I've been kinda following this one for a while. I saw that review in Wired and thought it was both to soft and too hard in its critiques.
While I think the comparison between the graphic violence of the books and the sterility of the game itself is interesting, especially given the amount of media attention given to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and the like. But at the same time I think that part of the sterility of the violence in the Left Behind game is that, as Thompson notes, "gameplay always overshadows cultural content." In this case I think the sterility is a product of this game being conceptualized as a top-down strategy game rather than as a shooter. The gameplay is more based upon strategy and less upon immersion, so the content becomes stylized to streamline the non-gameplay content. It's not about people at all, it's about the function those units provide and the binary status of the individual units. The game, like much evangelical proselytizing, loses sight of the individual unit for the sake of the impersonal meta-status of the unit's soul. Hunger, pain, happiness are all irrelevant so long as that unit is saved.
From this point of view, I think the most interesting things to be said about the game are all in the design decisions. I think in this case the designers want to make sure that the game isn't tainted by association with other types of games in the same genre. They can't make an RPG without being compared to D&D and other "satanic" games and they can't make a shooter for fear of being linked with Doom and GTA and other ultra-violent games that make kids shoot up schools. So instead they fall back on the metaphor of the Christian soldier fighting a war and put the player in the general's chair, far away from any personal involvement in the fight.
Perhaps the most controversial design decision is to allow players to play as the bad guys. I can't see that winning many players from outside evangelical circles and I can see it upsetting a lot of fundamentalist parents who do not want their children to ever imagine being on the side of evil. I wonder if they will license Jesus Camp versions where this feature has been turned off?
Yeah, the design decisions are fascinating, and I suspect the evangelical types will vehemently dislike the game; I suspect it'll still reach the target audience - Christian kids - who'll probably also like like it, but those who want those kids to play and like it will be aghast.
It's sorta subversive, now that I think about it. Heh.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
Interesting
While I think the comparison between the graphic violence of the books and the sterility of the game itself is interesting, especially given the amount of media attention given to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and the like. But at the same time I think that part of the sterility of the violence in the Left Behind game is that, as Thompson notes, "gameplay always overshadows cultural content." In this case I think the sterility is a product of this game being conceptualized as a top-down strategy game rather than as a shooter. The gameplay is more based upon strategy and less upon immersion, so the content becomes stylized to streamline the non-gameplay content. It's not about people at all, it's about the function those units provide and the binary status of the individual units. The game, like much evangelical proselytizing, loses sight of the individual unit for the sake of the impersonal meta-status of the unit's soul. Hunger, pain, happiness are all irrelevant so long as that unit is saved.
From this point of view, I think the most interesting things to be said about the game are all in the design decisions. I think in this case the designers want to make sure that the game isn't tainted by association with other types of games in the same genre. They can't make an RPG without being compared to D&D and other "satanic" games and they can't make a shooter for fear of being linked with Doom and GTA and other ultra-violent games that make kids shoot up schools. So instead they fall back on the metaphor of the Christian soldier fighting a war and put the player in the general's chair, far away from any personal involvement in the fight.
Perhaps the most controversial design decision is to allow players to play as the bad guys. I can't see that winning many players from outside evangelical circles and I can see it upsetting a lot of fundamentalist parents who do not want their children to ever imagine being on the side of evil. I wonder if they will license Jesus Camp versions where this feature has been turned off?
From:
Re: Interesting
It's sorta subversive, now that I think about it. Heh.