A few weeks ago… no, wait, a month or so ago me and Armand from BnB Gaming had a brief chat about Cardboard Computer’s Ruins. If you haven’t played it yet then you might want to check it out here. It probably won’t take you longer than 15 minutes. Our chat went something like…
…this:
Armand: What did you think of Ruins?
Gregg: Loved the music, liked the look, enjoyed what I witnessed of the story/narrative, got really annoyed by the actual ‘game’. The “I hope you dream of chasing rabbits” was the only thing linking the actual act of running around collecting or bumping into bunnies with the story. It was kind of clever but didn’t really enhance the experience.
Armand: It was actually in the narrative in various places, you likely missed it; every choice you make changes the direction of the info.
Gregg: I wanted to explore the narrative some more but the moving the dog around finding the bunnies just irritated me.
Armand: I hear you. It’s more like interactive fiction/prose than a game.
Gregg: I dunno, perhaps I’m being too harsh.
Armand: You can’t think of things like this and Dinner Date as traditional ‘games’ or else you are bound to be disappointed. Instead, I think you need to approach them as a story telling device that uses some gaming mechanisms to achieve its goal.
Gregg: That’s the thing though, I don’t feel like the actual game mechanics enhance the message or story though. Every Day the Same Dream is a fine example of how gameplay can feed directly into the message of the game.
Armand: How else could you deliver branching prose like this though, aside from a ‘choose your own adventure’ book.
Gregg: Ruins could very well be a multiple choice text based game. I know that would suck the visual elements from the game which set the mood, but I think Chopin’s music does that very well anyway.
Armand: But then you lose the atmosphere. The visuals are a key part of the story. I mean, you could set the mood through text, but it would be something different, very different.
Gregg: There’s nothing to say that there couldn’t be visuals, it’s just the actual running the dog around didn’t really add anything — there was just the link of chasing rabbits. It felt like an arbitrary obstacle to the story.
Armand: Without that “obstacle” though, it’s just continuous text. You have no time in between each interaction to absorb and think about what just happened. It would be reduced to something that could work on a single sheet of paper, but would also lose the contemplative element. Forcing the reader to travel between text nodes gives you a sense of being a part of it. We’ve become so accustomed to information being handed to us instantaneously, and though it has its advantages, the lack of negative space in our minds is also troubling. The entirety of human evolution has seen us having “down time” in between receiving info, giving us time to think on it. Now, everything is immediate. Our attention spans are that of a goldfish, and taking five to ten seconds watching a dog run across a dream scape seems slow and hard to sit through.
Armand: I know my views go against popular game development theory by the way.
Gregg: No absolutely, I understand what you’re saying but I don’t interpret the space or time between the rabbits as meaningful negative space. Well, it has meaning with regards to the ‘chasing rabbits’ thing but I’m not sure it made me meditate on what I’d just been reading, if anything it distracted me from it because I found it tedious. I think what I’m trying to say is that the running from rabbit to rabbit doesn’t seem like it was put there for the sole purpose of making me reflect on things.
Armand: Imagine it as a text adventure though. Question is asked. You choose a or b, then the next question, then the next choice, and so on until it’s over. Almost every player will speed through it, going from one block to the next without a single break. Forcing it on the player is something only gaming (or prerecorded video) can do. It’s a tool gaming can use to separate information that might otherwise have no divides.
Gregg: I absolutely agree with you and admire the observation. I think after playing Planescape: Torment though I can safely say that the sort of player who’d mull over things would do that without having an artificial pause put in place. I know I sat there in Ruins re-reading lines and thinking them over but then I had to return to the dog chasing rabbits to get my next bit of text. Why am I doing this? Is this supposed to be engaging?
Armand: I think it’s a part of the overarching narrative. The game is an allegory of life. We follow our lives pathways, making choices that take us down different routs. One minor choice or chance (you being the first person on Taps contact list) can lead down an entirely different life path. Along the way, we’re chasing our dreams, our desires (in the game, the girl’s pursuit of relationship fulfillment) but like dream rabbits, they are elusive, constantly moving whenever we reach them, and in the end, are never really captured.
Gregg: I think your reading is interesting but it could just be conjecture. If that was the intention then I’d like to have seen that idea explored more if only to make it more explicit. I mean, I wouldn’t want the developers smacking me in the face with it like a giant purple rubber schlong but I think sometimes reading between the lines can be a bit… I dunno, optimistic.
Armand: “the sort of player who’d mull over something would do that without having an artificial pause put in place.” That’s the thing though. Where as an older generation, one before immediate information access like we have today, might sit and contemplate. The modern, younger generation can’t be assed to write out entire words in text conversation, let alone sit long enough to contemplate what they have just heard. It leads to knee-jerk reactionary responses that rarely seem to comprehend what they read. Considering the vast majority of media now is immediate, and that it is encouraged to be that way (streamlining game design), only reinforces in my mind why we need to force breaks now, to help people learn to not expect everything immediately. The execution may not be perfect, but I think it’s loads better than just text on a page, even with pictures.
Gregg: I think those people wouldn’t touch this game with a barge pole. You can take a horse to water…
Armand: It’s a free game, some of them will at least try it out of curiosity, and maybe get caught up in the narrative.
Gregg: I’d like to think so but for me it needed more time in the oven to really bring out those nuances and subtexts you brought up. Perhaps I’ll give it another try but… chasing bunnies.
Armand: I thought it was done well. With this sort of thing, nuance is very important, and when you bring it out too much, it loses the subtlety which gives it impact.
Gregg: But then it’s lost on more people. I love subtlety but there’s a fine line between reading things that aren’t there and identifying things that are there by design. The former I really hate, mainly because at uni I did an animation short which, looking back was utterly pretentious but there was meaning in it and I stood in a presentation and explained what it all meant. I nearly failed. Another lady on my course — my arch nemesis — filmed water going down a fucking plug hole and said in her presentation “It’s open to interpretation” and she passed with rainbows, stars and miles and miles of smiles. I’m not bitter at all.
Armand: Hah hah. Yeah I can see how that would happen. If you let people interpret something for themselves, they’ll see what they want to see, often confirming their own personal biases.
Gregg: I remember reading Lord of the Flies recently and reading some thesis on it saying how the three main characters corresponded to the three different parts of the psychic apparatus, the id, the ego and the super ego. It was utterly fascinating and made so much sense, whether that’s what Willian Golding intended, i don’t know. (Ed: He did)
Armand: Crazy! I was just thinking of that book like an hour ago! Too bad Dinner Date ain’t free. It’s another example of storytelling with an interactive element. Curious what you’d think of that one.
Gregg: Definitely. And hey, you make me sound cheap.
Armand: You are cheap.
The conversation devolved into yo mama jokes after that but Armand’s full write-up can be found nestled in his near-daily Indie Fix feature over at BnB Gaming. Go and take a look around, he’s covered all sorts of interesting indie titles over there. In the meantime, what the hell do you make of all this patent nonsense?
Send a message to the author of this post at greggb@tap-repeatedly.com
Interesting dialogue (and an interesting little game – I’m still not entirely sure about the gameplay aspect but I was impressed with the writing and atmosphere, and don’t think I could name another game that takes place inside the mind of a dog)
Gregg – I think I have a giftable copy of Dinner Date if you’d like one?
Being the cheap arse that I am, how could I possibly refuse? Thanks very much Phlebas!
Also, I now wish that Psychonauts had featured a level inside the mind of a dog…
I agree with Gregg, the game part was lacking imo, i would prefer longer interaction, and more depth in the chasing between the text.
As far as interpretation goes, the author had a certain idea, but every other interpretation no matter how ridiculous is valid. The idea is not, ‘what author wanted to say’, but what can I see in it. I couldn’t care less what the author meant.
Welcome to Tap Zerdav.
There’s a great phrase that one of my favourite film critics uses that goes something along the lines of ‘the truth is in the tale not the teller’ and while I appreciate the sentiment I very much believe that the real truth is in the teller, if there’s truth there at all. I’m not saying that people shouldn’t take their own readings from art — far from it, if it serves to illustrate or provoke other things then great — but an artist’s work in as an artist’s work and I don’t feel comfortable ‘reappropriating’ it, for want of a better word.
Sent – hope it got there ok!
You place to much value on the concept of art as the property of the artist Gregg. Once complete, art belongs to the people, and the people do with it what they want. 😉
As someone who scribbles now and then, I don’t care if someone interprets my work in the opposite way of what I thought. I would not even try to tell him what I meant writing it. Author’s view is in no way superior.
I understand that art can be abused, but the problem in that case is neither in the piece nor in the author.
And as Armand said, once in public, it’s common good as far as I’m concerned.
Hey Phlebas, didn’t receive your gift so I’ve emailed you directly. Hope you get it!
I don’t agree Armand, I think you’re putting too little value on the intent of the artist if you think that it’s okay for people to do what they want with a piece of work against the intended meaning or message of it. If, like Zerdav, an author is okay with people interpreting their work without expounding on what it really means then that’s perfectly fine — that’s an author’s intent to keep it open to discussion. But if something is explicitly about something I think it’s wrong to ignore that entirely. What’s the point in an artist pouring every ounce of their being into a piece if it’s perfectly okay for people to undermine it? As far as I’m concerned if an artist says their work is about this and the people say it’s about that I know who I’d rather listen to first.
“Imagine it as a text adventure though. Question is asked. You choose a or b, then the next question, then the next choice, and so on until it’s over. Almost every player will speed through it, going from one block to the next without a single break.”
Entirely true but if it needs to be padded with a mini-game as a break, perhaps it shouldn’t have been a game at all? Or include a timer. Ruminate for x time. Minutes, hours, even a day. No choice in the matter.
(I’ve not played the game, so general thoughts only. Sounds both irritating and irritating.)
You cannot decide how people will interpret something Gregg, nor can you tell them a subjective view they hold is “wrong.” If an artist intended something, they tried to get that message across, and then somehow failed, it’s not the viewers fault for not seeing that. Even if the message is clear, everyone brings their own experience and views into it. we can’t all be expected to interpret everything the same way, that would require some sort of hive mind. What makes art so wonderful is that it can mean different things to different people. If the artist doesn’t want others to interpret it in their own fashion, they should never release it to the public.
Fink: Why is a timer better than a dog running across a dreamscape?
Also, a minigame is an entirely unnecessary distraction, one that would take away from the opportunity to think about what you just read.
I haven’t played Ruins yet as some of Cardboard Computer’s previous works didn’t grabbed me. But on the subject of interpretation, I think it depends on the work.
Alexander Ocias’ Loved is wide open. I’ve seen multiple takes on it and I don’t think any of us can claim to be wrong or right. Is it about the relationship between player and developer? Is it about a dysfunctional relationship?
Down the other end of the spectrum, you go play Space Phallus, and you’ll wonder why exactly a dog’s head is the only thing trying to take down a gargantuan scrotum. And I’m pretty sure Charlie didn’t expect it to embody meaning. If you do find something: good for you. Write about it and tell us.
Then there’s The Cat and The Coup. That’s bubbling with imagery and each element seems carefully chosen. You play a cat: but if you watch carefully, you are not Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh’s cat. You are the cat of the British and the Americans. You are the Shape of Foreign Intervention, constantly upsetting Mossadegh from start to finish.
Is this open to interpretation? This feels like a particular communication between developer and player. You can still choose an alternative view, but I think the intended reading here is the most satisfying and makes for a consistent experience.
@Armand: If you try telling me that Passage is about the fall of the Roman Empire well…, that’s fine by me. The joy of subjectivity eh? 😉
I’m not deciding on how people interpret things — seriously, interpret away, bust a nut — all I’m saying is that an artist’s intent is always more important to me (whether they failed to get that across or not) than any interpretation, including my own. I like to know what an artist is trying to get across more than anything.
I think what Fink is trying to say is that chasing the rabbits is the mini-game ie. collect the bunnies, well done, here’s some text and a choice.
@HM: It was getting a bit stuffy in here, thanks for opening the window 😉
Subjectively you can value artists vision more. But objectively, you can’t. An artist can be an idiot, a square, and his vision also. It can be hateful, like racist for instance. But the work can still be great, and can entice something good, quite opposite of what the author wanted.
Another dimension of most art is time. Artist, and views of his time will be forgotten. But the work will remain open for new interpretations.
Authors vision is certainly valuable, but unless you make it so, not more then any other.
As for the game, longer exposer to chasing, without that bird pointer, and more interactive environment would, at least in my case, bring a more contemplative atmosphere.
Dog running around is the minigame. Find the wabbit. In a more cruel interpretation it is the game of the game.
If the goal is contemplation of the story and the choices therein, why not time gate it? I’m unconvinced it deserves contemplation but that’s another issue.
I found Passage utterly brilliant, Braid a pretentious snore and a pernicious influence in the short term.
I’ve nearly mentioned Braid a few times already but held back! I love the game, but the message or meaning (apparently) nestled within the game is so vague or subtle that I find it pointless trying to work it out. It doesn’t help that I’ve heard Jonathan Blow say a couple of times that some people’s interpretations of the game aren’t accurate yet he’s remiss to try and explain the thing himself. I’m all for authors leaving things open to interpretation but to do that and at the same time take pot shots at readings seems a bit unfair to me.
I left Braid both utterly perplexed and intrigued and despite reading countless forum posts on the game afterwards I still have no idea what it’s really about. But by golly do I want Blow to explain it if only to call his bluff that it really is about something!
As implied earlier, Braid is what you take away from it. I greatly admire and respect Blow for the brilliant man he is, but saying people’s interpretation of his work is “wrong” is just dumb. We can not expect everyone to view the world or reality in the same terms we do. Everyone’s life experience colors their perspective. It doesn’t make a view wrong or right. It’s just a different point of view.
It’s like looking at an apple. One side is brilliant and beautiful, the best apple you’ve ever seen. The other side though contains a dark ugly part that makes you want to throw it away. If two people look at that apple from opposite ends of a room, without the ability to move around to the other side, they would see two very different apples. Neither would be wrong in their perception.
I love a good analogy!
The new “genre” of Pretentiogames opens this can of worms. Most of them don’t stand up to serious contemplation or consideration which leaves a lingering rotten smell of the half apple I don’t want to eat. Ambiguity is not subjectivity.
The totality of the apple matters.
Moving on. Braid, while it bored the snot out of me, was a serious attempt to say something or other.
Passage was deviously clever. Motor through, admire the visuals dopplering ahead and behind. Aging, got it. Great! A better representation has never before been in a game.
Then read the text file and wife/no wife is a choice which changes how many “points” can be gained. Punch to the gut.
Drifting slightly off-topic, when bloom effects were first added I begged for inverse-bloom visuals. It seemed an obvious, powerful, effect. Now it’s a twitch for Pretentiogames.
@Finkbug “Passage was deviously clever. Motor through, admire the visuals dopplering ahead and behind. Aging, got it. Great! A better representation has never before been in a game.
Then read the text file and wife/no wife is a choice which changes how many “points” can be gained. Punch to the gut.”
I never read the text file. You’ve just destroyed it for me =)
[…] was discussion about Cardboard Computer’s Ruins over on Tap-Repeatedly about intent versus whatever shit went on inside the player's head. Gregg B let his rage fly with […]