button used to forward the momentum is perceived really more as a slightly interactive art piece than a game. Thus the way both are engaged with in terms of how much it speaks through the possibility space or lack thereof is what the mechanically focused critic takes note of.
At the end of the day it all seems to be assessed in terms of these possibility functions, does a game live up to the promise of its dynamicism or is there 1 player dominant strategy that kills the illusion? Is a walking simulator about to use its 1 interaction point to powerful effect and immersion is it just boring? Is the RNG in a game helping enhance the player possibility space or it is hindering it? In my view in the race to treat games as an artistic self contained medium this tends to be the reference point that most critics I come into contact with focus on.
I have actually no direct interest in challenging this relationship. Without treating game design in this way as a cornerstone for understanding the medium, there's a high risk of otherwise equating its abilities overall as synonymous with Film or Literature. As only ultimately a personal computer version of what those mediums can do, the interactivity here matters a lot, in fact its probably mission critical.
Instead, I want to make this claim: the 'artfulness' of a game in terms of a high possibility space and its cognitive effects (stress, anxiety, disorientation, etc.) is often mitigated or overlooked. A lack of knowledge about how high that possibility space really is usually not taken seriously as an effect for one simple reason, people talk about games comprehensively in the terms of a past experience. As such the fact that at one point a player didn't know all the options of the effects of play is part of the immersion regardless of how 'true' they all are. Maybe a game gives you 20 choices and 14 of them just change a single sentence if that, but the fact there's a direct sense of being overwhelmed by choices is a meaningful point of analysis. The fact of the matter is nothing novel in terms of a rich story is 'hiding' in any of the branch choices in this game, its all the same rush to love at the end of the day, but the illusion of the possibility spaces' effect is part of it. Finally, there is one last point here, whether or not your experience is being 'timed' or not effects your choices a lot to and your sensation. Being pushed to make options quickly enhances further that illusion of being pressed on possibilities, the inability to pause and totally assess whats in front of you is a rather important distinction to that cognitive mirage. Choices made under a stress of time are always going to feel more important than choices made with a lot of time, this is just a result of how thinking works. It probably also explains the variable relationship with games as art in some regard because if you have less real life time than another player for the same game you'll be assessing the impact of the choices more openly.
Maybe this thought means something to somebody, or maybe it's all just exhaust to people that already know but now allow me to say this. 'Gaming' in terms of possibility assessment incentivizes trying to screen as many options as possible for the 'right option'. I can't help but notice how this agitation to 'decide' can play out in mentally corrosive ways. By being unable to recognize the manifestly stressful cognitive elements of trying to assess a possibility space and glamorize them we can risk harming ourselves with feelings of regret or self loathing that we haven't made the "right decision" in real life situations to. True often we do make suboptimal plays, but there's nothing suboptimal about say expressing love here. If the other person feels loved and appreciated the company in those glimmering moments that's enough. If we are unable to assess that the world shouldn't be about trying to make the 'best choice' for some ideal 'win state' we risk causing mental health problems for ourselves. Similarly, games with high or low possibility spaces simply require certain cognitave relationships out of you, and you're not a better or worse person for not being in the right mood for them at every moment in life equally. That would be impossible.
We really do need to try better both as critics and as lovers to actually assess that. Nobody is a better or worse person for having choice paralysis in a game or in real life. The whole point of mental health awareness has been about how sometimes those affects are completely out of control so its ideal in my view to try and see a connection point between both worlds. There is a degree to which this rush to say everything to somebody or do everything with them is not really just a game, its a simulation of a genuine struggle within the possibility space of relationships as a whole.
To conclude here, if the 'best game' is one that is cognitively taxing me as much as possible at all times then I cant say with high confidence I'm much of a gamer at all. Every game has its utility, place, and preference but on some level I think this discussion of what it means to feel 'overwhelmed' by a simulation or the effects of trying to bring the aspects of 'gaming' to the interpersonal world are discarded without consideration. Sometimes, playing games/being in relationships that expect minimal input from you is actually more than anything else a genuine form of self care, and its worth keeping that in mind :3
Est. Read Time: 14 mins
------------------------------------------
A twine game in which you as the unnamed player character have 10 seconds left to express all your love to nameless lover before everything ends. Refreshing in how absolutely information overload a romance in the face of desperation is.
Game is actually sort of simple and what you would expect here, there's no ending or bit of information in an ending hiding that 'reveals the whole story', instead you just scramble to love as fast as possible. Love turned into a warioware game with high replayability 'kiss me', 'love me', 'fuck me'', 'just look into my eyes'. It's all the same in the manic compression of the apocalypse, all action drowns into 1 and speed reading is the name of the game.
I wont say I have anything particularly novel or unique to add to this but I do want to hone in on 1 point. In particular, when you strip back the queer traumabonding innate to this there's one other factor the game here reveals upon play. On a mere ludomechanical level, the game is a meditation on how the size of a games possibility space is maybe one of if not the core aesthetic axis on which a game functions as an aesthetic argument to the player that they assess from.
In the gaming mind, games with a low amount of possibility space and games with high ones often seem to be deeply at odds. In a derogatory sense you have the perception against works with a low possibility space as being insulting. What I'm referencing here is not genre locked at all. It can be walking simulators, kinetic novels, 'waiting games', as long as its keeping the players input actions minimal thats all that matters. For a lot of gamers this lack of optionality, of having to wait out a story prepared for them, is deadly similar to a tutorialized hand holding. It's despicable in the sense that it robs the player of seemingly the only 'point' of the interactive simulation, the ability to interact.
In direct contrast games that are highly dynamic and have high possibility space require an actively information comparative effort on the behalf of the player. This can be anything from playing a game with a high number of multiple endings, or trying to make use of limited information on the fly in a rouguelite or an FPS game, at the end of the day it seems that a lot of games criticism is about assessing the relationship of possibility space in the form of immersion.
The conclusions drawn from this are not obviously 1 size fits all, and it would be easy to problematize the point I've made, after all a lot of people including me appreciate low possibility space games. However, on a base level the sentiment seems to be that a kinetic novel or a walking simulator is 'less of a game' (or at least quarentined as an 'art game') and that those high information vector prediction and/or comparative assessment points are 'more of a game'. Within the twine genre for example 16 Ways to Kill a Vampire at McDonalds (2016) which has you solving a problem with 16 outcomes is 'more of a game'. That on the other hand, another in the same engine, The Tower (2018) with its 1 button used to forward the momentum is perceived really more as a slightly interactive art piece than a game. Thus the way both are engaged with in terms of how much it speaks through the possibility space or lack thereof is what the mechanically focused critic takes note of.
At the end of the day it all seems to be assessed in terms of these possibility functions, does a game live up to the promise of its dynamicism or is there 1 player dominant strategy that kills the illusion? Is a walking simulator about to use its 1 interaction point to powerful effect and immersion is it just boring? Is the RNG in a game helping enhance the player possibility space or it is hindering it? In my view in the race to treat games as an artistic self contained medium this tends to be the reference point that most critics I come into contact with focus on.
I have actually no direct interest in challenging this relationship. Without treating game design in this way as a cornerstone for understanding the medium, there's a high risk of otherwise equating its abilities overall as synonymous with Film or Literature. As only ultimately a personal computer version of what those mediums can do, the interactivity here matters a lot, in fact its probably mission critical.
Instead, I want to make this claim: the 'artfulness' of a game in terms of a high possibility space and its cognitive effects (stress, anxiety, disorientation, etc.) is often mitigated or overlooked. A lack of knowledge about how high that possibility space really is usually not taken seriously as an effect for one simple reason, people talk about games comprehensively in the terms of a past experience. As such the fact that at one point a player didn't know all the options of the effects of play is part of the immersion regardless of how 'true' they all are. Maybe a game gives you 20 choices and 14 of them just change a single sentence if that, but the fact there's a direct sense of being overwhelmed by choices is a meaningful point of analysis. The fact of the matter is nothing novel in terms of a rich story is 'hiding' in any of the branch choices in this game, its all the same rush to love at the end of the day, but the illusion of the possibility spaces' effect is part of it. Finally, there is one last point here, whether or not your experience is being 'timed' or not effects your choices a lot to and your sensation. Being pushed to make options quickly enhances further that illusion of being pressed on possibilities, the inability to pause and totally assess whats in front of you is a rather important distinction to that cognitive mirage. Choices made under a stress of time are always going to feel more important than choices made with a lot of time, this is just a result of how thinking works. It probably also explains the variable relationship with games as art in some regard because if you have less real life time than another player for the same game you'll be assessing the impact of the choices more openly.
Maybe this thought means something to somebody, or maybe it's all just exhaust to people that already know but now allow me to say this. 'Gaming' in terms of possibility assessment incentivizes trying to screen as many options as possible for the 'right option'. I can't help but notice how this agitation to 'decide' can play out in mentally corrosive ways. By being unable to recognize the manifestly stressful cognitive elements of trying to assess a possibility space and glamorize them we can risk harming ourselves with feelings of regret or self loathing that we haven't made the "right decision" in real life situations to. True often we do make suboptimal plays, but there's nothing suboptimal about say expressing love here. If the other person feels loved and appreciated the company in those glimmering moments that's enough. If we are unable to assess that the world shouldn't be about trying to make the 'best choice' for some ideal 'win state' we risk causing mental health problems for ourselves. Similarly, games with high or low possibility spaces simply require certain cognitave relationships out of you, and you're not a better or worse person for not being in the right mood for them at every moment in life equally. That would be impossible.
We really do need to try better both as critics and as lovers to actually assess that. Nobody is a better or worse person for having choice paralysis in a game or in real life. The whole point of mental health awareness has been about how sometimes those affects are completely out of control so its ideal in my view to try and see a connection point between both worlds. There is a degree to which this rush to say everything to somebody or do everything with them is not really just a game, its a simulation of a genuine struggle within the possibility space of relationships as a whole.
To conclude here, if the 'best game' is one that is cognitively taxing me as much as possible at all times then I cant say with high confidence I'm much of a gamer at all. Every game has its utility, place, and preference but on some level I think this discussion of what it means to feel 'overwhelmed' by a simulation or the effects of trying to bring the aspects of 'gaming' to the interpersonal world are discarded without consideration. Sometimes, playing games/being in relationships that expect minimal input from you is actually more than anything else a genuine form of self care, and its worth keeping that in mind :3
Como quisiera tener una pareja
Una parte de mí realmente quiere predicar esta obra a los cuatro vientos, a pesar de saber que el trabajo proviene de una voz invasiva y cruel. La sensación de rapidez y, sin embargo, la ternura serena a través de la cual se produce tu último encuentro deja sin aliento en tu primera partida, y te incita a querer alargar esos últimos instantes. Es un trabajo conceptualmente maravilloso, pero cuanto más sé sobre la artista que está detrás, menos puedo aprobarlo. Y sabiendo lo que sé, cuanto más viajo dentro de los confines de este Twine, más repelido me siento. Es cosa mía, pero no creo que pueda ver más el trabajo de esta autora con buena luz.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A part of me really wants to hold this work in high regard, despite knowing that the works comes from a voice that rings invasive and abrasive to me. The feeling of swiftness and, yet, the calm tenderness through which your last encounter occurs. It's a marvelous work conceptually, but the more I know about the artist that's behind, the least I can endorse. And knowing who she is, the more I travel within the confines of this Twine, the more repelled I feel. I just can't see a work by this author in good light anymore.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A part of me really wants to hold this work in high regard, despite knowing that the works comes from a voice that rings invasive and abrasive to me. The feeling of swiftness and, yet, the calm tenderness through which your last encounter occurs. It's a marvelous work conceptually, but the more I know about the artist that's behind, the least I can endorse. And knowing who she is, the more I travel within the confines of this Twine, the more repelled I feel. I just can't see a work by this author in good light anymore.
And yet everything is right.