DISPATCHES SEPTEMBER
Atrocity exhibition
I realise joining the chorus of criticism of
The Last Of UsPart II feels like something of a pile-on, for players if not reviewers, but having just completed the 20 gruelling hours, I have to second Anand Modha’s letter ( E347) on what a waste of talent the whole enterprise is, in so many ways. What lesson are we exactly supposed to learn from a piece of art – and it is visually stunning – that essentially fetishises brutality, particularly when it seems to be telling you how bad killing is before forcing you to do it over and over again? Naughty Dog’s stock defence has been that this is a morality tale about violence which challenges the narrative of who the good guys and bad guys are. But if that’s the case, why depict every gruesome act with lingering arthouse shots of each and every new way of mutilating someone, ad nausea?
It wouldn’t be so difficult to stomach if Neil Druckmann didn’t claim such lofty ideals for the game. When so many marginalised groups endure violence as a day-to-day lived experience (Darren McGarvey’s Poverty Safari was an eye-opener for me), how much empathy did the creators really have for their own characters? The biggest waste is that for a story which could be about empowerment, of strong queer protagonists in a game which is clearly going to find its way into the homes of people who might not be natural soulmates, it’s a deeply conservative piece of work which values the individual over the collective, assumes the worst about humanity and offers no redemptive arc. You can’t redeem yourself if you want to.
It’s maybe not that surprising that, in a country which has a longstanding and deeply entrenched love affair with violence as a response to conflict, that a wealthy developer from California should casually perpetuate this for the purpose of entertainment, but it is depressing. Maybe in a post-capitalist society when we’re all too happy, The Last Of Us Part II can be on the cover of your ‘Feel Worse’ issue.
Mark Whitfield
These days
In a response to Anand Modha’s letter bemoaning the industry’s obsession with photorealistic violence in Edge 347, you remarked on how such games explore “why much of humanity feels compelled to commit such hideous atrocities.” Well that’s just the thing; most of humanity feels no such thing. Most of humanity goes around planting, knitting, reading, playing, falling in love and getting cross about queuing. And whilst there are games that address all of these things (perhaps barring knitting?) it feels like the art form has a long way to go before it actually resembles any kind of balance in this respect.
When I go to an art gallery it’s not like seven out of ten paintings I look at depict violence and killing. Sure, there are plenty that do, but overall the works will portray a far wider and richer gamut of human experience and emotion. The same can be said for literature or theatre. I don’t want the medium of computer games to be the default location for people to indulge in their sociopathic and violent impulses. I don’t think that should be our aspiration and I think the medium can be more than that. There are plenty of developers showing the way, but a quick scan of the best-selling games every year shows us that we have a long way to go. What would success look like? Maybe when seven out of the top ten best-selling games of the year are focused entirely on other things and not violence. Like planting, knitting, reading, playing, falling in love and getting cross about queuing.
Joe Crook
“When I go to an art gallery, it’s not like seven out of ten paintings I look at depict violence”
In fairness, Joe, we were in a particuarly bad mood with humanity last month. We’d love to see the same, hence why we devote so many pages to lifting up those kinds of games, which are more plentiful than ever. It’s a marketing issue, really: much of the industry still courts an audience of young men, who they’re convinced are only interested in bashing virtual heads in. Anyway, might we suggest you play the free prologue for knitting puzzler Weaving Tides with your new SN30 Pro+ controller?
She’s lost control
This is not a letter about The Last Of Us Part II. For all that has been written about that game there was one thing that did interest me about it. A BBC News article suggested that it might be the most accessible game ever. According to the article by David Molloy and Paul Carter, the game has 60 different accessibility settings. The game has systems in place to allow all would-be players to get involved whether they are deaf, blind, one-handed or whatever. As mentioned in the article, game accessibility has improved greatly in recent times but disabled users are still at the mercy of individual developers who decide how many accessibility options to include in their games. My own disability is not too severe but I have effectively only the one good hand with which to control my games. I have been gaming for a long time and have adapted so that I can play most games. However, back in the ’80s and ’90s it was a lot easier. I played on Spectrums and Amigas which had one-button joysticks, which were perfect for the one-handed player, and if keyboard was preferred nearly all games had re-definable keys. As games have become more complex, they have become trickier to control. Modern controllers (like the one you are giving away for the letter of the month) are built for two-handed people. They can just about be used by the one-handed player but it is awkward. My preference is to play on keyboard and re-define my keys as I used to do. If a game allows re-mapping of keys then that is my gateway, the game is accessible to me. Pretty much all Spectrum games had re-definable keys and many modern games can be customised within an inch of their lives, so why do I still have far too many games in my library that do not permit it? Some games simply do not have it as an option; others seem to think giving me a choice of three sets of key mappings would suffice (it does not, especially when all three choices given included keys at either end of the keyboard). I am not a programmer so I wondered if you could explain whether or not allowing a player to redefine their keys is such a difficult task to include in a game’s design and implementation? If it is relatively easy, are we then looking at laziness or a simple lack of caring, when games do not cater for those who like or need to redefine their keys? Ceri Roberts
Even such a seemingly easily-implemented feature adds to development cost; someone has to program menu screens and user interface prompts, and QA has to test it all. It’s great to see a high-profile studio like Naughty Dog show the world that accessibility should be a priority.
The sound of music
So now Nintendo decides with Clubhouse Games: 51 Worldwide Classics that we have to listen to the most offensively inoffensive plinky-plonk muzak even while playing cards, darts and even chess! (Or turn the volume down and miss the excellent sound FX.) They don’t like us to have options in case we pick the one they don’t want us to. The ridiculously easy tenpin bowling and golf are spared (so far). I’m praying for a ‘music off’ option in an update, but so far reviewers don’t seem to mind or even mention it, which I find pretty worrying in itself. The golden rule of music in games should be: even if it was your very favourite music you might want to take a break from it sometimes, so the option to do so should be there – even with the Animal Crossing music. There, I said it.
The Wii U storefront had jaunty, happy, jolly music that we couldn’t turn off, but that was for our own good (thanks Nintendo) as we would have missed the Big Feature music for big new releases such as Zelda and Mario. Probably a similar thing applies here, if it’s the same as the DS version of Clubhouse which had “pop” versions of the music to unlock by getting all medals – and that just wouldn’t be such a thrill if we had been playing all the games in blissful peace with just the sound FX. Thanks again Nintendo for depriving us of an option that many of us might misuse (i.e. use).
John Budgen
This is perhaps the most sinister conspiracy theory we’ve ever heard in relation to Nintendo, John, and we’ve heard quite a few. May heaven preserve our ears.
Digital
In these uncertain times, I hope the pandemic has not affected small independent game shops too much. The one I use, Mega Games, is a godsend to me: really friendly, good deals on trade-in games and always gets games in a few days early. I can’t be the only one who feels this way about their local indies up and down the country. So I was delighted last weekend that they had reopened. The move to digital is something I do not like – it’s great for indie games, but I like the physical copy in my hand for the triple-A games, and also seeing them on my shelves (even if there are not the glossy instruction manuals any more). Anyone remember the Japanese import Super Famicom/PC engine games having really excellent, highly illustrated ones back in the day? I wonder if I am part of a dying breed who will mourn with the inevitable move to digital only?
Dan Chambers
Physical media? In this economy? You’re having a laugh, mate. *sobs*