Over the weekend, my next door neighbor stopped by and asked if Wyatt could come over to his house. Tabitha and I know our neighbor pretty well. Wyatt works for him on the occasion. So we said sure, no problem.
Wyatt went over to the neighbors, sat outside on the front porch, and talked for awhile. Time passed, and he soon came home with a bag of books. Turns out our neighbor had wanted to give him a late Christmas gift. No big, right? Right. It was then that I learned that the entire time Wyatt was at the neighbors, he was being guilted/lectured over the way he spends his money.
Now imagine an adult that you know from passing conversations. An adult that pays your child to do random tasks for him. Imagine that adult now being critical to your kid over how he spends the money he earns. Telling him that he needs to be more purposeful with his money; telling Wyatt to quit spending his money on smaller things (like LEGOS, video games, etc.) and save just like his son used to.
Wyatt came home upset. When he told us what had happened, I was upset. You see, my kid takes stuff like that to heart… this isn’t the first time our neighbor has had this talk.
Good intentions aside, you never know where criticism, judgement, or even shadow parenting may occur.
One interesting complaint, however, was that the game withholds some power from the player. The Last Guardian revolves around a relationship between young boy and a giant bird-dog creature. The player controls the boy—the bird-dog is controlled by AI…an AI which acts remarkably like a finicky pet would. Both parts are necessary to solve many of the puzzles. If the player, as the boy, has solved how to get from point A to point B, but the bird-dog is busy munching on a snack or laying in the sunlight, the boy is stuck. This is, from the point of the typical reviewer, “bad game design”: the game withholds rewards from the player arbitrarily.
Please make sure to keep going with this piece. I love his thoughts on patience.
I can’t tell if C.T. Casberg’s piece titled “‘SUPERHOT’ is a Game About Porn” is brilliant or a massive stretch. At what point, in criticism, do we move beyond the objective to the subjective and project our own meaning/worldview on the art?
I disagree with SUPERHOT‘s logic that video games equal pornography. The article feels written to be controversial. Dragging the thirteenth apostle, C.S. Lewis, into the mix. Definitely a misfire.
It also informs the player what is the inevitable result of an addiction to pleasure: the destruction of the self and enslavement to those who provide that pleasure.