Dan Silber

Resident Evil was one of the first and most prominent survival horror games created for the Playstation.

I want to launch with an exploration of the control scheme for the game. The user inputs that were chosen for character movement were heavily criticized for being ‘unintuitive’. [Indeed it took me 3 or 4 attempts at playing this game before I finally figured out how to shoot the pistol]

The game uses an unconventional mapping for character movement - the ‘up’ button moves the character forward, and the ‘left’ and ‘right’ buttons rotate the character. I believe that this mapping was chosen to anchor one consistent direction to the up button. Because the game has dramatic camera angles that change orientation in almost every room, it is functional to be able to hold down one button and continue progression in a consistent direction.

In order to shoot a weapon the player needs to hold down the L1 button while pressing a 2nd button on the keypad. This is also an unconventional choice but serves the useful function of not wasting ammo by accident – because this is a game with limited resources.

The limitation of resources is not only a gameplay mechanic, but adds a level of emotional tension. Most players experience a sense of anxiety as their resources diminish. The amount of times that a player can save is also a commodity. This inability to easily leave the game world beautifully mirrors the core of the story – that the characters cannot escape the house.

The flow and content of the game is fairly predictable, but balanced and well executed. The player can find various keys that unlock different types of doors. This mechanic is straightforward and in most instances the game does nothing to mask this element.

At certain junctures there are puzzle elements which are necessary for progression. This is a bit curious in that the puzzles are not a core element of the game, yet do not add substantial depth.

The visual aspects of this game do give substantial depth, however. The backgrounds are pre-rendered, which allowed them to be created with far more detail than its real-time contemporaries. That detail allows each part of the mansion to look unique, and helps the feeling of reward when a new area has been unlocked. Each room is displayed from different camera angles, giving a dramatic aesthetic.

Katamari is certainly a unique game, and many people have had different feelings about the game.

The first thing that I want to point out is that this game is a direct descendant of Pac Man – a game also built by Namco many years before. The primary focus is on collecting things and avoiding baddies – unless the game is in a state where you can consume enemies.

Much like its ancestor, this game is extremely focused on simple core mechanics. There are no power ups to manage in Katamari, and user control is absolutely consistent within levels. This allows the learning process to be fairly straight forward, slowly refining the skills that are introduced early on.

The visual and auditory feedback is continuous, letting you know how much you are picking up with satisfying pops (and the occasional scream from a sumo wrestler).

One of the things that make the mechanic of collect distinctive is that the relationships between your character and the environment are not absolute. An item that serves as a barrier early in a level will usually become something consumable later in the level.

Also an animal that causes you harm (or at least inconvenience), can be rolled into your ball later on. This potentially taps an undercurrent of the human compulsion for revenge.

I would guess that this relative relationship between things would make level design extremely challenging. How do you place a level wall that is also an item to be collected? I can almost imagine the items needing to be placed in a fractal sort of arrangement.

The game has an extremely simple but unique Art style. This item simplicity has a couple of secondary implications for the game:

1. They can be created faster, allowing for more things to be built in the same amount of time, and
2. They have a lower polygon count so that more items can be shown on screen at on time.

Both of which contribute to a larger variety of items that can be seen and interacted with throughout the game. If there were only a handful of items that could be picked up, the game would feel significantly different.

The multitude of items and their (seemingly) unusual placement give the game a powerful sense of absurdity. The game has a sense of humor, but does so without telling any jokes.

Ironically, the story elements of the game are fairly serious. The relationship between the main character and the father character is strained. But in a subtle way. There is not any major event that plays out for the sake of drama. His quiet disapproval of an incomplete mission adds some emotional weight to the game. Somehow this is accessible in a personal way that more epic stories are not.

Emotional content aside, the concept truly uses the media of games in a powerful way. It allows the player to experience something that they cannot in regular life in an interactive way. You would NOT have a similar experience if this was described in book or movie form.

Our bodies are strange vessels.

Sometimes I find it empowering to view aspects of life like a game.

In a game there are elements of challenge and reward that drive you towards completing objectives. When a player learns and experiences success, they feel good – and look to repeat the experience with more challenge.

As a result, there is a learning curve in games. If there is nothing new to learn, the game becomes boring and is soon abandoned (examples: Tic Tac Toe, Candyland). Also if the game is too difficult learn, unappealing, or unclear (example: Minesweeper, or Playing Chess against a superior opponent), the game is often deserted in favor of something more accessible.

The games that are the most enjoyable are the ones that are perfectly suited for our ability level. Candyland and Tic Tac Toe are great games for younger children, but not challenging enough for most adults.

Our experiences in life operate in exactly the same manner. An appropriate challenge tends to keep us contented and happy.

When things come to us too easily we tend to get bored and move on. Most people have at some point had a job that was just plain boring. Usually that is a result of not having enough challenge within that atmosphere.

Likewise, when a challenge seems too large (or unappealing or unclear) – it feels inaccessible. We often walk away from the challenge without even trying to accomplish it.

Most people do not attempt to *earn $1,000,000 in one year’s time because it feels inaccessible. People either
Are totally unclear as to how to accomplish this,
Find it a too difficult of a task, or
Find it unappealing for some reason (perhaps citing that “money is the root of all evil”)

Shifting back to the game analogy - If you were playing Chess against someone who kept won every time, you could
1. Give up Chess altogether,
2. Continue to play Chess and find an opponent who is better matched to you, or
3. Learn strategies to becoming a better player.

If you had interest in Chess you would likely opt for BOTH #2 and #3. You would innately understand that you are able to become a better player with more training and experience. You accept that there will lose some games on your road to success. Eventually you may be able to outplay the nitwit who formerly crushed you every game.

Likewise with the $1,000,000 goal, you could:
1. Give up on the goal altogether.
2. Find a goal that is more accessible to your current situation.
3. Learn strategies to earn more income. If you are tenacious, you may find this ambitious goal achievable.

Unlike games, in life most people end up doing #1 and #2. In most cases #3 is also an option, but fear of failure, uncertainty of path or disinterest (like an internal contradiction of believing “money is the root of all evil”) keep us from continuing on the path to success.

When I am faced by a daunting task, I often find myself trying to think of it as a game. If it is too overwhelming to try right away, I read about it and try to understand the problem more clearly. I may try to complete a smaller objective as a learning experience.

So right now I am learning how to become financially independent.

I consider it the miniboss of this level.

*I am only using money because it is clear and easily measurable. The objective could be something far less tangible like: living a healthy lifestyle, keeping a positive attitude, or creating more time to spend with your family.

Sometimes life just feels like running around from chore to chore.  Always doing little tasks occasionally takes over our lives.  Where does all that time go? Why does it feel like such a commodity?

One of the causes for this feeling could be a lack of task priority.  If everything feels important, then it feels horrible not to accomplish even one thing on your list.  Are you thinking “But every task is important!” ? Well… okay.  That may be true. But not every task is EQUALLY important.

In many cases, there are two categories that direct us in priority: 1. most significant, and 2. most urgent time-wise.

At times, these fight for priority.  Say your goal is to spend more time with your family, but you have chores that you need to get to.  You value your family time as most significant, but going grocery shopping is more urgent. How do you decide?

There isn’t a really easy answer in some cases – but…  The more that you can focus on the things that are most important to you, the more contented you are likely to feel.  The above situation is a tough one, but maybe you can go without frozen peas for one more day after all.

In many cases, you may find that the thing that is urgent is not actually very significant in your life.  There are frequently pressures applied from external sources for a task to be done quickly.  A boss might want you to volunteer for something. A client might need that project completed “yesterday”.  The fundamental issue with that is that they are not significant to YOU.  Often they are actually not essential to be completed in your life at all.

Would your job really be in jeopardy if you turned down that volunteer position?  Would you really loose your client if you didn’t put down all of your other tasks to focus on THEIR problem?

Sometimes yes.  Most of the time no.

In order to do this, you might need to take some time and energy to explore your goals and priorities.  What’s that?  Too busy?  If you can’t take the time to decide what you want to spend your time on, someone else will.

We all get the same amount of hours in a day. Make them count.

We look past things.

We can be looking directly at something and just plain not see it.

Example: Take a walk down your neighborhood street, and I’ll wager that you won’t tend to notice any of the telephone wire mess above your head. In most instances you will only be vaguely aware that there are wires above but it won’t affect the scenery very much. If you actually focus more directly on those wires, you might find yourself surprised at how unsightly they actually are. The point where the lines hook up with the house tends to be particularly chaotic. There are also great big boxes or barrels suspended at the top of telephone poles that we generally don’t notice. I wonder how many times I’ve parked under one of those bad boys without realizing it.

I am particularly guilty of missing really obvious things, being an artist type. I could be looking directly at a sign. I will remember its color and it’s placement on a door, but have not actually READ what is written.

I never noticed that the brims on baseball caps had a functional purpose until I was playing softball without a hat on a sunny day. I kept using my hand to shield my eyes from the sun. I looked over at my friend Jason and realized that his cap was doing what I was doing with my hand. I am sad to report that this occurred in my late 20s. So in my case, I tend to miss some things that are extremely apparent to others – but everybody does it in some form or another.

I guess that is not surprising considering how much there is in the world to perceive. And we all come to this world with our own predispositions. I often see form before I see function. How do you perceive?

Please feel free to share stories of times where your perception has failed you.

How the crap did we adopt the 40 hour work week as a working standard?

It is so arbitrary. Ask the average worker how much of those 40 hours are actually spent doing work, and you will get widely volatile answers. Where did it come from? Did someone sit down and think, hey – ‘if we get people working a butt-load of hours, maybe they will get something done for some of them?’ Is it an intentional attempt to break people’s spirits? (Although that hardly makes sense, because if you break someone’s spirit – they do crappy work) How does time correlate to productivity?

I am becoming much more aware of output / product. What do my clients/bosses walk away with? In my field (art/animation), there is something tangible to see. But the idea is the same regardless of field – how do you help the company succeed? If your company makes more money because of your contributions, you will have inherent value no matter how many hours you are there or how hard you work. Think about it: if you were your boss, would you rather have an employee who was always at the office but got very little done, or one that comes less frequently but accomplishes a tremendous amount?

Hmmm… How would it be different if everyone worked from home?

Many of us would go crazy from social isolation. I guess a bunch of us would be even less productive without someone directly standing over us and harassing us. Or maybe we would be more productive without the crazy boss breathing down our necks. Hard to say how it would play out.

But why 40? What if everyone worked 25 hours a week? I wonder. Would we be more efficient? Probably not. I think people tend to goof off the same percentage of their day no matter how many hours they work. What if people were only paid on the output of their work? Not necessarily commission, but paid on the results of what they accomplished. That would be weird. I think that many people would be too scared. We would live with a bit less security. We would have to face up to the actual reality of how much value we are putting out into the world. On the flip side, we would have a more direct control over how much we earn monetarily. If you were genuinely working all 40 hours of the week, you could make a very generous income. If not, you could avoid those hours killing time at work until the clock strikes 5 – in favor of spending time with your family or loved ones.

Only one thing seems certain to me: in most cases the 40 hours that we are paid for does not directly correlate to the output of the efforts.