Gone Home from The Fullbright Company

[BadHat]

I guess his message rings kind of hollow if you don't have a clear idea of who he's addressing it to, which I don't. It also strikes me as condescending that he goes to lengths to let it be known that he doesn't look down on the Hughes of the world, that they're not worse or lower but "different," and then doesn't think twice about dictating what kind of emotional reaction they're worthy of.

 

Edit: Posted before seeing the above post. I don't see how any of those quotes fall in line with how you described the praise above, and I don't see how the comparison to books or movies is entirely apt, except to highlight the relative lack of diversity in the subject matter of games.

[Bjorn]

I'm not sure why you think Bogost's comments represent an "insulting dismissal" - he explicitly says it's a good game and that to place it at the same level as teen novels and such is not to denigrate it.

 

No, the insulting part is that he makes it clear that he does not believe there is a Venn Diagram overlap of people who were emotionally moved by GH and people who appreciate and are knowledgeable about fine literature and "serious television."  He sets up the supporters of GH to be ignorant others, the uneducated, who simply are not knowledgeable enough about the history of literature to have a true appreciation of where GH fits in.  He belittles that emotional connection with his dismissal.

 

This thread and plenty of other blog posts and essays prove him wrong on that point.

[TychoCelchuuu]

I guess his message rings kind of hollow if you don't have a clear idea of who he's addressing it to, which I don't. It also strikes me as condescending that he goes to lengths to let it be known that he doesn't look down on the Hughes of the world, that they're not worse or lower but "different," and then doesn't think twice about dictating what kind of emotional reaction they're worthy of.

I'm not sure he's dictating, he's just reporting. Once you're not a teenager anymore, the number of times you cry for 20 minutes after watching a John Hughes movie tends to go down and the number of times you cry for 20 minutes after reading a Ralph Ellison novel goes up (typically). I don't think Bogost is the crying police who wants to keep you from feeling an emotional experience from any given work of art. He's just saying that our expectations for games are such that people are reacting to Gone Home in a way that would look pretty weird if it were a book or a film. This doesn't make the reactions illegitimate, it just suggests that our standards are very different in the different media, and that he felt a little let down by Gone Home because he was expecting it to be equivalent to the sorts of things that tend to make people weep when it comes to movies and books.

Bogost is addressing his article to people who read the LA Review of Books and have a fairly good handle on what books make them cry and what books don't, and if someone comes up to them and says "I know you don't play games but THIS ONE IS TRULY ART IT WILL MAKE YOU CRY" I think it's reasonable to expect them to play it and say "well this is great but I just played a Judy Blume novel, that's not really what you set me up for." Aside from the difficulty people have with navigating 3d spaces, I think Gone Home is a pretty good first game for people, and I'd use it to introduce them to the medium, maybe, but I wouldn't sell it as if it'll make them cry or something.

No, the insulting part is that he makes it clear that he does not believe there is a Venn Diagram overlap of people who were emotionally moved by GH and people who appreciate and are knowledgeable about fine literature and "serious television."  He sets up the supporters of GH to be ignorant others, the uneducated, who simply are not knowledgeable enough about the history of literature to have a true appreciation of where GH fits in.  He belittles that emotional connection with his dismissal.

 

This thread and plenty of other blog posts and essays prove him wrong on that point.

I think the "plenty of other blog posts and essays" is a bit of a biased sample - people who are moved to tears by the game are more likely to write about it than people who play it and say "well that was pretty good." Moreover, most of the people playing this are gamers. If I sat my family and friends down in front of this, I'm sure they'd all enjoy it, but they wouldn't cry and they wouldn't write rapturous essays telling everyone they have to play this game.

[Zeusthecat]

It's just to say that the sorts of praise people give this game would seem a little out of place if they were praising the closest thing to Gone Home in other forms of media.

 

That seems like a pointless comparison to make. As other people have already pointed out, games are about more than just the quality of the story contained within. A world that you are experiencing and interacting with doesn't need to have the same story characteristics as a book or movie for it to be genuinely moving. I have been emotionally affected by plenty of games that don't have anything resembling a book-quality story because the experience of being in the world and experiencing what it has to offer doesn't necessitate that type of storytelling.

[TychoCelchuuu]

That seems like a pointless comparison to make. As other people have already pointed out, games are about more than just the quality of the story contained within. A world that you are experiencing and interacting with doesn't need to have the same story characteristics as a book or movie for it to be genuinely moving. I have been emotionally affected by plenty of games that don't have anything resembling a book-quality story because the experience of being in the world and experiencing what it has to offer doesn't necessitate that type of storytelling.

I don't think it's a pointless comparison any more than comparing books and movies is a pointless comparison. For some people I suppose the way you play Gone Home makes it more moving for them - since all the "emotional" stuff for me occurred when Sam was narrating a diary entry or I was reading a note or something, the fact that I was playing the game and discovering the narrative didn't make much of a difference (whereas in a game like Cart Life or Papers, Please, playing it made all the difference in terms of the emotional experience). But even if playing Gone Home is part of what makes it so emotional for people in ways that it wouldn't have been if it were a book or a movie, this doesn't mean the two things can't be compared. Movies can do emotional things that books can't do (you can see someone's face in a way that's much more affecting than reading about it) and vice versa, but I feel confident comparing Judy Blume and Dostoevsky to John Hughes and Tarkovsky.

[Argobot]

I wouldn't call myself a gamer (although I have to admit that I know more about games than your average non-gaming person) and I am someone who has a read a fair amount of "serious" stuff. I am the audience that Bogost is theoretically addressing his essay to and yet I loved Gone Home. I got as much emotional value from that game as I usually do from "serious" writing. Obviously, my opinion on the game shouldn't dictate how others feel, but that is also true of Bogost. He can't make these broad statements on how "readers" will react to this game (especially when those broad statements are just wrong).

 

 

I don't think it's a pointless comparison any more than comparing books and movies is a pointless comparison. For some people I suppose the way you play Gone Home makes it more moving for them - since all the "emotional" stuff for me occurred when Sam was narrating a diary entry or I was reading a note or something, the fact that I was playing the game and discovering the narrative didn't make much of a difference (whereas in a game like Cart Life or Papers, Please, playing it made all the difference in terms of the emotional experience). But even if playing Gone Home is part of what makes it so emotional for people in ways that it wouldn't have been if it were a book or a movie, this doesn't mean the two things can't be compared. Movies can do emotional things that books can't do (you can see someone's face in a way that's much more affecting than reading about it) and vice versa, but I feel confident comparing Judy Blume and Dostoevsky to John Hughes and Tarkovsky.

 

What do you get out of comparing a book with a movie, or a book with a game? They're so fundamentally different, I just can't see the point of it. And I'm sorry, but playing the game is absolutely why I had such an emotional reaction to Gone Home. I'm sure I've said it before but, had I just read this story in straight narrative form, I probably wouldn't have felt much of an emotional response. The combination of the systems and the narrative is really what made the experience for me. Gone Home succeeded at doing what some many AAA games fail to -- it told a compelling story that was enhanced by gameplay, instead of having story and play feel like two disparate parts that were hamfistedly bolted together (eg: most big-budget games).

[feelthedarkness]

hat do you get out of comparing a book with a movie, or a book with a game? They're so fundamentally different, I just can't see the point of it. And I'm sorry, but playing the game is absolutely why I had such an emotional reaction to Gone Home. I'm sure I've said it before but, had I just read this story in straight narrative form, I probably wouldn't have felt much of an emotional response. The combination of the systems and the narrative is really what made the experience for me. Gone Home succeeded at doing what some many AAA games fail to -- it told a compelling story that was enhanced by gameplay, instead of having story and play feel like two disparate parts that were hamfistedly bolted together (eg: most big-budget games).

 

Totally. Great stuff, great stuff all around. I think a lot of this is pushing around TC's point about Ludic value, as well as SCLPS about an intrinsic critique of games criticism. We don't seem to have a reached a point where we have a critical handle on the ludic value of games as it relates to narrative. 

 

I've played and loved a lot of games this year, but I'll say a specific memory I have is a mad dash to the attic at the end of this thinking "oh please don't be what i think this might be." As Argobot and others said, if I read the narrator's dash it wouldn't be the same. 

 

Here is a quote from Ebert's review of Felini's 8 1/2 that I like, and I think relates to this.

 

The critic Alan Stone, writing in the Boston Review, deplores Fellini's "stylistic tendency to emphasize images over ideas." I celebrate it. A filmmaker who prefers ideas to images will never advance above the second rank because he is fighting the nature of his art. The printed word is ideal for ideas; film is made for images, and images are best when they are free to evoke many associations and are not linked to narrowly defined purposes. 

[clyde]

What does this part of the Bogost essay mean? I'm not being sarastic, I really don't understand what how to tell the difference.

"Just as Bioshock referred to Objectivism without really engaging it, Gone Home evokes marital strife, professional anxiety, and childhood trauma for rhetorical rather than expressive reasons."

[Bjorn]

I think the "plenty of other blog posts and essays" is a bit of a biased sample - people who are moved to tears by the game are more likely to write about it than people who play it and say "well that was pretty good." Moreover, most of the people playing this are gamers. If I sat my family and friends down in front of this, I'm sure they'd all enjoy it, but they wouldn't cry and they wouldn't write rapturous essays telling everyone they have to play this game.

 

My point wasn't about the number of people moved to tears, it was that there is an overlap between people who had an emotional connection to GH and people who are well read and educated in literature.  He dismissed an entire group of people as nonexistent.  That's insulting, and only exists in his head bolstered by his own prejudice.

 

GH did not make me cry, but I felt a strong emotional connection to it, more so than most other games I've ever played. To be honest, I tend not to be dramatically emotionally moved by novels, even though I am someone with a love affair with written language.  I find that music, movies and plays are far more likely to draw out powerful emotion in me.  Until the last year, games didn't really have that affect on me either.  But both The Walking Dead and GH moved me greatly.  TWD did it because I empathized so much with the being in the role of an adoptive father figure (as that's how I came into my daughter's life) and because of a scene in the first episode that was heart wrenching for me due to my own past.  That doesn't mean that I think that TWD is the equivalent of great cinema, but I'm willing to acknowledge that games are getting better and better about drawing out more complex emotions from people, and that is a new experience for games. 

[Gormongous]

I think the utility of comparing mediums is in highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each. What's pointless is evaluating one medium by the critical standards of another. feelthedarkness' Ebert quote is great for showing how that falls down.

 

The bizarre thing about Bogost, for me, is that he's writing an essay for a literature publication about how a video game isn't literature and how it isn't good as literature. To prove his point, he brings up some examples of literature that are literature and are good as literature. To me, all that is sophistry, so the only things left are the parts where he tells people whether or not their emotional reactions are legitimate. Overall, I don't have much use for any of it.

[Bjorn]

The bizarre thing about Bogost, for me, is that he's writing an essay for a literature publication about how a video game isn't literature and how it isn't good as literature. To prove his point, he brings up some examples of literature that are literature and are good as literature. To me, all that is sophistry, so the only things left are the parts where he tells people whether or not their emotional reactions are legitimate. Overall, I don't have much use for any of it.

 

Well said!

[Argobot]

What does this part of the Bogost essay mean? I'm not being sarastic, I really don't understand what how to tell the difference.

"Just as Bioshock referred to Objectivism without really engaging it, Gone Home evokes marital strife, professional anxiety, and childhood trauma for rhetorical rather than expressive reasons."

 

He's trying to say that neither Bioshock nor Gone Home actually engage with the serious themes that they each reference. Bioshock acts like it wants to say something about Objectivisim (just like Infinite acted like it wanted to say something about American exceptionalism) but utterly fails to do so. Bogost is suggesting that Gone Home is guilty of the same thing -- bringing up a serious topic that only serves as window-dressing in the game. It's an inaccurate comparison, because Gone Home does a lot to engage with the issues it brings up. Those issues are actually integral to the point of the game, as opposed to the whole Ayn Rand plot falling to wayside in Bioshock.

[clyde]

He's trying to say that neither Bioshock nor Gone Home actually engage with the serious themes that they each reference. Bioshock acts like it wants to say something about Objectivisim (just like Infinite acted like it wanted to say something about American exceptionalism) but utterly fails to do so. Bogost is suggesting that Gone Home is guilty of the same thing -- bringing up a serious topic that only serves as window-dressing in the game. It's an inaccurate comparison, because Gone Home does a lot to engage with the issues it brings up. Those issues are actually integral to the point of the game, as opposed to the whole Ayn Rand plot falling to wayside in Bioshock.

So is Bogost not making the connection that all of those are different (and personal) forms of isolation that synergize with each other to create a house in which everyone feels alone? Or is that rhetorical and not expressive.

I guess I should ask Bogost.

It's interesting to think that sharing a form of isolation is something that many of us take for granted.

[Stuart]

He's trying to say that neither Bioshock nor Gone Home actually engage with the serious themes that they each reference. Bioshock acts like it wants to say something about Objectivisim (just like Infinite acted like it wanted to say something about American exceptionalism) but utterly fails to do so. Bogost is suggesting that Gone Home is guilty of the same thing -- bringing up a serious topic that only serves as window-dressing in the game. It's an inaccurate comparison, because Gone Home does a lot to engage with the issues it brings up. Those issues are actually integral to the point of the game, as opposed to the whole Ayn Rand plot falling to wayside in Bioshock.

 

Well stated, though I personally argue against the "Bioshock doesn't engage Objectivism" thing, but Infinite surely dropped the ball on its thematic elements, from racial conflict to quantum theory. But that's a conversation for a whole other forum thread. . 

[Twig]

Steampunk is so hilariously not punk that it's not even funny.

whoa geez calm down sparky there's no need to be so angry

[sclpls]

So is Bogost not making the connection that all of those are different (and personal) forms of isolation that synergize with each other to create a house in which everyone feels alone? Or is that rhetorical and not expressive.

I guess I should ask Bogost.

It's interesting to think that sharing a form of isolation is something that many of us take for granted.

 

I would read the marital strife, childhood abuse, and professional anxiety in the game as non-expressive. They aren't issues that your character has to directly confront or engage with, instead you indirectly discover these issues through reading notes, etc. and you are right to point to the big empty house as becoming a metaphor for this isolation. The expressive qualities in the game come from picking up objects and examining them rather than character interaction, It's a confusing passage because he slips from talking about "engaging" with Objectivism in Bioshock (and I agree with that assessment for the reasons Clint Hocking elaborated in his criticism of the game's structure) to "expressive reasons" in Gone Home. I would state it as Gone Home engages with these issues, but it does not give any expression to them in its game mechanics. You can contrast this with a game like Papa & Yo where the theme of a child dealing with an alcoholic father are embedded directly into the game mechanics via the frogs that turn the monster into a raging, fiery beast. That creates a game environment where the theme is expressed via actual play. Gone Home is a more subtle pleasure.

[Roderick]

I haven't read a single thing in this thread because I've only now played and finished the game. I was totally absorbed by it, what a wonderful story, beautifully told. I was rooting so hard for Sam, and at one point I was so angry at Janice for her extreme double standards in living a proper life.

 

And the Greenbriars have excellent taste in film: Ghostbusters/Labyrinth? SOLD.

[Hermie]

As the curator of the Gone Home thread on the Something Awful forums, I've been collecting quotes from people in the thread for the OP. Here is a selection:

 

I don't really see how any of these quotes elevate Gone Home to anything more than what it is. All of them cite their personal experiences of video games, and how different Gone Home is for them. Nobody is comparing GH to high literature, but simple exclaiming that it is the game that, up until now, has had the most emotional complexity and ability to move them.

 

 

Now, my serious video game discourse is limited to this exact forum, but I haven't seen anyone claiming that video games as a narrative medium has peaked with Gone Home, just that "this is something we have never seen before."

[osmosisch]

And the Greenbriars have excellent taste in film: Ghostbusters/Labyrinth? SOLD.

If you look at the handwriting, that's actually only one Greenbriar. The others are not quite so tasteful.

[jmbossy]

I understand why Gone Home, more than most games, would be subject to literary debate, but by doing so one would sort of be taking away the games most appreciable quality. Novels convey the thoughts of their characters and mood of their environments through incredibly precise diction (in the way poetry does). Where poetry/literature has diction, games have direction (in the way film does) inferring significance through both visual and auditory messaging. Because the player is such an important aspect to the story (at least in relation to any other form of media) directing what the player sees/hears is a games most difficult challenge to overcome. The best examples of games are those that use every aspect of their creation, including and surpassing the narrative, to tell their story or share their experience (in games with little to less story). Gone Home isn't amazing because the story is new or significantly different but because its soundtrack, its art style, its voice acting, and every other aspect that makes it a video game (even its level design), are magnificently cogent. Even if you don't care for the story told it is still told in an amazing way, and in a way no novel ever could.

[TychoCelchuuu]

TV and movies have soundtracks, art styles, voice acting, and so on.

[jmbossy]

TV and movies have soundtracks, art styles, voice acting, and so on.

 

Yes. And I feel the same way in comparing those to literature.

A creator who understands how to utilize their medium is more likely to make something interesting within it.

[Stuart]

TV and movies have soundtracks, art styles, voice acting, and so on.

 

Yes?

 

Oops ignore this post I didn't get context sorry.

[TychoCelchuuu]

Yes. And I feel the same way in comparing those to literature.

A creator who understands how to utilize their medium is more likely to make something interesting within it.

Yes.

[Stuart]

Yes all around!

 

But seriously, as much as I disagree with Bogost's position, I am so fucking happy it exists. In world where people hand wave the game for not being a "game", and where assholes scoff with vitriolic glee at the game's short length, "lack of gameplay" ("where's da challenge? where's the enemies?!"), and its themes surrounding family, the zeitgeist, and young homosexuality...Bogost's essay os academic, smart, and comes from a well-intentioned place. I'd rather have 5 trillion essays of his over any homophobic/sexist rant on how "THIS IS NOT GAME!!11!! FEMENIST GAY BULLSHIT LOLZ1!1"