[Beloved] In a dream ... II (split)
Matthew V:
I'm quite happily married and have no qualms about this game. As others have mentioned, it seems riskily shallow or even rediculous on the surface, but when I poked a bit at the metaphor behind it, I found that there was a surprising amount of depth in this as a relationship game. As written, this is a game about making a choice; do you choose endless struggle and possibly pain to improve your understanding of your partner (in my case, I chose to begin with a version of my wife), OR do you choose to stop and "settle" with one particular version. I also had no issue imagining a beloved that would let me play the game while being honest about it; my perfect beloved is one who will always push and challenge me. Now for a couple of design points ...
Is this game intentionally a trap?
Right now I struggle with even the idea of stopping play. I'm only 2 monsters deep, but I think I've figured out how to smash them, but I fear if I do I'll have to choose between stopping and settling with an incomplete picture of my beloved, all the while knowing that if I forge onward I will face a greater challenge, but also a greater reward (improved knowledge and understanding of my beloved). Stopping would feel like giving up on my Beloved, and since I chose to picture my wife, I have a real negative and visceral reaction to doing that. I can't give up on her; I love her. I also can't give up on improving my understanding of her; that's what I see relationships as being about (see point 2 below). But these issues make the game itself feel like a trap laid by the designer (is it?), and I wonder if that's a desirable feeling to shoot for from a development perspective, when so much of the rest of the game's "action" seems to be about positive improvement. Just a thought.
What if I play this game already?
Now, to some degree I feel like I play this game every time I make a choice to face something difficult in my actual relationship and work at it. That said, I feel like I'm viewing the "monsters" as metaphors for difficulties in my actual relationship (though I know this is nowhere in the rules, but that's the thinking playing has lead to). Is this your intention? Do you want this game to bring people who are in relationships and take their "Beloved" as a version of their partner around to eventually facing deeper problems? Are the monsters not intended to lead to this kind of metaphorical thinking?
Callan S.:
Quote
Think about how it is undefeatable, exactly. Fold up the piece of paper and carry it in your pocket, but continue to think about it. Play out your battles in your mind, over and over, trying new devices and strategies.
At some point, you will discover a way that the monster can be defeated. Don't cheat and think of this ahead of time! Make the monster as unbeatable as you can.
Wow, a game that pretty much explicityly references confirmation bias?
"The monster cannot be defeated as long as 2+2=4! 2+2 must equal 5 to defeat the monster....at some point you will discover 2+2=5!"
It's like it pinpoints the exact reason why I think any games who's outcome hinges entirely(vital qualifier) on someones imagination is utterly bogus? Because you'll always find a way - no matter how many annurisms it takes...so there is no uncertainty in the outcome. Here's a design that relies on that!
"But it isn't her!"
And just as I was getting that boulder to the top of the hill, the damn thing rolls down again...or for newer generations "Thank you Mario, but the princess is in the other castle!"
I don't really know what post modernism is, but to me where you make moral choices based on what is actually a non imagined world convention (ie, it'll never be her simply because the text says it'll never be her - make a moral choice based on a writing convention!), I kind of think that's post modern. And that's from me who argued vehemently "diary of a skull soldier" doesn't contain some pomo element, so I'm a little tender about the idea of anything being post modern.
Callan S.:
Quote
Here's a design that relies on that!
Sorry, just want to clarify that. I mean here's a design that doesn't pretend whether you'll beat the monster is up in the air and all uncertain and stuff - it's designed knowing that you will make up some sort of solution because that's how these processes turn out. The design does not perpetuate some illusion of uncertainty and indeed banks on the certainty of that outcome. And I was surprised at that! It might have sounded like I was saying the opposite! :)
Ron Edwards:
The above were split from [Beloved] [Solo RPG] In a dream .... No big deal, carry on with the discussion.
Best, Ron
Matthew V:
Quote from: Callan S. on May 29, 2011, 12:09:55 AM
It's like it pinpoints the exact reason why I think any games who's outcome hinges entirely(vital qualifier) on someones imagination is utterly bogus? Because you'll always find a way - no matter how many annurisms it takes...so there is no uncertainty in the outcome. Here's a design that relies on that!
That'd be my take as well. This response is part of what motivates my "isn't this kind of a trap" question for Ben - it's a super cool concept, but I wonder if calling it a "game" in the usual sense is really helpful. It's like Beloved is wearing the skin of an RPG ("look 'monsters' and a 'princess!' Defeat one, save the other, then do it again!"), but is really an exercise in psychology.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page