Okay, go play Execution. Download it and play it. I can't imagine it'll take you more than a few minutes. This is one of those don't-read-further things. I'll put the rest of this post in a comment.
Okay! So, the first time I played, I won. Applause applause AND THEN I played again and lost. And then I played again and the guy was still dead.
And I thought, yeah. That's a powerful little capsule statement on what it means for actions to have consequences, in contrast to the way things usually are in games, and a test for yourself to see just how much the life of an imaginary man means to you. It comes on a little strong, especially since its target audience consists mainly of people who are sort of predisposed to take games seriously anyway, but I liked it. One of the only truly moral universes ever created by a game.
And then I read a comment about it on auntiepixelante's blog, which said something to the effect of "after I won, I was disappointed to see that the guy was still tied up."
Hey, yeah!
"My actions" don't have consequences. My BAD actions have consequences. You can spare the guy's life as many times as you want and he's still tied up the next time you play. This game doesn't give the player a "moral" universe, it gives players a universe where things can only be made worse, not better.
And sure, the point of the game is to expose the player to something shocking, but wouldn't it also have been shocking to see that your act of mercy has freed this man from bondage and death? Forever? And that he was actually Hitler with a shaved head and it's World War III because you didn't have the ovaries to pull the trigger? Okay, maybe not that. But y'know.
I liked it. I like Jesse Venbrux's games. But I'm not going to let it get away with being punishing to the player, and half-fulfilling its promise that actions have consequences, just because it's an art game.
1 comment:
Okay! So, the first time I played, I won. Applause applause AND THEN I played again and lost. And then I played again and the guy was still dead.
And I thought, yeah. That's a powerful little capsule statement on what it means for actions to have consequences, in contrast to the way things usually are in games, and a test for yourself to see just how much the life of an imaginary man means to you. It comes on a little strong, especially since its target audience consists mainly of people who are sort of predisposed to take games seriously anyway, but I liked it. One of the only truly moral universes ever created by a game.
And then I read a comment about it on auntiepixelante's blog, which said something to the effect of "after I won, I was disappointed to see that the guy was still tied up."
Hey, yeah!
"My actions" don't have consequences. My BAD actions have consequences. You can spare the guy's life as many times as you want and he's still tied up the next time you play. This game doesn't give the player a "moral" universe, it gives players a universe where things can only be made worse, not better.
And sure, the point of the game is to expose the player to something shocking, but wouldn't it also have been shocking to see that your act of mercy has freed this man from bondage and death? Forever? And that he was actually Hitler with a shaved head and it's World War III because you didn't have the ovaries to pull the trigger? Okay, maybe not that. But y'know.
I liked it. I like Jesse Venbrux's games. But I'm not going to let it get away with being punishing to the player, and half-fulfilling its promise that actions have consequences, just because it's an art game.
Post a Comment