It took a broken console for me to work out exactly why playing shooters on a thumbstick gives me hives.
With the XBox out of commission, I went back and finished Darwinia, Introversion's charmingly odd RTS. Darwinia uses a kind of FPS-like control system: the mouse moves a cursor around the screen, rotating to keep it close to the center of the view pane, while movement is controlled using the standard WASD (or in my case, WAXD) keys. In perspective, the game reminds me of Black and White, but without that game's idiotic mouse-only policy. Remember movement in B&W? In order to travel somewhere, instead of using a perfectly-reasonable autoscroll, players had to click-and-drag, like moving Google Maps, but without the ease of use or search function. Doing that for an hour at a time was an exercise in repetitive stress injury.
Darwinia, being far more sensible than B&W, uses the same basic principle that shooters use for movement and selection/aiming: it creates a direct connection between mouse's physical movement and the onscreen change in view arc. The reason this works is because computer users have been training for it during the entire life of the GUI. When the mouse moves a certain amount, the cursor moves correspondingly (factoring in a natural acceleration factor). In 3D space, the entire view moves instead of the cursor, but the relationship between physical change and virtual shift is preserved.
Compare to aiming with a thumbstick. Now, if you want a certain amount of change, you can't move the corresponding amount with your hand. Instead, you have to hold the stick in the desired direction for a variable length of time, then ease it back into position as you reach the target. If the target is moving, you can't follow its movement directly. You have to match its vector, both in direction and in amount (scaled to the bounds of the joystick).
Is there a way to solve this, and to make console shooters less tank-like? Probably not. You can't link movement directly to thumbstick position, because there's no way to reset the view center (you can't pick up and move the stick to its new position like a mouse). One fascinating idea I've seen is to replace the thumbstick with a trackball--as a long-time Logitech Marble user and RSI victim, I heartily approve of this idea. It will, of course, never happen, even though it would be tremendously awesome.
But short of reinventing the hardware, which no-one but Nintendo seems interested in, designers can at least minimize the annoyance. I noted, while I had a working XBox, that I found Gears of War much less fiddly than most shooters on the platform, probably because its emphasis on cover lowers the importance of precise aim. Gears gives much higher priority to movement, where consoles have an advantage in analog control, for getting behind cover and spraying suppressive fire. It also uses the cover mechanic as a way to guide players into a two-level stick sensitivity--when popping out for aimed shots, the view zooms in to make up for the stick's imprecise movement. Finally, the art design in Gears strongly supports the "feel" of its control: tank-like aiming seems natural given the hulking, ungainly build of Fenix and the other characters, in a way that it feels unnatural for most nimble FPS protagonists.
The best argument I've seen for why mouse hasn't been added to XBox, given the USB ports that could obviously support it, is that it would segment the player population: mouse users would have an clear advantage over the others, an advantage they would have effectively gotten by paying for it. It's unbalancing to give players with more money a leg up, and I can see why they want to avoid it. But when I'm playing the single-player campaign at home, I'd like to be able to do it in comfort instead of fighting constantly with the controls. The inability to do so is a constant source of frustration. Of course, this is a microcosm of the entire console-vs.-computer debate--my preference for an adaptable, hackable platform explains why I identify as a PC gamer in the first place.
Oh, how nice! Look what Microsoft got me for the holidays: a broken XBox.
No, really. You shouldn't have.
Valve's new shooter, Left 4 Dead, has not made much of an impression on me, a fact that I largely blame on the fact that I have no-one to play it with.
The other night, I managed to snag the XBox away from its recent Wire-playing duties to give the game's demo a shot with That Fuzzy Bastard. It's already got a strike against it, in that I'm playing it with a gamepad, and that's just not a positive experience. I can't shoot to save my life on a console, due to the clumsiness of using a stick to mouse-aim. And frankly, when the slavering undead hordes come boiling out of the dark hallways, aim is going to be important. TFB tried to pick up the slack, but I think the game's Director took one look at my performance and eased up on us.
Not that I was planning on playing it on XBox anyway, since it's also available on Steam. But L4D is a co-op game, and while I have a meager collection of five or so friends on Live, I know only one person on Steam (and Corvus, you're great, but I'm not laying down $40 for a couple of play sessions). Moreover, it seems like a specific kind of co-op game--very LAN-party-ish--so I'm also not keen on playing with strangers.
Don't get me wrong: I think it's great that companies are designing games for groups of friends. I just have to wonder who's capable of playing them. I'm not in college anymore, with a surfeit of free time and fellow travelers. As a working adult, these days I have to fit gaming into a life that includes a full-time job, other hobbies, and a metric ton of books, TV, movies, and other games I still haven't gotten to. My circle of friends does not actually include a large proportion of dedicated gamers. The idea that I could field even just three other teammates, all of whom have also coordinated across their busy schedules, seems inconceivable to me.
Clearly, there are people who can do it. I'm sure LAN parties still thrive somewhere, too. But as far as I'm concerned, Valve might as well be selling unicorn saddles for all the use I can get out of Left 4 Dead.
|System Codes||Individual games||
Wii System code
Mario Kart DS
1 4 6 0 8 8
3 6 3 7 8 5
Animal Crossing DS
With the new XBox experience (will not capitalize!) out, it seems appropriate to put this back up in case anyone's looking to fill out their fancy new friend list.
My impressions, after 15 minutes of flipping around in it this morning, is that it's certainly a bit easier to use but still a little sluggish in places. I haven't had a chance to look at the new Marketplace yet, but I didn't spend enough time in the old one to feel one way or the other about it. The new avatars are a welcome addition, if a bit generic, with a lot more options than the Wii version (but a lot less ability to abuse the toolkit, too).
The biggest feature that we'll use as a household will be the Netflix streaming. I streamed 5 minutes of a 30 Rock episode this morning and it looked great--better than what we see on cable, honestly, but that's not saying much. Not quite DVD quality, but close.
I'd hoped that the prime feature for us would be the hard drive install, so we could cut down on the disc-swapping between The Wire DVDs and whatever I'm playing at the moment. Then I remembered that there's still a disc-check, so we'll have to swap anyway. I guess it'll be a bit quieter, at least.
During the opening scenes of Tarkovsky's Stalker, the scenes outside of the Zone are shot in a kind of not-quite-sepia, yellow-tinted monochrome, as if the black-and-white film were being projected onto a background of copper or gold foil. It is a striking effect, combined with the film's signature lingering camera movements, that is both beautiful and cold.
GSC Gameworld was clearly inspired by Stalker. For their game of the same title there is, in fact, a scene set within the Zone when the screen slowly tints itself gold with a pronounced film grain in imitation of the movie. The effect is slow to appear, vanishes during the transition to the next level, and is never explained or referenced--at first, you could be forgiven for thinking that the video driver has started to malfunction. Like its inspiration, it creates a mood of eerie melancholy, except for one crucial difference: instead of watching a discussion of Russian philosophy, the player is forced to frantically defend themself from crazed paramilitary troopers. Needless to say, I have mixed feeling about it.
All of Stalker (the game, now) actually has this kind of ambivalence at heart. There are moments of really fascinating simulation and mood--the acclaimed ballistics and artificial life models, the radiation filters, the untranslated Russian dialog--mixed with decisions straight out of a video game handbook--instant healing via medkits, for example, or the otherworldly artifacts represented merely as stat bonuses. It is, for me, a game that's much more interesting as an idea and a collection of potential than as an actual game.
That's not to say that Stalker isn't enjoyable. Parts of it were a lot of fun. But it's not smoothly polished the same way as games from the bigger studios, like Valve or Raven, with the sharp edges rounded off so you can't cut yourself. There's an industrial quality to it, from the throwback inventory system to the clumsy aiming and the brutally-discouraging difficulty spikes. Even with the patches cleaning up the stability issues and the passage of time easing its high system requirements, the quickload key gets a serious workout. You have to really love shooters, not to mention the game's unique setting and play style, to get through it. I qualify for both, and it still took me a long time to finish.
I mentioned the incongruity of Stalker's violence compared to the film to which it often refers, but it also contains contradictions all its own. Significant parts of its gameplay are based around open-world conceits: if the player so desires, they could easily ignore the main storyline, instead simply wandering around the landscape performing missions for other stalkers. The Zone constantly throws up confrontations, some banal, and some (like the firefights erupting between stalkers and various factions) spontaneous and immersive. And yet some of the best parts of the game, I think, are a few elaborate scripted sequences that play out semi-dynamically: the storming of Pripyat with a squad of fellow stalkers, for example, who warn each other and jeer at the enemy as they clear the streets of snipers and opposition forces.
When it works, Stalker's setting is good enough that its flaws seem more like intriguing puzzles. Why aren't there any women in the Zone? (or, given the way everyone's bundled up under armor, masks, and exoskeletons, how do you know there aren't any?) Why is radiation contained only in small pockets across the landscape? What made these people suddenly so hostile to me? But when the game breaks--when you've been hammering F7 for hours trying to get past one seemingly-superhuman gunman in Lab X16--it breaks hard, and none of the atmosphere matters much, even though this capriciousness is no doubt by design. As in other methods of entertainment, we want realism only so far as it remains convenient and meets some standard of fairness. If the rules begin to seem skewed, contradictory, or inconsistent, it's hard to keep patience alive.
Still, for all its flaws, my affection for Stalker is probably rooted in my love of the PC as a gaming platform, and the vague feeling that it could have only been made there. There's not an ounce of console adaptation to be found--no autoaiming, no slot-based inventory, no hotspot interaction. It uses most of the keyboard's 102 keys for one function or another (although some of those are real oddball choices--why are 9 and 0 used to switch between auto and semi-auto modes?). It has lean keys. Even its bugginess--now apparently patched, since it almost never crashed on me--puts it firmly in the PC camp, for better or worse.
The excuse often used for console gaming is that the experience simply runs smoother--and it probably does. I think there's some confirmation bias taking place in the argument, but I won't argue that there are a lot of things you simply don't have to worry about with an XBox or PS3. But at the same time, when I look at Stalker, I see a game made by a studio effectively out in the middle of nowhere, for an audience that has decidedly hardcore values and expectations. The PC is a great leveller, when it comes to these things. It's still the place where a relatively small team can put something together for relatively little money, leading to these kinds of flawed-but-compelling experiences (see also: Croteam, Introversion, or Popcap). And so while I can't point people to Stalker without reservations, I still feel like it should be recommended, if only so they can see the other side of the slick, streamlined designs that consoles have brought into vogue.
Besides, it's based on a three hour-long Russian art film! What's next, an FPS that examines the utopian delusions of Ayn Rand?
After writing a post on a misogynistic shooter and being linked by the slavering hordes from gaming site Kotaku, Brinstar probably could have been excused from taking a long break from blogging, and possibly the written word as well. Instead, she put together an examination of how her own views have expanded during her time online. It's a thoughtful (and thought-provoking post), made even more so by the fact that Brinstar doesn't really need to prove her bona-fides on feminist gamer commentary to anyone. She writes:
It wasn't easy to have my perspectives challenged. I cringe when I look at what I've written in the past. I feel embarrassed about how I used to think about certain things. It shows that I had a lot to learn then, and that I'm still not finished learning. I have expanded my daily readings to include general feminist and anti-oppression blogs to deepen my understanding of oppression and privilege and how it impacts everyday life, and I continue to have my assumptions, perspectives, and privilege challenged.Those are hard words to write, and I admire her for writing them.
Brin's post sparked some thoughts of my own on the topic of progressive issues in gaming, and the roles that individuals--particularly those operating from a privileged position--can play. Because there is certainly a place for allies when it comes to sexism, racism, and any number of other problems facing the games community, but only if they can act in a constructive, considerate manner.
The distressing aspect of the gaming discussion that takes place online is that it's not representative of the demographics, or often the viewpoints, of the actual, real-world gaming population. We know, for example, that many woman play games. We know that people of color are gamers. Obviously there are LGBT gamers. But in the online community, these categories are, I think (note: I may be entirely wrong), underrepresented. Two problems result from the disparity: first, the face of gaming is (erroneously) portrayed as that of straight, white males; and second, it means that when minority viewpoints do try to enter the debate, they often face a withering tide of angry or ignorant comments from places like Joystiq or Kotaku.
So there's definitely a place for the straight/white/male members of the community to provide support on these issues--and indeed, many have. I hope that I've been of some assistance in the past, and obviously I hope others will add their voices in support. But looking back, just as Brinstar did, I cringe a little sometimes at what I've written, and I recognize that there's also room for improvement and education as to what an ally's role could, or should, be. Especially because it's very easy to cross the line from being helpful and supportive to being a voice that muddies, distracts from, or even completely derails the debate. I worry about that, lately.
I thought about trying to put together a list of educational links for potential allies, but I suspect it's a little presumptuous of me. Also it seems like a lot of work, particularly when Shrub.com has such a good collection already assembled on their right sidebar, under the 101 and 303 sections. Two items that stood out to me are Men! Feminism needs you! (Not your privilege...) at The F Word, which specifically addresses blog commenting without being a jerk, and 12 Helpful Suggestions for Men Regarding Conduct in Feminist Spaces, which looks pretty standard as far as these things go. Both are aimed mainly at participation by men in communities for women's issues, but they also serve (with a little mental effort) as good, common-sense primers on interaction with progressive debates ranging from disability to racism. From the "12 Helpful Suggestions":
3. Listen. This would be really nice. Please respect our feelings and our experiences.I think that's my cue to wrap things up.
Corollary to Rule 3: When in doubt, shut the hell up. If you're not sure you're "getting it" take a step back, resist the urge to hit that "respond" button, and try to think about what women are saying - before you act.
Once again, I'm unloading surplus games on eBay for prices that are CRAAAZY! Capsule reviews follow.
1. In Which The Problem Is Introduced and Prodded Gently
Last week, during one of my interminable link posts (which generally signal a paucity of actual creative thought on my part, combined with the guilt of not writing something every! day! for you people, all three of you) I mentioned that Mass Effect has a romance problem. Specifically, it features a subplot dedicated to a liason between Commander Shepherd (the player's alter ego) and one of his or her crew members, but it narrowly confines this romance to set of four or five cutscenes. During missions, or during breaks between non-story-related missions, there's no hint of any personal life between Shepherd and the chosen paramour.
So it's kind of schizophrenic, to say the least. Absent any kind of explanation, you begin to wonder if this isn't some kind of admission on Shepherd's part that they are, in fact, basically engaging in the kind of cross-ranks fraternization (sorornization?) of which, at best, command would probably disapprove, and at worst would result in a sexual harassment charge. If so, the commander should be get some kind of award, because he (or she! this will get old fast.) certainly never lets the slightest hint of impropriety slip in front of anyone else. It's possible, but not at all believable, as anyone who's had a relationship in a workplace/team situation soon discovers.
I realize, of course, that storage space and programmer time are finite--alternate versions of almost every cutscene and line of dialog are, perhaps, too much to ask. But I wonder if there's still not a possible solution. Surely, in a game that features entirely in-engine cinematics, variations in reading could be recorded for a few lines, bringing out an undercurrent of flirtation? (Otherwise known as the "that's what she said" version.) You can't tell me the voiceover crew wouldn't have had more fun, since they don't seem to be enjoying the game's deadly earnest dialog much as it is.
2. In Which The Author Tries Not To Anger Or Embarrass His Girlfriend Too Much in Pursuit of a Deeper Truth
Now, granted, I'm hardly any kind of Casanova. I put the "awkward, halting missteps" in "relationship." So take this with a grain of salt, but I genuinely believe that great love stories are told with the little things, whether it's the stories we tell ourselves or those that we showcase through writing and film. It's the little moments--a furtive glance or touch, a quirk in a facial expression, a silly conversation--that we talk and laugh about years later.
For me, at least, that's the case. I know this because A) Belle still teases me regularly about the smallest gaffes I made during our first encounters, and B) for her part, I've read her LiveJournal entries from those first couple of months. I've snickered at the giddy inconsequentialities written there from time to time, but they also perfectly capture why I found her adorable, and I'd be heartbroken if they were ever lost.
Instead of getting into specifics, which could prove painful for me, let me propose another example: The Office. In either its British run or the first couple of seasons in the American adaptation, The Office is a show centered largely on two characters whose entire romantic arc is made up of pointless little moments. Yet through a set of glances, grins, and awkward pauses, The Office is practically drowning in romantic tension. The suspension of romantic fulfillment has been a dramatic engine for plenty of shows, from The X-Files to Arrested Development, but Gervais' sitcom shows just how exquisitely tuned that engine can be, and how much it resonates with viewers.
3. Getting Back on Topic, Before the Post Wanders Completely Out of Control
A big part of the problem with Mass Effect's approach to its love story, therefore, is how badly it handles the little things--most jarringly, the facial expressions of its characters. Bioware's art style usually stays out of the uncanny valley, but when it comes to expressing subtleties the models' faces are still too stiff and stoic, and the body language too spastic, despite moments when it almost works. That it reaches the level of community theater is to be appreciated, but not lauded.
It does not help, while we're on the subject of the visuals, that all the women coming out of the character generator bear a strong resemblance to Alan Rickman no matter what you do. I've got a lot of respect for Mr. Rickman, but it's a little weird seeing him in future-drag, flirting with his second-in-command.
Still, the graphics aren't what kill the mood, it's the writing. It's the lack of interaction. And you can have both of those on a much more limited platform. Prince of Persia: Sands of Time managed to do it, with a fairly low-tech cross-platform engine. Not only that, but it left Farah (the Prince's love interest) off-screen for the majority of the game. But in addition to a tremendously satisfying mobius strip of a plotline, PoP never went more than a few minutes without an interjection from the Prince speaking to either Farah or himself. It took every opportunity to build up a picture of his personality, his outlook, even his endearingly awful interpersonal skills. Was the romance a little one-sided? Maybe. But it was also far more involving than anything in Mass Effect.
4. And All That Could Have Been
I know, I know. There's a certain degree of armchair quarterbacking to these kinds of posts, and I get a bit sick of it myself. I guess it's just kind of jarring how a game with such a strong narrative focus can get these kinds of things wrong.
I mean, take the morality system: like most of Bioware's titles, Mass Effect boasts a simplistic Paragon/Renegade duality for players. Virtuous or lawful actions earn Paragon points, while selfish or unlawful actions increase the Renegade score. Unlike in Knights of the Old Republic or Fable, tipping the balance either way makes relatively little difference in the game or the player's appearance, and seems to mainly exist for the purposes of earning an XBox achievement.
Again, none of this is tied to the romantic subplot at all. Which I found a little strange, really. I mean, the three possible partners are a xenophobic human female, a not-too-bright human male, and a purportedly-female alien. All three of these have decidedly different worldviews on the other galactic inhabitants, not to mention morality. So why is it that, when I go on a mission and decide to shoot up a bunch of helpless aliens, neither of the latter two seem affected by it? Or, if I spare them, why doesn't the xenophobe comment on my weak-willed appeasement? I found myself hoping, as the game proceeded, that something I'd do would get a reaction from someone, but nothing ever did. Choose to shoot an innocent bystander right in front of them? Nobody blinks an eye. Talk about dysfunctional relationships.
You know, I'm not one of those infinite storytelling kind of people. I don't want interactive fiction if that means I've gotta write it myself. Like a lot of people, I'm more than happy to enjoy a static plot, if it's a good one. And although it's mostly standard space opera, Mass Effect has a lot going for it. It just falters over the details--and unfortunately, in any relationship, fictional or not, the details matter.
At this time, there have been something like 2,000 reviews of Spore on Amazon. A massive number of them are 1-star reviews complaining about the DRM--partially because it's the standard SecuROM crap, but also because a glitch in the activation servers apparently locked out a number of the early purchasers. The negative comments don't seem to have hurt sales anyway, since it's still one of the top-rated sellers in Amazon's video game category.
Set aside the debate of whether or not this is an appropriate way to use the site's review system--after all, Amazon is notoriously lax about policing the ratings (see also: Jonah Goldberg's ill-advised Liberal Fascism, which is tagged by users with the phrases "ein volk ein reich ein bag von cheetos" and "code pink invaded poland" among others). There are at least a couple of more interesting questions to be raised about the Spore rating debacle: the effectiveness of excess, and the need for more information about DRM.
First, do two thousand reviews actually mean anything? At what point, really, do we trip a kind of mental incredulity barrier, and the entire process starts to work against itself? Clearly, a page with 81 five-star and 2,088 one-star ratings has something going on, and customers who aren't as informed about DRM might find it more than a little odd. It may be that such a strong reaction doesn't so much dissuade buyers so much as it simply causes them to tune out the review system entirely. Hence the strong sales for the title.
I suspect that this has happened, actually. But the DRM-focused reviews are serving another purpose: they provide information about the SecuROM that's otherwise usually hidden from consumers. Normally, if I buy a game, I have to do at least a quick Google search before I know what kind of DRM it might be carrying. I can look at a typical Amazon page and see system requirements and cost, but I won't see what kind of copy protection it has built in. In a roundabout way, that's what these reviews are providing: information that the market failed to produce on its own. Which is fantastic.
For example, when I first got my new laptop, I picked up FEAR so I'd have something to play through on a more powerful video card than my previous system. Obviously the box doesn't say, but FEAR also includes an earlier version of SecuROM. People bag on Vista's UAC feature all the time, usually without understanding it, but it flagged the installation process during the DRM installation stage. Thanks to the warning, I found a crack to disable the DRM, just in case.
Now, that's just me being paranoid. After all, SecuROM's pretty non-invasive as DRM goes. But that's like saying it's only a minor infection--it's still not something I want on my system, particularly given Sony's past behavior with rootkits and shady code (Sony develops SecuROM). And what about games that use StarForce or other, more destructive copy protection? Shouldn't consumers know what they're installing when they install that game, and then be allowed to choose to go ahead?
The optimal path, of course, would be along the lines of the recent Gamers Bill of Rights by Stardock, which specifies no copy protection at all. Failing that, I think retailers should notify customers about the DRM included in the products they sell. And as a final precaution, I've started thinking about creating an open game DRM wiki, so that buyers can easily check in a centralized location before making a purchase.
Because I'm all for markets and market solutions. But I also believe that DRM is a market failure, and another is the lack of information about DRM that's available to the consumer. Until that failure is remedied, the PC gaming situation isn't going to get any better.
Jonathan Blow, designer of Braid, is a smart guy. I think he makes a lot of good points, and I dig his game. But his reaction to the game's reception is drastically wrong, as evidenced in his interview with the AV Club:
And so even prior to the release of Braid, I go back and I read - I've read a lot of these blogs, hoping to read good game criticism. And it was way too much of the English major, and not enough of the Computer Science major. ... And in fact, often it'll be somebody has an agenda - like, there was a very feminist-oriented critique of Braid [on Feministe.us] and it was an author following her feminist agenda and interpreting the game. Which was fine, but it didn't have much to do with what I put in the game.To begin, it's amusing that Blow thinks there have been too many "English major" critiques, since I've read several people agreeing that the only reason I could finish the game and enjoy it is my amateur CS background and left-brain tendencies. I think that's utterly wrong, of course, but even if it weren't--what's a CS perspective on Braid supposed to look like, anyway? "Hey, that's a nice switch-case statement you've got there. My, what a well-crafted particle system." Asking for a logical system of art appreciation is one slippery step away from the abomination of Randian philosophy.
Nevertheless, Blow puts too much weight on his own intentions, and rejects the player's interpretation too handily. He may disagree with the interpretation from Feministe, but it's not wrong. Likewise, he may be upset that people did not take away the same message that he claims to have put in (which seems to be some variant on materialism vs. faith), but those people are not "wrong" or "incomplete" in their thinking simply because they've reached different conclusions. Author's intention is a wonderful thing, but it's not the only thing, or even the primary thing.
That very ambiguity is one of the reasons Braid works artistically. What's it about? Who's Tim? Who's the Princess? How do each of the worlds correspond with the game's overarching theme? Blow claims that he's tied every aspect of the game to a specific, personal meaning, and I think you can tell that's the case. But he doesn't get to define, for each player, what that meaning is. He can say what he intended it to be, which is not the same, and does not preclude other, valid interpretations.
(Notably, Blow is a college dropout who double-majored in English and CS. I would argue that his kind of viewpoint is common to smart, self-educated people, who frequently look down on the literary criticism for its vague and 'unscientific' outlook. This is a mistake: learning to deal with shifting or undefined situations is a primary lesson--perhaps the lesson--of a higher education in the liberal arts.)
There is, in fact, probably a tension between Blow's outlook on art and his game design. He writes:
I'm trying to understand true things about [the universe], or to uncover things about it, in ways again that are less bullshitty than just writing words on a paper. Because somehow, and I could be totally fooling myself about this, but I believe that somehow, there is something more meaningful about creating a system. Because the universe is a system, of some kind. And writing is not a system.Well, yes, actually. It is. The study of rhetoric and communication, not to mention (at a lower level) linguistics, exists to try to understand that system. Blow, in what's almost a stereotype of computer science, is uncomfortable with rhetorical criticism, because it's not always predictive in the same ways that physics or chemistry can be. So he's designed a game based around puzzles that many people have found too strict, while ironically surrounding them with extremely fuzzy symbols and rhetoric. Perhaps since I tend to straddle those worldviews myself, that's why I enjoy it. Likewise, perhaps Blow himself has lost sight of that part of Braid in his desire to lock its message down to a less distressing ambiguity. Take his observation of the game blog community:
...what's interesting to me is that some people get [the intention], and some people don't. But that's completely decorrelated from people's claimed positions in the sphere of commentary. By which I mean, there are lots of random blog posters on places like Gamespot or NeoGAF or whatever who show a clearer understanding of the game than people who are all, "I'm all about games, and narrative and meaning, and I write a blog just to tell you about how I analyze all these things." Those people have the same hit rate as your general forum poster.Yeah, well: welcome to the Internet, where everyone can claim to be an expert. I'm not even necessarily saying I disagree with him, but it cuts both ways. The author of an artwork is just as disconnected from any intrinsic authority as any gaming blogger, or forum poster. This is both the advantage and disadvantage of Internet commentary: good analysis can come from anywhere and be judged on its merits, while the analysis from those crowned as authorities can be revealed as flawed in comparison (that's why newspaper editorialists should all be fired). Being the artist, you're entirely welcome to make enlightening statements about why you put something together the way you did. And I'll take that viewpoint under exactly the same consideration as I do everyone else's, because the art itself stands alone.
But like I said, I think Blow's a smart guy. He's thought about this a lot. I'm optimistic that he'll figure it out eventually. And I look forward to what he's capable of making once he does.