I Saw Dasein

People with different backgrounds will inevitably have different things to say about any given piece of culture. I'm interested in what people of other backgrounds have to say, and so I think non-majoritarian-culture criticism is important. I'm actually not that interested in reading criticism from people who think just like me; I read games journalism to get new perspectives on media, not to have my own perspective validated. I don't really use games journalism as a buying guide, though, and if I did I suppose I would be more interested in finding a critic who thought just like me.

They're pretty different. 2666 is much "easier" in the sense that parts of it are conventionally novelistic, whereas Antwerp is far more fractured and barely a novel at all--it honestly feels more like a book of poetry to me. I would start with Nazi Literature in the Americas, which is a collection of fictional biographies and a very easy read. If you like that, then try Savage Detectives. 2666 is really great though.

I read Bolano's "Antwerp" today. It's a novella, each chapter being a page or so long. I read it in one sitting, which I think improved the experience. It's very abstract; each chapter is basically a vignette, with some recurring characters and (at best) the hint of a plot. It also feels like the chapters are out of order. I believe it is the first complete work he ever wrote, and it's very interesting in that it contains most of the themes he explored through the rest of his career: literature, crimes, violence, detectives, and so on. There are some narrative threads, but I have no real idea what it was about. Still, as an aesthetic experience it's pretty amazing.

That makes no sense to me

Of course it is, the graphics are better.

I think it's relevant because people who have different experiences in life will have a different point of view on games. When I read games journalism, I'm not necessarily looking for someone with the same taste as me; I'm looking for someone to share their views on a game, even if those views aren't the same as mine. People with different backgrounds will have different things to say about a game, which is both interesting and changes the way I view and understand the game. Basically, a wise Latina once said ...

I thing Twig is right in that you should consider a given piece of art on the basis of what it is attempting to do and judge it on that basis. To quote Ebert: The problem here is that Bioshock was trying to be more "American Beauty" than "Hellboy". I like dumb shooters just fine, if they succeed as dumb shooters (Just Cause 2, I'm looking at you). Bioshock wasn't trying to be a dumb shooter, in my opinion. It was trying to say something and really failed to do so. I still enjoyed the game, because I enjoyed the art direction and some of the game play (though grew tired of it by the end). But even on its own terms it feels like a failure to me (albeit an interesting failure).

Yes, yes it does. Also, disagree on quality of sentence; passive voice (who exactly is doing the investigating?).

I don't think the voxophones make any sense as a plot delivery device in this game. There's the obvious problem (who is leaving this giant recording devices all around Columbia?), but it also forces you to scour every inch of each level to ferret out the story. That's a problem in my view, because in the context of the overall narrative, Booker and Elizabeth are usually fleeing for their lives, and so it makes no sense for them to spend all this time and effort traipsing around Columbia scrounging up audio recordings. In any event, I missed a bunch of the recordings, probably because I turned off the graphical effect that makes interactive objects glow. So that's partially my fault, but I really hate glowing items!

I really think the game would have been way, way better off focusing on the dynamics in Columbia rather than going down the sci-fi time-travel rabbit hole. That never really works that well. Why not just genuinely tell a story about racism, oppression, and violence? It kind of reminds me of Assassin's Creed: lose the sci-fi bullshit and it's a way better series, IMO.

That really was badly done. I didn't understand Fitzroy's motivations at all, and I felt like the portrayal of the Vox as mindless violent thugs came out of nowhere. I think there's an alternative universe B:I where that aspect of the game is more developed. The Vox seems intended as a stand-in for Jacobin-style revolutionary cabals, which really did kill a lot of people in the most bloodthirsty ways (I think Elizabeth even comments that the Vox is right out of "Les Miserables"). But that part of the game is so under cooked that you have to squint just to see what they were trying to get at. So I'm OK with a game wanting to critique violent revolutionaries, it should just do a better job of it.

Here's a link to the Errant Signal transcript. It came up in the Bioshock:Infinite thread. He or she has some interesting points, although I disagree with a lot of them. The phrase "ludic language" should not be a thing though, because Ludic is an actual literal language, and so I was very confused for a second there.

I'm reading Bleak House. I haven't read much Dickens--I vaguely remember reading Great Expectations many years ago, but that's it. So far Bleak House is pretty great, despite some mind-bending gender politics. Dickens satirizes pretty much everyone, and his descriptions of Chancery practice are hilarious and are sadly still somewhat relevant. I'm surprised to find that I still have an appetite for this kind of stuffy prose. Cool book.

Hm, I never had an issue with the turn limit. Getting good at the game requires players to learn how to effectively value shares, which in turn depends on how many dividend rounds are likely to remain. Valuing shares accurately would be a lot harder in a longer game. Players also have a lot of control over when the game will end; you can deliberately run companies out of tracks or shares. I've never played it electronically, though, so perhaps it doesn't work that well on an ipad.

I dunno, I guess I'd rather play a game with some ambition and interest in history than yet another sci-fi romp. My experience of the game was thus colored by my hope and expectation that the choices they made in terms of theme and world-building would have some meaning beyond a colorful backdrop for shooting. I got some of what I was looking for, and overall I liked the game. I also think it is fun and interesting to talk about if and how the game reflects American history, since it is, after all, a game set in an alternative historical America.

I think the game did set out to comment on the history of American racism and institutional violence, although I don't think it really succeeds (largely because it gives up on that theme half-way through in favour of a fairly ridiculous sci-fi plot). I think this because the game sets out to address some of the most fraught chapters in American history: Wounded Knee, Pinkerton strike-breaking, civil war, and slavery. These are all topics pretty much straight out of a "People's History of the United States". The intent is there; it's just not executed all that well. I guess I look at it this way: what kind of person murders hundreds of people in order to follow instructions he doesn't really understand? A person like Booker Dewitt. I guess I feel like I can see what Levine et al were trying to do; they didn't really succeed in a lot of ways, but I still "get" what they were going for. At some point they got caught up in the sci-fi aspect of the story, which is a shame, but I still can appreciate what I think they were attempting to get across. And Booker's violence is entirely consistent with that aspect of the narrative.

I've just started the video, but it seems like his first criticism -- that the game's violence and focus on combat undermines its narrative -- is kind of misguided (or at least, I don't agree with it).

I think Comstock is seriously underwritten. I didn't understand his motivations at all. I wonder what, if anything, the name Comstock is referencing. I think it might be a reference the Comstock Lode, a deposit of silver ore in Nevada where a bunch of people (including George Hearst) made their fortunes. So maybe Comstock took his name after the mine? AFAIK the game never explains how Comstock struck it rich. There is also a lot of silver lying around Columbia.

I don't really agree. I thought it was a very well executed arena-style shooter, with lots of interesting weapons and powers. I liked how the powers interacted and gave you interesting tactical choices. The ability to lay traps (especially with the electrical power) really lets you control the flow of combat, as did the liberal use of possession as a distraction (one of the possession upgrades makes it very cheap to use, which I thought was really helpful). The weapons all felt quite different to me, with my favorite being the hailfire launcher. The enemies didn't seem like bullet sponges to me; they just all had particular weaknesses. Like, possession is an instant kill on any of the human enemies, including the rocket launcher dudes. Lightning completely shuts down the patriots. Bronco stops the raven dudes and the firemen entirely, since you can just pick them up and kill them while they're in the air. I thought the combat was really fun on its own terms, there was just a bit too much of it and it didn't always mesh well with the narrative.

I just finished the game. Overall, I liked it. I do have a question/comment/problem with the ending. Apologies if someone has brought these up before. Generally I liked the game. It felt kind of like a really literal, unfunny Pynchon novel to me. Same kind of themes of mathematics, quantum mechanics, estoeric fields of studies, anachronistic cultural references, conspiracies and secret organizations, etc. The setting felt cribbed from Against the Day in a lot of ways, and the structure of the story reminded me pretty strongly of V (wide possibilities narrowing inexorably to a single possible finish). Actually I think the game would have been a lot better if it went full-on Loony Tunes bonkers; a little more slap-stick would have made the violence less jarring and, in some ways, more effective. I think the combat really got old by the end, and the game dragged on for me. The actual plot was "just OK" for me; the twists were pretty heavily telegraphed and I'm not sure it actually fits together all that well. Still, one of the most memorable games I've played in a long while, and easily the most beautiful.

I still feel so incredibly burned by Farcry 3. None of the materials released so far suggest they've fixed any of the stuff I hated about FC3. Plus, if I want a crazy 1980s action-movie open world shooter, I've already got Just Cause 2. So count me out.

Chicago Express is a board game, but has a pretty interesting economic model. Dollars are the main currency, and whoever ends the game with the most dollars wins. During each player's turn, they can call for a share issue, build tracks, or develop a region. When a player calls for a share issue, that player choose a train company, and a single share of that company is auctioned off to the highest bidder. The money from the share purchase is held by the company whose share was just auctioned. Each company has multiple shares, but each company has a limited number of shares that can be issue (e.g. blue company has 6 total shares, red company has 4 total shares). When a player calls for a track-building phase, money held by any one company can be used to build tracks for that company. In other words, the player can't use their own money to build tracks, only money held by the company. Tracks increase the value of the company by connecting cities. If the company runs out of money, it cannot build new tracks. To put more money into a company, a new share issue phase needs to be called. Every so often, a special "dividends phase" is called. At that time, you count up the value of each train company. Then you divide the total value by the number of shares. So if a train company is worth $15, and there are three shares, each share gets five dollars. Those shares could be held by multiple players, or all by one player. The player collects the money from their shares' dividends. So money serves several purposes in the game. It is used by players as victory points and to purchase stock. It is used by companies to build tracks. Share issues can be used as a way of getting more shares to produce more income, they can be used to refinance a train company, or they can be used (spitefully) to dilute an opponents share value. I love the economic system in that game because it is so elegant and feeds back on itself in a really satisfying way.

I also thought that the Master was fundamentally a Freudian morality play, with Freddie, Dodd, and Amy Adams' characters representing different aspects of the psyche (id, ego, super-ego).

I think it's probably a combination of time period/aesthetic. You have this sense of American exceptionalism/triumphalism, rapid technological change, and a carnival atmosphere. There's an obvious literal reference: the name of Levine's city is Columbia; the Chicago World's Fair was named the "World's Columbian Exposition". One of the things I remember from Larson's book is the image of the World's Fair in decline: the buildings being made of wood and plaster, they literally dissolved over the autumn and were eventually lit on fire. You get the same sense from Columbia: it's a gaudy but tremendously fragile place. I wonder if Ken Levine read Against the Day, which also features the Chicago World's Fair. Against the Day (IIRC) also has weird science, including time travel, transforming battleships, airships manned by pulp stock characters, etc. Columbia would fit very comfortably into the world of Against the Day. E: I also didn't much like "Devil in the White City". The history of the fair was cool, but as a thriller/mystery/true crime novel it really stunk.

I am a native English speaker with near-fluency in French. I think it's kind of a wash. When I read a translation, I may lose some of the beauty of the language and perhaps some meaning. But when I read in French, I also am likely to miss a reference or cue that I would not miss were I reading in English.