On 'Adult Wednesday Addams'

This may be a little unrelated to the video games or education that I tend to riff on, but I just want to take a minute to dissect a character. I really like the Addams family and after seeing the great Wednesday vs. Catcallers I finally sat down and watched the rest of the series so far. I think both the little progression in finding whats compelling about the character and where she seems to have settled are interesting, and while the ideas here may not be new I just want to try and articulate what I see happening.

Just a normal Monday morning? No?

Ok, so first we're definitely dealing with a version drawing more from the movie versions of Wednesday than the original show, where Wednesday was a happy little girl who happened to like creepy things. Going for the unflappable, super competent creepiness is fine, I liked the movies too.
In that first episode, there's the little bit of backstory and establishing the character and how she relates to others. Most of the humor here is just about how she's different and about misunderstandings;  the gag bickering with her dead gran, misinterpreting 'night owls', the one roommates' obliviousness to the 'shit where I eat' comment, etc. Its situational comedy it every sense.

Its the second episode with the job interview that it gets more interesting. I mean there's the mildly forced 'maggot gets the corpse' and the nice little touches like the unsettling in its mundanity 'I love being tested'. Handling the phone interview is the first taste of where things seem headed though; here's an interviewer in a nominal position of power over her and has a casual disdain and lack of respect, as most people are very familiar with. Theres that dismissive manner, questioning of abilities, and attempts to maintain control. Through it all, it slides off Wednesday and then, when the interviewer is at her most annoying and demanding, she firmly demonstrates she can do the job. Specifically, that she is unmoved by petty insults and concerns and is willing to address deeper issues its not polite to talk about as well as grounding them in her larger, morbid perspective.

Much of humor is about breaking expectations after all,
and hers are broken

This is where this recurring pattern starts; this situation of Wednesday being confronted by some mundane annoyance or unpleasant person and responding confidently and decisively in a way rooted in her unique perspective. I mean, sure her consistent triumphs could be a bit Mary Sue, but the manner in which she succeeds is what is interesting. Sure, she does use whistle ex machine to deal with the dog walker, but generally whether its someone actively hostile, like at planned parenthood, or she is trying to reassure someone, such as when babysitting or getting a haircut, we see her brooch unsettling topics, uncompromisingly stick to her principles, take a broad perspective, and, beyond drawing her own strength from certainty in that view, attempt to use that perspective to reassure others.

"Everyone is destined to die alone"

I think she's interesting as a character because her sense of empowerment isn't in just dealing with these issues, but in the way she is immediately clearly not 'normal' yet is sure of herself and succeeds on her terms. Wednesday isn't perfect (though perhaps super competent in certain areas) but a person with her own values, opinions, rules, and preferences like everyone else. Its just that hers a clearly different from what's considered normal, and this helps us identify with her and makes it satisfying when she does stick to her principles. She unapologetic in the ways she's different and uses it to solve her problems. She draws strength from her differences rather than questioning herself.

Even more so than the power fantasy of things like have the resources to respond to the catcallers, I think its this self assurance and insight and quick witted...ness that make her a satisfying protagonist to follow and project on to. You look at the immediate, clear way she deals with things like the internet date and see someone secure in themselves and pursuing their own goals an not putting up with other people's nonsense or flawed perceptions of her.

"I thought you were one of those...suicide girls."
"I'm not that kind of girl, Kyle; I don't take my life on the first date"

I think its this certainty and strength that more people wish they had.

A few final thoughts:
The continuing morbid flavor over everything is still great and adds to the humor, I don't want to dismiss that. Moreover, looking at what most people in this society consider the darkest, most depressing, and most uncomfortable to discuss topics and not only reveling in them but finding them reassuring only reinforces all of this.

Its nice to see the subversion of expectations more recently with the reality star.

The types of issues shes dealing with also says something about the demographic of the audience, so theres a discussion to be had over if this kind of confidence power fantasy is more or less appealing to them than other potential audiences...



Anyway, maybe I'm just projecting too much or other people find something else appealing here.
Let me know what you think in the comments.

Addiction and improvement

This post was prompted by David Wong's new article today on addiction over at Cracked. Let me start by saying I'm a big fan of Cracked, and particularly of David Wong's articles in particular. The format and style of these posts themselves shows I may read Cracked too much. But this particular article's ending disappointed me so hard I had to respond to it.

Hopefully that doesn't just mean I've been on the internet too long
[source]

The Article
See, a lot of Wong's other articles manage to bring you along as he weaves a big overarcing story of some large aspect of society, with just enough personality and self-awareness/humor to keep it entertaining and perhaps 'palatably preachy' and try to offer some hope or way out at the end. And today's on addiction is no different, except at the end.

Wong lays out his story/model/arguments about addiction (loosely defined) and its complex role in modern society and economy. To summarize, it focuses on how advances in understanding it and how to foster such responses, how businesses use that knowledge to make money, and how society is ok with it as long as it increases stability (even at the cost of individual freedom or agency). I can follow that, and it makes some sense. My issue is the downer conclusion it ends on, about how the economic and social incentives will make companies (and other organizations) keep using this knowledge about how to shape behavior to short circuit our reward systems; where Wong asserts people will stop trying to improve because they will have easier options for the same rewards. And oh gods, its so horrible... (slightly paraphrased)

To which I have to say "Bwah?"

You heard me! Bwah?!

 
My Bias and Problem
The thing is, when he starts talking about how to shape behavior, that is literally what I am working on, so the discussion is much less abstract for me. If you recall, I'm working on designing educational games. Specifically I'm coming from a psych background and trying to figure out how to apply what we know from cognitive psychology, combine it with game design theory, and learn from current commercial games in order to produce educational games that are both educationally effective and actually, you know, good games that are fun.

In Wong's model, part of my job is to be an "addiction expert" and figure out how to learn from psychology and other successful games so I can make new games that will hook players, but use that time to do something good for them, like teach them.

"Got math? Well do you? Cause I will SUCK YOUR D-"
"Ok, we may have gone too far..."

And thats my biggest problem with Wong's conclusion; it seems to overlook the potential of these methods to do good, and cast them solely as the downfall of society. It hits me like saying the internet, or TV, or any given technology that is largely being used poorly and having negative consequences is, in itself, bad and will be the end of society. Every time the technology being considered gets more powerful, that threat seems more plausible, but the thought behind it remains just as misguided.

I still think technology is inherently neutral, and can be used for good or bad ends. The standard dramatic example is that splitting the atom can be used to power cities or level them. But its true of technologies that aren't physical as well. The same kinds of superficial gamification that companies use to sell more products can be used to make online communities less toxic, for example.

Somehow previous efforts weren't super effective.

Wong is right to be concerned about the incentives in place for people in power to use new knowledge to maintain the status quo and reduce freedom for those not in power. That is a worrying system and set of implications.

However, I can't help but see the potential of applying this same knowledge to help people and empower them. To motivate them to exercise, learn, develop skills, work with others, and otherwise benefit. Sure, there will be that arms race among and with commercial products, but looking at video game design makes me optimistic about that. There, gamification is a big deal, but those who research such things know that superficial gamification, the basic addictive features most people think of, are only so effective .

A Possible Solution
I think Wong's fear suggests its own solution. Hes afraid that we've found how to short-circuit the reward pathway and it'll damage our progress; that people will be able to artificially get the same rewards from less effort so they'll stop improving themselves to get natural rewards.

So why not artificially reward self improvement as well?
To me the natural solution is to use this knowledge to reinforce natural responses and super charge that cycle. To compete with these incentives directly rather than just give up. Even if it leaves people the same as now, it would avert the dystopia hes afraid of.

...though it may look like someone else's prediction.

I know the downer may be just to get people's attention; to get them to actually care about this and think about things that they normally don't. But I can't help but object that he fails to mention the possible upsides. Since thats what I'm trying to work on, and all.


What do you think?
Is it all gloom and doom? Am I over optimistic?
Is it all worrying over nothing? Have I been on the internet too much?
Let me know in the comments.

My Favorite Superhero

Lately (when not working) I've been marinating in commentary and analysis of superheroes. I recently revisited the great Death and Return of Superman and found that since then Max had posted the DAROS pitch and Regarding Clark. Then there's been the general ongoing stream of stuff in pop culture on the sites I frequent like Cracked, The Escapist and to a lesser extent The Mary Sue.

So superheroes have been on my mind. And after watching Max explain the appeal behind his clear favorite, I tried to reflect on mine and it wasn't initially clear.

No Sue, I'm not talking about you.

I feel I should preface this with "I did not grow up reading comic books". I was watching Batman: TAS, and Spiderman and X-men on TV, I was playing video games, but I wasn't actually reading the source comics. Even in college when I did get more into it, I was reading trade paperbacks of miniseries, which I still prefer; Watchmen, The Long Halloween, Barry Ween, Sandman, all the previously mentioned Warren Ellis stuff, etc.. I never even tried to get into main continuities. I already knew the characters, and prefer defined stories with them, personally.

Now a little while ago if I'd thought about this, it would've been Deadpool; he's an entertaining and interesting character. But while I enjoy reading deadpool, after Max's more analytical philosophical breakdown of Clark, Deadpool didn't feel like someone I could get behind in that kind of way.

Though I do fully support irreverence, silliness, awesomeness and fun.

It should come as no surprise that after deeper reflection on themes and characters that  I settled comfortably on Elijah Snow. It feels like this has allot to do with both his approach and Planetary's lack of the "the status quo is god" type of thing inherent in so much of superhero comics. That tropes's not a new observation or even a bad thing for those stories, but when I look at what speaks to, resonates with, and inspires me its not going to be that. Its not going to be someone "Healing america by beating people up" as Nextwave put it.

Ah, that old chestnut. Emphasis on the nut.

Its not even going to be The Authority, trying to change the world by beating people up. That proactive rather than reactive approach is closer, but still not right. Its going to be someone trying to do the right thing, which sometimes may involve force but that not the goal; thats in service of the bigger goal.

That's why it has to be Elijah Snow.

The stories of Elijah Snow are not about "fighting crime"; they are about going out into the unknown and finding secrets and discovering new knowledge. Given superpowers he doesn't become a cop, but a scientist and an explorer. Hes a detective, but hes not batman tracking a thief; hes the mystery archeologist tracking the past to unveil it to the present, in order to improve the present, if only through increased knowledge.

(Oh, uh, big Planetary SPOILERS ahead, by the way.)
(Seriously, go read it, its great. If you want spoiler-ific reasons, for all the good I'm saying, he does beat up Dracula and perpetrate other awesomeness. Its a fun ride.)

...like stupidly, over-the-toply, B-movie fun, but also good.

And I know the reasons it can't happen in most comics, that you can only do it in a miniseries, but I love things like the "lifestations" in the 3rd world, that they list in the last issue. For all the problems of post-scarcity, satisfying basic needs like that saves so many more lives than stopping a mugging. And this is a character who will actually do that, and still go on fun adventures.

And he literally kills Reed Richards for being malevolently worse than useless.

And then he kicks him in the crotch.
Its glorious. Go read it.
(Yes, I know this isn't Reed or his expy, but the sentiment is there)

But more than the acts, its that core of the character.

"Its a strange world, let keep it that way."
"Saving him means more than yanking him out of there. It means saving his life."
Or just simply puts as  "He saves things"

Its about protecting the world not from destruction, but from deception. The conflict is not with those who take innocent lives and freedom, but those who do so to so many by making the world a dimmer, less wondrous place. Its not even really about "improving the world" itself; its about showing people how great the world is and how it works (though the tech from that makes the world better for people), and recording it for later.

 Like I said, he's a scientist, trying to understand the world and explain it to others to help them. Thats what resonates with me. That's the right thing I like seeing a hero striving to do.

What about you? What hero resonates with you? Lemme know in the comments.

Bioshock Infinite's Vigors

I finally played through Bioshock Infinite (I had been waiting until I would have some time to focus on it, so over break I binged over the course a couple days) and now I'm catching up on all the commentary and reactions to it, which are quite interesting.

Theres one thing I want to comment on though, and that's Infinite's vigors (their version of plasmids from Bioshock 1). The (entirely accurate) criticism floating around is that they're not really part of the world and they're out of place and make allot less sense than in Bioshock 1. In 1, they were integral to the story, and part of the narrative was the consequences of their existence, while here you get superpowers casually, none of the other inhabitants have them (even though you can buy them out of very common vending machines), and basically the game gives them to you the protagonist, then ignores them.

Now, from the story, narrative, and world-building perspectives that's just awful. Its weird and distracting and what is the point of it? However, from a gameplay perspective, I can say the game would absolutely have been less interesting without them. Whatever else Bioshock Infinite is, its a shooter and allot of play time is in combat that is significantly richer, more interesting, and more engaging for having vigors.

To me its about doing something because of the medium, to make it more effective, rather than the message. For example, I vaguely remember Faulkner originally wanted one of his books to be printed with each character's thoughts and speaking in a different color ink (but didn't because it was too expensive). It seems like if you had a book that made a big deal about the symbolism of color and it was intimately connected to the characters and an integral part of the work, and it was very well received. Then with your next book, even though it had nothing to do with color (but was similar in other themes) you still used different colors because it did make it easier to keep track of things and made the book easier to follow and enjoy. That's what it makes me think of; something done due to the medium (in this case shooter) to make it more enjoyable that isn't well connected to the story.

(And yes, I know the vigors are more problematic because they exist in world, while the ink colors wouldn't necessarily be, but whatever)

Now whether, you think the detriment to the story is worth the benefit to the gameplay is an interesting and personal question and matter of priorities. As I said, I think it would have been less interesting and fun without them, personally, and didn't really care that the story ignored them.

But what about you? What do you think about the balance of narrative and gameplay concerns?
Here, in other specific games, or generally?

PC vs. Tabletop Gaming for Characters

As you may have noticed from previous posts, I'm a big fan of tabletop rpgs and board games as well as video games. Now this leads to one of the interesting little tensions I have with discussing video games; recreationally, I don't really play them to explore character or story, but basically just for gameplay. Thats not to say story or character aren't important, or I don't appreciate them. A better story and characters were a big part of the improvements between Borderlands 1 and 2, though both great.

Also 2 had a villain you could really love to hate.

But if I actually want to explore a character, I do it in tabletop. Its just not even a comparison (If you have a good group and Game Master). With a tabletop game, you can literally do anything you and the GM can come up with, possibly on the fly if they're good at ad-libbing. When Yahtzee talked about Fable 2 he made a joke about "Why can't I marry my dog?" and even if you still can't in Fable 2: the TTRPG, you could roleplay out your character meeting with officials and clergy trying to set it up, if that was something you really wanted to explore and the Gm and other players were ok with.

"This is not how the campaign was pitched to me. . ."

As opposed to just not having the affordance, not even having an option. To be clear, I'm not saying Fable 2 should've allowed you to marry your dog; its an example of a GM being able to adapt the game to player interests, rather than letting them explore within more concretely defined boundaries, aka the things programmed in.

Now, within those rules, video games can be absolutely amazing. If I want to hack n' slash, build a base and lead an army, shoot things in the face, pilot a spacefighter, or even explore a world while doing those things, video games can be great.

And ye gods the atmosphere and immersion,
when done right.

Thats the thing though; I'll play those games to do those specific things, because they're great at them. But the characters in those games can only do the things that the designers thought of them doing. Video games are interactive and do let you affect the story and how things happen, but its just on a different scale from a tabletop game, where you can end up going in completely different direction than was originally intended, for better or worse.

This does make it interesting talking about video games as a storytelling medium, though. They still tell great stories, and let you create great characters and affect the world. They have the potential to create really dynamic worlds the shift with your actions. I love watching the medium develop...but right now it just can't compare to a skilled human being pulling on notes and making up stuff on the fly for me.

"Thats right, as the king goes to shake my hand I fireball him. What now?"

What about you?

Photo credit: dogcentral.info, tweakguides.com, ohiobusinesscollege.edu