Games about LOVE and TRUST?: harnessing the power of metaphors for experience design (2008)

I think we'll start each review with some context for the authors behind the work. This paper was handled by both Doris C. Rusch and Matthew J. Weise. Rusch is a game designer and researcher. She appearently published a book titled "Making Deep Games: Designing Games with Meaning and Purpose" about 8 years after this research paper was written. I may have to check that out at a later date. Weise is listed on the paper as a developer and presently he seems to be the Game Design Director of the GAMBIT Game Lab at MIT. Very experienced viewpoints, I'd say, though this was early in both their careers.

Ok, not three sentences into the Abstract and I already have something to say.

I understand that, if you are looking to improve the perception of games as a medium, the 'junk food' of the gaming aisle will be considered as a problem that must be solved. But there is value in each of these games, even when they don't push the medium forward. Shlock has its place in every medium.

Hmmm... This is rubbing me the wrong way a bit now. I won't argue that many games of the era did not heavily consider putting players in a grounded scenario from a unique perspective, at least not in the popular gaming culture (though I could point to a number of cult classics like Shenmue). But games of all genres can challenge people and genuinely teach lessons in resource management, strategy, problem solving, and more.

Some games have specific mechanics and narratives that will only affect individual players in specific ways, often due to surrounding context and association, but still, the game plays a role. Everyone will take away something different and the game doesn't need to set out with that intent for it to happen. But you can't just say those games don't matter. You can't even say they aren't 'about' anything. Every game is 'about' something, but that something is subjective, and if you are convinced it isn't there to find, you won't find it.

I can somewhat agree with this. But I don't believe a game requires this to succeed within its medium. A game that doesn't take advantage of its game mechanics for the narrative is missing out a lot on its potential. But so have many other forms of media. Why isn't every comic and graphic novel conveying all of their physical momentum, raw emotions, and tension with their panelling? As cool as it might seem to have every entry in a medium try for that level of consideration and quality, it's not required to successfully tell a story or engage a reader.

Medium specific possibilities are important, but with the way this paper is written... it feels like it's continously implying that a game that doesn't take advantage of the medium isn't enough, or that it has inherently failed as art.

I figured, but I will keep that in mind as I read.

It makes sense to me immediatley why ICOe-koʊ is included in the roster of games here. But again, dismissing the majority of games based on this metric is very shallow in my eyes. Because yes, Sonic Adventure may seem like a game with a silly mascot who only has the superficial action of 'run fast for instant gratification'. But people who played that game know it spoke to the abstract concepts you're looking for.

It didn't always tell its story through the gameplay (though I would argue Tails' story was successful in conveying his growth into independence through his races with Sonic and Eggman), but it nevertheless sent a message to its players. It shouldn't be discounted and neither should the majority of games in this era, because I believe games that tackled these themes were all over the place. They may not have utilized their full potential, but that doesn't make their purpose null.

Ok, so you do believe those games have value. I'm glad we are on a similar page after all. The introduction was just a little too strong, and it made me feel like these authors would not acknowledge over half of the games produced in this era. In hindsight, this paper was probably expecting the reader to be of a certain mindset, a mindset that would be agreeable to the concepts I'm clashing with. This research paper isn't just of its time, it was written to adults of its time. People who were constantly being told by news channels how mindless, and action-packed, and violent video games were becoming.

This is not a critique of the paper's content so much as a comment on its structure, but, just... Does the fact that this is all one sentence not disgust you? This is why people are scared to read academic papers. If you must write a sentence as congested as this, at least bring the word comprehension difficulty down a smidge. No one wants to read 'metaphorical potential intrinsic' as a combined part of a run-on sentence.

This is the kind of writing I like to see in a paper. I can feel the passion and excitement of the writer on the other end, and that helps the research feel personable. I also agree with the point, and I think that the games that manage to pull this off always deserve credit.

Now at this point in the paper there is an entire section focused on Passage (2007), a game I hadn't heard of before reading this paper. Because I lack experience with the game, I don't feel confident in commenting on this section, though I did read the analysis. I once again encourage anyone reading this to try giving the paper a read for yourself, as just reading this review is like reading the cliff notes on an interesting book.

Here we are, the explanation of the premise.

I think she's quite attentive actually, but sure, go on.

Ok, so they definitely played the PAL version, that's good to know. I do have to question what they meant exactly by saying Yordayoruda makes the player stronger in combat. That might be referring to how the Idol Doors instantly end fights with Shadow Creatures or be referring to the tactic of using Yordayoruda as bait to trap Shadows in an unfavorable combat position. Probably the former, but I like clarification with these kinds of things.

While this was ingenious, especially for the time, I think this aspect of ICO'se-koʊs comapnionship gestalt is the simplest to replicate. And a few designers have done just that. What I haven't seen much of since ICO'se-koʊs release is the way that the R1 button functions when you can't hold hands. Even when the function cannot be carried out, R1 will always have a use as the "Call" button. And no other button truly does that aside from maybe the Zoom and Camera controls, but these are not actions Icoe-koʊ performs.

Let's use this as an example: If Icoe-koʊ is not hanging from a ledge, the X button will do nothing. The function of X is therefore circumstantial, it depends on surrounding context. Namely "Is Icoe-koʊ hanging from a ledge or on a ladder/chain?" if not, there's no function to carry out.

But if Icoe-koʊ were locked in a box so tight he could not even move, attack, interact or jump, he has one function that will always carry out. He can always call for Yorda.yoruda. He can do it even before he meets her. It is a universal sign of "Is there anybody out there?" The seeking of companionship is built in as an essential function, that cannot be stopped by any circumstance.

The game excels in this area partially because of the mechanical effort (Yordayoruda is the key to progression / Yorda'syorudas capture equals 'Game Over'), but also because they put a lot of effort into making Yordayoruda feel like a real person. Her animations, idle behavior, and hint system help to convey that sense, often subconsciously. Players who haven't even grown attached to her often feel the weight of her getting captured, before they've even experienced a game over firsthand. It inherently induces anxiety to see a person being ripped out of your grasp and abducted, especially when you know you are the only one with the power to change that outcome.

Wait, they really cover Mr. Mosquito in this paper??? That's a game I genuinely didn't expect to see in the 2008 academic setting. Game design focused or otherwise. ...And reading that section, they definitely take the analysis head on, huh?

I would not call this game concept appealing, nor charming, but I do find this entire section hilarious for the blunt conclusion statement and the amount of times they used all-caps on 'Mosquitohood' unironically.

I like this approach as its laid out here. They said it far better than I could.

I still don't fully understand the insistance that 'games based on physical concepts' are not truly about something. I feel like their choice of terminology is really poor in that instance. I also think picking four games as examples after the introduction used a quote with the mental image of: "[the] endless racks of adolescent power fantasies, witless cartoon characters, and literal minded sports simulations” indirectly paints the four examples as exceptions to the norm. And one of those examples was Mr. Mosquito of all things. Like, if that game deserved structural analysis in this academic paper then I can name at least 20 popular games of the early 2000's era that were equally about something.

Ultimately, while this paper and I don't really see eye-to-eye on the nature of video game concepts, it does have a firm grasp of ICO'se-koʊs strengths and articulated its points pretty well. I kind of wish it had more to say about the game I'm reviewing it for, but it made the point it needed to and I can't fault it for that. Looking past its confusing stance on games that 'aren't about something', it provides a good blueprint for how to make games that take advantage of their medium and that is very useful.

I give "Games about LOVE and TRUST?" a Mace.