Flowers was the game that we played in class on Thursday. It consisted of the player being the wind carrying petals and navigating them to flowers to restore life on the wild terrain. This small explanation is my own take on the point of the game since there were no clear objectives or rules to the game that I was told to follow. This ambiguity of the so called game is what made me wonder if it was a video game at all.
Other than nice visuals, I deem Flowers to not be a video game for its lack of player interaction or any plot. Without it being a video game, I pose that it must not have rhetoric regarding nature. Although Flowers did make me wonder about aspects of nature like its emptiness and how certain human structures affect the land, it only did so for a millisecond. I continued to be bored and noticing how slowly the clock was moving. Flower fails in its persuasion because it did not lure me in and truly make me wonder what it is trying to say without it being forced out of me in my Rhetoric 1B class in Berkeley.
I believe that to have the power to persuade, in other words power of rhetoric, you must be able to engage your audience deeply with you message, especially in a competitive media world in which many opinions are thrown at once. Flowers does not have any persuasion power because it does not demand attention or even much brain ability since it has been used to just relax. Moreover, Flowers does not take a stand, which in many cases is the most important aspect of rhetoric. I have no clue as to what it is trying to say in regard to nature. Should we be more environmentally aware? Should we not interfere with nature? Certainly this “game” does not compel me to find out or care. It only makes me wish that somewhere far in the hills of the landscape of Flowers was a shooter hiding, aiming at the small petal in the wind.
I would argue that Flower does have objectives. Although they were not written, you could not advance in the game unless you collected the petals and opened up the glowing flowers. And the game clearly has levels, the six or seven potted plants on the window sill represent all the levels and increase in difficulty. It is certainly a game, no matter how different it is from most video games on the market today.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how many people found it "boring," as you so often put it, though I guess I can see what you mean. Nonetheless, "boring" is a very subjective term, and I'm sure you'd agree that Flower has its appeals to certain audiences. The visuals, for one, are really vibrant and relaxing to someone who doesn't want to come home from an already stressful day and play a video game where you have to, I don't know, kill zombies who are out to eat you or something. Furthermore, the gameplay itself is very creative, and if you're willing to give it more time, really gets you to think about what the video game is trying to tell you.
ReplyDeleteLastly, you say that a video game, by definition, needs a plot. I disagree completely. What about sports games or the millions of flash games out there where the objective is score as many points as you can? I think you overall reaction to Flower stems from its identity as a different game, and you might be reacting to a completely new genre of video games.
Thanks for being honest, Pedro, and thanks for the excellent comments, Merany and Tim. As much as I like the game Flower, I completely understand that it doesn't appeal to everyone. I suspect that you'd have more fun with the game if you were actually handling the controller, since it's designed to respond sensitively to your movements. Watching it as probably not nearly as interesting.
ReplyDeleteIn my discussion with one of the game's creators, the issue of control came up in regard to games. The designer, Chen, remarked that much of his childhood experience with games was all about dominating other people or things, and that now he wanted to create a game that offered a different kind of experience, a different emotional range, and perhaps a more moral or ethical outlook.
I have to admit that when I saw the game being played for the first time I was rather turned off as well. I was like really? Someone invested their time and money to make a game like this?
ReplyDeleteI also have to add that had I not been in a rhetoric class looking for the deeper meaning within the surface of the video game, I too would not have realized the argument being posed by the created of the game.
However, as I observed further as the game was being played, I did begin to notice a potential argument surface, especially across the varying scenes of the game. Though it might not have been entirely obvious, there were certain instances when I thought I saw the message of the game come across. For example, this most particularly hit me when I saw the scene where it was raining in the background and where the power lines had fallen. I thought that this symbolized the destruction that man has caused to the environment and that the rain in the background captured the depressing mood of the event.
Furthermore, other scenes were cheery, like the first scene with the windmills in the background. I thought that this was perhaps to point out the joy that could be brought to the world with alternative sources of power that are more earth friendly, like using windmills to generate electricity.
Overall, I found these varying scenes to each interpret a different message that is being said about the condition of the world today from an environmental perspective.
I honestly thought the game seemed pretty boring, but maybe if I played for a few minutes my impression of the game would have changed. Since I didn't I guess I'll never know. What caught me most of guard and took away from the feeling that I'm watching a video game be played was the lack of any health bar or other thing on the screen during gameplay which gave me the impression that i was just watching a video play before actual gameplay started. Similar to Daniel, I didn't even think about observing a deeper meaning, but unlike him I just zoned out after awhile or added some side comments about the boringness of the game. Pedro, I wouldn't go as far as say there isn't an objective because there was for every level; it just wasn't this over the top objective like you may have in a shooter or RPG. Overall, i found the game boring, but i could see where some people who like nature might find the game interesting or perhaps a person looking to change the speed of their games may want to test this one out.
ReplyDelete--- Jordan R.
As much as I wanted to like the game, I too, found the purpose kind of ironic. Are we really trying to appreciate nature by playing a video game inside cooped up in our bedrooms? The game itself is beautifully crafted, in my opinion, but the hardest part to get past is the idea that there is supposed to be some sort of deeper natural meaning in a game that is meant to be played on a couch or a computer. It does, however, provide insight to the impact humans do have in nature. In conclusion, I think that unless the gamers have absolutely no way of experiencing real nature, the people who play Flower should just go outside and try to smell the real roses.
ReplyDelete