Epitome of "fauxlosophy problems" in modern indie games

[Drama[Theurgist]]

As a narrative-oriented player and philosophy major, I wanted to love this game.
I really enjoyed all the exploration and assembling pieces of the story.

Bible allusions kept my interest. Many times I thought "That's clever use of reference. I wonder where author is going with all that". However, when typical postmodern rubbish started to come up, I suspected that this is THAT type of story. One with alleged "depth", but no substance, no closure, no redeeming value outside of stunning exposition. And when all smoke cleared, it really was that type of story, concentrating on moments of emancipation through intellectualization, but falling flat because of naivety and lack of any real emotional meaning.

I hate this about modern culture and I thought I'd ask on forums if anyone else feels that way about this game.

[GreySpectrum]

Some nitpicks: I'm not so sure this is a particular problem with modern indie games. I don't really think indie games are any worse than AAA game or movies, and maybe a tiny bit better on average. But that really doesn't matter, because ----

Yes. The Old City is pretty abysmal at philosophy. I think the creator really believed in what he was telling, and really thought it was novel and important and worth saying. So there was emotional meaning put in, it just didn't translate because I don't see the meaning he does. And evidently neither did you. The way I see it, The Old City just managed to obscure his own philosophy to the point where it looks like a reasonable answer in comparison to the obvious problems with the (weakly portrayed versions) of the alternative philosophies put in the game.

"Dreams." According to the Old City: Dreams aren't science, and they aren't beliefs, and they aren't doubts. But they also aren't defined, except as the "answer" to people having opinions and conflicts over truth. Because..... just don't think about it. It'll help find truth. Because.... he likes the sound of the word and it isn't the other things he doesn't like. I didn't notice any more substance to the word.

The part that made the Old City's problems most abundantly clear to me, is in Solomon's notes where he derides that people spread their thoughts through education, activism, argument, or indeed, at all. He proposes instead that ideas will simply survive and die via Darwinian cycles on their own. The conclusion being something along the lines of "people should just stop being idiots by trying to spread their ideas." (I guess ideas would only evolve through new persons adopting the ideas around them, and then ideas never change during lifetimes except through self examination. I don't see the advantage, but it is an alternative system without any obvious inconsistencies.)

It's fine to have a weird opinion like that, but at least acknowledge the complete irony of educating/arguing/speaking your ideas that people shouldn't educate/argue/speak their ideas. I had to laugh. I like the creativity and novelty of someone's take on life. But this philosophy is going nowhere without some re-evaluation. In the end, the Old City fails to do what it sought to - discuss philosophies intelligently and present another better philosophy.

I was probably not as disappointed as you, because I expected that the game wasn't going to exactly astonish me. And I really did enjoy the game's desires and the original aspects. The author is... and interesting mixture of thought I haven't encountered before. In addition, I'm not entirely sure what beef you have with "modern culture" and "typical postmodern rubbish," and I'm not very familiar with the standard definition of postmodern philosophy.

[swingline]

I think it's likely easy to be critical of the narrative, however as the game progressed I connected more with game and the message. I'm not sure that it tried to be deep, but instead tried to convey a perspective - that even if we can't know, we can still try, and the world will gradually become a better place for it. I'm sure there's more there than I absorbed - I often found myself missing the spoken parts due to looking around the rooms and the stunning visuals, and I know that I found many of the typed pages a little dense - but in the end, despite a slow start, I found myself ultimately enjoying the experience.

[GreySpectrum]

Just to be clear, I liked the exposition style, I just didn't like the "moral of the story" at the end. And yes, I'm sitting here criticizing someone that actually went out and made an entire beautiful game. That I enjoyed and engaged with.

[Drama[Theurgist]]

Yeah, I feel pretty much the same. Maybe I was too engaged with beautiful designs. Somehow, I expected similar profoundness on the level of meaning... This is the problem I talk about. Often times we encounter astounding disparity between visual design with it's "experiential narrative" and actual narrative told in the game. And while many say it's only a matter of tastes, I just can't help it. On some level, I feel cheated. I love pretentious games, I just don't think than _just_ being pretentious is enough.

Am I asking too much from a game?

[GreySpectrum]

Well, I ended up seeing some interviews that are possible explanations of some of the problems I saw:

"What we have done is split the game up into a trilogy. The first game, which we are calling “The Old City: Leviathan,” is actually going to release in the fall. This game will deal with everything leading up to the actual Old City. ..... The original planned narrative could actually be split into 3 distinct parts (that is, outside of the Old City, inside of the Old City, and post-Old City), and each of these parts increased in size as you play, meaning that each addition to the trilogy will be a larger game. ..... the story is very, very personal to me, making the act of spoiling really painful." - http://www.fistfullofpotions.com/interviews/interview-blaine-bowen-of-postmod-softworks/

That explains why "dreams" as a philosophy isn't covered in more detail, though it doesn't really excuse it. It also doesn't really excuse the poor representations of competing theories for truth.

The lack of accessibility is something I dislike, but at least I understand it partially came from a good place, after reading:
http://www.continue-play.com/2014/10/28/dev-blog-postmod-softoworks-on-indie-development-and-artistic-integrity/


I still want to play the other games. I want to understand better, and know the full story. Also, even if I think the philosophy is poor, it is novel to me, and I guess I'm a sucker for philosophy... I'm glad someone really attempted, you know?

[Nino]

This might be semi-spoilerish for some who haven't paid attention to the readings, so...fair warning:



I would venture that, based on the foundation provided in this game, that there are further intentions outlined than just the bibilical allusion to Jonah. Within the notes scattered through just the first chapter there are a lot of connections to the idea that Jonah is consumed by the leviathan (whale, in this case, the city), and after a [few] days, is spit out and left to wander. This particular connection is weaved much further through the game in connection to Jonah's purpose as a prophet in the Bible, and is mimicked in the game.

Also, there is the concept of the Minotaur, a creature in Greek mythology that is used to represent those who lead in the corrupted city. Even the statue representations match old sculpture work of minotaurs of the ancient era. Conceptually, the minotaur was a guard of the labyrinth, or maze. Connecting some dots, the mind is considered a maze... This first part of the story is bent on the idea of when and where reality and the dream world intersect. It is very likely that the title of Minotaur to individuals in the old city is connection with the concept of guarding the maze of the mind. And that's as far as I'll take that without giving up too much.

The narrator also discusses dreams in a way that they are a reflection of one's true self, or in this world, at which point is the dream and reality a reflection of itself. Truly this game is very much about the idea of identity, both in terms of self, and in societal expectations, and how the [player] is/has interacted with the world to create/build that sense of identity and purpose. How does/did he fullfill his role and responsibilities.

[Drama[Theurgist]]

This is obvious.
What we are speaking about is the lack of real depth in this exposition of the identity problem. It's not that the vision itself is somehow wrong. It is not. In fact, I'm sure that if I discussed this matter with author himself, I would agree with him. This topic is really important to me as well as for him.
But we are talking about finished piece of art, separated from the author. And thus, we're not only praising it's intention and conception, but also critiquing what resulted from it.

[Nino]

I started writing a much longer and more hell-bent purpose-driven reply and realized, in the heart of it, I could simplify.

I don't think any of you really got the story, and that's why I specifically pointed out the aspects that I did. GreySpectrum mentioned the dreams (and in fact, they were the only one to really point out a specific aspect of the game and analyze it in a true critique fashion), but in a failed analyzation. The dreams, in one chapter, are narrated as being a goal or purpose for the narrator to strive for, and to invest in not the now, but the future as anything they built in that moment would not see its impact until further along. That this was actually a good thing. Its a metaphor, in biblical idealism, of a society working to better itself, and how the individual improves that society through their own actions and aspirations.

In a way, The Old City: Leviathan is a love letter to the genre, and to video games. The developers were working on a title that would focus on telling a story in an enviornment filled with visual and conceptual depth built on a unifying philosophy of... identity and purpose. They indirectly say this throughout their website in discussion of what the game is, and why they did it.

Drama, you said the game holds no redeeming value, and has moments of emancipation through intellectualization...that's sort of an oxymoron, but I'll let it slide because either way it's not a critique of the game, but a complaint of its actual process. So lets revise into a critique and analyze the closure of the game.

Holistically looking at the game, lets extend your purview of the game as a quesiton: is it complete? Well, if the developer claimed it to be part of a trilogy, inherently it would not be, but at the same time it must be--in some fashion--capable of standing on its own. Does it do this? Yes, it does. The story within the game is, for lack of a better ideal, complete in that it delivers an entire story front to back with a semi-open ending (I say this in more the sense that it emotionally felt incomplete, but does actually move through an arc of revealing a problem, and resolving or coming to terms with that problem in a way that it can be "ended.").

So there lies the rub of the problem. In my experience with the game, the ending was delivered in a fashion that, when the title screen came up and I was returned to the main screen, I had no response or feeling towards the game. I wasn't invested. The was the developers set up this game to be a vehicle for their story lacked a comprehensive method to engage the player in a way that would get them invested. So in that regard, I would agree, yes, the game lacked an emotional connection, but I do no agree that the game lacked emotional meaning, as it had plenty, it just couldn't fit me in for the ride.

So, my /critique/ of the game is that it is not delivered in a form that the player can unify their experiences with the narrator--in a fashion that keeps them driven on the same path--through a desire to understand, and grow, within the exploration of the Leviathan in order to walk them coherently along the structured philosophy of the game and its totality. The game lacks an event or trigger to bring them into the world more cohesively in such a way as to encourage their aimless wanderings and (as you put it) intellectualization, but this may inherently be a downside to the nature of a walking-simulator style game and its inept ability to do more than mosey.

:)

[GreySpectrum]

Nino님이 먼저 게시:

The dreams, in one chapter, are narrated as being a goal or purpose for the narrator to strive for, and to invest in not the now, but the future as anything they built in that moment would not see its impact until further along. That this was actually a good thing. Its a metaphor, in biblical idealism, of a society working to better itself, and how the individual improves that society through their own actions and aspirations.

According to the definition you provided, dreams are "a goal or purpose" "an investment in the future" "society working to better itself" "individuals actions and aspirations." Not only is that vague, but it is no different than the Order, the Guild, and the Unknowing.

Nino님이 먼저 게시:

In a way, The Old City: Leviathan is a love letter to the genre, and to video games. ..... built on a unifying philosophy of... identity and purpose.

Where is it a love letter to video games? What is the philosophy of identity and purpose the Old City outlines?




I mistakenly thought that the narrator was attempting to find a way to discern truth. However, instead, he is concerned with how people interact when expressing their worldviews. Mixed in with this, is admiration for isolation.

"I'm just frustrated. I don't understand why we have to keep doing this. This conflict." "All of their pathetic little wars and ridiculous assumptions of superiority" "I reach out to connect with them. Again and again I try, only to discover that nothing has changed." "I dream of worlds where humanity ceases to fight over what they are certain of" "they have their dreams and they cannot assert which is superior, so why not sail?" "Must cruelty be the manifestation of certainty? If only truth didn't need to be compatible with itself." "the value of isolation." "There really is no point in attempting dialogue" "I would like to argue that my contribution is nonexistent and thus superior to their negative impact." "Unfortunately, telling a group of people what they are doing incorrectly communicates that you yourself are doing that thing correctly." "Not through violence, rules, activism, or education will the ideas evolve" "You can only model" "Trust stupid ideas to die with stupid people."

Dreams are a method of diffusing the conflict via acknowledgement of uncertainty, a greater degree of isolation, and a focus on the abstract world of ideas.

I want society to accept all these things. I practice this myself, to the best of my ability. I think these are very important ideas and should be practiced more by pretty much everyone about pretty much everything.

I have four problems with The Old City:
The game is not saying anything new, nuanced, deep, or unusual.
The game implies that the concepts it is presenting are great.
The game is providing answers that aren't addressing the same subject as the questions/problems it raises.
The game has insufficient justification for obscuring its own message, and it's really too hard to untangle.


(Nearly) The entire game can be summarized in this line: "Must cruelty be the manifestation of certainty? If only truth didn't have to be compatible with itself."

Here is your grand answer to the grand problem: No. Did anyone think any differently? Cruelty doesn't have to be how people express certainty. People should be civil. People should be open minded. This is not surprising. [see problem one and two]

The phrase "Truth must be be compatible with itself" doesn't have any relevance upon how people communicate. It only applies to within a single system of thought. Applying it between systems of thought makes no sense, and isn't the meaning of the phrase. The trouble is, if you reword it the way it is used in the Old City, it comes out trite. "If only people accepted their differences." [see problem three and four]

The Old City chooses instead to give difficult-to-parse answers such as,
"The Dweller's dreams could function within themselves, from their foundation, as long as the factions recognize that foundation as a dream." "Why not discover dreams I cannot control, rather than hiding them away to let what I was "certain" of flourish?" "Epistemic humility can regress to the deconstruction of stagnation. What I previously thought to be stagnation itself, the lack of any true knowledge, is merely the deconstruction of an anchor, freeing us to traverse the unexplored."
The ideas contained within aren't worth this amount of emphasis. "Acknowledge your uncertainty, everybody." "We should keep questioning and guessing." "I thought not knowing was a dead end, but then I realized not knowing is how I explore new ideas." [see problem four]

I really do like poetic exposition used with a purpose. But not when it is merely obscuring obvious statements. The ideas must be at least somewhat nuanced, unique, or deep for it to support being this esoteric. And it bothers me that it is misrepresenting its own ideas as new and revolutionary. It's fine to feel strongly, but the unmerited revelatory tones are off the charts.
(Despite the overtones of war and violence, I'm going to assume that the author does not believe wars and gangs and racism and religious intolerance are primarily rooted in mistaken philosophical certainty. And not, say, reasons of economics, social constructs, culture, politics, instinct, and fear. I'm also going to assume that the message is addressed at less extreme cases of intolerance, like unwillingness to consider differing positions in conversation.)

And in the end, I disagree with the conclusion that we should withdraw ourselves from ideological conflict. Even though I accept almost all of the premises: Our ideals will not manifest in our lifetime, everyone is wrong, individuals can't change what ideas gain acceptance, society will progress through all ideas on it's own.... Even though I accept those points, I'm not going to give up trying. I'm still going to try to teach others what I believe to be true. I'm going to engage in that conflict of ideas to learn as much as I can while I can. And I'm still left with the methods of the Order, the Guild, the Unknowing, (or if I'm lucky, my own unique one) for discovering truth. Basically everything the game looked down upon, is still the situation. Dreams are not an alternative to those methods. [see problem three]

I'm coming across more strongly than I wish I were, but I want to expose my position and reason as well as I can. I also acknowledge that I might be missing some nuances that makes it all more meaningful and thought provoking. But I'm going to say what I saw, and invite evidence to the contrary.

To my best analysis: The Old City was not about a philosophical problem, but a communication one. The solution was phrased as a philosophical truth, but really a downright obvious plea for more open-minded conversation.

To balance out my actual opinion I need to acknowledge the nihilism and existentialism elements portrayed (The Void. The Leap. Leviathan.) of living in a world where your own individualism doesn't have an impact on the future ideology and there is only exploration, never true understanding. I do support representing that as deeply troubling, including pomp and ceremony in communicating so. While I disagree with his solution to education, I sympathize greatly with his issues with it. I did find novelty in his views on isolation, education, and ideological progress, so I respect that part of the game's originality. I wish these were more supported in the game, but I fear his thoughts on this would also reduce to obvious and misapplied reasons.

[swingline]

GraySpectrum, Of all the comments in the story, "Trust stupid ideas to die with stupid people" is one I remembered that seemed to conclude much of the narrative. I certainly didn't take away as much as others posting have, but I did take away the incremental idea of what I summarized above as "that even if we can't know, we can still try, and the world will gradually become a better place for it."

That said, I'm not sure we can trust stupid ideas to die out. We're susceptible to bad ideas, and it may be an innate tendency. Historically power has been built upon the back of bad ideas, and we struggle through and incrementally advance, but the bad ideas seem to persist. But maybe the bad ideas will always be there not necessarily because they're logical, but because they're innate and more difficult to push down.

[GreySpectrum]

Yeah, that one line is an important part of the game, and also something the author uses in his own life. I do see one of the game's messages is that as long as people keep trying, eventually things will get better, and I agree that it's true.

I'd say historically there have been times of long and widespread backward progress, but I think, taking into account all of history and the whole globe, things always trend for the better overall.

<<<Aside----That might be my western-based thinking and my generation, eastern thought is much more favorable to never-ending cycles and there were times where global annihilation was popularly considered a real possibility. (not just atomic bombs: bioweapons, overpopulation, the singularity, economic collapse, evil domination etc)>>>

But! I also think bad ideas persist. Just because all ideas keep resurfacing as part of people reinventing and innovating. I think old good ideas and new good ideas keep surfacing, as part of the noise of life. =] I think there are less old good ideas.... but that is because we already took the good ones and kept them. x]

(And it isn't even straightforward. I see a lot of bad ideas were good in the past. Using lead pipes made life better until they made copper pipes until they made pvc pipes. Having tribes is better than being alone. Having a dictator and government is better still. Having a republic is even better than that. And there are lots of good things lost with bad ideas when we move from one system to another. Losing local communities and ancestoral knowledge is bad, but the benefits of traveling around the globe is worth it. Losing the ability to organize and change society quickly was lost with dictators, but republics are much more fair and reasonable.)

I'm so sorry I talk too much.

[swingline]

I hear you. I guess I'm referring more to spinoff effects of durable aspects of human nature - for example take tribalism. I think ultimately its an "us vs. them" nature that's built into our psyche (and likely had many evolutionary advantages), but in an organized way it can lead to all sorts of ugliness in a wide variety of forms, and is easily manipulated by those who push those buttons. Bad "ideas" that stem from this tendency won't just die out because it's a core part of our nature. It's how our brains work. It'll probably always be an effortful process to overcome these tendencies, and every generation will have to struggle with them anew. All imho.

[GreySpectrum]

I think we've overcome a lot of "human nature" problems to a significant degree, so I expect (maybe foolishly) that we can leave behind all of them. I think we're still early in human development. But I hear you. And I do worry we'll never overcome some of our harmful natures or forever be limitted.... Still..... in the end, I think we'll surpass ourselves.

[Jimmy]

Agree with most of what is being said. It is pretentious and convuluted to the point of being ridiculous at times - however, then I started playing it as a simple tourist simulator, walking around a world I knew nothing about. I ignored most of the story and instead enjoyed the scenary and just the basic ideas of the plot and found I enjoyed the game much more as a result!

[Nax_o]

Not a philosophy expert in any way but I have read tons of philosophy in the past but none of them are of any use here. One that struck closest was books on Zen. The pointlessness of effort is a big theme in this game and so some level of Zen thought seems go closest.