Transistor : Postmodernism celebrated

By Maik "Onin" Biekart

I have long wanted to write about Supergiant Games' Transistor, but despite all its beauty and mechanical perfection I have long failed to understand what the game is truly about. Sure, it is about a feisty redhead set on finding answers and vengeance after her attempted character assassination. It teaches lessons like “don't judge a book by its cover,” “you can achieve anything you set your mind to,” and other such shallow inspirational messages. But none of those themes and messages convey a consistent artistic purpose or an underlying philosophy. There is a focus on the individual, a focus on identity, and a discussion (often through the lack of discussion) of gender, all of which hold their value in analysis, but none of which define the game in my eyes. As it turns out, I needed a new perspective.

I recently came across an elaboration on the concept of postmodernism, as part of research for my MA thesis. Postmodernism is one of those terms in art criticism that is often understood only in passing, as 'that thing that came after modernism.' While its chronology and context are definitely part of the definition of the movement, and much of postmodernism is the continuation of and reaction to modernist art, it has its own distinct mood, themes, devices, and purpose. And Transistor, as a game, encompasses all of the above in what I can only call a celebration of postmodernism.

For the sake of clarity, I will briefly define the movements of modernism and postmodernism, as they naturally can only be seen in relation to each other, highlighting the most important factors for this analysis. Modernism, a movement inspired by modern life of the 1920s and briefly continued in the 1960s, is a rejection of all things romantic. It rejects harmonic aesthetics, replacing them with plainness and abstraction; the mantra goes, “less is more.” It rejects the classical narrative structure, dismissing the omniscient narrator, the closed ending, etc. It invites experimentation, switching to an impressionistic style, a merging of genres, a play with form and reflexivity (i.e. the meta-narrative). Most vitally for the comparison, modernism is melancholic, longing back to the age of Enlightenment, where ruled a sense that all of society's struggles could be resolved by following one true reason.

As far as devices go, postmodernism is very similar to its predecessor. The rejection of classical narrative continues, as does the experimentation with genre, form, and reflexivity. But the first important difference is a switch in mood. Modernism is largely defined by its asceticism, its minimalist aesthetic, and this aesthetic is the result of the attitude that nothing better is possible in the modern age. Postmodernism rejects this pessimistic point of view, and instead celebrates its experimentation with form, genre, and abstraction, through excess and display. As a celebration of modern life, postmodernism looks down on the old societal structure that modernism longs back to. It realizes that a singular philosophy can never lead to utopia, and instead highlights the efforts of individuals or groups, empowering smaller circumstances. (These definitions are largely paraphrased from Peter Barry's Beginning Theory. For more elaborate explorations of postmodernist theory, look up Lyotard and Baudrillard, whose writings define the movement.)

Transistor and the Modernist Conflict

Applying the above definitions to Transistor, it is immediately obvious that the Camerata play the role of the modernists. Their aim is to overthrow the societal systems of Cloudbank, to assert a singular philosophy; the Transistor is meant to assemble that singularity through the assimilation of all of Cloudbank's popular voices. It may not be the Enlightenment they harken back to, but there is a definite melancholy behind their aims, a wish to return to a less fragmented city and have it flourish under a single movement, a single narrative. To further emphasize their modernism, the Camerata's tool of choice, the Process, rejects all the aesthetic of Cloudbank and returns it to its barest form: geographical shapes, hues of white and grey. Especially Fairview, an area likely to be designed by Royce personally, embodies the modernist aesthetic, with its reflexive level design and its play with perspective, doubtlessly inspired by Escher.

It is harder to define the Camerata's philosophy.
Transistor highlights several reasons for the creation of the Camerata. Grant's biography states that, after years of selfless service as administrator, he began to harbour wishes of his own. Asher's biography highlights that “the two shared a passion for seeking the truth of things.” Only Royce seems to actually believe in the statement by which he defines the group: “When everything changes, nothing changes;” indeed, Asher's biography states that, thanks to the Camerata's efforts, “Cloudbank would enter a new era.” So the true philosophy of the Camerata remains ambiguous; however, their methods are clear. They assimilate a wide variety of voices through the Transistor, thanks to which they will be able to give the people what they do not know they want (as says Asher, on Bracket Towers recording 3). They want to turn the individual experiences that shape and reshape Cloudbank into a singular, perfect experience for everyone, an aim that is inherently modernist, and counter to postmodernism. It is also this methodology that makes them the antagonist of Cloudbank, and the game.

The postmodernism of Cloudbank is most readily apparent in its aesthetic. The design of the city is highly impractical in many places, from the many dead ends around Goldwalk to the extreme height differences in Highrise. The former emphasizes the fragmentation of the city, how every area and every corner has its own identity without relation to the rest of the city. The latter highlights the use of geographical shapes and play with perspective, with every skyscraper somehow achieving greater height than the previous. The same hierarchy of perspective play over practicality can be seen in the Empty Set; it seems as if the audience sits both far below and far above the stage, and none of it is accessible to the player. Unlike Fairview, though, these areas are vibrant in colour and cohesive in design, not confusing or alienating to the player. The fragmented, experimental aesthetic enhances the vibrancy, instead of challenging it.

The function of Cloudbank, too, is inherently postmodern. While the exact details of the structure of the virtual reality of Cloudbank is left up in the air, the character profiles suggest a method of application. In this application, citizens select two character traits they wish to emphasize on: for Red, it's “Music [and] Linguistics,” for Royce, “Engineering [and] Mathematics.” Some characters add a reason for their entry, explaining why they chose those traits: race driver Preston Moyle says “I just want to go fast,” Maximilias Darzi designs fashion in “pursuit of beauty.” Assumably, Cloudbank is able to emphasize and empower these traits, giving every entrant the ability they need to achieve their dreams. Furthermore, Cloudbank records the achievements of its citizens in their traces, which the player can access through the Transistor. Thus Cloudbank both facilitates and puts on display the narrative of each individual, without hierarchy, prejudice, or curation. It celebrates every achievement equally and does not impose a greater purpose or supreme truth on any of its citizens.

The conflict between the two meets in Red, and an interesting reversal occurs. The Camerata steals Red's voice, directly and indirectly diminishing her character, but in the process lose their transistor, empowering Red with abilities she has never had before. So the transistor transforms, from the Camerata's tool of assimilation to Red's tool of expression. Its initial intention was to download the traces of Cloudbank's citizens until it could unify them into a complete perspective, as Asher implies. In Red's hands, it does the opposite: it separates the traces into their own functions, allowing the player to experiment with them and use them as medium for self-expression. This makes the transistor a metaphor for artistic devices; modernism employs them in the search for the supreme truth, while postmodernism transforms them into elements of individual style.

Thus, Transistor embodies the conflict between modernism and postmodernism. It gives both artistic movements agency, stages a conflict between the two, then positions the player in medias res. It takes away the power from the modernists and hands it to the player, allowing them to execute postmodernism in their combat. It immerses the player in the vibrancy of Cloudbank, then makes the asceticism of the Process threaten its beauty. In essence, a player of Transistor is a postmodernist artist.

Transistor and Reality

Aside establishing the narrative of the game, viewing Transistor in a postmodern frame of references helps shed light on some common grounds for confusion. Most importantly, it gives context to the game's use of signs. From the very first level, the aesthetic features posters, shop names, and other signs that are completely unintelligible: a sign next to the exit to the overpass in Goldwalk reads “EQØ©NY,” the building next to it I like to call the T . T-shop, and a bit further the posters advertising Red's concert feature two different sets of random characters. These characters are unlikely to be a foreign language used in Cloudbank, considering the OVC is written in English, as is Junction Jan's food delivery. Clearly these signs are not meant to be read or understood, but they can still be seen and their function interpreted, paradoxically.

A major element of postmodernism I have not brought up yet is Baudrillard's notion of “the loss of the real.” This is the view that contemporary media (film, TV, advertisement, and certainly the internet) have filled modern life with such pervasive images that the distinction between reality and construction is blurred, to the point where they become one and the same. Where in the past signs represented the depth of reality, gradually the sign has come to represent other signs, employing what is not reality, but a hyperreality. In a sense it is a modern Platonism, the idea that modern life is just the image of a mystical idealized reality perpetuated by media.

The signs in Transistor offer a good example of this admittedly vague concept. The lack of direct meaning in the signs underlines the loss of the real: these signs don't represent any reality. What gives them meaning is their context, and the interpretation of the player. The purpose of the signs is immediately clear: one designates the overpass, one brands the shop, and one informs the purpose of the posters. They are signs representing signs, both literally and figuratively, while their precise designation is left to the individual (personally, I hold the firm belief that the shop is a tea shop, because I cannot resist the pun. I am certain other players will have given it other names).

This loss of the real helps shed light on perhaps the most widely contested plot point of Transistor: the ending. The game deliberately avoids defining the area where Red and Royce end up after restoring the transistor, saying only “we're here, not there.” Likewise, the game often refers to The Country as a place where citizens of Cloudbank retire to; it deeply suggests a metaphor for death, but after the credits Red and her bodyguard reunite in an area that can only be described as 'the country,' which might or might not exist inside of the transistor. Many explanations, hierarchies of existence, etc. have been suggested, but none are consistent. If the Country is a space inside the transistor, every citizen who went to the Country must have entered the transistor, and they did not. If the stage for Red and Royce's battle is reality outside the virtual world, Royce must have exited Cloudbank to get there. He did not, for his trace still exists in one of the pods (while Red's is nowhere to be found). Defining the three planes of existence in Transistor in a way that is consistent with its own lore is difficult if not impossible.

But they don't require definitions. The Country's primary function is a metaphor for death. Red's appearance in the country only serves to confirm her suicide, to answer the possible question of whether suicide in a virtual world is possible. Equally, the world 'outside' of the transistor primarily confirms to the player that the transistor is not a unique device, as there seems to be a giant server farm of transistors. If the Country stands for death, and Cloudbank stands for existence, perhaps this last area represents the metaphysical, the hyperreality. If it does, its image is bleak: it offers no beauty, no comfort, no wisdom, only conflict. The focus of the image lies on the many transistors, representing many possible alternate realities, individual experiences, devoid of one supreme truth. Thus, in Transistor, there is no reality, only the combination of realities constructed by the experiences of each city, each group, each individual.

The Journey Begins

I wanted to write this as soon as possible, fueled with great confidence and a little intimidated by what is to come. I want to write. I want to write good and write a lot. I want to write good and write a lot about things I care about and express myself through my writing. I am going to do this, do it a lot, do it until I get good enough so I can have an audience. When I reach that point, I will serve my audience the way I feel like. If anyone doesn't like it, they can leave, no hard feelings. This is what my life will become and this is who I will be. I didn't really prepare for this post. Everything I am writing here are my raw, unfiltered thoughts. It feels so good to tell the world, 'I am prepared to walk the path you've laid before me', and I will do just that.

How will my life decision affect this blog? Well, I changed the title to something more fitting. I will mainly be covering gaming related topics. You'll see a lot of opinion pieces from me on this blog, mainly because that's my biggest strength but I will continue to expand my topics as time goes on. After all, this blog will define the birth and growth of my "career" as a writer. I won't be writing just about video games, but they will definitely be on the forefront. I will also try to talk about the other forms of artistic media, gradually learning more and more about them as I do research and prepare for each post.

I feel good. This feels good. It's not gonna be easy but I won't give up on it, and trust me, I can be a very tenacious bastard when it comes to the things I am passionate about. If it doesn't work out, at least I'll die of starvation doing what I wanted, and not what I was told to.

“No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path.” 

-Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta, the founder of Buddhism, 563-483 B.C.

Video Analysis: Watch Dogs Introduction Trailer

Let's try something new shall we?! This is me introducing a new format to this blog. Since it's a good time as any to post some new content, I decided to do a video analysis of a video game introduction that was shown at the 2012 Electronic Entertainment Expo. After all, what I wanted to do with this blog is discuss things in a deep, yet engaging level. So let us welcome this new format and see where it takes us. 

I decided to start off with Watch Dogs because there is actually a lot to it that I'd like to see. There is definitely a lot of potential but we never know how it will turn out. In this post I will try to analyze as much as I can, give criticism and discuss what the title has to offer. With that said let's begin with the Introduction Video:

00:04 - The aesthetic choice and editing in this video are great and tie in with the who idea of connectivity the game has prepared for us. It's a consistent and yet simplistic cyber style with detailed graphical representations. We'll be seeing something similar in the main game as well.


00:06-00:11 - The event mentioned in this part of the video really happened. The Wikipedia article states the following:

The Northeast blackout of 2003 was a widespread power outage that occurred throughout parts of the Northeastern and Midwestern United States and Ontario, Canada, on Thursday, August 14, 2003, just before 4:10 p.m. EDT (UTC−04). While some power was restored by 11 p.m., many did not get power back until two days later. At the time, it was the second most widespread blackout in history, after the 1999 Southern Brazil blackout. The blackout affected an estimated 10 million people in Ontario and 45 million people in eight U.S. states.

I really like when works of fiction use real world events as an inspiration or part of the story. It adds more depth and authenticity while working with something we are aware of. It's simple to add to a story but difficult to present it in the right way so that it enriches your work.


00:11-00:18 - So far everything said here is a fact. In our modern day and age, blackouts are a really scary occurrence, maybe sometimes scarier than natural calamities, due to society's habituation or even addiction towards technology. I myself depend a lot on my tech. I use my laptop to write on this blog, check out the news daily and consume all kinds of media on it. I desperately rely on my cell phone and it functioning as intended when I need to call relatives or friends, as do a lot of other people. It is clear that technology plays an enormous role in our lives each day, and that's why blackouts are so frightening. Don't get me wrong, natural disasters are horrifying, but we are usually warned and try to prepare for some of them. Not in the case of blackouts though. Some power outages are scheduled and people are warned beforehand, but when the grid overloads and you may need that electricity at that exact moment, things can go very wrong very fast. Now, even though we can prepare for typhoons and similar things, we can't really prevent their devastating outcome, and there are more likely to take lives away than blackouts. It's just funny how far we've advanced in the field of technology but still can't prepare for the really scary things that are yet to come.

00:18-00:32 - From here on everything is fiction and part of the game's plot. It also shows a major concern I have for people working in such important fields. Humans are unpredictable and can make lots of mistakes. These mistakes are especially fatal if you're a brain surgeon, and the smallest twitch of your hand can change a patient's life forever. That's why we have extremely precise machines doing surgeries these days, as well as other jobs in other fields. Machines working with complex algorithms at incredible speeds are more reliable and cheaper long-term, replacing actual employees. Machines can also make mistakes and it's still possible that someday we'll create an incredibly adaptive Artificial Intelligence that becomes self-aware and tries to take over humanity. Or maybe it can actually try to fix things, improve our lives and live with humans in harmony, but that wouldn't be fun now would it?!

All and all, I think we really need to choose the right people for these types of things, and even then we still can't predict whether or not they might do something radical. That's also the reason why I find the concept of trust redundant. Actions have more weight than words and intentions ,and like I mentioned before, you can't predict the actions of chaotic lifeforms such as ourselves.

00:32-00:52 - This was mainly what I was talking about. Make an Operating System that can handle such things and hopefully do a much better job than its human counterparts. I mentioned that machines make mistakes, that's especially true for software. It, much like human beings, is unpredictable but highly capable. You can program a software to do what you want but there is never a 100% guarantee that it won't backfire. It is still objectively better to use instead of people, because it works more productively and efficiently. That said, I still wouldn't advise anyone to make a software in control of so many things that can cause catastrophic problems if not handled properly. Especially considering that software can be hacked and then controlled by the hacker for his or her motives. What if a terrorist hacked this software and used it to cause panic? It would be extremely effective because he/she'll basically gain a key to all of the city's electronics. It would be best if we had separate software for managing separate parts of a modern city, and have a manual override that only members of the staff have access to.

00:52-00:56 - "A Computer now controls a major city, but who controls the Computer?". This reminds me of the Latin phrase "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes", i.e. "Who guards the guardsmen?". It's also a popular phrase from the Watchmen graphic novel and movie as "Who watches the Watchmen?". It's a philosophical concept, questioning stability and corruption in certain organizations. So who does control the Computer?

00:56-01:02 - Yeah, of course, why would the government have control over this, it's always corporations and private companies. It's not really news, but money makes the world go round and sometimes these corporations have enough money to make the government look away or even give them control over such a thing. It is still a conspiracy theory with no solid evidence but it isn't completely illogical.

01:02-01:12 - In our world, the man with the most information is king. This is possibly the best way to present that,"you are no longer an individual, you are a data cluster", that's how insignificant you are to the people with the big pockets. Your personal information is a commodity sold to someone who wants to gain more power and control. Ask yourself this, what if this is reality, even without the ctOS? What if this is a reflection of what is actually happening today, showing where true power really lies? And the scariest part is that we can't do anything about it. This is a fight bigger than that of individuals, it's a fight of ideals and authority questioning political hierarchies and their legitimacy.

01:12-01:37 - There are many things that influence the choices we make nowadays. I mean, advertisements are exactly that. Some things even psychologically trick you into liking them and wanting more from them. If the people "in charge" could influence us what media to consume, then we would never have any thought-provoking or critical works of art that reflect on the problems of our lives. All of those things would be carefully controlled to the point of which you can create a blissfully ignorant society of obedient sheep that would benefit you greatly. That is a world in which I would never want to live in.

01:38-01:58 - "Because all data is interconnected", following what you do, what information you are exposed to and how you interact with everything is the best way to create the perfect psychological profile which can be used against you in any way, shape or form.

01:58-02:16 - One man can shut down an entire network and everything can be hacked. This presents the fears I was having before, but people are even aware of this and are afraid that the next "assault can do more than just turn out the lights". This may tie in with the game's message and how society lives with the knowledge that everything everyone does is monitored and used in such a way. If so, this could make for some amazing storytelling and can really dwell into the human psyche and our appreciation for privacy.

My closing thoughts on this video is that it was really well made and edited, it gave us so much information in so little time and it perfectly presented the game's themes. It is one of the best Introduction Videos I've seen and I am glad I could analyze it for you. I really think the game itself can present all the issues I talked about in a very mature and interesting way.

I am excited about the concept because it's a subject that storytelling hasn't really tackled all that well before and this is a chance to do exactly that. Next time I am going to show you actual gameplay from Watch Dogs and talk about that, but so far I am really excited about what this idea can blossom into.



Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.  -Ayn Rand

Games are Art!

It seems that mainstream media is still up to its old tricks again, i.e. talking about something it clearly doesn't understand in order to change the uneducated public opinion. Journalism is about reporting the news not fabricating it, am I right?! 

If you're wondering "what the hell is this guy talking about?", then let me direct you to an article published by The Guardian, an UK news site, in which a blogger (don't you even dare compare me to this man) claimed that the Museum of Modern Art is wrong to add games in its lineup. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2012/nov/30/moma-video-games-art?mobile-redirect=false 

Now why am I, and many other people especially those working in the games industry, upset by this article? Because if you get published in The Guardian, you shouldn't say such stupid things as "games are not art, they are just games". This man, Jonathan Jones, wrote an opinion piece filled with bias, and with a complete lack of  reasonable arguments, condemned video games as nothing but a child's play thing and that they can't possibly be art because of their interactivity. What is the logic behind that again? He claims that "Art may be made with a paintbrush or selected as a ready-made, but it has to be an act of personal imagination.". So how are games not art again? Last time I checked, it was "personal imagination" that created those games and made them unique (or at least some of them). 

"The worlds created by electronic games are more like playgrounds where experience is created by the interaction between a player and a programme. The player cannot claim to impose a personal vision of life on the game, while the creator of the game has ceded that responsibility. No one "owns" the game, so there is no artist, and therefore no work of art."

This statement just throws logic out the window. Someone should inform this person of reader response criticism, i.e. the fact that people claim what it is art and not the creator of said art. People who claim to be artists don't even grasp what the simplest notion of what makes you artistic. And how come "No one "owns" the game"? The people who make it own the game, and this is even better presented in the Indie side of the game industry where 1 or 2 people work on a game and they have the right to claim all ownership. 

This is the part where you question how could anyone have said "yes" to this man's article. I ask you all, how can someone, who claims to know the importance of "Ma Jolie" by Picasso and "Starry Night" by Vincent van Gogh, can also claim that video games are just toys and something to distract ourselves with? He would either be completely mad, completely uneducated towards the subject or afraid of change. I personally believe it's all three. He didn't show any particular knowledge toward game design, nor did he gave any valid reason as to why these games should not be a part of the Museum of Modern Arts. This is just him beating down on an young medium which is on its way to improve the way we tell stories for the better. Criticism exists because we need to learn from our mistakes and better ourselves, not because we don't like something because it doesn't appeal to our personal tastes. 

Let me get back to reader response criticism for a moment. Not all works of art we know of today was intended to be artistic. Since this man was kind enough to mention the importance of Vincent van Gogh's work in the Museum of Modern Arts, is he also aware how many commissioned paintings van Gogh had made? They weren't intended to be art, they were just a way to earn money on the side. Because art is not defined by the artist! Something this man refuses to accept, and in a very condescending manner, tries to belittle interactive narratives by comparing them to chess.

This man doesn't understand the subject of his own writing, so in order to educate him on what art is, I will quote Mr. Bob Chipman, a film critic over at The Escapist and host of Escape to the Movies and The Big Picture, something that he said in this video On the Subject of Violence:
"Movies, and books, and games and all the rest are sacred. The Arts aren't just how we distract ourselves, they are our most powerful voice, our stamp on the world, our gifts to the future, they are our legacy and the only form of immortality we know for sure actually exists." 

I cannot begin to explain how much I love him for saying that. I am not an artist myself but I want to be. I want to become a writer whose work influences people and inspires and changes their lives for the better. Art is about reflection and introspection, especially about things that signify what makes us human. I love video games and think they are the best art form at our disposal. I am still against calling them Video Games or Interactive Entertainment, because after all, not all art is there for simple entertainment. Art is a method of telling stories which has been adapted through modern mediums such as Movies, Books and Video Games, but is yet one of the oldest and most preserved occurrence of the human culture. 

Let me tell you why Video Games or Interactive Experiences are in fact art. There are two things that make them shine above all other mediums as far as storytelling goes. Kinaesthetics and interactivity.

Kinaesthetics is the study of body motion, and of the perception (both conscious and unconscious) of one's own body motions and other movements. Or to put it simply, game feel. In order for a game to keep the player engaged and for a better simulation, it must have good game feel. Fluid controls and feeling weight behind interaction in the game are what make a game even better and what immerses the player in the game's world. Something 3D Cinema is striving so hard to achieve, yet falls short when it comes to the kinaesthetics that an interactive medium like gaming can provide us with. The interactivity part is something that a lot of developers are still struggling with. How can you write a story for a video game when the player is interacting with so many takings within the game's world? It's not the same as writing a novel, although one could manage to make a game that tells a story in a similar fashion, but it wouldn't be as powerful as a fully emergent and interactive story driven by the player's action. It's pretty difficult to do but we are slowly getting there. This is why the only valid argument Jonathan could have had is that games can't really be displayed in a museum. You need to play the game and see how it feels for yourself. Paintings are fine to display because they represent everything visually and that's why they are a passive medium. Not games though. They can still represent a lot of things visually but it is the interactivity that puts them above the rest. But, of course, our good friend Mr. Jones didn't even think about that.

This is why games are better than every other medium. But unfortunately, it has existed for about 30 or so years, a lot less than Movies or Books. Now gaming will have to get through the same growing pains as those works of art did. Handling difficult subject matter and themes, facing controversy and innovating for the betterment of the medium. There is a hard road ahead of it but if people like me take the time and explain to the masses why games matter to us so much, maybe the road won't be so bumpy. Maybe the more people know about how gaming has affected the lives of others, the more they will learn to appreciate it like myself and developers who are constantly trying to do more with the medium. Can we at least try this time? Can we not just sit on the sidelines and shrug off an article like Johnathan's which is on a major news site, just because he is talking complete nonsense? NO! We shouldn't let people like that just speak their mind freely without calling them out on it or debating their views. I love all art in general, I understand most of it and I know how to appreciate its quality and significance. I will not let something, I feel so passionate towards, be attacked like this.

Let me show you something:

This is Spec Ops: The Line, a Third-Person Shooter released earlier this year, which is the closest thing to a video game version of Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" or Francis Ford Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" that we are gonna get.

Here are some videos about the game and it's significance toward the topic of "Games are Art!":
Errant Signal - Spec Ops: The Line
Zero Punctuation - Spec Ops: The Line
Extra Credits - Spec Ops: The Line (Part 1)
Extra Credits - Spec Ops: The Line (Part 2)

Let me also introduce you to JOURNEY:

Or one of the most beautiful and evocative gaming experiences to have ever come out for this medium. The art style you see in the picture isn't giving the game's graphical fidelity justice. The game looks even more beautiful while you play it.
Exhibit A: Entire playthrough of the game
Extra Credits did videos on Journey as well:
The Hero's Journey (Part 1)
The Hero's Journey (Part 2)

I can go on for a very long time and list out all the reasons why some games are art on top of being entertaining, while others exist for the sole purpose of entertaining us without trying to convey difficult metaphors through their mechanics, and why some shouldn't even exist because they abuse the medium to manipulate the player's view on something. Oh yes, games can do that, and it's really scary, but of course none of that was mentioned in Mr. Jones' article because he doesn't understand what he is writing about and he doesn't care. He got the money from writing that abomination. It's a common problem with journalistic integrity these days, in that there is none. Journalists are govern by the people who pay the bills, and those people are govern by personal interest. They don't care about truth, justice or anything like that. This is why the world has gotten so rotten, because of men like that.

Oh don't worry, I have a video to share with all of you on that subject as well:

Too bad nowadays people don't know the meaning of what Charlie Chaplin's character spoke of in "The Great Dictator".

At the end I leave you with this my friends, will you listen to people like that, people who tell you what to think or what to feel? Because the only thing I listen to is reason, and reason never told me to lie in order to prove a point.


More videos from:
MovieBoB: Escape to the Movies and The Big Picture
Campster: Errant Signal
Yahtzee Croshaw: Zero Punctuation
Extra Credits: Extra Credits



“The critic has to educate the public; the artist has to educate the critic.” -Oscar Wilde

Writing and why I think it's great

Before I begin I would like to apologize for my previous entry. I didn't really put much effort or even thought into it so it came out completely different from what I had in mind. I just want to put this out here and now so all of you can be familiar with who I am and what I stand for. Of course with every passing entry you will come to know me better.
I am a very serious individual. I always try to be, especially with my work. I came off as a slacker last time and I don't want people to think of me that way. I was only trying to be funny in order to intrigue anyone in reading what I have to say on this Journal. but it seems I used a very dull and dry sense of humor. It was forced and I don't like that. If I want to be funny it will come naturally to me when I write. OK, enough of that. I think that cleared up some things.

So let's talk about Writing(yes I will write it with a capital letter because it's important). "Writing is the representation of a language put into a textual medium through the use of a certain set of symbols." That's actually what Wikipedia says about the subject with it's very first sentence. And it's spot on. To put in a simpler way we use Writing to put our understanding of a given language into words. I am amazed how great writers use it not as a tool but an extension of the soul. To share complex opinions for everyone to see and put all their heart and soul into their work. Whether their readers understand it or not, in most cases, is not up to the writers themselves. But the best writers can actually form very complex sentences and yet explain themselves in a simple manner that most people can understand, without breaking the flow of writing.

So Writing is an art, science and discipline. So why do I like writing? Well most of what I said in the top paragraph gives a reasonable explanation. But there's so much more to it. I love it because I can create with it. I can conjure entire worlds just by a slight movement of my right hand. Looking it this way, Writing sounds like an epic adventure. Well to me it is but I am very big devotee to this art, science etc. What about most people? What do they think of Writing? How do they use it?
Well, these days they use writing in order to connect with each other through text messages, chat programs like the infinitely famous Skype, MSN and others. So has writing been dumb down because of the new age of technology? Well, no. Writing is still the same as it used to be. Only less popular in it's purest form.
Most people don't know how to write properly, even on an average level. I myself am a poor writer(in more ways than one). But I at least try hard in order to put my thoughts and opinions in a textual format. I wouldn't say that Writing is a dying breed, but it's not the way it used to be. There were very few writers back in the day and it was considered a profession for the most creative and imaginative. There's a reason I named this blog/journal "Imagination". Because imagination is the border in which one can create through writing. And it is limitless. Now we can see "professional" writers everywhere. Tell me, if they are so "professional" why do they waste their skills writing gossip about celebrities? Is it that prestigious? I don't think so...

There are a lot of problems with Writing and writers these days. It is being comercialized and abused as an art form. Becoming more of a tool for the everyman. This is the second biggest reason why I want to improve my writing. To make a change. Of course music and the other mediums are going through a similar phase and I do hope people are trying to change that as well. Let's not make writing into something trivial and shallow but show how great it is. I will certainly do that. Until next time...