The Stanley Parable is a fascinating little mod made to run on Half-Life 2 that I, personally, couldn't figure out how to run without getting Half-Life 2 for the life of me. The most interesting point about this game is that it's pretty much a standalone game, if you can call it a game at all. The game reads (yes, it reads... pretty much as if from a script) much like one of the interactive storybooks you might have seen or read back in grade school. That's why I'm hesitant to call it much of a game at all since it's setup is a lot more like a text in that the creator has a seemingly very specific idea in mind that he wants to get across to the reader, and he does that by telling a story, as opposed to presenting a player with a universe, and a set of goals. No, this game has no "goals" in the traditional sense of the word, as far as the concept of a goal goes in gaming, this game presents to the player something very different: options.
Yes, any games has options. In Mario, it's usually attack or dodge; in Soul Calibur, it's block or strike; in Grand Theft Auto, it's a simple "to kill, or not to kill;" and in Resident Evil it's between a machinegun, a shotgun, a handgun, and an RPG (as in a rocket propelled grenade). This game has -real- options: real in the sense that the options you take effect the outcome and even the overall message of the game. This game speaks so much to Existentialism, but this post isn't about Existentialism, is it?
This post is about Panopticism, which begs the question: what's Panopticism. Panopticism is a word... actually, it's not a word. If it were a word, you'd find it in the dictionary. Or maybe it is a word, depending on how you define the meaning of a word (what's in a word?). Panopticism is certainly an idea, or more like a concept. Basically, Panopticism is about discipline... and discipline in the sense of punishment, so more of a social discipline than a personal discipline. It's really more than that, but going into great detail on the matter would likely just get really really confusing, so if you're reading and you want to know more about Panopticism, here you go!
"So what on Earth is high brow, literary theory, and social philosophy doing in my video game?" you may ask as you're staring at the screen, wondering what I'm rambling on about. Well, the truth of the matter is, that if you're the type who sits in front of a TV and plays a mindless first person shooter like Resident Evil all day, and have no interest in English, Culture, Game Development & Design, and are more concerned about unlocking professional mode, then maybe The Stanley Parable isn't for you, but maybe, you'd do good to open up your horizons a little bit, and at least continue reading, or at the very least, take a half hour of your time and watch it get played through.
Alright so, The Stanley Parable begins with a narrator that introduces you to the story of Stanley, a desk worker who does exactly everything he's told and is perfectly happy with his life. One day, people stop telling him what to do, and after a mental breakdown, he decides to go find the other employees. That's when you take control. The narrator will continue to direct you, step by step, to the end of the game that he, the narrator, has set out for you and Stanley. Sounds boring? Right? But wait... as you take poor Stanley through, you notice that there's other pathways, hallways that lead somewhere else, and the narrator seems to be indirectly directing you in a certain direction. If you follow his instructions, he ends by expressing how free Stanley is now that he's escaped the clutches of some sort of mind control experiment.
Sounds like a good deal? But what real game, what real reader would not stop and think or wonder... "why are those other hallways and doors even in the game?" And when asking that question, one might play through again, and see what's down there. Suddenly, a very different story unfolds. This time, the narrator berates you every step of the way, expressing how stupid you are to not follow along with the original story. The narrator will eventually express how you're being punished because you just couldn't follow instructions.
The more alternate paths you take, the weirder and weirder the game gets. At a certain point, the narrator even gets "killed" and another, higher level of narration takes over. The whole game presents a few ideas to the player, or the reader. These aren't solid, stone cold ideas that one presents in a lecture, these are more questions than anything. Things that the game's maker seems to have thrown out there for the reader to reflect upon, rather than making a point.
So where does discipline fit into it? Well, the idea behind a "panopticon" which is where the term Panopticism comes from, is a prison in which a central guard can see everything (from the Latin words Pan, meaning all, everything, etc. and Optic, having to do with sight). So the idea driving the game is that a central narrator figure is with you the whole way through, watching your every step and trying to encourage you to make a choice towards his goal, and punish you for not making it, either mentally, emotionally, or physically. In one section of the game, the narrator even fades away, and seems to completely vanish from the game. The game then starts over, and you are free to explore its every aspect without the narrative voice telling you how things are supposed to happen, and additionally, without all of the doors you go through closing behind you, which happens in every other variation of the story line. Only at the end, the narrator reveals that he was following you all along, but that he, basically, had just shut up and let you go through the game on your own for a little bit. After that time is up, the narrator takes a moment to discuss the nature of freedom, and what exactly it entails, wrapping up the game in a way that concludes the maker's thoughts on the matter, as presented throughout the game through the voice of the narrator, and the play style of the game.
A few error corrections before I get into my comments:
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I'm not sure what dictionary you used, but 'Panopticism' is a word. I am not sure if you were joking or not, but this is why your style choice can be problematic. Again, your punchline should be your thesis, not making fun of your material. (see George Carlin, Dave Chappelle, etc).
Secondly, the line 'a mindless first person shooter like Resident Evil' is problematic since even though there have been Resident Evil FPS games (if you count on-the-rails shooters as FPS) most people think of the series as primarily third-person or over-the-shoulder shooters. Like I said in class, there are a lot of non-gamers in the field; you don't want to say something that will peg you as a non-gamer.
As for you content, you only really get into analysis in the last paragraph when you start to link panopticism and The Stanley Parable. Most of this post is actually summary with little to no analysis. When writing, start at what main point you want to get across and write your jokes around that point, not the other way around.
That being said, you do have a nice comedic voice, which is hard to pull off in text where you don't have vocal tone and pitch to aid in your punchlines. Just make sure you say something as you make your jokes.
-Ms Bommarito