[Beloved] In a dream ... II (split)
Ben Lehman:
The game is not intentionally impossible. The monster fights pit your current imagination vs. your past imagination ... because your past imagination is fixed, at some point, your current imagination will win. (although ask me how I won the last round ... kinda embarrassing.) Several people have successfully disengaged from play; doing so involves a willingness to settle in your relationships, but that's a good thing.
As for the "what if I play this game already?" well, yes. I don't think of the monsters as necessarily 1-1 to relationship problems but they are definitely metaphors for the ways that relationships force us to deal with seemingly impossible conundra.
yrs--
--Ben
Callan S.:
Quote from: Matthew V on May 29, 2011, 07:36:40 AM
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.
Well actually my point is to question how all those other traditional RPG's (D&D, Rifts, shadowrun, etc) call themselves games when really, because their outcome so heavily hinges on someones imagination (and imagination being so fluid and without solid principles that it can do 2+2=5/the undefeatable defeated) that traditional roleplay 'game's are simply exercises in psychology/confirmation bias. It's just here in the Beloved text (in terms of 'beating' monsters) that is made obvious and explicit - no ones fooling themselves anymore. And fair enough if you like that, cool. But there is no denial, pretending there is uncertainty yet using a mechanic which ensures a fixed outcome. Or heck, even worse - not even denial at all - people genuinely believing they are dealing with an uncertain outcome when it's anything but. And man, those people who genuinely believe can type for hours about it! Ironically because of confirmation bias!
Anyway, my point in terms of beating monsters is, it's not that Beloved alone is wearing a false RPG skin, but instead it is wearing the same false RPG skin a whole bunch of other traditional texts that call themselves RPG's are wearing! Yes, D&D, Rifts, warhammer, whatever trad text! Except Beloved is wearing it obviously and enjoying it "Weee, look at my false skin!", and so to me becomes honest about that and no one can pretend it's something it's not. And if anyone wants to enjoy that process as what it definately is, cool!
BUT, moving on to another subject, same game, you can't genuinely finish this game without going with the other girl. Sure you can give up, quit mid play, but that's not finishing. And the only way to finish is with the chick who is not the beloved. I mean
Quote
Several people have successfully disengaged from play; doing so involves a willingness to settle in your relationships
It doesn't involve a willingness - it demands it! It's a fixed outcome! Being able to quit the game doesn't make a second outcome to the game! BUT, this is a second subject, not to be blurred into the one I wrote about above, which is about supposed resolution processes.
Matthew V:
Quote from: Ben Lehman on May 29, 2011, 08:51:24 AM
As for the "what if I play this game already?" well, yes. I don't think of the monsters as necessarily 1-1 to relationship problems but they are definitely metaphors for the ways that relationships force us to deal with seemingly impossible conundra.
This is really, really, cool. Efforts like this that move a game from "same old RPG," to something that challenges your usual way of perceiving your relationship (or any part of your life, really) are really enjoyable since I frequently find myself teaching myself something I didn't know, or being forced into realizations I might not have arrived at so easily. If this is your intention, even partially, I think it's successful in the sense of being the sort of game that eventually leads you back to reality in a positive, healthy way.
Quote from: Ben Lehman on May 29, 2011, 08:51:24 AM
The game is not intentionally impossible. The monster fights pit your current imagination vs. your past imagination ... because your past imagination is fixed, at some point, your current imagination will win. (although ask me how I won the last round ... kinda embarrassing.) Several people have successfully disengaged from play; doing so involves a willingness to settle in your relationships, but that's a good thing.
Let me clarify; I think that as an activity, the endless nature of it is neat in a "endless concentric circles to reach nirvana" kind of way. I'm just questioning whether the "no way out" issue is going to produce satisfaction in average gamers. But since the only outcome of the game appears to be to "bail out into real life," I suspect this will cause a lot of people to react negatively, e.g. saying something like "I'm not sure these resolution mechanics work" or "the game lacks a clear end." If that bothers you, it might be useful to add some kind of statement that the game is intended to make the player reexamine not just the imaginary world they create, but themselves ... or some other "deep" statement that gets at "Hey, it's a game, but it's also about self-reflection." Does that make sense?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page