Borut
You read about “Number 6” appearing at ComicCon and you think “Oooh! Patrick McGoohan!” Not Tricia Helfer from Battlestar Galactica (Oh yeah, that Number 6).
But seriously, The Prisoner (starring McGoohan) is without a doubt one of the more under appreciated TV series of all time. Especially for game developers, considering the series is a hallmark of episodic narrative. To this day, fans of the show debate the chronological order of the episodes.
The episodes have an uncanny method of delivering information that in the context of viewing next episode takes on a whole new light. If you think Lost has at any point had good writing, they are (along with a few other very serial TV shows of recent memory) quite clearly inspired by the The Prisoner (Buffy includes pretty direct references in season 4 for instance).
Ok, episodic narrative is kewl, sure. But the 17 episode series is also about something – the key theme is the conflict over the needs of the individual vs. the needs of society (most clear in the the season finale). One of the more philosophical TV series I’ve seen, to be sure.
Check it out.
(There was also a text adventure loosely based on the TV series – if anybody knows where I might be able to find a playbale version of it, let me know).
Gamespot’s interview with Neil Young where he clarifies LMNO is only a code name for the game. Now notice the Gamespot reporter’s response to that…
GS: So tell us about LMNO, the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 game you’ve been working on.
NY: OK, well, just to clarify, that’s a code name.
GS: Yeah, I can’t believe people thought that was real.
What is the title of Gamespot’s page on the game? Code Name: LMNO (working title)
Yeah, I have no idea why someone would think that was the title of the game.
Sigh.
I could only make it a few hours into Killer 7 but you still have to respect a man who’s willing to try to reinvent player controlled navigation through 3D space just to get a better looking camera angle of a shotgun wielding luchador. Needless to say, in the interview he expresses his opinion on tentacles.
And with that, I’m off on vacation for a little while. See y’all later.
Still have a lot of thoughts about Manhunt 2 that are bouncing around in my head and won’t leave me alone until they bounce out. It seems that, while is the issue is muddled, there are at least two camps of reactions: the people who are dismissive of the violence and argue for it’s release, and the camp that says we make games that are too violent so maybe that’s not such a bad thing it was banned. Because I really don’t want to align myself with the first camp, the likes of which hold up Gears of War as the pinnacle of modern game design (No, I’m not being sarcastic, these people really do exist. Depressing, isn’t it?). But I’m conflicted about the second as well…
Apparently I do. Richard Evans (working on the AI for Sims 3) has an interesting response to the uncanny valley AI article on Gamasutra (c’mon, it’s got a Hegel reference and everything). I’ve also been working on a post on that, as well as some recent (er, more than a month now, that’s recent by my own blog-clock I guess) articles on GTxA by Andrew on transparency & depth in NPC behavior. But it’s long, convoluted, and this is nice and tidbit-sized, so I will proactively procrastinate by starting with this.
In the letter, Evans argues that in order to empathize with someone (as an interactive character), the character has to be able to empathize with them. Of course he spells it empathise, naturally, since he’s English.
But that’s not entirely accurate, is it? His point, not the spelling. If a character emapthized with you, that would cause you to empathize with them, but it’s not a minimum requirement – loads of non-interactive characters provoke empathy.
Maybe there’s a finer point there? If your internal model of a character (interactive or non-interactive) says they would empathize with you, then you’ll empathize with them.
Nah, that’s not really the case either, there’s tons of villains people empathize with and you know they wouldn’t really empathize with you. Not just the you love to hate ’em villians, but the ones you really identify with. Vampires often fall under this category. Or say, Tony Montana.
But they (the player, viewer, reader… ah just the fucking user for lack of a holistic term) have to be able to understand the characters actions and find them believable in the context. They don’t have to identify with it, though, thinking they would feel that way in that same circumstance (empathy). And they don’t have to actually feel the same thing (sympathy). Which gets to why a certain level of transparency is necessary in NPC behavior. Which gets back to me procrastinating. Or gets me back to procrastinating, maybe.
Of course, I should actually read the Hegel reference I suppose, but the focus does seem to be empathy towards people, instead of empathy towards fictional characters. Do we want to make people, or characters?