So the creator of The Stanley Parable has a new game out

[mikemariano]

I just saw a flying penguin, let me tell you it was the most majestic thing I have ever seen! I don't feel like living because nothing will ever be as majestic as that. I never want to see again if nothing will ever be that beautiful again. I am crying now and plan on ripping my eyes out. I must go now to do that.

[sclpls]

I appreciate how the game approached its themes in this really open-ended way. I think people are going to get a lot of different interesting ideas about the meaning of the game.

[Claire Hosking]

Not quite sure I agree with this. Yes, the beginner's guide is against imposing meaning where works are clearly more experiential or ambiguous. However, The Beginner's Guide itself is not. It's quite explicit and direct about at least some of its meaning. i don't think it's intended to reject all intrepretation/discussion of the inherent and emergent meanings of a work, just reject the idea they necessarily reflect any particular thing about the author. 

 

On Why I'm Not Writing About The Beginner's Guide

[Problem Machine]

Not quite sure I agree with this. Yes, the beginner's guide is against imposing meaning where works are clearly more experiential or ambiguous. However, The Beginner's Guide itself is not. It's quite explicit and direct about at least some of its meaning. i don't think it's intended to reject all intrepretation/discussion of the inherent and emergent meanings of a work, just reject the idea they necessarily reflect any particular thing about the author. 

I don't mean to reject all interpretation or discussion (I have participated in some here), but to reflect that the game calls into question the motivations we have for sharing these interpretations, especially aggressively. How many analyses of a work callously disregard or dismiss aspects of that work which run counter to their pet theory, and isn't that similar to vandalizing it with lamp posts, with seeding the work with the idea that the analyst finds exciting rather than engaging directly with it? In the end, the interpretation is something that should be for the interpreter: Creating that interpretation for a second and secondary audience is repackaging someone else's art, with closed captioning, and one's own name stamped on top.

[jennegatron]

I think the lampost thing and the altering of Coda's work by Davey are different than contributing to analysis conversations is that Davey passes that off as inherent to the work and not something he changed. It would be like if I handed you a copy of Wizard People Dear Reader and told you it was Harry Potter.

 

 

edit: when you do critical analysis people know that it's you reflecting on the work, not a completely factual retelling of its contents, which is what Davey fails to do by 'fixing' Coda's games for him. 

[Problem Machine]

I think the lampost thing and the altering of Coda's work by Davey are different than contributing to analysis conversations is that Davey passes that off as inherent to the work and not something he changed. It would be like if I handed you a copy of Wizard People Dear Reader and told you it was Harry Potter.

 

 

edit: when you do critical analysis people know that it's you reflecting on the work, not a completely factual retelling of its contents, which is what Davey fails to do by 'fixing' Coda's games for him. 

It's definitely an extreme example, but I think after a certain point message model criticism actually starts to get into this territory. I'm specifically thinking of the sort of English class criticism where everything in a story is taken to mean something specific, to represent something other than itself, to fit into a meta narrative while disregarding the much more explicit purpose it serves within the actual narrative. While the teacher/critic doesn't literally change the content of The Great Gatsby or whatever, in pushing their own interpretation they essentially sell a chopped-up version of the narrative, defaced to serve their own purpose, and aggrandizing the analyst and analysis above the creator and creation.

[ewokskick]

How did you all decide this game is satirizing the act of criticism/interpretation? It's quite clear that the game is about an inter-personal violation not an artistic one. CODA is upset that Davey uses his work to force himself into his life. That's very different than CODA being upset that Davey wants to talk about his work. CODA gets internal validation from his games so he doesn't care what Davey does until Davey tries to impose himself into his life. If your take away from this game is that the creator doesn't want us to talk about art then I honestly believe you missed the lesson from this game that matters. The game is clearly about how we treat each other more than about how we talk about video games.

[darthbator]

I don't think the game is satirizing anything really (that's what was so surprising about it to me). I certainly think a theme of the game is how artistic interpretation is exactly that. An interpretation. There's certainly an inter personal story in there but I think that's the exact story my friend reacted so extremely negatively towards. To me the semiotic and interpretative commentary the game makes is a lot more interesting then any inter personal issues that I feel i attempts to raise.

[Problem Machine]

How did you all decide this game is satirizing the act of criticism/interpretation? It's quite clear that the game is about an inter-personal violation not an artistic one. CODA is upset that Davey uses his work to force himself into his life. That's very different than CODA being upset that Davey wants to talk about his work. CODA gets internal validation from his games so he doesn't care what Davey does until Davey tries to impose himself into his life. If your take away from this game is that the creator doesn't want us to talk about art then I honestly believe you missed the lesson from this game that matters. The game is clearly about how we treat each other more than about how we talk about video games.

 

Coda was definitely upset about Davey's modification of his games: That's the point where Davey's interpretation slipped over from being entirely about himself, about his own emotional journey playing Coda's games, into being about Coda, imposing beliefs and motivations upon his design, appropriating his games and demanding more games that fit his own interpretation of what those games were about. So, the issue is not about him having an interpretation of the game, or even talking about it -- the issue is about him then deciding that's what the game is, and pathologizing any creation that doesn't fit his notion of what a Coda game should be. On a second playing, I get the impression that many of the games are directly about Coda's relationship with Davey, dealing about someone else's desperate need to be shown something that they can only really find within themselves: Given that, and the reported enthusiasm with which he shared the cleaning game, I don't think the relationship was entirely one-sided.

I don't think the game is satirizing anything really (that's what was so surprising about it to me). I certainly think a theme of the game is how artistic interpretation is exactly that. An interpretation. There's certainly an inter personal story in there but I think that's the exact story my friend reacted so extremely negatively towards. To me the semiotic and interpretative commentary the game makes is a lot more interesting then any inter personal issues that I feel i attempts to raise.

I'm not sure if anyone else has used the term 'satirized': In my case, I used it not to suggest that there was any humorous or cynical intent, but that an exaggerated and grotesque version of the same impulse that I was describing was centered in the TBG narrative. Personally, I find both the big ideas and the interpersonal issues affecting, and furthermore don't feel they're as separable as implied: The deep intimacy of that violation of a creative space absolutely needed to be felt in emotional terms.

[Problem Machine]

A few more thoughts I had which I thought were interesting -- in this case, not having to do with specific interpretations or anything, so I think I can safely leave them unspoilered.

 

My second time through the game, I paid a lot of attention to the soundtrack and how it was used, and I thought it was really interesting that it was often unclear what 'layer' of the experience it belonged to: That is, any music in the game could be either something added by Coda to his game, something added by 'Davey' to his collection of Coda's games, or something added by game developer Davey Wreden to the game The Beginner's Guide. At times, music was either clearly part of Coda's game or clearly not (for instance, if the music kept playing in between individual mini-games). The difference between the other two layers is harder to distinguish, but mostly had to do with whether it seemed the music was scoring the level or was scoring 'Davey's' dialogue. At times, it felt the music slipped in between, from scoring one to another. Given how carefully these layers are separated in other aspects of the game, I think it's interesting how they're blended together at the musical layer, and am curious to what degree that's intentional.

 

I also was thinking about what this game would look like if someone tried to realize its equivalent in another medium, and was having a difficult time: I'm sure a lot of people will deride this as 'not a real game', but it's a wonderful showcase for how even very similar games (same engine, same perspective, same controls, mostly same mechanics) can run a wide gamut from abstract to explicit, realistic to surreal, and how these differences can affect someone. For all the drama that goes into the game, I still feel like it's something I would show someone who wanted to know why I love the medium.

 

It's kind of silly to say, but I'm curious what Roger Ebert would say about a game like this.

[darthbator]

It's kind of silly to say, but I'm curious what Roger Ebert would say about a game like this.

 

Probably pretty disrespectful stuff. He pretty famously thought video games could never be art. Not only that but I think this game plays almost totally disproportionately to "game dev type people". I generally loved it, I also make games for a living. My writer friend totally hated it. I would imagine Ebert would share most of the same criticisms he had about The Beginners guide. I myself have to admit that the emotional and inter personal relationship angle of the game was a complete miss for me. I didn't personally feel or relate to any emotional connection between characters in the game itself. I was actually nonplussed by the games ultimate path of resolution but still look back on the entire experience positively primarily for the form it's using to deliver it's narrative. 

[Problem Machine]

Pretty likely, but I often wonder just because he was such a grouchy jerk about the whole thing while being an otherwise very open and smart critic, haha. For the record, I wondered the same thing about Super Hexagon.

[Bjorn]

He eventually rescinded his opinion and admitted that even if that was how he personally felt, it was wrong to be speaking in such a manner about a subject of which he knew next to nothing.  That he should no more give his opinions about video games than he should give his opinion of a movie he hadn't seen yet. 

 

So I think the answer is that he wouldn't say anything

[Problem Machine]

Did he? I saw his article where he said that maybe games could be art but couldn't be 'high art', which was a bit of a no true scotsman clusterfuck, but it's cool he was able to gain enough perspective to note he had no perspective.

 

And, well, I guess nothing is what he's saying anyway, so.

[darthbator]

I don't think this would draw positive opinions from many critics that are outside the game space. I feel there's a certain amount of pre-information required to get the most out of this. IMO The more "into video games" you are the more primed you are to immediately access "the good stuff" in this game. I don't find the story it wears on it's sleeve to be particularly interesting and that's the thing most people are going to readily engage with.  

[Noyb]

I also was thinking about what this game would look like if someone tried to realize its equivalent in another medium, and was having a difficult time

Closest I can think of is Italo Calvino's novel If on a winter's night a traveler, which mostly tracks a second-person protagonist (who grows increasingly distinct as a character separate from you the actual reader) as he tries to hunt down a copy of a book he never finished reading. The novel is structured around lengthy chapters describing the books he reads, recreating not the exact text of these fictional works, but the subjective experience of reading them.

[jennegatron]

I had some comparisons to House of Leaves for this game of how (Both Beginners Guide & House of Leaves spoilers)

there is nested level of unreliability in that Davey has altered what he is presenting to you as original, in the way that the book presents the movie being discussed in the book as actually existing within the world of the book before revealing that the movie was created by the in book author of the critical analysis of the movie. You're playing a series of games within this game whose meanings radically change when it's revealed that you can't trust what was Coda's original work and what was Davey's addition, the same way you can't trust the book within a book that the book hinges on. I know a lot of people didn't like House of Leaves, but I thought it did interesting things.

[dium]

It's kind of silly to say, but I'm curious what Roger Ebert would say about a game like this.

 

I had this exact same thought the first time I played through The Beginners Guide. It is pretty silly, but I respect Ebert as much or more than any other film critic of his generation and his categorical dismissal of video games was always a weird caveat to that.

 

Ebert's main argument against video games was: because the video game creator can't control how the player moves through the creation, the creator can't exert enough authorial control for the game to be "art". Very basic literacy in video games is enough to see how that's moronic reasoning. But The Beginners Guide comes close to making an explicit counter-argument, through narration, while you're playing it. Every other moment Davey is telling you almost literally: "Authorial control is being exerted! Artistic intent is being communicated!"

 

Ultimately, though, I agree with Darthbator: Ebert probably wouldn't be able to engage with the game on a deep enough level (nor would he want to). 

[Problem Machine]

Yeah his dismissals of games frequently just boiled down to him picking out one aspect he thought was silly and dismissing the entire thing as silly, so realistically with TBG he would have just looked at the melodrama and dismissed it as a halfassed radio play or whatever. That was actually part of why I thought it about Super Hexagon, because that game is so minimal that there's only the core experience to engage with, and the way it affects you. I was curious what explicit argument, if any, he would have against someone who showed that to him and said This Is Art.

 

I actually think the whole are games art argument is pretty silly, but I think the justifications people come up with as to one or the other are interesting and edifying.

 

Yeah, the House of Leaves comparison occurred to me, especially related to that music thought I was talking about earlier. I couldn't think of anything interesting to say about it, but it's a cool parallel.

 

Noyb, that book sounds pretty interesting. Recommended?

[dium]

"Is __anything__ art?" is a question where the answer couldn't possibly matter, but I agree with what you say, the arguments either way can produce something valuable.

 

I have also read If on a winter's night a traveler (necessarily italicized due to unconventional capitalization) and recommend it, and also recommend Italo Calvino in general.

 

(I will say, though, that I found If on a winter's night a traveler to be a uniquely frustrating book, in that the second person protagonist is often described to be frustrated by what he's reading (or what he isn't reading) and that translates seamlessly into actual frustration on the real reader's part. At least it did for me.)

[juv3nal]

Closest I can think of is Italo Calvino's novel If on a winter's night a traveler, which mostly tracks a second-person protagonist (who grows increasingly distinct as a character separate from you the actual reader) as he tries to hunt down a copy of a book he never finished reading. The novel is structured around lengthy chapters describing the books he reads, recreating not the exact text of these fictional works, but the subjective experience of reading them.

 

Pale Fire, maybe?

[namman siggins]

Noyb, that book sounds pretty interesting. Recommended?

Not Noyb but god fuck yes.

 

Calvino is the best. Definitely the best writer of his generation.

 

One of my favorite parts from the book:

In the shop window you have promptly identified the cover with the title you were looking for. Following this visual trail, you have forced your way through the shop, past the thick barricade of Books You Haven't Read, which were frowning at you from the tables and shelves, trying to cow you. But you know you must never allow yourself to be awed, that among them there extend for acres and acres the Books You Needn't Read, the Books Made For Purposes Other Than Reading, Books Read Even Before You Open Them Since They Belong To The Category Of Books Read Before Being Written. And thus you pass the outer girdle of ramparts, but then you are attacked by the infantry of the Books That If You Had More Than One Life You Would Certainly Also Read But Unfortunately Your Days Are Numbered. With a rapid maneuver you bypass them and move into the phalanxes of the Books You Mean To Read But There Are Others You Must Read First, the Books Too Expensive Now And You'll Wait Till They're Remaindered, the Books ditto When They Come Out In Paperback, Books You Can Borrow From Somebody, Books That Everybody's Read So It's As If You Had Read Them, Too. Eluding these assaults, you come up beneath the towers of the fortress, where other troops are holding out:

 

the Books You've Been Planning To Read For Ages,

 

the Books You've Been Hunting For Years Without Success,

 

the Books Dealing With Something You're Working On At The Moment,

 

the Books You Want To Own So They'll Be Handy Just In Case,

 

the Books You Could Put Aside Maybe To Read This Summer,

 

the Books You Need To Go With Other Books On Your Shelves,

 

the Books That Fill You With Sudden, Inexplicable Curiosity, Not Easily Justified,

 

Now you have been able to reduce the countless embattled troops to an array that is, to be sure, very large but still calculable in a finite number; but this relative relief is then undermined by the ambush of the Books Read Long Ago Which It's Now Time To Reread and the Books You've Always Pretended To Have Read And Now It's Time To Sit Down And Really Read Them.

[Problem Machine]

Man. I need to read more.

 

It's hard when I'm not taking public transit :|

[root]

I've never read House of Leaves, but the association my mind made while playing through TBG was with Solaris, where the main thrust of the story is how difficult it is to say that you know someone.  We spend so much of our lives living inside our own heads and even when we directly communicate to other people, it's the very rare person that truly and completely understands someone else, and this was one of the central themes of Solaris: the simulacrum of Kelvin's wife was created entirely out of Kelvin's memories of her, and she pleads that the reason she is depressed and suicidal is because that is how Kelvin remembers her, and not because that's who she truly was. Similarly, Davey's efforts to try to understand Coda entirely through the games that Coda created resulted only in Davey seeing himself in them, which led Davey to make the narcissistic error of thinking that he understood Coda completely, when in reality the personality he assigned Coda was entirely Davey's invention.

 

I'm also kind of chewing over what the possible significance of the name 'Coda' is, in relation to the story, given what a coda is in a narrative or creative work:

 

noun

1. Music. a more or less independent passage, at the end of a composition, introduced to bring it to a satisfactory close.

2. a concluding section or part, especially one of a conventional form and serving as a summation of preceding themes, motifs, etc., as in a work of literature or drama.

3. anything that serves as a concluding part.

 

Especially given that the game's own literal coda, the epilogue, takes place after The Tower, which was clearly designated in the story as Coda's own final work.  And: a coda is the end, but the game's title is The Beginners' Guide.

 

Actually as I write this, it occurs to me that not only is the epilogue a creation of Davey's, but all of the codas in the game are: Coda's personality and inner life is an invention of Davey's, as is the repeated motif of the lamppost to signal the 'end' of any of Coda's games.

[Problem Machine]

Man, on my second playthrough seeing that lamppost made me SO uncomfortable. Especially when he put it in the game where you destroy the machine. Jeez.

That is a good point though. I don't think Coda liked endings: his games tend to invoke a kind of purgatory, an endless in-between space of self-reflection. He never released his games, and it's unlikely Coda was his real name, so it's quite likely that it's just a name that Davey gave him for the purpose of the game.