Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Seperating the Goal from the Faff

I noticed the other day, whilst twirling something in one hand and dropping something in the other, that it is our natural tendency to be playful. We have an inherent drive to make things unnecessarily challenge for our own enjoyment, whether it be a child trying to avoid stepping on cracks in the sidewalk, or an office worker trying to bank a crumpled receipt into a trash receptacle rather than walking the three feet. I term this behavior "seeking out unnecessary challenges to amplify our engagement with and enjoyment of otherwise mundane tasks," or "faffing about" for short.

Most of us faff about a lot in games too. Grand Theft Auto allegedly has missions you can go on, but pretty much all I've ever seen anyone do is aimlessly cruise around listening to the radio, mow down some pedestrians, get in high speed chases, and struggle with the awkward shooting controls while getting gunned down by police. Lather, rinse, repeat. There's nothing wrong with this sort of gameplay any more than there's a problem with strictly goal-oriented gameplay (though I'm hard-pressed to think of a game that doesn't usually involve at least some faffing about). The act of pursuing goals can also be fun and engaging in and of itself. The problems arise when the goals of the game discourage the most entertaining faff.

Imagine a hypothetical fighter. We'll call it Street Kombat. In SK's practice mode, one can try out all sorts of elaborate combos and specials. If this were the only game mode, it would still be moderately entertaining to try out the countless crazy maneuvers that the developers put in. But there's a problem. The developers put so much time into the various special moves that they neglected to properly balance the game. As it turns out, the safest and most effective way to knock out the opponent in SK is to crouch in a corner and repeatedly trip them. This wouldn't be a problem in and of itself, except that the goal of the game happens to be to knock out the opponent. SK's goals have actually made the game less fun.

This is an edge case, and the best solution would presumably be to tweak the game's balance rather than trying to find goals that would make SK's broken fighting system enjoyable. But this issue crops up all the time in (usually) less noticeable ways. Have you ever wanted to explore a level more but couldn't because of a time limit, or horded the ammo for the guns that are most fun to use because you knew you might need it for a boss fight later? When a game's goals discourage players from doing the things they find most enjoyable, there is potentially a problem. (I say "potentially" because sometimes being hamstrung in certain ways can be extremely enjoyable, such as when you have to sneak past some guard or defeat an enemy without using your weapons. Just make sure that whenever you are preventing or discouraging a player from doing something they want to do, you are doing so intentionally and with purpose.)

So if this problem of imposed goals ruining players' fun can crop up in carefully designed systems like games, what happens when we recklessly impose goals and incentives in real-world environments like jobs or schools? There is research that shows that external incentives can erode and supersede our internal motivation (this is known as the Overjustification Effect), but external incentives can also directly discourage us from having fun.

While cooking a meal, have you ever twirled the spatula, juggled an egg, or perhaps stirred along to the song on the radio? What about when you were in a hurry? Would you still cook 'playfully' if you were a high-paid chef in a high-end/high-pressure restaurant?

Goals, particularly challenging ones, can make an activity more engaging and fun, but all too often they can merely prevent us from having fun. Often we faff because the activity is too easy and monotonous. Maybe rather than trying to stop a student from doodling through class, or disallowing humorous emails in the workplace, we could simply let people have fun, or even encourage it, and trust that motivation and productivity will follow. Google recognized this, and they are currently worth about 200 billion dollars. Just saying.

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Great Game Ideas #1

Skinner Boxing

-A standard boxing game except that your punches only occasionally connect, on a random basis.

-You also have to block at least once every 30 seconds or your coach electrocutes you.



Thursday, November 17, 2011

Drop the SOPA

I don't like to get political on a blog purportedly about games, but this bill seems important, and it's allegedly set to pass before Christmas. SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act), also known as E-Parasite (Enforcing and Protecting American Rights Against Sites Intent on Theft and Exploitation... way cooler name btw) is a bill intended to help US corporations shut down websites that host copyright-infringing material.

I'll agree that piracy can be damaging, but if you look into some of the wording, SOPA is the equivalent of spraying for termites using napalm. All websites will have to start carefully monitoring everything since they could theoretically get blocked or have their revenue yanked because a user posted some song lyrics or something, and all the added litigation (which will carry no risk for the prosecuting companies, mind you) will likely cost the government tens of millions of dollars. On top of this, downloaders will still be able to easily access pirated material simply by finding the site's IP address, so the affect that SOPA will have on actual piracy will be minimal at best.

If you support any notion of net-neutrality, please contact your local representatives immediately (or if you aren't a U.S. citizen pass this on to people who are) and explain why this bill is important, and why we can't allow it to be rushed through like this.

If you want intelligent, well-reasoned arguments against copyright in general, check out some stuff by Cory Doctorow (who is an advisor in my program at UW, meaning that my degree is cooler than yours).

Sunday, November 13, 2011

4 Things That Suck About Zelda Games

The Legend of Zelda is probably my favorite series of all time, in any medium. With that out of the way, I'd like to point out some lazy design choices that have plagued the franchise since its inception, and will undoubtedly plague Skyward Sword as well.

4) Combat is way too easy - This is something that has slowly crept in over the years. The original's combat was challenging and intense, and The Adventure of Link had sections that were harder than Goron turds. But as time wore on, the battles became increasingly less challenging. This wouldn't be so bad except that the puzzles have remained fairly devious, causing an odd disconnect. For me the worst was in Wind Waker, which had a couple of puzzles that stumped me for hours, yet common enemies and even most boss fights provided little challenge.

If you disagree, that's fine, but the optimal solution would be to finally institute a difficulty system of some sort. But as previously mentioned, Zelda designers are lazy. Besides, if the combat were too hard, it could completely halt a player's progress and ruin their experience, whereas if it's too easy, the worst that can happen is that they'll futily rant about it on the internet.

3) Heart pieces don't matter - One great thing about Zelda games is that there are tons of secrets hidden everywhere. In Majora's Mask, many of these secrets were masks, some of which actually granted you new abilities (like the "bomb mask" that let you explode your face). However most of these secrets are "heart pieces." Collect four of these, and get an extra heart added to your life bar. Which is all well and good except that every time you complete a dungeon you are granted a "heart container" which immediately increases your life total by a heart, rendering the number of heart pieces you've collected pretty insignificant.

Let's say after 4 dungeons you've found 10 heart pieces. Sounds pretty impressive, except that when you add the 4 heart containers you got automatically to the 3 you started the game with, the extra 2 you got from all that secret hunting aren't exactly game-changing. Of course if you rewarded skilled player's too much, the combat would become more of a breeze to them than it already is. And the easy combat is another reason why heart pieces don't really matter.

2) Rupees really don't matter
- With rare exceptions, you will generally have a full purse. This is because rupees fall out of every enemy, pot and shrub. But it doesn't matter because there is nothing to buy with them, aside from bombs and arrows which fall out of every enemy, pot and shrub. On the rare occasion that you actually need rupees for something quest-specific, it usually costs more than you can hold, meaning that you need to obtain the "bigger purse" mcguffin in order to proceed, rather than actually being faced with a decision about whether you can afford the item, or at least how to go about raising money. Not taking the time to balance an actual money economy is ***drumroll*** lazy.

1) It's Ganon! ...again - Spoiler: the big-bad is nearly always Ganon. This wouldn't be a big deal in and of itself, except that the games always try to spring it on us as a surprise. At this point I would be much more surprised if the twist in Skyward Sword is that it's not Ganon. o.0

But despite these niggling flaws, if you say anything bad about Zelda games in my presence, you will be Gannon-Banned.

Saturday, October 29, 2011

The Unspeakable Thinks You Can Think

Many who know me are aware that I am a fairly avid longtime fan of H.P. Lovecraft and all things Cthulhu Mythos related (Eternal Darkness is one of my favorite games of all time). It dawned on me a while back that his stories of eldritch terror scratch a similar itch for me as another author whom I was wildly into many long years ago named Theodore Geisel, better known to the world as Dr. Seuss.

Both authors deal with strange and fantastical worlds, and both authors like to make up lots of silly words to accentuate the strangeness and fantasticalness.

 Both revel in the bizarre and the unnatural. And both were a little racist.

Granted Lovecraft usually goes for more of a horror angle, but Dr. Seuss can get somewhat creepy too.
"What would I do?" Probably soil myself.

In honor of these literary giants, I've compiled a list of words they made up and turned it into a quiz. Can you tell the difference between Lovecraft and Dr. Seuss?


And apparently I'm not the only one who thinks these two greats should go together. (You won't regret clicking that link. Unless of course you value your sanity.)

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

The Musician as Athlete

Two decades ago, my mom wrote and self-published an extensive book on Musicians' health from the perspective of someone who both plays the Cello and gets injured. If you too are a musician made of delicate human flesh, you're in luck. I recently converted The Musician as Athlete into an ebook which can be purchased through Amazon. If you are instead some sort of inorganic music synthesizer program, you may not find too much of value here, but I personally suggest uploading yourself to the cloud in order to achieve nominal immortality. If you are a non-musical spambot, I would like to discuss a few things with you.

Thursday, August 25, 2011

GameStop can go die in a fire...

Not content with destroying the industry through used game sales, and trying their best to prevent me from rightfully returning products, GameStop decided to cut open every copy of the recently released Deus Ex: Human Revolution and physically remove the coupon for OnLive, then seal them back up and sell them as new.

For those unfamiliar with OnLive, the service allows people to play games over an internet connection without having to own an Xbox 360, a PS3, or a PC that required selling their firstborn. The service sounds pretty swell, and I would try it myself if I didn't live in Canada where we get our internet through strings and plastic cups.

So why did GameStop do this? Because OnLive is a "competing service." It not only competes with their physical stores, but also with the recently purchased, popup laden, Impulse, a digital download service that also has not much to do with OnLive. It also competes with a service similar to OnLive that they plan to launch some time in 2012, which may or may not actually feature Human Revolution.

After customers became rightfully pissed off, GameStop decided to make it up to them by taking their ball and going home, sending all copies of HuRev back to publisher Square Enix. To GameStop's credit, you will supposedly be allowed to return your pre-opened copy if you kept the receipt, but if you attempt to do this I recommend leaving the rest of the day open and bringing along some manner of torture device.

Monday, August 22, 2011

Why DKC 2 is better than DKC Returns

In my personal opinion, the SNES Donkey Kong Country trilogy offered some of the best platforming gameplay ever designed. My opinion is undoubtedly clouded somewhat by nostalgia seeing as Donkey Kong Country was the first videogame I ever owned (except for a weird handheld Sonic game in which the titular hedgehog could occupy about three positions on the screen, the music to which I have spend the better part of two decades trying to erase from my memory).

I have, however, replayed the 2nd and 3rd installments within the last year or so, and they hold up. I also recently had the pleasure of playing Donkey Kong Country Returns, a lovingly crafted throwback to the original series by newcomer Retro Studios. Returns is a great game, with some truly stellar level design, but I'd like to lay out a few reasons why for me it doesn't quite dethrone Donkey Kong Country 2, which is probably my favorite platformer of all time.

Reason 1: The Roll
I've been a minor Wii defender for the past few years. Sure it has as bad a case of shovelware-itis as the iPhone app store, and when a game is ported over, the motion controls are usually implemented horribly (gestures are not buttons!), but most of the first-party stuff has been top notch, and the Virtual Console is like a candy store for a retro gamer.

And yet, in a title that obviously had a great deal of care and effort put into it, made specifically for crotchety oldschool fans such as myself, we have one of the two central actions assigned to the "shake" motion, with no other control options. There's no reason it had to be like this; the game only needs two action buttons which the Wiimote, conveniently enough, has. Maybe they thought no one would want to use the "shake" command if the player could change it to a button. I can't say I'd dispute that.

Aside from the issues that come with the waggle, such as the roll not always registering when you want it to (which doesn't happen too often, but one in a hundred times is still enough to be a little infuriating), the move itself just isn't as interesting as it used to be. In the SNES games, the roll speed/distance was heavily influenced by your prior momentum, and you could easily jump and change direction mid-roll. This made it much easier to incorporate rolling into your gameplay since it would hardly break your stride. The roll in DKC Returns sends you forwards much farther, always, making it eminently possible to overshoot a ledge. It may be partly due to my comfort with them, but in the originals I utilize the roll constantly and unconsciously, whereas in the new one I found myself thinking "doesn't look like I can make this just by jumping, better break out the roll." It becomes a key to open figurative locked doors strewn about the levels which, combined with the physical invocation, breaks flow somewhat.

Reason 2: The Economy
I'll just come out and say it: the economy and lives system in this game is essentially broken. Extra lives were always rare in this series (heh, "rare"),and this entry is no exception. However, they've added a store wherein you can spend coins to purchase, among other things, extra lives. You accumulate coins like Pigpen accumulates dirt, and lives are roughly two coins apiece (15 for 7), so before you complete the first world you'll be able to buy enough lives to open a balloon conglomerate.

Thankfully the game doesn't actually need a lives system, so this isn't a huge problem, but it feels like the developers were afraid to implement such a system, but also wanted to be oldschool, and compromised by implementing one that should have no effect on the game's difficulty whatsoever as long as the player is awake (although they may start to run down if you're playing coop, which is a weird disincentive).

I have mixed feelings about harsh failure penalties, but I will say that some of the most exciting parts of replaying DKC2 were when I was running low on lives and trying desperately to reach the next save point. That's the kind of gameplay you don't get much anymore. It's not like playing a modern game with badly placed checkpoints, you're fighting for your life so that the previous 40 minutes of gameplay weren't for naught. There are valid reasons why you don't see this kind of punishing gameplay anymore, even in hardcore indy titles like Super Meat Boy or I Wanna Be The Guy, but all the same something has been lost.

It's not that the difficulty has been dialed back much. Some of the unlockable temple levels are quite challenging, and the secret fruit-float level is about as challenging as anything in the originals. The game is clearly aimed at those looking for a challenge, so it just irks me that the lives system is generous to the point of being completely irrelevant.

Reason 3: The Bosses
Not sure exactly why, I think the reasons varied from boss to boss, but I didn't particularly enjoy most of the boss fights in the new game, whereas I generally have in the previous entries. Here they were presented less ominously, and rather than epic struggles, they mostly just felt like "complete this pattern several times without screwing up." Not a huge deal, but slightly disappointing. I would like to do a more in-depth analysis, but apparently they were also pretty forgettable as well.

Backpedaling
This isn't to say that everything in the new game is a step back. The level design is some of best and most varied I've ever seen in a platformer, the ability to grab onto moss is interesting and well implemented, and simultaneous coop is a lot of fun. Also they didn't include Kiddy Kong.

Overall I'm really happy with the job Retro Studios did, and I hope they consider continuing the franchise. Now if you'll allow me to put my nostalgia goggles back on, I need to go watch the rest of Cadillacs and Dinosaurs.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Battleship Trailer

It's really happening. A trailer for the new Battleship move has just surfaced. There doesn't seem to be a way to embed the video, so I'll have to describe it for you:

So Alexander Skarsgård is dating Liam "I Will Find You" Neeson's daughter, and Liam Neeson doesn't like this one bit because Liam Neeson is the Admiral and stuff. But then, during a routine drill, the fleet discovers a big metal thing. And one guy goes to touch the big metal thing but he gets an electric shock because maybe he rubbed his feet on the carpet. Then they all get attacked by Decepticons and Liam Neeson yells "Prepare to fire!" and his naval assistant asks "Sir, which weapons?" and Liam Neeson looks serious and says "All of them."

I don't know, this whole project seems a bit ridiculous from the start. I mean, it has Rihanna in it, and everyone knows women can't play Battleship:

Regardless, if it doesn't have Tim Curry revealing that communism was just a red herring, I'm not interested.

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

A Gaggle of Group-Names

Ever wondered what to call other people? First terms that come to mind not suitable for polite conversation? Then this handy-dandy list of collective nouns should come in handy ...and dandy.


Subject            Collective Name of People
A
Academics......................... A faculty of academics
Acrobats........................... A troupe of acrobats
Actors/players.....................A cast/company of actors/players
Aldermen...........................A bench of aldermen
Arsonists...........................A conflagration of arsonists
Artistes.............................A troupe of artistes
Athletes.............................A team of athletes

B
Bakers................................A tabernacle of bakers
Barbers...............................A babble of barbers
Barmen...............................A promise of barmen
Barons................................A thought of barons
Beaters...............................A squad of beaters
Beauties..............................A bevy/galaxy of beauties
Bishops...............................A bench/psalter of bishops
Boys...................................A blush of boys
Boy scouts............................A troop of boy scouts
Brewers...............................A feast of brewers
Brownies..............................A pack of brownies
Bureaucrats..........................A shuffle of bureaucrats
Butchers..............................A goring of butchers
Butlers................................A sneer of butlers

C
Candidates............................. A slate of candidates
Canons.................................. A chapter/dignity of canons
Capitalists.............................. A company/syndicate of capitalists
Churchgoers............................ A congregation of churchgoers
Clerks....................................A school of clerks
Cobblers................................ A cutting/drunkship of cobblers
Cooks................................... A hastiness of cooks
Critics................................... A shrivel of critics
Curs..................................... A cowardice of curs

D
Dancers.................................. A troupe of dancers
Deans.................................... A decanter/decorum of deans
Directors................................ A board of directors
Dons..................................... An obstruction of dons

E
Employees.............................. A staff of employees
Experts................................. A panel of experts

F
Foresters................................A stalk of foresters

G
Gamblers................................A talent of gamblers
Girl guides............................. A company of girl guides
Governesses............................A galaxy of governesses
Grammarians.......................... A conjunction of grammarians

H
Harlots...................................A herd of harlots
Harpists..................................A melody of harpists
Hermits..................................An observance of hermits
Hoodlums................................A gang of hoodlums
Horsemen................................A cavalcade of horsemen
Hunters...................................A blast of hunters

I

J
Judges................................... A bench/sentence of judges
Jugglers.................................. A neverthriving of jugglers

K
Knights....................................A banner/rout of knights

L
Ladies......................................A bevy of ladies
Lawyers....................................An eloquence of lawyers
Lepers......................................A colony of lepers
Listeners...................................An audience of listeners

M
Magicians.................................An illusion of magicians
Magistrates...............................A bench of magistrates
Matrons....................................A riches of matrons
Majors.....................................A morbidity of majors
Men........................................A band of men
Merchants.................................A faith of merchants
Messengers...............................A diligence of messengers
Minstrels..................................A troupe of minstrels
Mourners..................................A cortege of mourners
Musicians.................................An orchestra of musicians

N
Natives....................................A tribe of natives
Nuns.......................................A superfluity of nuns

O
Onlookers..................................A crowd of onlookers

P
Painters......................................A curse/illusion/misbelieving of painters
Peddler (US)/pedlars.......................A malapertness of pedlars/peddler (US)
People........................................A crowd/audience/congregation/ mob of people
Performers...................................A troupe/troup of performers
Poverty.......................................A skirl of pipers
Police.........................................A posse of police
Preachers....................................A converting of preachers
Prisoners.....................................A pity/gang of prisoners

Q


R
Robbers.........................................A band of robbers

S
Sailors...........................................A crew of sailors
Seamstresses...................................A scolding of seamstresses
Senators.........................................A house of senators
Sergeants-at-law...............................A subtlety of sergeants-at-law
Servants.........................................An obeisance of servants
Sheriffs..........................................A posse of sheriffs
Shoemakers.....................................A blackening of shoemakers
Singers...........................................A choir of singers
Soldiers..........................................A squad/army/brigade/ company/division/muster/ platoon/troop of soldiers
Students..........................................A class of students
Subalterns........................................A simplicity of subalterns

T
Tailors...............................................A disguising of tailors
Taverners...........................................A glozing of taverners
Thieves..............................................A den/gang of thieves
Trustees.............................................A board of trustees
Tourists..............................................A flock of tourists

U
Undertakers........................................An unction of undertakers

V
Vicars...............................................A prudence of vicars

W
Widows..............................................An ambush of widows
Witches..............................................A coven of witches
Women...............................................A gaggle of women
Workmen............................................A gang of workmen
Worshippers.........................................A congregation of worshippers
Writers...............................................A worship of writers

X

Y
Yeomen.............................................. A fellowship of yeomen

Z

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Saturday, May 28, 2011

The Met's Game

A milestone for the videogame industry. America's National Endowment for the Arts has declared videogames an art form, meaning both that now developers can apply for art grants, and that Roger Ebert was wrong. In France, videogames have been considered art for years, but America's sway on the global stage can't be denied, nor can its host of developers that could potentially benefit from this ruling, or be influenced by it.

I don't see this changing anything overnight, but it helps secure a path towards whatever heights this newly branded art form might one day achieve, and it is most certainly cause for celebration.

Now if we can just get boardgames declared as art too, I'll be a happy cookie.

Thursday, May 5, 2011

Portal 2

I was working on a review for Portal 2, but Yahtzee uncannily covered point-for-point everything I wanted to say (with a mild spoiler), so instead enjoy these other science facts:

(No spoilers in the video, but in the YouTube comments, probably.)

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Top 10* Music Mashups

Some songs seem like they were made for each other, like chocolate and peanut butter, or jerks and the internet. After some poking around, here's a list of my favorite music mashups. Thanks to Strongbaddude for the idea and for providing a few of my selections. Be sure to stick around for number one, 'cause it rocks my socks.

10) When I'm 25 or 64 (The Beatles - When I'm 64 / Chicago - 25 or 6 to 4)
*EDIT: I forgot about this one, but I have to give props for how catchy this abomination is. Plus Jonathan Coulton is awesome.


9) Phoenixmen (Masakazu Sugimori - Investigation ~ Cornered from Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney / music from Cheetahmen II)
This spiffy little medley almost justifies the Cheetahmen series' existance.


8) Thriller Situation - (Micheal Jackson - Thriller / Yazoo - Situation)
Mmmm, 80s goodness.


7) Numb/Encore (Linkin Park - Numb / Jay-Z - Encore)
Many of you may have already heard this one seeing as it was on the Billboard Hot 100, but I've always liked it. I don't generally listen to rap music, but Jay-Z does a nice job of cutting down Linkin Park's whine factor.


6) Whole Lotta Sabbath (Led Zeppelin - Whole Lotta Love / Black Sabbath - War Pigs)
This does not sound like a mashup. Would be higher on the list if the artists' styles weren't already similar.


5) Enter You (Metallica - Enter Sandman / Bryan Adams - Run To You)
These artists, on the other hand, are not similar.

4) Mind Gone Mad (The Pixies / Beastie Boys)
I'm not exactly the biggest Beastie Boys fan, and Where is my Mind by The Pixies is a masterwork, but I'm surprised how much I dig this.


3) Somebody Told Me to Feel Good (Gorillaz - Feel Good / The Killers - Somebody Told Me)
This one's definitely grown on me. Now both songs just sound odd to me by themselves.


2) Thunder Busters (ACDC - Thunderstruck / Ray Parker Jr. - Ghostbusters theme)
And never the twain shall part.


1) Stayin' Alive in the Wall (Pink Floyd - The Wall / Bee Gees - Stayin' Alive)
Hands down the most astounding mashup I've ever heard.

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Dynasty Warriors

Some have accused the Dynasty Warriors series of not innovating its combat system, to the point where slicing up hordes of enemies with a katana has begun to feel stale and repetitive. Up until recently I might have agreed, but check out this gameplay footage from Dynasty Warriors 7 and tell me they haven't changed things around a little:

Sunday, April 17, 2011

A Song of Ice

This article ties in nicely to what I was talking about. The general smugness (and moderate sexism) really grinds my gears, and I haven't even read or watched A Game of Thrones (though the boardgame is awesome).

And apparently sexual content is pandering to women. I'd heard that pornography was exploitative of women, but I didn't realize it was pandering to them as well!

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Humble Frozenbyte Bundle

The latest Indy Bundle is available now for a limited time! Pay what you want for a bunch of cool games, and support worthwhile charities. You can pay as little as a penny, but I'm paying $10 and already bought Trine, so if you choose to pay less, that means I'm a better person than you.

AND DON'T FREAKING PIRATE IT THIS TIME!!

Guiltless Pleasures: High Art, Pablum and Pretentiousness

I want to try and tackle something I've been thinking about lately, on which I think I have different opinions from most people. These are complex subjects that won't be getting the exhaustive treatment they deserve.

We seem to like to divide every medium into two catagories: Popular Meaningless Pablum, and Intellectual Meaningful Art. We do this with movies, books, comics, TV shows, songs, boardgames, artwork, dance styles, and videogames. Often we all seem to agree which is which. Air Force One, Twilight, Infinite Crisis, Oops I Did It Again, Memoir '44, the cover of Action Comics #1, Hip Hop and Halo are examples of "low" art, while Citizen Kane, Lolita, Ghost World, Adagio for Strings, Caylus, Guernica, Waltz and Limbo are examples of "high" art. High art is subtle, innovative, meaningful and well made while Low art is accessible, crass, derivative and inconsequential.

Except that that last sentence is clearly bull. No matter how you divide any medium into High and Low, there will always be plenty of songs that are both crass and innovative, plenty of films that are both meaningful and accessible, and plenty of artwork that is both subtle and inconsequential.

Yet most people seem to at least tacitly accept these ideas of high art versus low art, regardless of which side of the fence they find themselves. Many times I've heard people remark that they like a film even though they know it's trash, or accept that a film is brilliant but just not their cup of tea. While I think that it is healthy to realize that others may not share your opinion, I also feel that it is somewhat intellectually dishonest to tout an opinion that you don't personally share.

An additional problem with the notion of High versus Low art is that many things once labeled as Low art have morphed into High art over time. Shakespeare's plays were considered Low, plebeian entertainment in his day, as were the works of Charles Dickens and composer Gustav Mahler, and John Carpenter's Halloween and The Thing, now considered benchmarks of horror cinema, garnered mixed reviews upon their initial release.

All of this leads me to the uncomfortable conclusion that our dichotomy between High art and Low art is inherently flawed. I don't mean to say that only our personal opinions matter (though when it comes down to it, that's kind of true), or that the concept of artistic merit is meaningless, merely I believe that trying to place works on a one-dimensional spectrum with the ends labeled "High" and "Low" is as unhelpful and wrong-headed as marking one's worldview on a spectrum labeled "Right-Wing" and "Left-Wing."

We like to categorize things, and I don't think that categorizing media is worthless, but I also don't think one dimension is enough to paint a proper picture. Any work of art is made up of many elements, and how much we care about a particular element, or how much "artistic importance" we ascribe a particular element, will greatly shape our perception of that work. If I care highly about narrative, I may get a lot out of Mass Effect and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, and not so much out of 2001: A Space Odyssey and Mario Sunshine. 2001 is generally considered to be more of a masterpiece than any of the other things mentioned, so maybe I'll apologize for my opinion either by saying that I enjoy the other things as "guilty pleasures" or that 2001 is boring artsy crap. But can I say with honesty that I think 2001 is artistic if I didn't enjoy it and wasn't moved by it?

As it happens, I greatly enjoy 2001. I probably value atmosphere and uniqueness more than some, and conventional narrative structure a little less. 2001's story and characters are sparse and muted, but I get more of a feeling of actually being in space than with any other film I've seen. Similarly the hollow plot and one-dimensional characters in Sucker Punch bothered me less than some, though here the atmosphere and visuals don't quite pick up the slack for me. If you are offended that I would even compare 2001 to Sucker Punch, you are exactly who I am writing this for.

Tron: Legacy is often maligned for having a weak plot, and has been called "nothing but a Daft Punk Music Video." Interstella 555, at 68 minutes long, is literally nothing but a Daft Punk music video, having no diagetic sounds or dialogue, yet it holds a higher rating on IMDb. Why is this? It could just be that people don't want Jeff Bridges talking over their Daft Punk, but I believe it is an issue of context. Our expectations tend to affect our experience as much as our preferences. We assume that a statement is clever if the speaker is an expert, or if the accent is British and not Texan. The ongoing question of Art vs Pornography is an extreme example of this effect. Renoir's The Bathers will never be viewed or evaluated in the same way as a Japanese Hentai, even though fundamentally they are both drawings of naked people.

Perhaps Renoir's brushwork is more impressive than that of a Hentai Manga artist's, but this is not the reason it is considered Higher art. If one compares a Modern Artist with a Marvel artist, it's obvious that one has a firm grasp of anatomy and perspective, while the other is creating seemingly random blotches and squiggles (and no this isn't turning into a jab at Rob Liefeld). There are clearly things that the Marvel artist is doing better, so why isn't his work thought of by most people as "art"? Again it's a matter of context. Were the Marvel artist's work put up in an art gallery to be viewed by an audience completely oblivious to the existence of comics, it would undoubtedly be treated as art. The term "graphic novel" was introduced to help "serious" creators escape the stigmas that the term "comic" has, justifiably or not, come to carry, and to help people outside the hobby join in without feeling as geeky or childish. Similarly, Eurogames usually carry a vague historical theme because European boardgamers have traditionally looked down on fantasy and science fiction themed games.

The truth is, what is classified as Low art can sometimes be considerably harder to create. Hollywood spends countless millions every year on summer action flicks that no independent filmmaker could replicate. In order to compete, the small studios with less to lose focus instead on innovation. The same is true in the videogame industry, though indy developers are just recently starting to get the recognition and fiscal support that indy filmmakers have long enjoyed. Every year, many great indy games and movies are created, and many more are doomed to fail. Although I tend to seek out good indy titles in the face of corporate homogenization (particularly with videogames), it would be as much of a mistake to assume that all indy works are great as to assume that no mainstream works can be great.

People often argue that mainstream works aren't meaningful. What they are really saying is that the thematic elements aren't accentuated or "fleshed-out," since virtually every work has thematic subtexts, whether or not the creator is aware of them. But this also is not an adequate measure of a film's artistic status. Machete would be considered by most to be Low art (Danny Trejo swings through a window by a dude's intestines), but the immigration messages are overt and pervasive. Likewise, South Park makes no attempt to hide its agendas. But, you say, High art is more subtle with its messages. I actually believe that the opposite tends to be true. Judd Apatow comedies are packed with societal critique, despite also playing to the lowest common denominator; Robocop is a vicious criticism of American media and privatization while being enjoyed by many as just a mindless action flick; and Prince of Persia: the Sands of Time and Warhammer 40k's Space Marines both portray the horrors that can arise from blind devotion. Just because a work isn't necessarily about an issue doesn't mean it doesn't have something to say on the matter. Some works of High art emphasize their thematic elements simply because they have nothing else to fall back on, or because it helps to establish the context that the work is "art." Low art is often accused of being "exploitative," yet the term "Oscar bait" certainly implies exploitation, albeit of a more insidious sort. And I challenge you to tell me that award winning movies are less cliché ridden.

Perhaps it isn't the themes of the work itself, but rather the impact it ends up having on the medium, that determines its art status. This is an attractive barometer since it defers the judgement until some time in the future, at which point the work's art status will have already been settled, however it quickly falls apart under closer inspection. Saw and Hostel, both widely panned by critics, have had an incalculable effect on horror cinema, and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, widely considered the worst of the original trilogy, prompted the introduction of the PG-13 rating which has undoubtedly had an effect on the way studios have since chosen to finance films. Halo championed the success of first-person-shooters on consoles, irrevocably altering the evolution of the genre, yet most FPS aficionados would hold up games like Bio Shock or Deus Ex as being more deserving of artistic praise.

Maybe High art is what touches us more deeply on an emotional level, however I imagine more people cried during Old Yeller than during Citizen Kane. To date I have not been brought to tears by a book, a painting or a game, yet I do not consider these media to be artistically bankrupt. Maybe sometimes one has to become somewhat versed with a medium or genre to begin to appreciate its artistic depth, yet people everywhere seem happy to declare that they don't need to read science fiction novels, watch horror films, or listen to classical music to know that it sucks. And that's really my problem with the whole distinction between High and Low art: the marginal categorical convenience and feelings of comfort come at the cost of perpetuating archaic class distinctions and preventing people on both sides from discovering works that they would enjoy.

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Recommendations

I've come to the conclusion that there are more things of interest to me on the internet than I can sensibly devote individual posts to, so I've added some links to the sidebar that can be perused at leisure.

But go read Hyperbole and a Half first.

I thought about adding a list of favorite boardgames, but one problem is that many of the games I play and enjoy are not ones which I would recommend for someone getting into the hobby. I'll add a list whenever I make peace with this conundrum.

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Minecraft Store!

Minecraft just got even more awesome! Head on over to the all-new Minecraft store for fantastic, low-priced DLC like the "Miner's Helmet," the "Enlargement Pill" or the "Creeper Saddle!" I personally recommend downloading the "Regular Padlock" (only $8) since I hear they've recently learned to open doors...

OBRAG is NOT associated with Notch or Mojang AB, but Minecraft IS awesome.

Saturday, March 26, 2011

Sucker Punch Review

Steampunk Nazi Zombies.

Monday, February 28, 2011

Important Announcement from NASA

NASA makes another important announcement regarding the search for extraterrestrial life

NASA: Good news, everyone! We've just discovered a rare species of rhesus monkey that can live off of arsenic!

...

And this starfish that can eat at Jack in the Box!

Everyone: Yes, that's great. Can you please go back to finding aliens?

NASA: Ohh, but scanning the night sky is boring.

Saturday, February 19, 2011

Power Rangers Totally Ripped-Off Spider-Man

As we gain more details about a subject, often a larger picture emerges. Sometimes it can be inspiring, at other times terrifying, and ocassionally you discover that that one weird series from your childhood is a total ripoff of that other totally unrelated weird series from your childhood... kind of.

It all starts in 1978 when the Japanese company Toei signs an agreement with Marvel to license each others' characters over a three-year period, during which time a Japanese Spider-Man series was produced. The results were interesting.



...

That's right, Spider-Man has a giant robot, which I guess is why in the show he introduces himself as the messenger from hell. 'Nuff said.

Toei took this idea of the mecha-accessory and ran with it, introducing it into their long-running Super Sentai franchises. These were a genre of shows about a small team of color coordinated fighters (the term 'Sentai' was applied to squads in WWII) who would battle a variety of alien and/or magical threats using special powers and lots of kung-fu. Dozens of these shows were produced, and a few continue to this day.

After the webslinger introduced the giant robot concept (given to him by the alien Garia), other Sentai shows began toying with the idea, including one called Kyōryū Sentai Zyuranger. In 1993, U.S. studio Saban Entertainment shot new scenes with American actors, edited it together with licensed and redubbed action footage from Zyuranger, and brought the show to American audiences as Power Rangers.

So the next time you see the Megazord defeat one of Rita Repulsa's gargantuan goons, give a salute to the wall-crawler who does whatever a spider can, including summon a giant robot.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Back to Back to the Future: a Critical Restrospective

Somehow I had managed to avoid the Back to the Future films until very recently. Eventually I grew tired of the constant teasing and the threats of physical violence and decided to sit down and watch the trilogy over the past couple of years. I'd like to give my take on them as someone who has no nostalgic stake in them.

The first film is relatively straightforward by time-travel-story standards. Marty McFly simply has to 'fix' the the timeline he has inadvertantly screwed with, and manage to get back to future, or present (though Back to the Present doesn't sound as good). Overall, I feel that this film is the strongest of the trilogy as everything holds together well and I have no particular criticisms. The scene with the clock tower is thrilling, and the final few seconds of the film are fantastic (and I'm not sure how I avoided having them spoilt for me).

The second film is probably the most rewatchable as it has the most labyrinthine plot and some really smashing visuals, particularly in the 'future' segment. However I also feel that it is ultimately the weakest of the three as greater emphasis is given to the series' antagonist, Biff Tannen. Through no fault of Thomas F. Wilson, Biff is a pretty weak villain. He's completely one dimensional and, worst of all, not all that threatening. Perhaps due to this, there weren't any scenes that felt particularly suspenseful to me. In the first film, Biff's the stereotypical Hollywood jock, but by the second, his evil jock persona has ballooned out of all proportion. For me, Biff is not a strong enough villain to build an entire film around, though a valiant effort was made.

The third film has some great elements, but is held back by some noticeable flaws. Introducing a more distant historical setting is a nice change of pace, and the old west is realized in a way that is both tongue-and-cheek and believable. I love that Marty's historical equivalent is also played by Michael J. Fox. The Biff equivalent is still weak, but downplayed from the second. The big problem is that while he was never mentally intimidating, here he no longer seems physically intimidating either. And while the fairly straightforward plot holds together pretty well, there's not much of a sense of urgency about anything since there's no particular hurry to get back to 1985, and no apparent threat of messing with the timeline. In essense, Biff's role as a source of tension has been dialed back with nothing dialed in to replace it, though in my opinion this still makes for a stronger film, and a good amount of excitement is generated in the climax. The movie does have one extremely bothersome plothole though. Early on, they save Clara from plummeting off a cliff, but are mildly concerned that this may have disrupted the timeline after discovering that she was indeed supposed to die. After she and Doc Brown fall in love, Marty suggests bringing her back to 1985, but the Doc dismisses this idea as he is afraid it will disrupt the timeline. No!!! Leaving her in 1885 is what will disrupt the timeline! Hello? Hello?! What's worse is that this is never pointed out, and the entire 'disrupting the timeline' idea is dropped like horse pucky. Come on, you're smarter than that, Doc. Think, Brown, think!

Overall, the series is pretty solid. All three films range from decent to great, Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd are both endearing and enduring in their roles, and the only big problem is that the sole antagonist is not intimidating, although this isn't really a problem in the first film. I think it would have been interesting if, for the second or third film, they'd introduced a rival scientist, or maybe a cruel version of Marty from an alternate timeline. Ultimately though, Back to the Future is the rare film that is both enjoyable for adults and appropriate for children, and it is no small feat that they were able to duplicate this achievement two more times.

I'm interested to try the new adventure game that has come out. It's nice that Christopher Lloyd is reprising his role, and the guy doing a Michael J. Fox impression is outstanding.

I close with the immortal words of Sam Neill: "Where we're going, we won't need eyes!"

Friday, February 11, 2011

John Hughes' Legend of Zelda

Hands down one of the best videogame parodies I've ever seen.



Their indie God of War is pretty great too.

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Words of Wisdom

If Uwe Boll actually hates gamers, it's only because he's been making movies for them. If he started making movies for florists and spelling-bee contestants, he'd quickly learn to hate them too.