-
Art 3160 - Blog Response #3
I just finished playing “Today I Die,” the flash game by Daniel Benmergui. I actually ended up enjoying it quite a bit. Initially I was a bit put off by the absence of any direction or explained control scheme. I was moments from clicking the button to give up when I discovered i could grab things. I was soon taken with the game, and found the challenge refreshing. It is difficult to explain the game. It is probably best protected under the moniker of Flash game. Flash games tend to be a bit quirkier and different than mainstream games. In some senses it is role playing, as you can determine the outcome of the game. In a sense, the game was done from the start. Your endgame was defining the poem that best suited you. So you could argue that the initial poem is best suited and leave it at that. The element that really solidified the game for me was the score by Herman Rozenwasser. It really brought a good sense of emotion and urgency that really sold the game. My impression of the game is very positive and I look forward to playing more of this Artist’s games, as well as generally other types of games like this. They definitely help stimulate the mind, and help think in more abstract ways, when it comes to designing my own games.
It is interesting how “Today i Die” uses linguistics. It really conveys the power of words and plays on the concept in a more literal fashion. As I mentioned, the game was a bit frustrating at the start, because i literally didn’t know what to do. This could be what the other designers in Elrod’s article were talking about. As a society we are conditioned to conform to industry standards. This means that we don’t have to “waste” our time worrying about certain aspects of things, because the relevant industry has agreed to a set mode, and we as consumers have to only learn it once. A good example of an industry standard is in modern video games. The left-hand directional pad or joystick is reserved for movement in almost every genre of gaming. This is to ensure ease of use to the player as he or she migrates from game to game. The designers don’t want the player to worry about the controls, they want them to enjoy the presentation of the game. Unless the focus of the game becomes the control. As in with “Today I Die.” One of the enjoyed elements to the game is to figure out, on your own, what your abilities and limitations are. Elrod tells us not to “Read it like a game, play it like a poem.” As with abstract modern art, we must let go of traditional conventions and open our minds to new and different methods of stimulation. As the game doesn’t negate it’s status as a game, it negates our expectations and preset contexts for what a game can be. Mechanics of gameplay, such as the ones in “Today I Die” could vastly improve the enjoyability of the game, as it would require the players to think in new and unusual ways. The only problem I see is the same problem Daniel’s games endure, and that it the approachability. Many people may be turned off by the prospect of having to “think too much,” leaving less time for simply having fun. It would throw our game into a niche category, and that would cut it’s exposure. Which is not a bad thing entirely.
