Blips: Passing Knowledge

Source: Why we should be more confident talking about games we haven't played
Author: Steven Poole
Site: Edge

In a new column for Edge, Steven Poole asserts that you don't necessarily have to play the entirety of a game to be able to voice a valid opinion about it. He cites Pierre Bayard's book How To Talk About Books You Haven't Read as inspiration, claiming that there are four categories of periphery understanding of media (in Bayard's case, books): those you don't know, those you've skimmed, those you've forgotten, and those you've heard of. Poole's central example in his piece in GTA V's "torture scene," and how even never having played it, the potency of the discussion around it provides a researched platform for crafting your own new opinions. Why should you purchase and play through dozens of hours of a game that, as a whole, does not interest you, so that you can have the experience of playing a short sequence for yourself, when that same information is basically available to you via other critical responses and YouTube videos?

I'm not in total agreement with Poole here, but in certain applications, he's spot on. On the subject of having to complete a game to comment on a particular aspect, he's right, that's an outdated qualifier, especially when it comes to large or never-ending games. I just reviewed Gran Turismo 6 without "beating" it. Why? Well, I have other games to review and other stories to write, and no one is going to want to read a review of that game by the time I get all the way through it. I did have a firm grasp on what the game has to offer though, and took an approach to reviewing it that centered on how the game presents itself and it's general tone instead of listing off the pros and cons of every stage in the game. This isn't a flawless strategy, but it does a pretty good job of balancing the elements of time, research, and deadlines, where a completionist mandate can exploit a critic's (especially freelancer) time and energy.

That said, my main problem with Poole's assertion is that it stems from what feels like a need to have an opinion on every subject that crosses the zeitgeist. The reality is that no one can play everything, and so to have an opinion on everything, you have to shortcut the process in some way. What feels like is often the case though is that folks are driven to have an opinion instead of driven to say something in particular. Do we really want game criticism to proceed further down the cable news talking head rabbit hole? Besides, it's always possible that a controversial scene or element in a game is offset by the rest of the experience, a notion only individuals who have actually played it would know. At that point, as a critic and non-player of a particular game, you'd better be bringing something profound to the table. In principle, I have little issue with the idea that you don't have to play a game to have a grounded, respectable opinion on it, so long as it's not treated as a free pass on performing research and understanding in-game contexts.

Blips: 4 Amazing GTA V Mods You Just Have To See

Source: How to remove all misogyny and violence from Grand Theft Auto 5
Author: Jon Bois
Site: Polygon

I got a kick out of these analog mods for Grand Theft Auto V that Jon Bois came up with for Polygon. I'm particularly a fan of "You, Steve Forbes and the Endless Void," but they all have their merits. Open world PC games are certainly known for their robust modding scenes, but with GTA V only appearing on consoles (so far), there's not much of a "scene" to speak of due to closed hardware. However, Bois proves that with some posterboard, tape, and markers, you can still mod GTA V to your heart's content. And you don't even have to know anything about code!

In "Grand Theft Auto: Indianapolis," a piece of paper covers the whole TV screen except for a rectangle in the middle for the in-game car. Strip malls and chain restaurants are painted on the sides of the road, giving Indianapolis its distinct character. Although Bois chose Indianapolis (perhaps because it's easy to draw), you could draw just about any place there instead. I'm inclined to make the road recede more sharply into the horizon, and perhaps recreate the Grand Canyon level from Rad Racer instead, but you can take the whole thing off-road if you want. Find out what it's like to drive a car at the bottom of the ocean or on the moon! The world is your oyster.

Alternatively, you could just play vanilla GTA V and complete hour after hour of droll mission objectives, but where's the fun in that?

Blips: Framing Devices

Source: The limits of play (part 1) & (part 2)
Author: Jonas Linderoth
Site: YouTube

I stumbled across this video presentation the other day by University of Gothenburg professor Jonas Linderoth on why it feels like games have a difficult time tackling serious subject matter. He explains that the way an object is framed in a game is always a layer removed and abstracted from what we understand that object to be outside of the game. The example he gives is one where kids are playing a game with an old shoe he had provided them, using the shoe as a kind of "ball" where it was important to have possession of it. In the game, his shoe had taken on a totally different significance that what it had before, and in turn, also lost a lot of other context. The kids don't know Linderoth's personal history with the shoe, and the stories that could be told of where it had been and how it fits on his foot. Instead, the shoe has taken on a ludic meaning that sees it as a prized possession and a means to winning the game.

Now, the kicker is to substitute the shoe in the kids game with objects that carry broad historical and cultural weight; Linderoth settles on a Nazi flag as an example. Casting an object that represents thoughts and actions that most people find reprehensible in the role of an important and, in the game context, sacred item is likely to shock and offend. Linderoth explains that the reframing of an object in the game world inherently trivializes it, and it's up to game designers to provide proper framing to convey the meaning they're going for while also recognizing the limits of virtual representation. While I think Linderoths use of the phrase "getting away with it" pessimistically assumes designers are out to slip one past the censors, his given paths to healthy solutions are nonetheless valid.

One of those solutions is satire, which has been popping up quite a bit as it relates to Grand Theft Auto V. What happens when segments of players don't buy into the explanation they've been given as to why they should be OK with the ludic meanings attached to certain game objects? What happens when someone calls BS on your game as satirical commentary? I suppose what happens is there's a certain level of backlash, but in the case of GTA5, the overwhelming wave of critical praise, consumer buy-in, and in-game expanse swallows up the push-back. Perhaps that will change as we get further and further away from the buzz of GTA5's launch, but it also feels like the impact has already happened and the damage done.