My Mind’s Dark Depths

The gaming press keeps trumpeting the ongoing saga of the “console wars.”

What a joke.

With the release of Final Fantasy VII: Crisis Core for the Sony PSP, the PSP skyrocketed past all other consoles in Japan for a short time. This is evidence for my thesis:

Consoles are irrelevant. Games are all that matters.

When I looked at the next-gen offerings, I didn’t ask myself “which console has the better processor, more RAM, cooler form factor, etc etc” - I asked myself “Which next-gen games do I want to play most?” The answer: Halo 3 and Advent Rising 2. Both previous installments were Xbox exclusives. That makes my choice of console obvious: the Xbox 360. By contrast, if I was a die-hard Final Fantasy Fan, my choice would be the PlayStation 3.

I’ve never been much of a Nintendo fan, because most of their games seem aimed at a younger audience. The types of games I like to play are few and far between on Nintendo’s platform. (However, I’ve lately been tempted by the Wii since I do like the occasional Dance Dance Revolution tournament. The Wii’s more active interaction with a game looks promising. This is the one exception to my thesis, since the design of the console is what makes that physically active type of game possible. OK - back to the soapbox.)

To me, a console is nothing but a tool that allows me to play the games I want to play. If the games I want are on Console X, I buy that console. It’s that simple. Brand, processor power, extra features (why watch movies when you could be playing games??), etc etc - all irrelevant. The linchpin question is: does it have the games I want to play? End of story.

Adding to my discussion of what art is, there’s also the question of what makes it good or bad. Again, this is very difficult to define, but if we accept the principles introduced before, we can come up with some guidelines.

First, if art points to something beyond itself, how effectively does it point? Do you resonate with that intangible something it wants to draw you closer to, or is it just an indistinct impression? In essence, the deeper the message, the better the art.

Second, if art evokes a reaction, how strong is the reaction? Is it an “ah-ha.” or is it an “AH-HA!“? Does it make us think deeply, or do we reach a conclusion in a moment? The stronger the reaction, the better the art.

This second point, I think, is where much of the controversy surrounding art lies. Some people seem to believe art must provoke a positive reaction to be good art. In other words, if art makes us feel at ease and contemplative, it’s good art, but if it agitates or annoys us, it must be bad art. Really? This segues into the next principle, which is the intention of the artist. What if the artist INTENDED us to be agitated? What if that’s the purpose for the art’s existence? As an example, consider Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ. Does that evoke a positive response? Is seeing a man being brutalized beyond recognition pleasant to watch? Add to that the belief that he is innocent. Add again the belief held by many that he is a holy man. Does this evoke good feelings?

Some might argue that the state of contemplation The Passion of the Christ puts us in and the self-examination it encourages are good things. Perhaps so, but consider your base reaction - does it make you feel good? If not, is it good art?

What about items that make us feel bad by being offensive? Perhaps mute introspection is a “good” bad feeling, but being offended is a “bad” bad feeling. I believe in absolute morality, and as such I believe some art is “bad” because it crosses an absolute moral line. There are some things that are inherently detrimental to human experience, and those things should not be explored, even in art. However, I also believe that list is short and we need to give time and attention to the message of the art and artist before we jump to condemn.

Finally - back to the discussion of good art vs. bad art - the cultural context. Does the art use elements that are easy for the audience to understand? Do they recognize that item off to the right a little way back, or that chord in the strings, quickly so they can move on to contemplation? The harder it is for the interpreter to relate to the elements in the work, the greater chance the artist has of losing his/her audience, and the worse the art is - at least for that audience.

I would add a couple of items to this from my personal observations. First, I believe good art has layers of meaning. Do you see or hear something different each time you come back to the work? The more layers a work has, and the more messages it can communicate, the better the work is.

I also believe good art appeals to concepts that are universal to human experience, if not to nature itself. Great works of classical Greek art make use of the “golden rectangle,” a mathematical construct related to the “golden mean.” Works of music widely recognized as “great” use a scale and chord structure based on natural overtones that occur in a single note. One music student I know complained that Bach’s famous counterpoint is so systematic it “would be easier to create with a computer.”

That’s not to say that art must appeal to mathematics to be good, but I will say I staunchly disagree with those that believe almost anything can be art.

There is much ado made in the Christian world about “unreached peoples.” The so-called 10/40 window, cultures that have no Bible in their language, etc. I’ve seen many presentations on the tragedy in modern missions that more missionaries don’t go to those peoples. “Around 80%” the story goes “of missionaries go to reached countries.” The unspoken subtext is “shame on those missionaries!”

Really?

I see a couple of huge problems with that attitude. First, undertaking a missionary calling of any kind is a huge endeavor. An American going as a missionary to France (a “reached” country in the loosest sense of the word, but one our pulpit pounding brethren would doubtlessly include), for instance, is a bit like sending someone from Focus on the Family to be an employee at Planned Parenthood. Just because they’re in the same macro-culture doesn’t mean it’s not like sending a lamb to wolves.

Second is the whole sense of “calling.” People who lament the absence of missionaries in “unreached” countries seem like they don’t believe in God’s calling. If God really is calling people to missions - if He really is sovereign - don’t you think He’s on top of who should go where? Don’t you think He knows where to send people to maximize His Word’s impact?

The greater issue, in my mind, is whether or not people are listening to the call. We all have a calling. Some are called to do “real” jobs to generate the financial foundation for missionaries in the field. Some are called to evangelize down the street. And some are called to cross cultural boundaries (which could be right down the street, come to think of it) and spend their lives in vocational missions. Considering the financial state of the church, and considering the church’s lack of impact on the neighborhoods around them, there are definitely a lot of people on the rolls not listening to the call.

In short, don’t question what your brother’s or sister’s call is, ask if they’re listening.

I have made every effort to keep this lighthearted speculation spoiler-free. Some things may not make sense if you haven’t read the 7th book, but nothing should give away important plot points.

The 7th book in the Harry Potter series provides a satisfying ending to the epic. However, there are still some loose threads left. Let’s fill in the gaps, shall we?

Hagrid married Olympie, though both retained their respective positions. Hagrid couldn’t stand BeaxBatons, calling France “uppity”, and Olympie couldn’t stomach Hagrid’s fondness for monstrous pets. Somehow, they managed to make their long-distance marriage work, and were faithful to each other for years.

Luna Lovegood took over publication of The Quibbler, though, in a nod to Hermione, published at least one “Narrow-Minded” article per issue. Sales have increased dramatically.

Lee Jordan started his own radio program, and it is still one of the most popular wizarding programs on the air.

Dean Thomas and Seamus Finnigan turned the Shrieking Shack into a Harry Potter museum and offered guided tours.

Cho Chang never stopped kicking herself for breaking up with Harry. She married and divorced several Harry Potter look-alikes.

Grawp stayed on at Hogwarts until, one day during a swim, he ate the giant squid as an h’ors d’ouvre. He now lives in the mountains above the castle.

Despite lessons learned, Percy Weasley continued to work in the Ministry of Magic and was still considered by many to be a prat.

Dolores Umbridge received a life sentence in Azkaban, though at least three dementors have been reported killed due to her babbling about “cute kitties.”

Rita Skeeter published a scathing biography of Harry Potter entitled The Boy Who Lied. Hermione then reported her as an unregistered animagus and she was sentenced to six months in Azkaban. Deeply depressed upon her release, she wrote her own autobiography, entitled Nobody Should Believe Anything I Write.

Narcissa Malfoy divorced Lucius and went into interior decorating.

Lucius Malfoy, after Narcissa left him and took all his gold, became the water boy for the Chudly Cannons Quidditch team.

The Weasley’s Ghoul never got over his spattergroit, and demanded a mattress in the attic.

I’ve been taking a StoryTelling class, and recently we tried to define art. Like many attempts I’ve read, we danced around the topic without coming to any firm definition. However, we touched on several elements that seem to come up in most such discussions.

We started with this axiom: Art points to something beyond itself. That is, when you look at a sculpture, you don’t think “rock,” you think “headless guy.” Given that, the question becomes WHAT is art pointing to and HOW does it point that direction? That’s where the controversy comes, because different people may see the art pointing to different things.

So, how do we define art if so much of it is subjective? Again, our discussion came up with no firm definition, but I heard these elements repeated that I have heard so many times before:

• the reaction
• the intention of the artist
• the cultural context

First and most basically, does the work evoke a response? Do you think “hmm,’ if only for an instant, when you see or hear it? Does it challenge you to think?

Second, what was the artist thinking? Feeling? Aiming for when s/he created the art piece? That, in some intangible way, contributes to the reality of a particular work being art.

Third, how do people understand the work? Is some work involving a cross going to communicate to Buddhists? Is a work involving the Buddha going to communicate to Christians? The audience must have a frame of reference for apprehending the art’s message. If the artist creates a work using elements that no one in the audience understands, the artistry is lost.

The trouble is, all of these items are subjective. How do you define something that, by it’s nature, is subjective? And yet, in it all, I truly believe there is something objective to art. Something in human nature that must create and appreciate art. Perhaps it’s the need to communicate something in a fresh, expressive way that makes art so necessary.

Perhaps.

Talk amongst yourselves…

GameSpot recently reported that Blizzard Entertainment’s World of Warcraft has exceeded 9 million subscribers - greater than the population of many European nations.

Now, if so many people want to “live” in such a place, it makes me wonder what these European nations are doing wrong. Think about it: 9 million people WILLINGLY paying for the right to spend time there? If the governments of the world can make life more like MMOGs, then paying taxes shouldn’t be a problem and people will be much happier in general. SO… let’s examine the differences between MMOGs and life in the average country.

First off, I think an obvious thing to do is eliminate death. In most MMOGs, death isn’t permanent. Sure, there’s a penalty for dying, but it’s nowhere near as bad as once-for-all complete lack of participation in anything ever again.

Second, hunger isn’t really an issue. People just carry food around and it gets consumed automatically. They don’t have to waste time eating it, and it doesn’t matter what it tastes like. Also, the food is so cheap that anyone can afford it. Even if you’re short of cash, you can just go out and kill one of the monsters meandering around and they’ll probably drop enough cash for your next meal.

Which brings us to another point: everybody and everything carries cash. You swat a fly, you get cash. Kill the wolf that’s been threatening the villagers, you get whatever cash the wolf was carrying, the reward from the villagers, AND you can sell the wolf pelt to the local furrier. Three paydays for one good deed - now that makes good deeds much more attractive, I’d say. So, paying people for these day to day activities is a must.

Sleep and disease also aren’t major problems. Rest is something you do to heal your wounds from combat, and it usually takes a fraction of the time you normally spend actually doing your daily activities. So, rather than 1/3 of your day shot for sleeping, you spend maybe 1/25th of your day resting, and it’s for a specific purpose. Any other ailments can be cured by a potion from the local alchemist: disease, poison, etc. Now where are the alchemists in today’s societies? That’s an area it seems governments have really dropped the ball.

Finally, since you don’t have to spend much time resting or eating, what are you going to do with all that time? It seems obvious that the governments of the world need to provide people with more compelling activities. Where are the inherenetly evil, semi-sentient species? Travel the average highway in the average nation and you won’t see a single Troll, Orc, Trandoshan, or Hutt. The nations of the world need to provide us with creatures that it’s politically correct to hate and beat on.

So, to all you governments who want to raise the quality of life for your populace, now you know how.

In my opinion, games have been around long enough to have discovered some principles that just work for gamers, yet I continue to see games come out without some or all of these options. Below, I list the items I consider “necessities” that every game should have to make them user-friendly, in order of priority…

*Invert Y-Axis
We older gamers grew up in the era of space flight sims, and we’re used to aviation controls. Most games, to their credit, include this option. However, there are a few exceptions. I will often stop playing a game if I can’t invert the Y-axis, since my old habits die hard.

*Never, NEVER put checkpoints before cutscenes
Especially with boss battles, I have to watch the blasted cutscene with the pre-rendered boss acting all menacing about 48 times before I manage to kill him. Hullo! The boss battle is supposed to be hard - why are you making us watch the cut scene again and again instead of just letting us back into the action? Checkpoints should always occur AFTER the cutscene.

*Min of 3 Difficulties: Easy, Normal, Hard
Not all of us are hard-core frag fiends. Zone of the Enders and F.E.A.R. got it right in describing their “easy” mode as a mode for “new or casual” gamers. Some people play on easy because they care more about the story than the gameplay. But for those of us who are hard-core, the normal difficulty may be too easy. Including at least three difficulties catches the majority of gamers.

*Subtitles on/off
You may be incredibly proud of your voice actors, but that doesn’t mean everyone can appreciate them. What about people with Mono TVs? I happen to live near a very active railroad track, and it’s not unusal for trains to pick that critical plot moment to rumble by.

*Mid-mission checkpoints
You don’t have to be Halo, with checkpoints every other step, but mid-mission checkpoints for missions longer than 10 minutes are very important. Not all of have us the freedom to sit for hours on end playing the game, and there are few things more irritating than having to play through 20 minutes of easy gameplay over and over because of that one enemy you can’t defeat. Lack of this feature almost singlehandedly broke Ninety-Nine Nights.

*Pause cut scenes
As an older gamer, I have lots of demands on my time. It’s incredibly irritating to have to choose between watching a cutscene or treating my child’s ouchie. Xenosaga Episode One’s 30-plus minute cutscenes were notorious for interfering with my family life. I was very thankful they added the pause option in subesequent chapters.

*”Continue” from opening and “Game Over” screens
Let’s face it - nine times out of 10 gamers want to pick up the game where they last left it, regardless of how many profiles or saved games they have. A “Continue” option that automatically loads the most recent saved game seems like a small way to benefit your customers. One of the most irritating games I ever played required me to go all the way out to the opening screen to load a game upon death. That game is no longer in my collection.

*Brightness/Contrast/Gamma adjustment
This is particularly necessary for games with dark environments. I have played a handful of games in which I was unable to pass a certain point until I turned up the contrast on my TV/Monitor because I simply couldn’t see the environment I was supposed to interact with.

*Effects/Music/Voices sound options
Similar to lack of subtitles, it’s irritating when a game’s wonderful sound effects drown out the voices that are advancing the plot or issuing your next mission. Many a shooter have I had to pause and check my objectives because my orders were issued during a fire fight, and I couldn’t hear them over the gunfire.

The Harry Potter hype has hit again. I don’t know how the series ends, as I’m too cheap to buy the hardback, but it’s gotten me thinking… again…

J. K. Rowling has done something pretty amazing. She has, in a sense, created a new literary form. A trilogy, like Lord of the Rings or Inheritance (Eragon) is really just one story split into several parts. By contrast, an episodic story, seen most often in TV series like Star Trek, are self-contained stories loosely tied together by common setting and characters. The Harry Potter series is neither of these, and yet, both of these.

Each Harry Potter book is a self-contained story that can stand almost completely on its own, without feeling “incomplete.” Yet, it’s also part of a much larger epic that is tied together by far more threads than a typical episodic structure. If we had a continuum with episodes on one end and trilogies (hexologies, whatever) on the other, Potter’s story would fall near the middle, perhaps slightly leaning toward trilogy.

One of the things that continually amazes me about her writing is the importance of seemingly insignificant events much later in the story. Probably the best example of this is Ron breaking his wand at the beginning of book 2 (The Chamber of Secrets). (SPOILER ALERT!) This seemingly random event becomes a pivotal plot point at the climax, when Gilderoy Lockhart’s spell backfires. What’s more, she even has these kind of threads across books.

So, amazingly, the series isn’t a single story split across multiple books, but it’s tied together much more closely than episodes. All in all, an amazing work.