Dracko says:

And no one talks about the release of Chex Quest 3 here either.

What happened to the love?

September 17th, 2008 at 1:02 am

Dracko says:

True sadism would just involve offing the little shit.

Well, hm, no. That would just be offing the little shit. Where’s the hurt and torture?

Either way, it’s a good title and one that I enjoy replaying on occasion.

September 17th, 2008 at 1:09 am

Dracko says:

Esha: You can’t have played Doom and not at least know what Chex Quest is.

Point is, after a dozen years of waiting, the final episode is out: http://chexquest.org/index.php?topic=918.0

September 17th, 2008 at 1:10 am

Dracko says:

Nota bene; I’m not an American.

And I don’t recall this blog being UK-centric.

September 17th, 2008 at 1:19 am

Noc says:

Lesson we can learn from this game:

If you’re trying to get across a subtext, make it a subtext, and make the game good.

It’s such a shame the game crashes when I try and run it.

September 17th, 2008 at 1:22 am

Dracko says:

Noc: So you haven’t actually played it, then?

And what on Earth do you mean? What’s inherently wrong with a cartoon BDSM setting, whether you intend it as a discussion of player/developer relationships or not?

September 17th, 2008 at 1:34 am

Dracko says:

WiiWare?

September 17th, 2008 at 2:38 am

Cedge says:

“Games whose primary purpose seems to be getting blogged about.”

This. The mind boggles at the pretentiousness.

September 17th, 2008 at 3:17 am

James Harvey says:

Sup Keiron

September 17th, 2008 at 4:52 am

Cycle says:

I’d advise against playing this game in a room full of prudes.

September 17th, 2008 at 6:55 am

Ben Abraham says:

Sorry for double post, edit time ran out.

Finished! My time 25:51.

September 17th, 2008 at 7:30 am

Lorc says:

I loved this game. It introduces elements one at a time, lets you learn how to deal with them, and then starts lobbing them at you with twists, or in combination. The mileage it gets out of the dingle, simple enemy type is a testament to this approach.

It’s always fresh because there’s minimal repetition during the actual challenging areas. It’s a skill test. You’ve proven that you can do X in situation Y so it doesn’t insult you by pretending that having to do it ten more times is a fun challenge. Instead you get little flashbacks to the easiest sections to give you a breather at the end of particularly nasty bits.

Also liked the use of background colour to give the impression of progress and to tell you where the checkpoints are.

Good stuff.

September 17th, 2008 at 1:47 pm

El Stevo says:

Crashes on my machine too, with an utterly useless error message. Shame.

September 17th, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Andrew says:

I enjoyed it when I played a while back, although alt-tabbing out meant I got a time of around 30 minutes, hehe. I’m not even a platformer fan, the game was just quite well made and not too insanely hard that I gave up (unlike you, Mr. New Super Mario ). I don’t know if the game is really masochism as such, since it is actually so well designed with every “level” introducing gradually more complicated ideas - I got through some bits really easily, and some other bits which required more pixel-perfect jump timing I did even after a good few deaths. There are some games which aim to really, really kill the player (I Wanna Be The Guy, for instance, now there’s a game you might want to post about being masochistic), but this isn’t, I think, one of them funnily enough. Sorry Kerion, I don’t quite agree - Kevlmess explains some good points about the game too.

Shame it crashes on some machines, it’s made with some game making tool and that can cause problems.

I also think “Games whose primary purpose seems to be getting blogged about.” is a very pretentious thing to say. Egad, I just can’t think how wrong you are, you’re that wrong.

September 17th, 2008 at 7:38 pm

Andrew says:

Whatever you say, you still come off as someone who would say that about almost everything (after all, almost anything can be put on a blog. This is a PC game blog. This is a PC game, thus it can be blogged about). It’s ironic, you posting a comment on said blog posting about it too, haha.

I’d much rather this be covered then many of the other mainstream games going around. This won’t get mentioned on IGN, Gamespot or whatever - go and read those sites if you don’t want to see “bloggable games” “that exist just to get blogged about” in the “”art game” set” and save us your comments on them all. Sigh.

September 17th, 2008 at 9:49 pm

Cedge says:

I guess what I want to say in summation is that if they’re trying to compare the role of the game designer to that of a sadist, then I don’t see why it’s such a stretch for me to compare the role of these particular game designers, who specifically set out to make such an intentionally offbeat game that they knew would grab people’s attention, and whose game has almost no merit when you take away it’s kinky intro and end story art, to that of the attention whore.

September 18th, 2008 at 7:11 am

James Edwards says:

Through my super Dolemite-esque stealth recon of BDSM sex, I’ve made a few observations of the difference between sadomasochistic fucking and playing Mighty Jill Off -

1) When you partake in BDSM you’re probably going to have an orgasm after the punishment. When you partake in Mighty Jill Off you’re probably not going to get an orgasm.

2) BDSM sex involves touching a naked person, or being touched by a naked person. Mighty Jill off is a tepid shareware title.

3) When you have BDSM sex it probably isn’t plagarising the mechanics of some other BDSM sex from the 1980s.

Most of the games that have strict, difficult mechanics - I’m thinking Robotron, Alien Soldier and bullet hell shooters - manage to provide the kind of breathless exilaration that while it probably doesn’t feel like post-coital elation at least vaugely resembles a damn good handjob. They’re harsh mistresses for sure, but the pacing and skill required to get the better of them for a while will inevitably give the player a sense of release when a boss explodes or a wave falls. Mighty Jill Off has the wrapper (in the sense a touched up Bomberman sprite looks a bit like a gimp if you squint and try not to think of Batman) but it doesn’t have the sense of urgency, nor the pacing. There’s nothing sexy or vital about checkpoint respawns - Halo 3 on legendary uses them to keep you in the action, I suppose, but there’s actually some thrill to be had just beyond.

Gillen, you should start a blog called “Give Us Attention! Please!”

September 18th, 2008 at 3:39 pm

James Edwards says:

Well, care to respond to the rest, Gillus?

September 18th, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Andrew says:

Cedge; Kieron basically sums up my response. Man, you awfully hate designers. All designs are usually intentionally something, but saying this is meant to just be attention grabbing for the sake of it is really a poor view

I also sighed because I knew, if you responded at all, I’d not convince you of anything, heh.

September 18th, 2008 at 6:10 pm

Andrew says:

Since I disagree with the opinion that link of masochist/sadist to player/designer as point of the game, since the game itself isn’t of the ilk (or maybe that’s the point? a BSMD game which isn’t a pain to play?), I can’t really see your point obviously.

I don’t agree with the RPS analysis, but there we go, if you do then that’s your opinion. If you think that makes it valid criticism, well, you’re entitled to your opinions. I can’t fathom it since it’s built on what I see as a incorrect perception of the game though, so I can I guess do nothing but just shrug and say “fair enough”.

Obviously if you didn’t enjoy the game, then whatever, I can’t make you enjoy it or like it.

Perhaps I just don’t read into the damn thing enough! I’ve not exactly interviewed the designer of it and asked her specifically what she had in mind or why it was “too easy” and “not orgasimic enough” or “not naked enough”, or even on the story/gameplay segrgation or the allegory for the player/designer relationship in Jill/the queen. You don’t need to go all out in any kind of game design to make it exactly like something else. Making something that fits a BSDM subtext (and only a subtext, not the point of the game as a whole, which frankly would be not a game but something else entirely if James is anything to go by) is enough to satisfy the point and not drill it into your head like some crap Disney film moral or over the top song and dance number explaining the point of it all. I don’t think the game personally takes the designer/player BSDM route too much, since the game is frankly a lot easier then many mario platformers. Maybe that is the jab, that it is a lot easier then most. Frankly, I’m not in the mood to care any more.

September 18th, 2008 at 7:03 pm

James Edwards says:

Well, it isn’t subtext, is it? Batman and Robin have homosexual subtext until the very second Robin gets a hummer behind the Batmobile - everything after that is full blown, overt.

There’s a difference between boredom, sadism and masochism in gaming. For example, playing Shadow The Hedgehog requires masochism and produces boredom, but there’s no overt sadistic intent, bless. Likewise Eugene Jarvis designed Robotron to be hard but also to be an awesome, rewarding experience. You don’t suffer to play Robotron.

One of the real problems with getting S&M into games beyond an aesthetic choice (Killer 7, Thrill Kill, Dungeon Master) is that the reasons you’d fancy a videogame and the reasons you’d fancy a shag are completely different, and what’s enjoyable while you’re getting one up the jacksie isn’t enjoyable while you’re playing Street Fighter II (unless you like to give nipple twisters when you win a match, which just isn’t sporting). You’re going to fuck for erotic excitement and you’re going to game to engage your brain on some level. Even the most intellectual fucking will involve that distinct frission.

(Games_designed_for_wanking_to are a little bit distinct, of course, but I’m not sure I’d care to factor in the Battle Raper fanbase into any discussion, ever)

At the end of the day games and fucking both involve performance, timing and points of release, but there’s different glands involved, unless you jerk off to anime people or unless you’ve got a fetish for Gamecubes. Saying “games are kind of like [my very important and totally unique and amazingly interesting sexual fetish LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME]” isn’t really interesting or accurate, and a badly paced game is a badly paced game. This is a unique form that relies on mechanical integrity: if you just want to make a statement, go to the police.

September 19th, 2008 at 3:12 am

daphny says:

1) When you partake in BDSM you’re probably going to have an orgasm after the punishment.

nope, i mean you COULD but orgasms dont really have to have anything to do with it

2) BDSM sex involves touching a naked person, or being touched by a naked person.

are you talking about BDSM or are you talking about sex?

September 19th, 2008 at 9:47 pm

James Edwards says:

I’m talking about consensual sexual intercourse with a bondage/sadism element - lifestyle submissiveness is a whole other thing, which I’d be inclined to say is way, way less healthy (with the extreme being those Gor dudes).

If you’re not fucking for orgasms I’m not sure what you’d fuck for (unless you were a semen farmer? I dunno).

Gilloid:

“”triving to complete something for no other reason than your master has told you to do is deeply ingrained in gaming’s core genes”

This, frankly, is absolute bollocks, and I’d dare you to substantiate it one tiny bit. The earliest games were sports - do you play football because your master demands it, or because you like playing football? Vidcons are extercises in masturbation, sometimes mutual, sometimes alone, but there’s an undeniable and sometimes even transferable skillset being developed, and there’s a motivation beyond pain and duty (except the time I beat Shadow The Hedgehog, Sega’s own version of mortification of the flesh). We play games because they’re fun and they provide pleasure - who hasn’t got shits and giggles out of totally epic virtual suicides, or blowing all the little dudes in Defender II: Stargate? RPG fans are the obvious exception, but their poor taste disqualifies them from anything, ever.

September 20th, 2008 at 1:44 am

James Edwards says:

Jamie do I have to use similes for everything I think you’ve mistaken burning vigour for rage, so my apologies.

[b]James: Side-stepping Pong and the first sports games, the original single player games* were nothing other than game designers telling you what to do to win. Why are you doing this task? Fundamentally, because i) you enjoy it ii) they’ve, through their design, told you to do it.[/b]

And this, fundimentally, is quite different from slavery. Master/slave relationships tend to involve emotional abuse, removal of self-determination, etc. Videogames are absolutely a matter of choice. Someone who orders soup of the day in a cafe is not a slave to the soup chief. They chose to eat soup. Someone who watches a movie isn’t a slave to watching the movie. The movie is usually a choice.

Slavery involves domination, and genuine slavery involves misery - it sounds very fancy to say that going through predetermined levels is akin to enslavement but honestly, it’s a consenting relationship. Remember that kid who could play Asteroids for hours by abusing the fuck out of the engine? He’s no slave (he’s a bit too in love with tedium for his own good, but that’s a side issue). The player is not being forced to work plantations. Later 80s stuff is bound by the restrictions of the hardware, but it’s usually still got room for a player to be expressive or fuck about a bit.

With the move into sandbox games like GTA, or even micro-sandboxes like Psi-Ops, you’re starting to see games that actually let the player explore and interact with sets of rules on their own terms - self-expression. That’s extremely conter-Master/Slave (that said, GTA IV pushes the slave to tedium angle a bit too far).

I don’t think Mighty Jill Off is setting out to make much of a point at all - it’s a bit of author-insertion self-fic retrofitted around an extant concept from the 1980s - you know, a bit like Phonogram

September 22nd, 2008 at 9:13 pm

James Edwards says:

I have a motherfucker of a headache right now, Kieron, and it’s kind of hard to follow some of your stuff, but I am genuinely trying to engage you in this. Of course you disagree with me, but I’m not doing it to enrage - or if I am, it’s purely a side product of my desire to express my honest and reasoned opinion.

First off the bat, as Dracko pointed out, “offing the little shit” isn’t sadism, it’s murder. You can’t be sadistic to a corpse. So… perhaps it isn’t me that needs to reassess BDSM relationships?

Secondly, the analogy falls down by the fact that some people are extremely adept at extremely punishing games. An Alien Soldier superplay, for example, would be the kinked equivilent of a submissive busting out of their binds and pegging the mistress senseless while calling her a dirty fucking whore. Complete role reversal. The role between chastised and chastee is simply too fluid. Admittedly, most high level games like this are either bullet hell shooters or vs fighters, which completely throws the analogy slightly out of whack. But very, very few games these days are that tough.

The other thing to consider - what’s in it for the developers? Do they want to fuck with you, accomidate you, or just construct their own elaborate systems of things? How do they observe the player being whipped by digitals?

Consider Gears of War: is the designer seeking to punish me, or let me roleplay my more base machinegun fantasies?

This is neblous stuff, of course. But I’d say that the flow of game design could be better understood as the relationship between architect and inhabitant, stage director and audience - even, perhaps, between someone writing a proper banging synth build for a trance track.

As for the last bit - it’s always struck me that Phonogram takes the base of Hellblazer, gives John Constantine your face and replaces the magic with your taste in music. Take that how you will, I just think it’s fairly similar to how MJO takes bombjack and transplants a lot of the developer’s sense of self to it (and a bit because I find self-insertion in fiction fascinating* and I’ve never seen anyone say “hang on - Dave Khol looks exactly like the author!” while discussing it)

*from Gonterman to Grant Morrison

September 22nd, 2008 at 11:17 pm