Oh man! I haven't played the Walking Dead, but hearing you talk about Illusion of Choice even for a moment got me psyched! This is something that I think fairly regularly when playing almost any game that isn't a beat-em-up, fighting game, or some other much more straightforward genre, trying to figure out how much choice really is available. I would absolutely ADORE an episode or two focused on this!
I'd love an episode about the illusion of choice, particularly since I'm interested to hear other developers views on it. I've several times heard Blizzard reps/devs speaking against it in the sense that "why have all these [WoW] talent options when in reality everyone picks almost the same". My personal standpoint is that I LOVE it. Real choice is the best, but it's not always feasible or possible, and from my standpoint the illusion often adds, if not as much value, then at least a non-trivial amount.
I'm quite baffled by Blizzards stance on it, so I'd love to hear thoughts on it from others.
@Kaziel
I agree - I'd love to see a feature on the Illusion of Choice in video games. Of games this show has covered, The Walking Dead and Spec Ops: The Line both made use of it interesting ways (TWD playing it straight and SO:TL taking the opposite route and making you think you had less choices than you really did), but I'd like to hear what they have to say about it in regards to video games in general.
The use of Clementine really added weight and consequence to your choices. *spoilers* In episode 2, I was so mad at the rednecks for putting her in danger that I chose to impale one with a pitchfork, only to be horrified by Clem walking in at that second and seeing that violence.
Also, I loved that race was never directly mentioned, but frequently hinted at, and only became apparent if your chose your dialogue choices to address it instead of blowing off the comments.
Necrox: Illusion of choice is usually meant to indicate the appearance of player's control over their action. The WoW talent system was more an example of what happens when designers who don't understand why they have a certain system in their game find themselves unable to make use of it as the game changes. Many of the niches filled by the old talent system were, last I checked anyway, simply shifted to other parts of the game such as gemming, reforging, glyphs and so on. The game still needs a system to organize all those choices and look at them as a whole, it just no longer has one.
Illusion of choice as it appears in Dragon Age 2 for example, is more what the term is used to refer to. Essentially providing a variety of narrative game play solutions that all resolve in the same way, or only very temporarily deviate from the core story line.
@Necrox: That's not what they mean by "illusion of choice". In TWD, you are offered to choose between a number of options all the time, and it's subtly suggested that they will all matter in some way... and then it turns out that almost none of them did matter, it was all for show. Everyone dies when they're scripted to die (or thereabouts) and the game trudges on regardless of your precious choices.
Even in Mass Effect 3 your choices had more weight... you could at least choose *the color* of the apocalyptic explosion that destroys the galaxy and everything in it. TWD, on the other hand, runs on tightly scripted rails and still delivers an engaging story - the only problem being that the story is not as interactive as it was supposed to be.
That reflects on this episode's point about the role of children in games. It looks like if you want to represent children in an effective and appropriate manner, you need to severely limit all their options - neither the Protagonist not the Kid can be allowed to wander away or do *absolutely anything* that could alter the proscribed outcome <_<
Good episode as always. I'd like to have seen an exploration of the dichotomy between Lee's relationships with Clem and Kenny's kid though.
I mean, Clem you can associate with. Kenny's boy, whilst experiencing the same sort of connection with his dad and providing a model for the Clem and Lee relationship, is more active. And I found that this eagerness along with needing to be saved more often, led to me resenting his presence. But then he started to redeem himself in the third episode, helping Lee to solve a puzzle.
While this is likely just a tool to contrast the boy with Clem and the relationship you have with both, does this justify making him more of a burden?
@there'saforum? I'm aware that that is the specific example of illusion of choice they probably referred to, but the concept as a whole is much broader than *just* that, and I feel the talent system is an example of this.
Whether we are talking about choices such as dialogue options, or choices in how you build your character, or what path to choose when you move towards an objective, it's all choices that can be actual choices, just the illusion of one, or anything in between. They all give you the same thing - a feeling of freedom and the (real or imagined) ability to define how you play your game and make your way towards the goal, and therefore also potentially a greater personal sense of achievement, because you feel like what happened is based on YOUR choices.
My point is that it does not matter which of the different types of choices we are talking about, they all change your sense of agency within the confines of the game experience. Perception is everything and illusions can change perception.
Without derailing this any more, the WoW Talent System is probably a bad comparison to Illusion of Choice since plenty of people choose different talents depending on what they are doing with their character (leveling, PvP, PvE, etc.) and what spec they are. But even if players have the same spec/play style (say Arms Warrior + PvP), over 1/2 the talent tiers still have multiple choices that make sense for a player given his/her play style (4 of the 6 talents in that case).
Try playing what I call the silent play through to really see through the illusion of choice. Even if the overarching story doesn't change, you can still see a completely different characterization of Lee. Sometimes silence is more painful to give to Clemintine than anything else. If anything else, it's a fairly interesting experiment, all you have to do is wait out all timers to talk, and make unnecessary decisions. That big one in episode 2? You can wait it out. The one in four? That too.
It's kinda funny you guys mentioned the part about the concept of parenthood evoking emotions in the audience, because--I gotta put it out there--Fire Emblem: Awakening does this dang well, too. In a sense.
YES !!! Please do a episode of illusion of choice. Just played Bioshock Infinite and intrigued me how it tied into the story/end. Great work btw Much insight from you guys, love the show
To those like Thanatos2k that "hate kids in real life too" I would make 2 points.
One, that's fine. I don't like football in my games, and really prefer not to have gore and violence in my games. Some games are not for everyone, but the means to evoke strong paternal/maternal feelings is a powerful tool in any medium, and can make a game really meaningful to those who are open to them.
Two, many (by no means all, just many) people that I know who have expressed a hatred of kids, really didn't know any. They didn't have any children of their own, or younger siblings in their families. They mostly experienced kids only as "that kid on the airplane that screamed because its ears hurt" or "the kid that through a tantrum in the diner because he couldn't have desert". That actually fits really well with what this episode was saying though. If all you see are the obnoxious burdensome parts of child-rearing, then yeah, that's not going to look like an enjoyable experience. You feel sorry for those parents, because you're not seeing the subtle but deep joy that comes from watching your child discover the world.
Again, I'm *absolutely* not saying that you should like kids or should give them a chance or anything like that. I just mean that there is often a selection bias that can sometimes make the experience seem unpleasant by not glossing over better aspects.
You feel sorry for those parents, because you're not seeing the subtle but deep joy that comes from watching your child discover the world.
-SNIP-
I just mean that there is often a selection bias that can sometimes make the experience seem unpleasant by not glossing over better aspects.
But that's actually a pretty condescending thing to say. I realize you are trying to be respectful of another's opinion, but this falls very short.
Yeah, some people just had some bad experiences with children, and that's why they don't like 'em. But to imply that a given commenter on the internet just had bad experiences and hasn't come to their subjective opinion through rational thought, just because it doesn't line with yours, is very condescending. Many people actually dislike children as a group for various reasons irrespective of bad experience; sometimes people just don't like taking care of something that can't take care of itself. Sometimes, people don't feel that "subtle but deep joy". That feeling is subjective; not everyone has it.
@Necrox: But the issues of plot divergence choices and of talent tree choices have practically nothing in common. In the latter case (WoW etc) you do have a choice - nothing is forcing you into an optimal build other them your own meta-thinking.
A better example there would be Tomb Raider, which near the end of the game lets you max out all upgrades and makes Lara equally good at everything - during the game it seemed you were focusing on bows or shotguns or whatever, but in the end it all evened out anyway.
A lot of good points, as always! I think something that designers haven't figured out yet (which is weird, since it's been done in more than a few successful games at this point) is that if you want a player to feel sympathetic to a character or give the player a character that they're supposed to want to help, one of the best things you can do is have that character be helpful and useful towards the player. When I was playing Half Life Episode 2 and 3, I grew attached to Alyx not just because she was written well but because she was competent backup. The mission where you had to save her didn't feel like a stock "damsel in distress" moment because I had had time to grow close to the character and feel emotionally vulnerable when she was hurt. The same thing with Bioshock: Infinite - Elizabeth is so useful that not once does the game feel like a giant escort mission (it certainly helped that she wasn't shot at, that went a long way, too).
For the record, though, I never really felt annoyed when dealing with the children in Heavy Rain. I can understand some frustration in that it's a bit of a stretch for Jason to run off like he does at the start of the game, but overal, I was worried more than iritated when I had to go find him and later one when Shaun got lost. I'll agree that maybe both Jason and Shaun could have used a tiny bit more polish, but, though I can't quantify it, I can safely say that that game made me have a sympathetic connection to those characters.
I think adding a character like clementine makes YOU the father figure which is such a strange feeling especially if youre a young gamer because it creates feelings you never had before. The whole game all i would worry about is 'where's clementine?' 'Is clementine ok?'. After every little sequence in the game i just went straight to clementine and talked to her seeing if she needed food or if she was scared and just made sure to keep her spirits up. Then the options whether to tell her the complete truth or dumb down some details in speech options was a great touch and i guess it allows you to reflect on how you would probably be with your own child and it allows you to watch her develop in different ways depending on how you've acted or spoken to her which i guess is really realistic when you think about it. All in all, it's done beautifully and clementine and lee will always remain some of my favourite characters in gaming.
I think PAR just recently did something on the demographics of game designers. It may well be that so few games manage to portray meaningful children because so few game developers have children.
Now, why isn't Lee in Poker Night at the Inventory 2? There could've been some great banter between him talking about Clem in a super intense, wisdom-y way while the rest of the characters joked about escort missions and whatnot. I could see great comedy coming from Claptrap explaining how he's the best child character in video games, and comedy is always a good way to get people thinking about things they'd normally pass over.
I'd like to see a willfully evil child protagonist, like what Black Butler, Billy & Mandy, & Invader Zim have. Or just make an RPG out of Hunter x Hunter if you want to see an excellent use of children in a game.
1) His race isn't normally an issue until we consider our first encounter with a black man is in a police car. Blah blah crime of passion, whatever, it invokes a stereotype. A truly frustrating one, given that we're dealing with a guy with a doctorate who is a professor.
2) Kenny brings up his race with the "urban" BS, which the game kind of forces you to forgive, which infuriates me to no end. At that point, I wanted Kenny dead, no matter the cost. Not only do I have to chum up to him, but he gets a heroic death too? I guess racism isn't all that bad.
3) A personal note, but I'm tired of the American South being treated as the locus of racism by white people when central and upstate New York are much more racist (one such piece of evidence: http://wamc.org/post/google-upstate-ny-2nd-most-racist-region-us). Then there's anecdotal issues like being ignored by cabs in Boston, harassed by whites in Illinois, etc. So this is always a severe misfire to me. Especially when we consider the extreme violence the NYPD is committing against minorities regularly.
These are things every white person I've spoken to about the game has missed. Omid and Krista (Christa? I forget) are definitely a more positive example for sure. I also personally didn't feel an undercurrent of anxiety regarding Lee's race because race wasn't ever an issue for any of the characters. I was confused that people thought Lee was Clem's blood father but that's really because she doesn't resemble him in the slightest, but that generated tension for me. The only time race became an issue was, again, with Kenny and his urban thing, which I guess was supposed to be a gag but really just felt like a racist jab, especially since there was no retribution for the slight.
I'd say it's a positive step, but to say it's the best isn't true. Mirror's Edge has an protagonist of apparently Asian and there's no issue with that brought up nor racism the narrative forces me to allow go unpunished.
To keep it 100% honest, I think it's pretty fucked up that y'all like to do these things to talk about race while not having anyone who isn't white speak on the issue. I get that it's meant to be an analysis, but if we're interested in representing marginalized folks better in games, doesn't it make sure those marginalized people get a chance to speak on the issue? Otherwise it's like a bunch of straight men sitting around trying to make sweeping legislative alterations to stuff that relates to women's health; even if they're doctors, it's a really shitty thing to force the people who are most affected out of the conversation.
1) A stereotype is only a steryotype when it is given weight by acknowledgement. Lee's imprisonment at the beginning of the game is not an uncommon situation for video game protagonists. It creates a low-point for players to climb out of in order to increase dramatic distance and reinforce player agency. Throughout the game, Lee's incarceration was used as a source of conflict based on the fact that he was a murderer before the zombie apocalypse. It was not used to infer that he was in that situation because of his ethnicity.
2) Kenny's racist remarks were used to further his development. Kenny is a man who harbored no hatred towards Lee, but his racism did narrow his perception of Lee. To Kenny, Lee was a man of many defining characteristics, and being black was one of them. This is the racism that is by far the most common in society today. I believe the writers wanted to have a character that displayed this "mild" racism in order to make their simulation of an apocalyptic south believable.
As to your remarks on the fact that you wanted him dead...
Racism is deplorable. Of that there is no question. But nobody "deserves" death. As Kenny does end up showing, even a person who is racist can do wonderful things for others. A person who doesn't see race can commit murder. A person is not defined by their beliefs but by their actions, and while their beliefs may disturb and horrify; with time any belief can be changed. Kenny ends up sacrificing himself in order to try and help. The writers were trying to say that anyone can redeem themselves through positive action with Kenny.
3) This is simply an issue of clarity. You are right in saying that there are other locations in America were racism is far more abundant. But the south has always had issues with racism and if you were going to ask someone who knew very little about the issue where racism was most prevalent in America, then they would most likely point to the South. Is that fair? Obviously not, but it paints an easier to read picture. Also every iteration of the Walking Dead franchise takes place close to Atlanta, Georgia so it would make sense for the video game to take place there.
As for your example of Mirror's Edge being a game that treats the issue of racism better...
Mirror's Edge never brings up the issue of racism. Its never hinted that any character treats Faith any differently because of her ethnicity. She could have any ethic background and it wouldn't have mattered because it isn't brought up. The Walking Dead, however, brings up the issue of racism without making Lee a cardboard cutout with "black" stamped on it. Lee isn't defined by his ethnicity and while other characters may react to the color of his skin, the game never once asks the player to. That is why The Walking Dead succeeds in it's social commentary on racism. Above all others.
I feel somehow just mentioning race in The Walking Dead, makes you lose "The Game", if you know what I mean. I hadn't considered racial implications on any conscious level when I played it. Talking about it is awkward in a "why did you have to mention this at all" kind of way.
re: Mirrors Edge. I think that shows more that any discussion about "race" in this country really has been boiled down to "black and white", although lately some "hispanic" can be thrown in there if the any talk of immigration comes up.
But when it's purely about race, it's generally black/white and everything else takes a back seat.
I haven't played Walking Dead, so I can't speak to it, but I do find it interesting that they have middle eastern characters that don't portray "freedom hating terrorist 1" and "freedom hating terrorist 2" like they would in most games.
I found the little gimmick of telling you when your choices affect a character rather powerful in creating an engaging experience with Clementine. I didn't find her that interesting as a character, but the fact that my choices affected her made me care about what choices I made. I think it settles the child character as this sort of slate filled with potential, but shaped by the enviornment she's set on. I'm a teacher and I often find myself wondering, not how my classes will affect my students, but rather how my behaviour will. How much will they remember and how much will they just forget when class' over.
Illusion of choice. Man, oh yeah. Here it is masterfully done. No other game has left me asking afterward "Could I have done something else and saved ________?" The specific person was killed by another survivor in one of the game's most brutally fast death sequences. If you've gotten to the train you can probably guess of whom I speak. Afterwards, for days, I pondered if my choices doomed that character. If I could have said or done something different and spared that individual, perhaps the person who earned my personal vote for "Best other survivor" in the game.
In the end, no. There was nothing I could have done. But that illusion of choice worked so well that it not only made Lee wonder, but me, the player, wonder about my own level of control. I wasn't asking "What could Lee have done?" or "What did the game's writer's want me to do?" No, it was deeper than that. The illusion of choice created by the game's interactions made ME wonder what I could have done.
I bothered my family, co-workers, and friends with this quandary. This sense that a game had blindsided me with existential doubt. How? Why? What was the point of dialogue options if, in the end, I was powerless to change the game in any meaningful way? Deep sigh.
Thank you for that, The Walking Dead. Thank you, Telltale Games. In looking at that single, gut-wrenching scene you made me ponder... me. And in doing so to see Lee, and the world he inhabits, a bit clearer. With an illusion. You devious geniuses.
Illusion of choice. Man, oh yeah. Here it is masterfully done. No other game has left me asking afterward "Could I have done something else and saved ________?" The specific person was killed by another survivor in one of the game's most brutally fast death sequences. If you've gotten to the train you can probably guess of whom I speak. Afterwards, for days, I pondered if my choices doomed that character. If I could have said or done something different and spared that individual, perhaps the person who earned my personal vote for "Best other survivor" in the game.
In the end, no. There was nothing I could have done. But that illusion of choice worked so well that it not only made Lee wonder, but me, the player, wonder about my own level of control. I wasn't asking "What could Lee have done?" or "What did the game's writer's want me to do?" No, it was deeper than that. The illusion of choice created by the game's interactions made ME wonder what I could have done.
I bothered my family, co-workers, and friends with this quandary. This sense that a game had blindsided me with existential doubt. How? Why? What was the point of dialogue options if, in the end, I was powerless to change the game in any meaningful way? Deep sigh.
Thank you for that, The Walking Dead. Thank you, Telltale Games. In looking at that single, gut-wrenching scene you made me ponder... me. And in doing so to see Lee, and the world he inhabits, a bit clearer. With an illusion. You devious geniuses.
Video games. Making random people realize that free will is a useless assbackwards illusion with a lot of pointless myth tagged on the tail-end of it.
I'm really sorry that I came across that way; I was trying really hard to not sound like that, but clearly didn't succeed. Many people just don't like kids, and that's entirely valid. I would never intentionally try to tell anyone that that's incorrect somehow, even through implication. Thanks for calling me on that.
More than anything else what I was trying to do was explore the parallel between the real world experience of only interacting with snotty brats to the failed attempts by some games to engage us with children that only act in infuriating ways. One of the best things I can say about a game (or book or movie) is that it helped me to better understand the world around me, and I found it intriguing that in this case even the *bad* games helped to shed light on a not uncommon phenomenon, when taken in contrast to TWD.
I must wonder if part of the reason why children in video games are predominantly portrayed as screaming annoying brats is because the people who make the games themselves see them as such. That is, I would bet that many game designers have no children of their own and have had perhaps very little experience with children, though it looks like this came up earlier in the discussion. The audience many of these video games are aimed at (teenage boys and young adult men), at least based on the people I've encountered, are not particularly fond of kids either. Well, unless they share their interests.
Well, from the western side of things anyway. In east Asia, I'm sure it's a whole differet ballpark as a lot of game designers there are old enough to have families but are too busy to spend much time with them, and I think it shows in how children are portrayed in east Asian games. But that's another topic entirely.
Great observations on how children are portrayed in games. You should check out Jeff Lait's Fatherhood for a game that does parenting in a very compelling way:
1) A stereotype is only a steryotype when it is given weight by acknowledgement. Lee's imprisonment at the beginning of the game is not an uncommon situation for video game protagonists. It creates a low-point for players to climb out of in order to increase dramatic distance and reinforce player agency. Throughout the game, Lee's incarceration was used as a source of conflict based on the fact that he was a murderer before the zombie apocalypse. It was not used to infer that he was in that situation because of his ethnicity.
1A) The culture that we live in gives weight to the stereotypes. Those suffering under the stereotype might not acknowledge it, but those people are often marginalized in society. Therefore, if the game handles it one way, that's fine, but it's necessary to consider the way these things can perform in the larger culture. It doesn't infer that because of his ethnicity in the game, but we still first meet Lee, not with his wife, not teaching a class, but as a criminal. We first meet a black man as a criminal.
2) Kenny's racist remarks were used to further his development. Kenny is a man who harbored no hatred towards Lee, but his racism did narrow his perception of Lee. To Kenny, Lee was a man of many defining characteristics, and being black was one of them. This is the racism that is by far the most common in society today. I believe the writers wanted to have a character that displayed this "mild" racism in order to make their simulation of an apocalyptic south believable.
As to your remarks on the fact that you wanted him dead...
Racism is deplorable. Of that there is no question. But nobody "deserves" death. As Kenny does end up showing, even a person who is racist can do wonderful things for others. A person who doesn't see race can commit murder. A person is not defined by their beliefs but by their actions, and while their beliefs may disturb and horrify; with time any belief can be changed. Kenny ends up sacrificing himself in order to try and help. The writers were trying to say that anyone can redeem themselves through positive action with Kenny.
2A) Mild racism is only racism; there's not much difference to me because all racism is a form of violence. It was entirely unnecessary to add in other than to have Kenny throw a racist jab at Lee. I mean, it was a scene in which we're discovering cannibals; bringing racism in here comes out of nowhere.
As to you and the bit about racism, this confirms to me that you have not only never suffered under racism in any fashion, but it also goes against what you're earlier argument; if I'm supposed to treat Lee's situation as divorced from reality and a mere fixture of a fantasy game, why can I not vent my anger at a character in that fantasy game? Either Lee and Kenny both ought to be treated as we would treat real world people (in which case, Lee should've done as I would have done and have done, and punched him in his racist mouth), or we treat both as actors in a fantasy game, and it's fine for me to wish that Kenny dies because I loathed him as a character.
3) This is simply an issue of clarity. You are right in saying that there are other locations in America were racism is far more abundant. But the south has always had issues with racism and if you were going to ask someone who knew very little about the issue where racism was most prevalent in America, then they would most likely point to the South. Is that fair? Obviously not, but it paints an easier to read picture. Also every iteration of the Walking Dead franchise takes place close to Atlanta, Georgia so it would make sense for the video game to take place there.
3A) The north has always had problems. The entirety of America does. It's just a stereotype/assumption/narrative that the South is a hot bed of racist activity. Did you know that Union soldiers enslaved runaway blacks during the Civil War? I'm willing to bet you didn't, even though you can discover this pretty easily. The reason it's not known is because the overall narrative of the Civil War (and hence, our narrative today about north/south race relations) is that northern whites saved blacks from dangerous southern whites. This narrative leads to the incorrect assumption that to have a cast of mixed race in the south must necessarily include some kind of racism.
As for your example of Mirror's Edge being a game that treats the issue of racism better...
Mirror's Edge never brings up the issue of racism. Its never hinted that any character treats Faith any differently because of her ethnicity. She could have any ethic background and it wouldn't have mattered because it isn't brought up. The Walking Dead, however, brings up the issue of racism without making Lee a cardboard cutout with "black" stamped on it. Lee isn't defined by his ethnicity and while other characters may react to the color of his skin, the game never once asks the player to. That is why The Walking Dead succeeds in it's social commentary on racism. Above all others.
4A) This is why Mirror's Edge is a good example. Faith gets to be a person and her race is never once treated as a focal point. Instead, she has a character arc and develops and interacts with the entire game world. The Walking Dead fails because it does the same rather chicken-shit thing that Bioshock Infinite does, in that it equivocates; "Oh, Kenny said something racist but he's still a good guy and blah blah." No, he's a racist and harbors racist ideology REGARDLESS of how pleasant he may act. He showed us that and we have no avenue of retaliation. In The Walking Dead, we begin with a black guy locked in a police car, which is troubling for the imagery alone. In many ways, Lee acts the part of the "good" black; no AAVE, middle to upper middle class credentials (doctorate, tenured professorship), he allows people to get away with saying racist shit to him and still befriends and honors those people. Faith is a stronger example of dealing with race in writing because her race is never used to throw in a stupid gag or build some other character; she is a courier who happens to be an Asian woman, a hero who happens to be an Asian woman. While the Walking Dead is good, it's silly to say it's commentary on racism is better than all others when it does the same thing that white people with no interest in resisting racism do, which is give the racism that appears a pass.
Posts
I'm quite baffled by Blizzards stance on it, so I'd love to hear thoughts on it from others.
I agree - I'd love to see a feature on the Illusion of Choice in video games. Of games this show has covered, The Walking Dead and Spec Ops: The Line both made use of it interesting ways (TWD playing it straight and SO:TL taking the opposite route and making you think you had less choices than you really did), but I'd like to hear what they have to say about it in regards to video games in general.
Also, I loved that race was never directly mentioned, but frequently hinted at, and only became apparent if your chose your dialogue choices to address it instead of blowing off the comments.
Illusion of choice as it appears in Dragon Age 2 for example, is more what the term is used to refer to. Essentially providing a variety of narrative game play solutions that all resolve in the same way, or only very temporarily deviate from the core story line.
Even in Mass Effect 3 your choices had more weight... you could at least choose *the color* of the apocalyptic explosion that destroys the galaxy and everything in it. TWD, on the other hand, runs on tightly scripted rails and still delivers an engaging story - the only problem being that the story is not as interactive as it was supposed to be.
That reflects on this episode's point about the role of children in games. It looks like if you want to represent children in an effective and appropriate manner, you need to severely limit all their options - neither the Protagonist not the Kid can be allowed to wander away or do *absolutely anything* that could alter the proscribed outcome <_<
I mean, Clem you can associate with. Kenny's boy, whilst experiencing the same sort of connection with his dad and providing a model for the Clem and Lee relationship, is more active. And I found that this eagerness along with needing to be saved more often, led to me resenting his presence. But then he started to redeem himself in the third episode, helping Lee to solve a puzzle.
While this is likely just a tool to contrast the boy with Clem and the relationship you have with both, does this justify making him more of a burden?
Whether we are talking about choices such as dialogue options, or choices in how you build your character, or what path to choose when you move towards an objective, it's all choices that can be actual choices, just the illusion of one, or anything in between. They all give you the same thing - a feeling of freedom and the (real or imagined) ability to define how you play your game and make your way towards the goal, and therefore also potentially a greater personal sense of achievement, because you feel like what happened is based on YOUR choices.
My point is that it does not matter which of the different types of choices we are talking about, they all change your sense of agency within the confines of the game experience. Perception is everything and illusions can change perception.
Without derailing this any more, the WoW Talent System is probably a bad comparison to Illusion of Choice since plenty of people choose different talents depending on what they are doing with their character (leveling, PvP, PvE, etc.) and what spec they are. But even if players have the same spec/play style (say Arms Warrior + PvP), over 1/2 the talent tiers still have multiple choices that make sense for a player given his/her play style (4 of the 6 talents in that case).
"We have years of struggle ahead, mostly within ourselves." - Made in USA
One, that's fine. I don't like football in my games, and really prefer not to have gore and violence in my games. Some games are not for everyone, but the means to evoke strong paternal/maternal feelings is a powerful tool in any medium, and can make a game really meaningful to those who are open to them.
Two, many (by no means all, just many) people that I know who have expressed a hatred of kids, really didn't know any. They didn't have any children of their own, or younger siblings in their families. They mostly experienced kids only as "that kid on the airplane that screamed because its ears hurt" or "the kid that through a tantrum in the diner because he couldn't have desert". That actually fits really well with what this episode was saying though. If all you see are the obnoxious burdensome parts of child-rearing, then yeah, that's not going to look like an enjoyable experience. You feel sorry for those parents, because you're not seeing the subtle but deep joy that comes from watching your child discover the world.
Again, I'm *absolutely* not saying that you should like kids or should give them a chance or anything like that. I just mean that there is often a selection bias that can sometimes make the experience seem unpleasant by not glossing over better aspects.
Now, I love the shit out of children.
But that's actually a pretty condescending thing to say. I realize you are trying to be respectful of another's opinion, but this falls very short.
Yeah, some people just had some bad experiences with children, and that's why they don't like 'em. But to imply that a given commenter on the internet just had bad experiences and hasn't come to their subjective opinion through rational thought, just because it doesn't line with yours, is very condescending. Many people actually dislike children as a group for various reasons irrespective of bad experience; sometimes people just don't like taking care of something that can't take care of itself. Sometimes, people don't feel that "subtle but deep joy". That feeling is subjective; not everyone has it.
A better example there would be Tomb Raider, which near the end of the game lets you max out all upgrades and makes Lara equally good at everything - during the game it seemed you were focusing on bows or shotguns or whatever, but in the end it all evened out anyway.
For the record, though, I never really felt annoyed when dealing with the children in Heavy Rain. I can understand some frustration in that it's a bit of a stretch for Jason to run off like he does at the start of the game, but overal, I was worried more than iritated when I had to go find him and later one when Shaun got lost. I'll agree that maybe both Jason and Shaun could have used a tiny bit more polish, but, though I can't quantify it, I can safely say that that game made me have a sympathetic connection to those characters.
To clarify, are you asking if it was right to have Duck be more of a burden-y character?
1) His race isn't normally an issue until we consider our first encounter with a black man is in a police car. Blah blah crime of passion, whatever, it invokes a stereotype. A truly frustrating one, given that we're dealing with a guy with a doctorate who is a professor.
2) Kenny brings up his race with the "urban" BS, which the game kind of forces you to forgive, which infuriates me to no end. At that point, I wanted Kenny dead, no matter the cost. Not only do I have to chum up to him, but he gets a heroic death too? I guess racism isn't all that bad.
3) A personal note, but I'm tired of the American South being treated as the locus of racism by white people when central and upstate New York are much more racist (one such piece of evidence: http://wamc.org/post/google-upstate-ny-2nd-most-racist-region-us). Then there's anecdotal issues like being ignored by cabs in Boston, harassed by whites in Illinois, etc. So this is always a severe misfire to me. Especially when we consider the extreme violence the NYPD is committing against minorities regularly.
These are things every white person I've spoken to about the game has missed. Omid and Krista (Christa? I forget) are definitely a more positive example for sure. I also personally didn't feel an undercurrent of anxiety regarding Lee's race because race wasn't ever an issue for any of the characters. I was confused that people thought Lee was Clem's blood father but that's really because she doesn't resemble him in the slightest, but that generated tension for me. The only time race became an issue was, again, with Kenny and his urban thing, which I guess was supposed to be a gag but really just felt like a racist jab, especially since there was no retribution for the slight.
I'd say it's a positive step, but to say it's the best isn't true. Mirror's Edge has an protagonist of apparently Asian and there's no issue with that brought up nor racism the narrative forces me to allow go unpunished.
To keep it 100% honest, I think it's pretty fucked up that y'all like to do these things to talk about race while not having anyone who isn't white speak on the issue. I get that it's meant to be an analysis, but if we're interested in representing marginalized folks better in games, doesn't it make sure those marginalized people get a chance to speak on the issue? Otherwise it's like a bunch of straight men sitting around trying to make sweeping legislative alterations to stuff that relates to women's health; even if they're doctors, it's a really shitty thing to force the people who are most affected out of the conversation.
1) A stereotype is only a steryotype when it is given weight by acknowledgement. Lee's imprisonment at the beginning of the game is not an uncommon situation for video game protagonists. It creates a low-point for players to climb out of in order to increase dramatic distance and reinforce player agency. Throughout the game, Lee's incarceration was used as a source of conflict based on the fact that he was a murderer before the zombie apocalypse. It was not used to infer that he was in that situation because of his ethnicity.
2) Kenny's racist remarks were used to further his development. Kenny is a man who harbored no hatred towards Lee, but his racism did narrow his perception of Lee. To Kenny, Lee was a man of many defining characteristics, and being black was one of them. This is the racism that is by far the most common in society today. I believe the writers wanted to have a character that displayed this "mild" racism in order to make their simulation of an apocalyptic south believable.
As to your remarks on the fact that you wanted him dead...
Racism is deplorable. Of that there is no question. But nobody "deserves" death. As Kenny does end up showing, even a person who is racist can do wonderful things for others. A person who doesn't see race can commit murder. A person is not defined by their beliefs but by their actions, and while their beliefs may disturb and horrify; with time any belief can be changed. Kenny ends up sacrificing himself in order to try and help. The writers were trying to say that anyone can redeem themselves through positive action with Kenny.
3) This is simply an issue of clarity. You are right in saying that there are other locations in America were racism is far more abundant. But the south has always had issues with racism and if you were going to ask someone who knew very little about the issue where racism was most prevalent in America, then they would most likely point to the South. Is that fair? Obviously not, but it paints an easier to read picture. Also every iteration of the Walking Dead franchise takes place close to Atlanta, Georgia so it would make sense for the video game to take place there.
As for your example of Mirror's Edge being a game that treats the issue of racism better...
Mirror's Edge never brings up the issue of racism. Its never hinted that any character treats Faith any differently because of her ethnicity. She could have any ethic background and it wouldn't have mattered because it isn't brought up. The Walking Dead, however, brings up the issue of racism without making Lee a cardboard cutout with "black" stamped on it. Lee isn't defined by his ethnicity and while other characters may react to the color of his skin, the game never once asks the player to. That is why The Walking Dead succeeds in it's social commentary on racism. Above all others.
But when it's purely about race, it's generally black/white and everything else takes a back seat.
I haven't played Walking Dead, so I can't speak to it, but I do find it interesting that they have middle eastern characters that don't portray "freedom hating terrorist 1" and "freedom hating terrorist 2" like they would in most games.
In the end, no. There was nothing I could have done. But that illusion of choice worked so well that it not only made Lee wonder, but me, the player, wonder about my own level of control. I wasn't asking "What could Lee have done?" or "What did the game's writer's want me to do?" No, it was deeper than that. The illusion of choice created by the game's interactions made ME wonder what I could have done.
I bothered my family, co-workers, and friends with this quandary. This sense that a game had blindsided me with existential doubt. How? Why? What was the point of dialogue options if, in the end, I was powerless to change the game in any meaningful way? Deep sigh.
Thank you for that, The Walking Dead. Thank you, Telltale Games. In looking at that single, gut-wrenching scene you made me ponder... me. And in doing so to see Lee, and the world he inhabits, a bit clearer. With an illusion. You devious geniuses.
Video games. Making random people realize that free will is a useless assbackwards illusion with a lot of pointless myth tagged on the tail-end of it.
I'm really sorry that I came across that way; I was trying really hard to not sound like that, but clearly didn't succeed. Many people just don't like kids, and that's entirely valid. I would never intentionally try to tell anyone that that's incorrect somehow, even through implication. Thanks for calling me on that.
More than anything else what I was trying to do was explore the parallel between the real world experience of only interacting with snotty brats to the failed attempts by some games to engage us with children that only act in infuriating ways. One of the best things I can say about a game (or book or movie) is that it helped me to better understand the world around me, and I found it intriguing that in this case even the *bad* games helped to shed light on a not uncommon phenomenon, when taken in contrast to TWD.
Well, from the western side of things anyway. In east Asia, I'm sure it's a whole differet ballpark as a lot of game designers there are old enough to have families but are too busy to spend much time with them, and I think it shows in how children are portrayed in east Asian games. But that's another topic entirely.
http://www.zincland.com/7drl/fatherhood/
As a roguelike it's very abstract, and a little lacking on interface, but the mechanics work brilliantly to communicate the struggles of parenthood.
1A) The culture that we live in gives weight to the stereotypes. Those suffering under the stereotype might not acknowledge it, but those people are often marginalized in society. Therefore, if the game handles it one way, that's fine, but it's necessary to consider the way these things can perform in the larger culture. It doesn't infer that because of his ethnicity in the game, but we still first meet Lee, not with his wife, not teaching a class, but as a criminal. We first meet a black man as a criminal.
2) Kenny's racist remarks were used to further his development. Kenny is a man who harbored no hatred towards Lee, but his racism did narrow his perception of Lee. To Kenny, Lee was a man of many defining characteristics, and being black was one of them. This is the racism that is by far the most common in society today. I believe the writers wanted to have a character that displayed this "mild" racism in order to make their simulation of an apocalyptic south believable.
As to your remarks on the fact that you wanted him dead...
Racism is deplorable. Of that there is no question. But nobody "deserves" death. As Kenny does end up showing, even a person who is racist can do wonderful things for others. A person who doesn't see race can commit murder. A person is not defined by their beliefs but by their actions, and while their beliefs may disturb and horrify; with time any belief can be changed. Kenny ends up sacrificing himself in order to try and help. The writers were trying to say that anyone can redeem themselves through positive action with Kenny.
2A) Mild racism is only racism; there's not much difference to me because all racism is a form of violence. It was entirely unnecessary to add in other than to have Kenny throw a racist jab at Lee. I mean, it was a scene in which we're discovering cannibals; bringing racism in here comes out of nowhere.
As to you and the bit about racism, this confirms to me that you have not only never suffered under racism in any fashion, but it also goes against what you're earlier argument; if I'm supposed to treat Lee's situation as divorced from reality and a mere fixture of a fantasy game, why can I not vent my anger at a character in that fantasy game? Either Lee and Kenny both ought to be treated as we would treat real world people (in which case, Lee should've done as I would have done and have done, and punched him in his racist mouth), or we treat both as actors in a fantasy game, and it's fine for me to wish that Kenny dies because I loathed him as a character.
3) This is simply an issue of clarity. You are right in saying that there are other locations in America were racism is far more abundant. But the south has always had issues with racism and if you were going to ask someone who knew very little about the issue where racism was most prevalent in America, then they would most likely point to the South. Is that fair? Obviously not, but it paints an easier to read picture. Also every iteration of the Walking Dead franchise takes place close to Atlanta, Georgia so it would make sense for the video game to take place there.
3A) The north has always had problems. The entirety of America does. It's just a stereotype/assumption/narrative that the South is a hot bed of racist activity. Did you know that Union soldiers enslaved runaway blacks during the Civil War? I'm willing to bet you didn't, even though you can discover this pretty easily. The reason it's not known is because the overall narrative of the Civil War (and hence, our narrative today about north/south race relations) is that northern whites saved blacks from dangerous southern whites. This narrative leads to the incorrect assumption that to have a cast of mixed race in the south must necessarily include some kind of racism.
As for your example of Mirror's Edge being a game that treats the issue of racism better...
Mirror's Edge never brings up the issue of racism. Its never hinted that any character treats Faith any differently because of her ethnicity. She could have any ethic background and it wouldn't have mattered because it isn't brought up. The Walking Dead, however, brings up the issue of racism without making Lee a cardboard cutout with "black" stamped on it. Lee isn't defined by his ethnicity and while other characters may react to the color of his skin, the game never once asks the player to. That is why The Walking Dead succeeds in it's social commentary on racism. Above all others.
4A) This is why Mirror's Edge is a good example. Faith gets to be a person and her race is never once treated as a focal point. Instead, she has a character arc and develops and interacts with the entire game world. The Walking Dead fails because it does the same rather chicken-shit thing that Bioshock Infinite does, in that it equivocates; "Oh, Kenny said something racist but he's still a good guy and blah blah." No, he's a racist and harbors racist ideology REGARDLESS of how pleasant he may act. He showed us that and we have no avenue of retaliation. In The Walking Dead, we begin with a black guy locked in a police car, which is troubling for the imagery alone. In many ways, Lee acts the part of the "good" black; no AAVE, middle to upper middle class credentials (doctorate, tenured professorship), he allows people to get away with saying racist shit to him and still befriends and honors those people. Faith is a stronger example of dealing with race in writing because her race is never used to throw in a stupid gag or build some other character; she is a courier who happens to be an Asian woman, a hero who happens to be an Asian woman. While the Walking Dead is good, it's silly to say it's commentary on racism is better than all others when it does the same thing that white people with no interest in resisting racism do, which is give the racism that appears a pass.