Slashdot Mirror
Literate Gaming Analysis
aderack writes "The first issue of The Gamer's Quarter, a magazine that tries to take a more literary approach to videogames than do current publications, has been released in .pdf format. Included are fourteen lengthy articles, each with a unique perspective; one piece looks at the cultural meaning of Katamari Damacy, while another piece speaks of the writer's gradual acceptance of death as a learning tool."
I am impressed. This is definently quality reading, although it does reak of a stench of self importance. It feels like they are trying to use big words for the sake of using big words, however if you can get around that (I did) it is actually very well written and insightful. Very insightful, and leaps and bounds beyond the standard magazine/gamesite review. While I certainly wouldn't recommend reading it to decide if you want to purchase a game (in fact it is written in a way that in order to appreciate it you should have already played the game in question), I would definently recommend it for anyone looking for a deeper more intellectual look then games are often given.
--- "End Of Line" - MCP
I don't think I've seen that much intelligent discussion about video games in one place ever before.
The articles are all well-written (saw a typo here and there, though), with insightful content relating personal experiences, gaming epiphanies, reviews of interesting games with novel ideas. It is a thoroughly enjoyable read, and I would without a doubt subscribe to this magazine were it distributed as such.
The writing may appear a little whimsical, but this sort of 'magazine' writing is important for the world of gaming.
It is nice to have an alternative to the sort of games writing that will only tell us if a game is totally awesome or not, and if the grafixx are 10/10.
Personally I find this sort of game editorial of value, and indeed cool 2 tha maxxxxx! 93%!!OMG.
Sure, I have some specific complaints regarding what they were saying (the PoP author never mentioned the Dahaka), and I was a bit overwhelmed by the massive amount of knowledge that they possessed (especially the Sonic Article. Major fanboy of the originals), but the idea is exactly what is needed.
It treats video games as something of an art form, which is something that I think is sorely needed. I like the lack of focus on the visuals when compared to the gameplay. In the entire MGS article, he mentioned the graphics only once, to say that they were a bit sluggish when compared to the first two games, because of the massive environments. He spent the other ten pages talking about the gameplay.
Definitely looking forward to the next issue.
Beyond the Polygons : Because 50,000 polygo
The back page blurb suggests that at some level they 'get it'. Unfortunately the content seems to be the same old overblown, obvious fanzine crap.
I'm trying to remember if I've ever read anything interesting that contained a question along the lines of "But what do we mean by 'X'?"
Preferences > Homepage > Customize stories on homepage > Authors > Zonk > Uncheck
This isn't bad, for an non-peer reviwed fan journal. But if "literate thought about video games" is something any of you are seriously interested in, you need to join the conversations that already exist in academia. You need to read the ludology/narratology debate - Janet Murray, Espen Aarseth, and the like. You need to read other theory too - Lacan, Zizek, some Marxist theory - other stuff that will let your thought about video games fit in with literate thought in general. And you need to do more than run a fanzine - your work needs to be read by independent people who have no ego invested in the project.
Which is not to say that you guys don't have a good start. You're noticing the right things in video games. Your writing style is clunky at times, but that's certainly no crime in academia. But right now, you've got a bunch of cool observations about video games that you haven't learned how to connect into academic thought yet. For that, you need to read the guys who are already doing this.
(And you do all know about gamestudies.org, right?)
Philip Sandifer's academic website
You ignored the major difference between western rpgs and jrpgs. Freedom. In the majority of JRPGs (with a few exceptions, such as Legend of Mana or the World of Ruin section in Final Fantasy 3), the player is forced on a very linear path and must visit every location in a specific order and has zero influence on the storyline that unfolds. Many western rpgs don't ignore their pen-and-paper origins, and allow the player to affect the storyline. A friend of mine taking the game design course at USC called it the difference between 'interacting in the story' and 'interacting with the story'.
You want a list of important western RPGs?
Fallout - one of the best examples of this kind of gameplay. You can basically be anything you want to be. Good, evil, violent, pacifist... and there are no sections where you are forced to do something against the nature you have decided upon. Heck, you can even talk your way out of the final battle!
Planescape: Torment - the other example of this. Planescape one-ups Fallout in terms of storyline, however. The game is less focussed on how you behave during gameplay and more how you behave during dialogues, of which there are an absolute ton. Though it is AD&D-based, it has significant differences than other games of that kind, like Baldur's Gate. The most important is the alignment system... you start off as neutral and your alignment changes according to your actions and dialogue choices.
Wizardry 1, 6-8 - these take almost the opposite path of Planescape. Dialogues are few and far between in the early Wizardry games, and its all about the dungeon-crawling gameplay. Wizardry 1 was the primary influence on Phantasy Star. And for you Japanophiles out there, Wizardry is one of the most popular RPG series in Japan. Every single Wizardry game was released in Japan, and indeed re-released more often than they have been in the west!
Though the earlier games are focussed entirely on gameplay, Wizardry 6 to 8 have an equal focus on storyline. There are multiple endings to each of those games, and multiple beginnings to Wizardry 7 and 8 because you can import your party.
Ultima Underworld - its sort of an RPG, so I'm including it. It has many statistics and very deep dialogue options. It is also one of the first first-person games, and one of the greatest. Deus Ex, Arx Fatalis, and the System Shock series all descend from this game.
Ultima 4-7 - nice that you included Ultima 4, but you ignored the other excellent games in the series, each of which brought something new to the table.
Ultima 4, of course, has incredible gameplay that causes you to become a good person as you learn the Virtues. With one of the best dialogue systems I've ever seen, tons of non-linear gameplay, and a plot that remains unique to this day, it is perhaps the most important RPG ever made.
Ultima 5 uses an engine similar to Ultima 4, but adds npc schedules. Something most JRPGs haven't figured out yet. With a day/night cycle, shopkeepers go to bed, guards sleep (which is important if you want to take an important item from the castle), and it gets difficult to see outside.
Ultima 6 removed the tile-based system and overworld map to create an entirely seamless world, something that most JRPGs still lack. Combine that with a storyline that puts an incredible wrinkle in the typical stop-the-invaders plot, and you have yet another excellent rpg.
And then there's Ultima 7, one of the first true virtual worlds. Harvest wheat, pound it into grain, mix with water and bake bread. Or forge a sword. Or rob the mint (though the lack of money in the mint hints that Britannia's economy is about to collapse). Very nearly every object in Ultima 7 could be interacted with, an incredible feat. And JRPGs are still doing the typical check-the-dresser-for-a-health-potion 'interactivity'!
Those are just the games off the top of my head, too. I didn't even mention Wasteland, Lords of Midnight, Dungeons of Daggorath
Ultima 7 was groundbreaking, but crap. Over a summer of 3 months, 3 friends and I couldn't ever stomach that game long enough to finish it, I'm sorry.
If you're assuming that "JRPGs are still doing the typical check-the-dresser-for-a-health-potion 'interactivity'!" you haven't played one in the last 5 years. Try picking up Dark Cloud 2 to see how different things have gotten.
I like Ultima 6 better than 4. 6's story gives it classic status in my book, 4 is on the cusp. 5 just seemed like an update to 4 for me.
Dungeon Master made me physically ill. Could have been digital crack, but if it makes me vomit, I'm not enjoying it.
Planescape, from what I understood was supposed to be awesome. Whatever. I haven't played it so I can't say it's super badass or anything.
My point was that the Western RPG at this point is so limited in scope that comparing "Western RPG to Japanese RPG" is fairly useless, as not many people are going to know what the heck Western RPG represents.
When I write reviews, I compare them to those standards all the time. Is the story lacking or linear? Then I dock points. Does the game have you go on a wild journey but force you down a path that is neither desirable or logical? Dock points.
The ideas that you say embody the Western RPG are all fine and good...it's just that the term isn't one that is necesarily attached to the ideas becasue it's frankly archaic right now. On top of that, I just don't see the need to fracture the RPG or any other genre for that matter into locales. An RPG is an RPG. If it's lacking in story it's lacking in story, not just "typical Japanese".
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga