Register
EDIT: don't play this if you haven't read the game. Also. Mature themes. WARNING.
I think I want to address some of the things people have mentioned about this game. There are a few small changes I want to make, but before I do that I want to talk about some things I'm not sure people noticed, and maybe get some responses as to why they went unnoticed or not commented on.
So, things people didn't seem to catch:
There are 2 endings. You can choose not to shoot anyone. The other ending isn't that much better, though.
Your shots can't kill anyone unless they are laughing-- it just makes them start laughing. This is explained in the introductory awkward prose, which was hard to write because it had to set a mood as well as explain game mechanics. Reviews have led me to believe it doesn't do much of either.
Initially, the kids are saying things that they might realistically say. As their appearance breaks down, they shift to saying things like "You are without worth." No kid would say that.
Its a little awkward I admit, but what I was going for was that I'm telling the story that built up to the shooting, while the gameplay takes place entirely during it. The only option you have, as a player, doesn't make anybody like you. There is nothing the player can do to make the other kids like them. The intro is supposed to set up that the player character wants these people to like them, or at least have an acceptance of them, but the actions the game lets you take make this impossible. Just as someone who is suicidal feels like theres nothing they can do anymore. The gameplay lets you take action before the kid starts laughing, but it doesn't do anything until its in retaliation.
So if we ignore the whole 'shooting' thing for a minute and concentrate on suicide... Well. Suicide isn't a result of sadness. Its a result of someone who perceives themselves as completely hopeless or helpless.
No one who is free is either, though we have all felt that way from time to time. And the game forces that on to you. Maybe theres no overt social commentary, but I think that--if the game succeeded at all in doing what i had in mind--putting the player in that position of helplessness in a 'safe' way, might (hopefully) lead them to a better understanding of the thought process of suicide in general. (Not that I claim to be an expert on it. I only know what I've learned from life experience and psych 101.
I think the main thing I regret, and may yet change about the game, is that the 'good' ending (if you don't shoot anybody) should have been a textbox that reads:
Just then, someone said "I don't know why they are so mean. What is your name?"
(accompanied by some hopeful piano)
Because to get that ending, you have to sit there and get laughed at for a LONG time, the initial wave of laughs is not very damaging. I think maybe it could be effective way of saying that things do get better if you stick it out long enough and don't give up. And also that one person can be a huge difference, reaching out can be a huge difference. Hell, it can be life and death.
But then I'm not so sure of that either. Because the mentality that goes into a school shooting is far and beyond that of suicide. And I don't want to imply that I think they are the same thought processes, or that anyone who seriously considers suicide seriously considers hurting anyone else.
All in all, its a game that tackles some tough subjects, subjects I'm sure I'm not qualified to handle. But mostly, it was an experiment in telling a story in a way that only a game could tell. Adapting it into a play or a book would be impossible. And this is something I want to push further, somehow. And the more I understand about your reactions as opposed to the reactions I wanted you to have, about what worked and what didn't, the better I can do that.
So if you guys don't mind too much.. could you post some of your thoughts on the game or on these sorts of 'psychological' games in general?
About There Is Nothing Left.
Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:29 am 
Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:21 am
I just read your entire post without having played the game to understand the context.
... I need to lay down.
... I need to lay down.
Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:43 am
hahahaha. put in a warning so no one makes the same mistake.
Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:06 am
Wow, that was amazing. It was a real experience, if I don't necessarily think of it as a game. Let me elaborate:
It feles more like an interactive cutscene than a real kind of battle. I think if this was put in a narrative context, as in, if it were part of a more traditional game context, then it could be a really arresting way to advance a story.
I'd really like to see a game address these kinds of themes in this way. It makes you engage much more intensively with the subject matter than if you present it directly. You player will naturally want to unravel the subject material for themselves. It's clever: they can't immediately detect the subject and then dismiss it as 'preachy' or whatever.
Like I said, I think this could be an excellent part of a bigger project. It's the kind of thing that if I was still actively making games, I'd try myself. If you are going to develop it, I could be tempted to contribute sound design/music.
It feles more like an interactive cutscene than a real kind of battle. I think if this was put in a narrative context, as in, if it were part of a more traditional game context, then it could be a really arresting way to advance a story.
I'd really like to see a game address these kinds of themes in this way. It makes you engage much more intensively with the subject matter than if you present it directly. You player will naturally want to unravel the subject material for themselves. It's clever: they can't immediately detect the subject and then dismiss it as 'preachy' or whatever.
Like I said, I think this could be an excellent part of a bigger project. It's the kind of thing that if I was still actively making games, I'd try myself. If you are going to develop it, I could be tempted to contribute sound design/music.
Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:25 am
For what it's worth, I got both endings when I played it last year.
It was excellently constructed and deserved to win the contest it won.
Mega Tact v1.1
Super Penguin Chef
Wizard Blocks
It was excellently constructed and deserved to win the contest it won.
Mega Tact v1.1
Super Penguin Chef
Wizard Blocks
Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:29 am
I also got both endings and loved the hell out of the game. I hope you didn't get the impression that I didn't. It's rare to play such a thought provoking game, especially from an OHR Contest. The opening prose kind of gets the point across, but at the same time doesn't sell me on a guy who is truely beyond hope, or rather, one who believes he is truely beyond hope. I can believe this guy would seek violent revenge against those who laugh at him, but I can't believe him shooting himself in the "good ending". That said, I don't think a hopeful or uplifting ending would be appropriate either. Maybe something ambiguous, like their laughter just continuing over the darkness until you close the window would work a little better than the somewhat cliched suicide. Maybe that'd be dumb, I don't know.
I'm interested to hear your intention regarding the enemy dialogue being intended to be his own delusion, because my interpretation was totally different. The way I saw it the faces becoming angrier and their laughter doing more damage represented resistance as people organized and fought this mad dog killer who had fulfilled his own self-loathing, turning himself from "that weird guy" into "that weird murderer" and becoming totally beyond redemption. But he's so far gone, the sting of their punches and maybe even bullets is just more taunting laughter in his ears.
I know I said in my Arms Race review that I thought it was the better game and what I mean by that is that coming back to it a year later, it was more fun to play. there is nothing left is the better experience, but knowing what to expect the second time around detracts just a little.My 2011 Reviews are a little unfair in that regard because I'm playing most of the games for the first time. The few that I did play last year are being judged from the perspective of "Is this as good/bad as I remember it?" and so sometimes pickier criticisms or new interpretations skew the score one way or another more than I should be letting them. I'm sorry if that was the case here. I am glad we're discussing it though. Getting people to notice and enjoy things they might've missed from last year is why I'm writing reviews.
As for psychological games, I love anything that gives you plenty of room to think. "There is nothing left" is great in that regard. You and I were on totally different pages as to what the game was about and I still liked it enough to give it a 9. That goes to show how well you set up the pieces and let the player draw their own conclusions. I'm not sure how wise it is to try and engineer how people should react. It seems to me, the more ideas you have about how the player should react, the more hints you're going to put in "telling" them how to feel, rather than letting them come to things on their own, even if they don't see it the way you do. To me, that kind of "making up your own mind" is the best control you have as a player. Maybe this is also dumb, I don't know.
I'm interested to hear your intention regarding the enemy dialogue being intended to be his own delusion, because my interpretation was totally different. The way I saw it the faces becoming angrier and their laughter doing more damage represented resistance as people organized and fought this mad dog killer who had fulfilled his own self-loathing, turning himself from "that weird guy" into "that weird murderer" and becoming totally beyond redemption. But he's so far gone, the sting of their punches and maybe even bullets is just more taunting laughter in his ears.
I know I said in my Arms Race review that I thought it was the better game and what I mean by that is that coming back to it a year later, it was more fun to play. there is nothing left is the better experience, but knowing what to expect the second time around detracts just a little.My 2011 Reviews are a little unfair in that regard because I'm playing most of the games for the first time. The few that I did play last year are being judged from the perspective of "Is this as good/bad as I remember it?" and so sometimes pickier criticisms or new interpretations skew the score one way or another more than I should be letting them. I'm sorry if that was the case here. I am glad we're discussing it though. Getting people to notice and enjoy things they might've missed from last year is why I'm writing reviews.
As for psychological games, I love anything that gives you plenty of room to think. "There is nothing left" is great in that regard. You and I were on totally different pages as to what the game was about and I still liked it enough to give it a 9. That goes to show how well you set up the pieces and let the player draw their own conclusions. I'm not sure how wise it is to try and engineer how people should react. It seems to me, the more ideas you have about how the player should react, the more hints you're going to put in "telling" them how to feel, rather than letting them come to things on their own, even if they don't see it the way you do. To me, that kind of "making up your own mind" is the best control you have as a player. Maybe this is also dumb, I don't know.
Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:00 am
My review on the game was in the Hamster Speak article on the contest. I did see the alternate ending, and I thought I commented on it at one point but maybe it ended up on the cutting room floor in the editing process. I think Giz's alternate suggestion is probably better than a literal good ending as the reason you went for the suicide in the first place was to capture the seemingly infinite hopelessness of the situation- an actual good ending would undermine that.
On the topic of psychological games (which are more commonly referred to as art games, with Passage being the game that popularized the idea)... I have mixed feelings. I appreciate the idea of having games tackle more diverse and serious topics. But to date the genre has focused mostly on taking common game designs and slapping on a coat of abstract paint. To get the player's thoughts rolling, they then mention the proposed theme of it before or after the game. Humans love filling in the dots (think of movies ending in a way that leaves multiple interpretations, and the debate it sparks), so this is a fairly successful strategy that leaves people thinking afterwards.
The flaw being that it's not much harder for someone to slap together some things that look like they kind of relate and letting people's minds wander in response. Abstract stuff is fun, no doubt, but as a way to communicate sophisticated themes in gaming it just seems like a cheap cop out to me.
On the topic of psychological games (which are more commonly referred to as art games, with Passage being the game that popularized the idea)... I have mixed feelings. I appreciate the idea of having games tackle more diverse and serious topics. But to date the genre has focused mostly on taking common game designs and slapping on a coat of abstract paint. To get the player's thoughts rolling, they then mention the proposed theme of it before or after the game. Humans love filling in the dots (think of movies ending in a way that leaves multiple interpretations, and the debate it sparks), so this is a fairly successful strategy that leaves people thinking afterwards.
The flaw being that it's not much harder for someone to slap together some things that look like they kind of relate and letting people's minds wander in response. Abstract stuff is fun, no doubt, but as a way to communicate sophisticated themes in gaming it just seems like a cheap cop out to me.
Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:03 pm
SDHawk wrote:
The flaw being that it's not much harder for someone to slap together some things that look like they kind of relate and letting people's minds wander in response. Abstract stuff is fun, no doubt, but as a way to communicate sophisticated themes in gaming it just seems like a cheap cop out to me.
The flaw being that it's not much harder for someone to slap together some things that look like they kind of relate and letting people's minds wander in response. Abstract stuff is fun, no doubt, but as a way to communicate sophisticated themes in gaming it just seems like a cheap cop out to me.
While it's your opinion that it is a cop out, I couldn't disagree more with the statement that abstract material could be confused with something 'slapped together'. People have intelligence; it is immediately obvious to someone if thought and effort have been invested in something or not. If you compare a scribble I make on MSPaint with a late Miró, it's obvious which is the art and which isn't.
It's entirely possible to experience something, judge it, and react to it, based on its own autonomy. The reason why there haven't been any big studio abstract games is simple: games cost money to make, and they in turn are there to make money. As the average gamer plays games for enjoyment or entertainment, it doesn't make sense to provoke them with the materials you present them in your game. I don't think the game in question is there to be enjoyed, and I don't think it's there to entertain, either.
/rant
Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:43 pm
It's not simply that it's easy to create impostor abstract works. I sort of regret even using that example.
It's more like this: Why must every art game fall back on abstraction to present more complex themes?
It's largely because it is very hard to make complex themes work in a medium where actions are the driving force. Some games have accomplished it by using established mediums in conjunction with themselves (ie, cutscenes and writing), but never really in a 'pure' interactive form that these art games are seeking.
I see abstraction as a snake oil solution to the problem. Instead of looking for the hard answers, people are going with the illusion of one. Most of the depth from abstraction comes entirely from the viewer. It's a fun exercise and there's nothing wrong with it. But it pales in comparison to when more mature mediums tackle these themes with grace instead of shadow puppets.
It's more like this: Why must every art game fall back on abstraction to present more complex themes?
It's largely because it is very hard to make complex themes work in a medium where actions are the driving force. Some games have accomplished it by using established mediums in conjunction with themselves (ie, cutscenes and writing), but never really in a 'pure' interactive form that these art games are seeking.
I see abstraction as a snake oil solution to the problem. Instead of looking for the hard answers, people are going with the illusion of one. Most of the depth from abstraction comes entirely from the viewer. It's a fun exercise and there's nothing wrong with it. But it pales in comparison to when more mature mediums tackle these themes with grace instead of shadow puppets.
Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:27 am
SDHawk: You have very interesting things to say. Are there any games that you feel come close to what you'd like to see? As in, not abstracted (heavily, as gameplay itself is an abstraction) games that use gameplay to affect the player? Would something like some of the sequences in the Mother series be along the lines of what you mean? What about the last level of Braid?
I don't know much about art games, perhaps I should do some research, ha. I kind of stumbled on making There Is Nothing Left because several of my other ideas just straight up didn't work. But it was an interesting game to make, and I think I would like to do something else 'art-game-y' sometime, maybe. Especially since I am big on polish (look at Tetris... god I still haven't finished that, have I?) and I am realizing that its much, much more my style to work on small projects that I can fine tune the hell out of.
I think abstraction can be a useful tool, though looking through a google search of 'art-games' kind of has me seeing what you mean haha. Gameplay itself is an abstraction. And I think to some level, at least a little bit of abstraction helps you take the game rules seriously, which is pretty important if the game rules and mechanics are what shapes the experience. maybe.
I don't know much about art games, perhaps I should do some research, ha. I kind of stumbled on making There Is Nothing Left because several of my other ideas just straight up didn't work. But it was an interesting game to make, and I think I would like to do something else 'art-game-y' sometime, maybe. Especially since I am big on polish (look at Tetris... god I still haven't finished that, have I?) and I am realizing that its much, much more my style to work on small projects that I can fine tune the hell out of.
I think abstraction can be a useful tool, though looking through a google search of 'art-games' kind of has me seeing what you mean haha. Gameplay itself is an abstraction. And I think to some level, at least a little bit of abstraction helps you take the game rules seriously, which is pretty important if the game rules and mechanics are what shapes the experience. maybe.