Shade

Darrell, this is the fist time I've taught Shade, and your response has by far been the strongest I've encountered from a student reacting to any text game. You can take heart that this the last text game I've assigned.

I certainly understand that text games aren't everyone's favorite. In fact, I chose a few text games early in the course in part because text games were the first commercial game genre, but also because I hope that the experience of encountering an unfamiliar game genre will be a good opportunity to demonstrate the critical skills that are required of looking at a game for other reasons other than one's own personal enjoyment.

Your response raises some very good questions. Why, indeed, can or might "Shade" be considered a video game? What is it about your personal definition of "game" that makes "Shade" an unlikely fit? What about the defintions given by Koster and Juul, or what about Laurel's emphasis on the importance of story?

I am curious, though... recall the terms I introduced in one of the opening slideshows, in which I introduced the difference between looking at a reading as if it were a mirror, a window, and a lens. If you can look beyond the "mirror" (in which you see mostly your own personal reactions when you look at "Shade"), and see it as a "window" (opening up on new perspectives of "fun" or "interactivity" or even "frustration" that wouldn't have been possible before you had this particular experience), and eventually use the whole experience to analyze the "lens" that predisposes you to have certain expectations, and certain reactions, that color your perception of the world.

I hope you'll consider my comments, and share your reactions to some of the issues the class has been discussing, so that we can all profit from this experience.

I understand your point about it being a "window" but sometimes a person comes across something that they do not like so much that there is no silver lining. That's how I feel about this game and the genre. I look at IF games as more of a programmed novel that has specific responses to certain commands. I opened up to a new perspective on fun the first time I played a text game called 9:05, I played that game until I beat it. It was kinda fun in a different way, but "Shade" was the last straw. The game told me that I was thirsty, so I tried to get a drink of water for five minutes and it never worked. When the only clue the game gives me is that I am thirsty, I find it difficult to find any type of fun in that whatsoever. So, like a music critic who doesn't listen to polka, I am a video game critc who doesn't play text games, and also like a critic, I don't have to like everything I play. I liked 9:05, and I hate "Shade".

In the film noir genre of detective movies, the protagonist is usually hired to find something -- such as the titular statue in The Maltese Falcon. But the job he's hired to do is usually just an excuse to get the plot rolling. In a similar way, Shade wasn't really a game about a person who is thirsty... your thirst was a gimmick to get you to try all the faucets in the apartment, so that the unusual results will have meaning.

As an athlete, you probably feel that the pain and suffering you undergo during training and during the games themselves, and the disappointment you face from losing, is worth the thrill you get from winning.

It's fair enough to say that the gimmick in Shade didn't work for you -- that the amount of effort it required wasn't worth the payback.

Your point that a text game is related to a novel is a good one -- both a novel and a text game use prose to communicate. But remember the slide from one of my early lectures -- all art is constrained. You may be particularly attuned to the limitations of the text medium, but all games provide programmed responses to certain commands, whether the command is initiated by words typed on the keyboard, pixels clicked on, or gestured made with the mouse. In another thread, I shared my frustration with 3D jumping games that force me to die numerous times just to prove that I can jump onto a certain ledge. (I want to be able to click the darn ledge and make the game jump me there... but then I'd never develop the timing and coordination necessary to appreciate the fine details of such games.)

You're raising good points, and I appreciate the candor with which you are addressing the issue.

Understanding a genre include studying the slam-dunk hits as well as the borderline cases, as well as analyzing the failures. After you've had the chance to read and comment on the Douglass reading, I hope in your reflection statement you will consider sharing some details about whether your reaction to Douglass (who offers several specific reasons for why he feels Shade succeeds) might help you to find the silver lining of insight -- something to be gained from analyzing your own strong initial reaction to a challenging work.