My first project for Mrs. B's class was to read Franz Kafka's "Before The Law" (http://www.kafka-online.info/before-the-law.html) and then play the game adaptation of it by Brandon Brizzi (http://www.theoddmanout.net/games/beforeTheLaw.html).
This seemed an interesting enough assignment because I personally love this opportunity to compare the two side by side. Much like Bioshock, I feel like these types of games 1) lend credibility to the medium and 2) make it easier to analyze and address what exactly games can and cannot convey by comparing them to something topically similar.
If you want to participate, I greatly encourage it. So feel free to read this story and play the game before reading my analysis and then also feel free to debate with me in the comments section or via email at jdcrouch5@gmail.com.
Analysis -
The primary question we must address in our analysis is "What changes in the transition from text to interactive medium?" Obviously the core content remains the same, even some of the words, so why isn't the experience the same?
I would argue that it is degrees of closeness that alter our perception and analysis of the text and the symbols that lie within. In Kafka's text, the perspective is 3rd Person Limited, meaning that we are witnessing the events of this moment in congruence with what the man sees. We are not the man, but we do not have the freedom of vision to see beyond what he is seeing or experiencing. Since it is not 1st person, we also do not get a sense of the man's motivations, thoughts, or history. The choices the man makes are his alone and we are only to bear witness to these events. Kafka purposefully writes from this perspective to convey to his audience that, though the man has made a terrible mistake in his actions, it is not too late for us to change.
The primary question here is also "what is the law?". It is up to the reader to decide whether it is martial law and the gatekeeper symbolizes the men in power (the bourgeoisie) attempting to trick us out of our free will by having us assume we are limited in action and power to further empower ourselves with knowledge (a fairly Marxist take), or if it is a matter of divine law and the gatekeeper tests our faith, or even just that enlightenment requires boldness of character and a disregard of societal mores to obtain. I believe there is no right answer and that the interpretation is left up to the reader, but the important thing to note here is Kafka's method of delivery of this message and that, in this text, the focus is on obtainment (or mastery) of the law or one's inability to do so.
Do we as readers learn from this didactic story? Did we really put down the text and tell ourselves "I will discover all the answers I seek in the universe and nothing will stop me?"
Brandon Brizzi's game would argue "no". Now wait...I previously said that it's merely an adaptation of the text. How can a game, with the same plot, deliver a critical response to the text it bases itself off of? Bioshock isn't a retelling of Atlas Shrugged with flashing "Wrong" signs hanging in the air, it's a leap into the future to see what would happen in such a world. But this game follows the exact same story!
The answer is in gameplay mechanics. Let's go back and look at all things I previously mentioned about Kafka's parable and address how this game differs and what that changes about how we analyze the exact same content.
The biggest different here is Perspective. You remember how you hated everything your dad did when you were a kid, then you grew up and realized you made all the same mistakes he did? We get this platitude of "history repeats itself" from that, and it's correct. Because learning is experiential. We can read Kafka's story and say "Wow, that was a terrible decision. I won't make that decision when I'm faced with that same situation."
Brizzi's response is that you are wrong. And he proves it to you. When you play the game, it tells you "--> to move right", so you so. This is essentially a tutorial. In your formative years, much of what you learn is correct is from authority figures telling you such. So here we have an omniscient force telling you how the game is meant to be played. You might even try going left if the desire strikes you (but it probably won't on the first playthrough). Soon you find out you cannot go left. So the "my word is law" principle applies so far. You do what you are told. Eventually, you reach the gatekeeper and the game informs you to "Halt". You do so and are rewarded with the narration continuing. This is called "Operant Conditioning" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning) and you now believe that by following instructions you will "win the game" i.e. - see it through to the end. Again, you are tested with the command "*Down Arrow* to wait". And guess what, even if you have read the text before, maybe even on your second or third playthough, or every playthrough, you will sit down, wait, and die.
You may even think that's all there is to the game and hate it, give up, think it's dumb. But maybe, just maybe, some of you decided to keep going right instead of listening to the game instructions. This is due to the possession of a narrative form that books do not possess - I will refer to it as First-Person Omniscient. You can stop and ponder on the situation, you can go check forums, and you can learn from your mistakes and repeat the scenarios to learn from them. You know the scenarios that will confront you and that affect you as the protagonist. This knowledge affects your decisions and playstyle. Brizzi offers you something through clever gameplay mechanics that Kafka could not do through any other medium and that is give you experiential knowledge.
But now this inspection begs the question "Is our analysis and subject matter altered now the perspective is altered?"
The answer to that is a resounding yes.
Even if we choose the second option and assert ourselves against to gatekeeper, we pass him and learn that the “law” is blank. Why is the law blank if, according to Kafka, every one should be allowed to read it? The game shifts the focus from “what is the law, and how does it affect us”(a societal analysis) to a journey of self-discovery. The law is blank because it is whatever we believe it to be. We thought that the law was “you cannot pass” and learned that law was an illusion: we can pass if we choose to and shouldn’t take every assertion as fact.
What kind of person are we to go against these rules and boundaries? Are we better for it? Not really, if you look at the game content. We know no more about “the law” than before. We do know more about ourselves, however, and perhaps the message here is that only by testing our personal limitations and the limitations of our world can we truly discover how much we are capable of.
Did the game adhere to the content of the text? Perfectly (although it did take creative license with the alternate ending, that second ending was, to a degree, implied). Were the experience and our analysis of it similar? Not even remotely.
I hope this serves as proof to some of you that video games hold exciting potential for philosophical contemplation. To say it isn't art is absurd. In some senses, it can be argued to be more of an artistic conduit than many other mediums because of this "player as part of the creation process" mechanic that other media lack the ability to offer. Sure games will always have their fodder, but so do books and film and canvas. With careful thought and construction applied, masterpieces can be born that outshine even the loftiest of artistic endeavors.
No comments:
Post a Comment