I know my blog post is a couple days late, but I still thought I’d go ahead and give my take on Nelson’s anti-games. In class on Tuesday, Professor Sample mentioned that Nelson’s background and education was in poetry, and I was able to call it from a mile away – I found the games to be very interesting from a gaming perspective, but moreso from the perspective of poetry. In my inquiry assignment I talked about how through his anti-games, Nelson has created a new way to “win” a game. Unlike traditional, mainstream video games (or any type of game for that matter), winning in these anti-games isn’t based on scoring points, defeating an opponent, or accomplishing a set goal as instructed by the game itself. I think that Nelson’s games are designed to be an experience – more specifically, an exploration of poetry (this is at least true of the game I focused on, I Made This. You Play This. We Are Enemies.) Instead of publishing his poems in the traditional form of, say, a book, Nelson has tried a more experimental medium. After playing the game I felt like I had just finished reading a book of poetry, not that I had just won a game.
When I played this game, it took me FOREVER because I decided to slow down and read all the little snippits of poetry Nelson had patched on to each level. I was actually excited to advance to the next level and see what he was going to include next. The joy of this game definitely came more from the aesthetic elements than the gameplay itself. In fact, I think the whole point of the game is to focus on the aesthetic elements – the poetry, the videos, the screenshots, etc. And if you’re the kind of person who enjoys that type of stuff, you’ll probably come out enjoying the game, and you probably accomplished exactly what Nelson wanted you to. If you’re not, you’ll probably be frustrated and say you “didn’t get it”…and you lost the game.
This game reminded me a lot of my previous gaming experiences outside of this class. It’s kind of pathetic to think about how many hours I spent as a kid playing Grand Theft Auto 3, but not actually “playing” it as the game intended, but driving around the streets of Liberty City listening to the radio stations. I did the same thing with Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3, just skating endlessly around the parks and button mashing because I didn’t really care about the points, I just wanted to listen to the sick soundtrack. With Nelson’s games, I got a similar experience. I didn’t have to worry about any complicated gameplay, I just had to focus on the aesthetics. Unfortunately for me, there aren’t more games like this, so I have to make do with my own modifications of mainstream games such as Tony Hawk and GTA.
I also focused on this game, but I reacted to and played the game very differently than you. I found that because I could not really understand Nelson’s poetry, I ended up largely ignoring it and just going through the very elementary actions of moving from the left side of the screen to the right (and occasionally moving up or down!). I dealt with the various videos scattered throughout the levels in the same manner – after watching a few and not “getting it,” I deemed viewing the videos as not being an integral part of game play.
As we discussed in class, Nelson definitely created his games a certain way for a reason, and I think you bring up a really interesting theory on why Nelson created this particular game this way. Since we both played and experienced the game differently, the idea of “four suits of players” comes to mind. Playing this game for the poetry and aesthetics seems to most closely fit Spades, the explorer. Though it might be a stretch, taking the time to read all the poetry and find all the videos seems like a type of exploration… and maybe also slightly like a type of achievement, which is fitting of a “diamond” player. If Nelson meant for the game to be experienced in this way, it seems like he is not only creating an anti-game, but a game that focuses on an action that not a lot of other games emphasize. While exploration is still an integral part of, say, first person shooters, those types of games stress fighting much more, which would appeal to “club” players. But by creating a game in which there is no social networking or fighting involved, and no point system, “exploration” is placed in the forefront.
I thought this was a REALLY interesting way to look at the game. Maybe as a different sort of thinker, I was trying too hard to figure out the incentives of everything he did, and what specifically he wanted the player to get out of the game. In this sort of reasoning all of the words he had in the game, had something to do with the game, and had to have some relevance for the player. Now that I think about it, I realize that this game really does seem to be more of a medium for his own poetical expression.
But this brings up a few more questions.
1. Is there a meaning behind all of his poetical phrases when they are put together to make a point, or is it rather just random phrases with individual meaning? My immediate response is that it all fits together some how, and it fits together by some form of the game because all of the expressions are set in this game. At the same time, many of them seem to be leading different directions, so I would also say while I think they are all somewhat linked, they also venture off into different moods, statements, and meanings.
2. What would one of his poems look like outside of this video game form? It would be really interesting to know if his poems were more centered and focused, and less sporadic than this game seems to be.
3. How does his video game format match what is being said in his poem. While there are the obvious things that we can guess at, the political statements and all, this is rather just a desire to pick his brain at all of the smaller statements that we miss, all of the nuances that he put particular care in setting up, that we may have passed over, or not even realized he has done.
I’d like to disagree with you a little bit here. I thought this game was fun, and I played it to the very end– but I went through the entire game ignoring most of the text. The attraction of the gameplay for me was that of a very simple flash game, like the ones my classmates and I used to play in high school during class to pass the time. Those games weren’t particularly interesting or complicated. They just had a simple, almost mindless goal and gameplay, which was perfect for what we used them for.
I think the reason these games reminded me so much of those flash games is because it is just so easy to ignore all of the countergame aspects that Nelson has dressed his games in. Stripped of all these elements, his games become rudimentary and simple (except for the Death Clock one, that one is thoroughly unique).
But what does this say about Nelson’s games themselves? Did he fail in delivering his message, because it’s so easy to ignore? In some ways, I think he did. I don’t know why he thought that people would want to read all of that text– there’s just SO much of it, and like Lauren said, the gameplay kind of comes to a standstill if you try to read all of it. Most people are lazy. I can’t imagine most people wanting to crane their necks this way and that and stare at a flashing screen, just for the sake of one man’s message. Of course, there are some people that would do that– so I guess in the end, it comes down to the individual. Depending on the type of person you are, you will get a different experience from playing Nelson’s games.
With all this said and done, though, I kind of get the feeling that Nelson doesn’t really care either way.