Level 2 (or Catherine: Games, Art, and Choice)

WARNING: This article definitely contains spoilers to the game Catherine, though they are concentrated to the second and third sections.

I. Games as Art

I have no plans on veiling my position on the great "games as art" debate: video games, as far as I am concerned, are just as capable of being art as any other medium. This, for me, is fact. And, as such, the quality of the creations in the medium are up for critique. I do not feel the Grand Theft Auto series is on the same artistic level as Shadow of the Colossus, just as I do not feel Scary Movie 2 is on par with The Godfather. Games, like films, have a number of attributes that can be analyzed when critiquing them: everything from the artwork, design, mechanics and writing. The main question that arises is not "is this game art?" but rather "is this art good?"

Now, the purpose of this entry is not to define what art is as that would require a lengthy and rather pointless regurgitation of opinions and critical essays. Rather, I want to explore the debate through an example, in this case Atlus' 2011 puzzle-platformer Catherine.

II. O Catherine! My Katherine!

Catherine is a game particularly worthy of analysis simply due to presenting a complex and challenging narrative in a mainstream presentation, available across all the major consoles (a substantial point to the game's credit, as it's rare to see such heavy psychological material/narrative beyond indie publishers). It tells the story of Vincent Brooks, a man in his early thirties who stands on the brink of his carefree stagnant youth and the responsibilities of true adulthood. His dilemma presents itself in two different women: Katherine, his long term girlfriend who desires commitment and stability and the mysterious Catherine, who is much younger and sexually provocative. Vincent commits adultery in a series of encounters with Catherine that blur the line between waking and dreaming, reality and fantasy. 

I am immensely pleased to live in the era of gaming where I can play a title that deals with as murky and troubling a topic as an affair. Besides addressing material that is complicated and all too real, Catherine (as all good horror should) contains an element of zeitgeist, the "spirit of the times". Gamers, specifically the main gaming demographic of young men between 18 and 35, have recently come under fire from numerous publications. Some of these "expert" opinions make the claim that men are stunting their growth, essentially living extended childhoods and reveling in immaturity.The inflammatory nature of such articles is upsetting, to say the least, and has resulted in an intense amount of anger from the gaming community. Catherine takes this concept and embodies the man-child archetype in the character of Vincent, turning the crisis into a choice for the player: do you have Vincent abandon his long-term love for the freedom of a fling or do you have him try and return to being faithful in order to attain a stable life?  It is the player's responsibility to have Vincent leave his state of limbo and progress (whether towards temptation or commitment). 

Catherine's game-play compliments its narrative by being primarily puzzle based. The player navigates a series of blocks, attempting to race to the top as a horrible creature chases Vincent. All the monsters are physical manifestations of Vincent's fears: marriage, his own libido, becoming a father and so on. All dwarf him in size, exaggerating his perceived weakness and demonstrating how vast he views these problems to be.

These sections of game-play occur only when Vincent dreams, each level a nightmare. The choice by the developers to have the game-play be solely puzzle based is highly poignant and reflective of the game's conscious artistic decisions: Vincent feels completely helpless as he's torn between the two women. If the game had given him power by instead having combat mechanics, the atmosphere would be lost.

Clearly, Catherine is full of intriguing ideas but we return to our question of "is this art good?" My answer: mostly. At its heart, the game is well thought out and provocative. However, the tense story-line crumbles towards the conclusion.The point of this entry is not a review of Catherine though, so I will instead focus on how the game grants the player agency. 

III. Choice

By far one of the most unique elements gaming brings to art is its inherent interactivity. In many current games players are given the power to make choices that can ultimately impact the course of the game. Catherine is no exception, however the current expectations from video games do create issues regarding its artistic vision. 

(Okay for reals, serious spoilers below. Essentially the endings to the game revealed)

Depending on whether the player chose Katherine over Catherine, as well as game-play scores, several outcomes can be attained. Now, varying by degrees, these endings  culminate to 3 "best" conclusions: 

1) Vincent chooses Katherine, they reconcile and wed. 

2) Vincent chooses Catherine, he descends with her into Hell and is surrounded by demon    ladies. (Catherine, you see, is a succubus)

3) Vincent rejects both women, instead choosing to pursue his childhood dreams.

All of the other mediums that gaming now joins (film, artwork, music, literature, etc) have never really had this element of choice. To a point, art is defined by the sheer fact it has an "artist" (whether this is a director or author or a development team). An artist arguably has a vision that they wish to impart through their creations. Point is, it's theirs, not the reader or viewer's, and part of the experience is having the vision delivered to you. Games are a highly different medium in this regard, instead having player agency (even if it is in a highly controlled environment). 

So, in a game such as Catherine, what is the final vision? It's clearly a morality tale but there are good bad endings. If the player performs well in the game, regardless of their personal decisions, they are technically rewarded. The game's vision, although written by the developers, still adjusts to the player experience. Here, convolution occurs. In narrative driven art the piece is examined as a whole: the ending to The Great Gatsby is crucial to its beginning, as is the beginning of 2001: A Space Odyssey to its end. With the player able to receive a different ending based on choice and performance, does the multiple endings approach hold real meaning to a game's vision? Does the idea of a "canon" ending diminish a game's overall narrative? 

While sticky, I do not think this in any way limits videogames as an art form. Rather, it just complicates and deepens how art is understood. Catherine is a truly unique game that I hope paves the way for more mature and complicated subject matter in the medium. Its addressing of psychological fears is only bested by Silent Hill 2 (a personal favorite I'll be writing about in the near future). I highly recommend it despite its flaws, if only to see how something like adultery can be executed not only in narrative but game-play mechanics. 

Level 1 (or The Importance of Chess)

I am twenty two years old and have played five games of chess in my life. All of them have occurred within the past two years. It's rather sad.

Growing up, my family was not big on games. Sure, we had checkers and other basics but no one was a chess player. Chess itself is a fascinating game and it's rather analogous to what I am aspiring towards in this blog. It is the intellectual's entertainment, played casually or competitively. There's a kind of pride, an air of loftiness when one asks, “Want to play a game of chess?” So, for me, going from checkers to chess was like being a hillbilly who got taken to Paris.

What does this have to do with video gaming?

For the past four months I have gotten into Riot's League of Legends. In a big way. Unique to any other game I had played before, it possessed a level of gameplay that was intensely intricate and exciting. But it was also one of the most daunting challenges I had faced in my gaming career. For those of you who don't know, League of Legends (or LoL as I will refer to it from here on out) is a free to play RTS/RPG hybrid that is based strongly on a player versus player component in the form of team battles. This is where my lack of chess experience came to hinder me.

Imagine chess as the roots of a gaming tree. This tree represents all games in the strategy genre. Now, from the massive roots we travel along to the video game branches which include RTS (real-time strategy such as StarCraft), TBS (turn-based strategy like Civilization), and TBT (turn-based tactics such as Fire Emblem though it is also of the RPG genre). Despite all the trappings, these games still share much in common with their progenitor. For now, being that I am discussing LoL specifically, let's look at the similarities and differences between chess and an RTS style game:

Similarities:

*Played on a grid, or map (often these are heavily grid based in games)

*Contains different units with specific abilities

*A game consists of different phases (opening, middlegame, endgame)

Differences:

*Time may or may not be a factor

*Chess usually only consists of 2 players (though there are variants) whereas an RTS can have multiple modes: single player (often called a campaign), multiplayer or massively multiplayer.

*RTS games often contain the additional elements of an economy and resources.

*RTS games are often themed, taking chess' black versus white to narrative levels which commonly are that of war or competition.

With chess not being a game played by my family, by proxy I would not be exposed to RTS games till much later. Back to LoL—while it contains most of the RTS elements, its major difference is that the player only has one major unit (the champion) and their own abilities (as the Summoner). Team composition is a crucial component, especially at higher level, where even though the player has control over one unit the team can synergize with their allies' units. Also, though champions can be grouped into certain categories based on their abilities and play styles, there are still over 60 unique champions to play. Far more variations than one would experience in a chess game. Still, missing the chess fundamentals of strategy, multitasking, and game phases left me at a severe disadvantage when beginning to play.

Chess and any strategy game such as LoL requires a certain type of mentality to be any good at it. I would define it as a layered thinking, one that works on several levels simultaneously that encompasses projective thought and reactive response. Personally, this is an extremely awarding mindset: stimulating beyond compare. It favors a quick mind and emphasizes the importance of the “right moment”, that is when to act versus when to stay your hand. I had experienced this in other video games of course, in a platformer if you jump at the wrong time as a bridge is swaying between a chasm you will plummet to your death, but never in such a concentrated dose.

This mentality is the main reason I see chess, RTS games, and LoL as pivotal to my training. If I can attain that mindset I'll be able to dissect most competitive play into heavily analyzed levels, plan ahead numerous steps. Whether I can apply it to the other genres of games remains to be seen but regardless, I think chess fundamentals are a universal entity in the gaming world.

Press Start

Video gaming. It's been a passion of mine since I first had a Gameboy in my hands. What started as a small black and white screen has evolved (my first game was Pokemon Red) over time to a flat screen that can render the newest games in stunning three dimensional detail.

As gaming changed, so did my relationship with it. Gaming became less a hobby and more an obsession, not only a source of entertainment but an intellectual resource. In my college career I've written an essay on Mass Effect, argued games as art and may even be teaching an entire course revolving around games this time next year. However, this is not the purpose of my blog.

Well then what is? Great question.

I'm not entirely sure. What I mean by this is that it will most likely become a mercurial creature that will probably reflect my own head-space (which is a hodgepodge of random thoughts and ideas). Essentially my aim is to document my gaming goals and progress. I'll most likely dissect elements of different games in articles but my main area of focus is on a personal gaming metamorphosis. I seek to transform myself from the casual gamer to what is known as the “hardcore”. These elite are known mostly in the circles of their expertise and there are several elements I'd like to explore:

1. What does it take to be a hardcore contender?
2. What kind of culture surrounds the hardcore community?
3. Do I have what it takes?

Only time will tell for the latter. Now, onto logistics. Obviously there are several arenas of hardcore gaming play that is mostly relegated to genre. Namely: FPS, RTS, MMORPG (regarding PvP), Fighting and those games that defy certain categorization (League of Legends I am looking at you). Competition against other players is obviously the focal point here. And while I do intend on getting to all of them at some point across the duration of my crazy venture, as a poor undergrad I can only tackle a few at a time.

And just to keep you (currently nonexistent) readers hanging, here's a breakdown of upcoming topics and possibilities:

*Games I am currently working on and will be writing about: League of Legends, Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3 (as soon as I can get my hands on it), Skyrim

*Video reviews/discussion?

*The end of an epic: Mass Effect 3 (and the series in general)

*The future of the MMORPG: A look at the free to play model, Bioware's The Old Republic and more