Gender Roles - Super Paper Mario - Part 2

(Possible Spoilers Ahead)
(In case you care about that kind of thing)

So, we've talked a bit about how videogames seem to have a history of reinforcing gender role stereotypes (with a few notable exceptions). The question then in my mind is whether recent games are rectifying this mistake, or adding to it. Specifically, the discussion is about Super Paper Mario, and how its central female characters are portrayed. Given it's a game somewhat aimed at younger gamers, the message it sends about gender is kind of important.

For starters, there's the quintessential Mario heroine/perpetual damsel in distress, Princess Peach.

Peach seems to be the epitome of tired female stereotypes. She's always clad in pink. She looks and typically acts cute and girly and sweet. The only time she isn't being sweet is when she's being emotionally unstable. In Super Paper Mario, she gets kidnapped yet again, and after a failed attempt to escape, she has to be rescued.

In terms of positives, she does have unique abilities that help Mario's party once she joins. Her parasol lets her float through the air, letting her clear wide gaps that Mario can't jump across himself, and she uses it like a shield in combat which, aside from being ridiculous, does make her useful for some battles.

She does show more independence than might be expected. She was very gung-ho about helping Mario save the world, but seems to only regard him as a friend. Surprisingly, she's about the only female character in the game who isn't in love or infatuated with anybody else. In that small regard at least, the character Peach is breaking the mold.

Now, a character who is new to the series: Nastasia

This character did a lot more in the way of breaking expectations of gender role. Her looks are far more reserved. The most girly thing about her is her way of speaking, which sounds a bit like a teenage girl (if that teenage girl were plotting to destroy the world). She has the appearance and mannerisms of a secretary, but it's clear early in the game that she is in fact second-in-command of the evil army that Mario and company must eventually overcome. With her cruel personality and powerful mind-control ability, she makes the rest of the evil minions look comical by comparison.

However, the first-impression of her being a ruthless, cold-hearted force of evil proves to be incorrect later on. It's revealed through cutscenes that she may be the only evil minion who has a conscience. She expresses regret that the world must be destroyed, yet continues anyway because of her devotion (and perhaps unresolved romantic feelings) toward her master, the main villain of the game.

Overall, Nastasia seems to be the stronger female character. There are still some obvious stereotypes (the secretary look, and pining for the man she works for), but she is in many ways a polar opposite to Peach. She's not cutesy or sweet. She bottles her emotions, acting cold and cut-throat. She somewhat lacks independence, but only by choice. She's certainly not perfect, but that sort of makes her more memorable.

The ultimate question is whether Super Paper Mario is creating good female characters or just reinforcing stereotypes. Answer: sort of. Princess Peach's increased independence seems to be a mild improvement over previous incarnations, and while Nastasia does fall into a few familiar tropes, she does break some new ground as a villainess.

(Note: I am still not quite finished with the game yet. I may briefly revisit it, as I suspect the ending may interfere with some of my points here.)

Super Paper Mario - Part 1

I anticipate this being very long, so I'll try to spread the discussion out over at least 2 weeks. The game in question is Super Paper Mario, a game for a Wii which combines RPG elements and narrative with unique platformer-style mechanics.

Aside from following a linear RPG narrative (which I'll touch on more later), the gameplay initially is very similar to the original Super Mario Bros. games and other such 2-D side-scrolling platformers. The twist this game adds is the ability to switch between exploring in 2-D and 3-D. Using this ability obviously lets you see things you couldn't before, but also provides a different way to move through the world. 

The game mostly makes you use the 3-D ability as a way to find clues and solve spatial puzzles. The main goal is still to just find your way from Point A to Point B, but it's not as simple as walking to the right. Each level is a puzzle where you not only have to find the exit, but figure out how to get there. Some cliched "find-the-key-to-unlock-the-door" parts do exist in the game, but these are not the norm. Most of the time, the player must utilize their wits and all the special abilities available to them to find their way out of the level. There is a real sense of discovery in exploring the levels, especially when the player goes the extra mile to find hidden items and treasures as well.

There are enemies to battle along the way, but these seem mainly to just be a minor challenge aesthetic for players who enjoy combat or the feel of conquering bad-guys. You can technically just run past most enemies without engaging them, and the majority of them won't even give chase. As I said though, they can provide that challenge aesthetic, and there are a few areas (boss battles for example) where you can't continue through the level until you defeat them.

Sometimes, though, the enemies are not a challenge at all, just a source of sensation of triumph. While there is strategy to employ sometimes to defeat enemies, other times it's just a simple matter of jumping on their heads. There are even sections like the one pictured below where you just find a superstar power-up, transform into an 8-bit giant version of Mario and run through the area effortlessly stomping everything in his path. It's just a sensation, which is still fun, but leaves something to be desired from gamers who really want a challenge. 

Now, let's consider the narrative. On the surface, it's a very simplistic story rife with RPG cliches. An evil force threatens to destroy the universe, and to stop it, the hero of legend and his party must embark on an epic journey to collect 8 magical artifacts that will give them the power to stop the forces of evil. However, what Super Paper Mario's premise lacks in originality, it makes up for in style. The whole thing is approached in a very humorous way, making tongue-in-cheek jokes at the expense of other games, of gamers, and of itself sometimes. There are parts that parody TV game shows, dating simulators, computers and anime geeks. The cutesy colorful graphics obviously appeal to kids, but the humor can certainly appeal to older gamers.

(There is occasional foreshadowing that there is more to the story than meets the eye, but I'm only about 12 hours into the experience, so I may revisit that in a future post)

The problem I see with the narrative is the few times when it offers the player "choices" to make. Super Paper Mario falls into the familiar trap of giving the player the illusion of choices (mostly by talking to certain characters and choosing what to say), when the choices have no real impact on how the story unfolds. There are even some conversations where Mario's choices to respond are "Yeah" and "Okay", or something similarly identical. There are certainly some parts of branching dialogue that made me laugh out loud (the dating sim parody, for instance), but the way the game makes pretenses of choice then says "just kidding, nothing you do matters" is bothersome.

A linear narrative is not in itself a bad thing, though. The main problem is not that the dialogue never matters, but rather that it sometimes does matter. Dialogue in the game can occasionally be a part of a puzzle that needs solving, and that is hard to distinguish from regular chatter between characters. The trouble for the player then becomes, how does one know whether the choice matters or not? Should I just say whatever is funniest and enjoy the reaction, or will saying the wrong thing cause me to be set back in solving a puzzle?

(Another thing I hope to revisit later is this concept of choice not mattering in this game. It seems to be the case that choices don't matter most of the time, but as I play the game there is no way to go back and try a different choice to see what happens, so I don't even know which parts might have been puzzles and which weren't at all. One character in the game alluded to the idea that I might be able to go back and change my choices eventually, so we'll see.)

In conclusion (for now), Super Paper Mario seems like a fun game for a variety of reasons. In terms of our 8 Types of Fun, the story provides fantasy and narrative fun (even if it is linear), the gameplay provides discovery and some challenge (I have yet to see the Pit of 100 Trials, but it sounds challenging), and the presentation throughout the whole game provides great sensational fun. The main things it lacks are fellowship (it's a one-player only game), and expression (RPGs don't let you be yourself much). While I may revisit this game later (I plan to at least discuss Princess Peach and traditional gender roles), I can at least say from the perspective of a guy who likes both RPGs and puzzle-platformers, these two styles of game can be pretty fun together.

Scared or Confused? - Tabletop game "Betrayal at House on the Hill"

My (sort of long-winded) review here is for the tabletop game we played in class, called "Betrayal at House on the Hill."

This is quite a behemoth of a game, for more than one reason. On the one hand, it's a great blend of chance, strategy, and a mystery/horror narrative. On the other hand, the sheer mass of playing pieces to keep track of and rules to remember can be daunting to first-timers. I think the box said "Ages 10 and up," but that assumes the 10-year-olds in question are some kind of prodigies.

The game makes no pretenses of being normal or easy to learn. Hardly anything you know from other "board games" applies here. Imagine my surprise the first time I got a close look at the dice: two of the six sides of a die have one dot, two sides have two dots, and the remaining two sides are blank. Very strange. Likewise, there wasn't a real obvious board to play on. It took a minute to realize that, after starting, the little rectangle we placed our player tokens on would gradually expand by placing new rooms one at a time.

The game flies in the face of conventional boardgame wisdom, which has both good and bad impacts. First, I'll consider the bad. Aside from the initial confusion over how to start playing, the expanding nature of the board area means it's hard to know exactly how much table space is needed to play on. Myself and other people in the group kept having to move things around on the table to make more room, which obviously is tedious and interferes with enjoyment of the game.

As well, there are several events that cause a semi-permanent object or effect to be added to a room the player is in. The game rules state event cards are to be discarded after use, but we found we needed to hang on to these cards in a separate spot just so we wouldn't forget what these weird effects do if/when they were encountered by another player later. It's kind of a hassle.

Also, the game allows up to 6 players at once, which is how many people we played with, but to me the 6-player style seemed to move rather slowly. I think limiting the game to 3-5 players would've been a better choice, at least in terms of keeping things moving.

But, let's look at the positives now.

The game has a lot going for it, asthetically. The house the game is set in was quite interesting to explore, always full of surprises. The sheer variety of items, rooms and events there was a lot of new things to learn, and there was a definite sense of risk vs. reward with every move or choice made.

Likewise, the game's art was appealing to me. The board pieces, the cards and the character tokens all were beautifully colored and fascinating to look at. The narrative style of the story books and the cards was engaging as well. They felt at times like reading a real horror novel, which added greatly to my overall enjoyment of the experience.

Also, the sheer number of different Haunting scenarios, offering new twists and criteria for success with each one, creates great replay value for this game. As we've discussed, a game tends to get boring once you've learned everything there is to learn about it. Well, with the varied haunting scenarios, even if you play through the game a dozen times, learn the mechanics of every possible event, every item, every omen and every room, the nature of these different Hauntings ensures each new game you play will be interesting and unique from previous plays.

Bottom line: when our time in class was up, I found myself saying "I'd like to play this again sometime." That is the key point I take away from the experience. Sure, the mechanics of the game were complicated, and the sheer volume of different pieces were easy to lose track of, both in terms of what the pieces actually do and in the physical pieces themselves getting lost in the box somewhere. However, once I got a general feel for the flow of the game, I enjoyed exploring the house, uncovering new things and unraveling the mysteries held within. The game seems to keep you guessing about a lot of things, but the rule book helps make sure that new players aren't left completely in the dark.

From all I've seen, I'd say this game clearly has the makings of a cult classic, if not a universal best-seller.

Art vs. Fun - Indie game "Passage"

So, my first journal entry is about a quirky game called Passage.

In the game, you just walk around and look at the strange pixel landscape, occasionally finding a box thing that'll explode with confetti when you reach it. Early on you can also find a girl character who will then walk around with you for the rest of the game.

As you play, the characters visibly age, and will eventually disappear leaving behind a grave marker. The woman usually goes first, leaving your old man to wander aimlessly a little longer before he too disappears.

Okay, while I found the experience interesting on an artistic level, to call this a good game would be lying. I'm not even sure it can be called a game, in the strictest sense. The rules are left intentionally vague. You know how to move around the landscape, and that the passage of time ages the characters, but that's about it. It's totally unclear what the confetti boxes or the numbers in the top right represent, and that leads me to the next point: there is no clear goal here.

In my opinion, with the lack of structure and goals, this is more of a toy than a game. Moreso than that, though, I'm sorry to say there's an even more damning problem with Passage: it simply isn't fun. I realize this is subjective, but let's look at how it plays out. You learn everything you need to know to play, which is moving the character around, from the very start. From there, everything else is unclear and never gets any clearer. The game ends in five minutes, and subsequent playthroughs only reveal more about the details of the landscape, so it doesn't have much replay value. To top it all off, it serves as a chilling reminder of our own mortality, and seemingly makes a statement about the fleetingness, and perhaps even pointlessness, of life. I think it would be difficult to find a person who can honestly say such an experience is fun.

The most potential for fun in this game seems to be tied to collecting the confetti boxes, and maybe increasing the numbers in top right as much as possible. The confetti boxes lack the fun of collecting though because there is no keeping track of how many you found, or how many remain. The numbers on the other hand seem mainly to increase the further you walk to the right, so the "high score" would ultimately just result from holding the Right key down for five minutes. This hardly says fun to me.

I think Passage can barely be called a game. It's more accurately an indie art toy, and not a fun one either. I believe there is often a place for artistic expression in games, but not if it's at the expense of enjoyable gameplay. The mechanics of the game are what ultimately make or break its fun value for me. If I can't enjoy the gameplay, the art and story are hard to appreciate. Thousand-year games like chess, go, etc. don't even have a story, and there's not much artistic value to their simple design. It's the fun and engaging game mechanics that make them successful games, and that is why Passage ultimately fails.