[Video Game Review] Journey

Journey, © 2012 Thatgamecompany

This game almost makes me wish I smoked, because I think I need a cigarette after playing it.

The best word I can think of to describe Journey is "exquisite": in terms of design, visuals, music, playability, length, fun factor, and overall gestalt. I haven't really been part of the video gaming scene since I finished college, but this might be the most beautiful game I've ever played (and I mean that in more than just a graphical sense).

Indeed, I would go as far as to say that Journey has truly spiritual dimensions. It feels like an interactive parable from one of the world's great religions, one about the human soul, life and death, friendship, and the rewards which flow from striving towards something greater than oneself, even at great personal cost. This game has a lot of depth for something you can finish in under three hours.

As a matter of fact, I'm not sure that I can even really say that Journey is a game at all, at least in the traditional sense. It's impossible to take damage (the worst that can happen is losing a bit of your "scarf"; the longer it gets, the farther you can jump), there's no time limit, and the "puzzles" are very simplistic. There is no loss condition, and basically nothing to do except move forward. Despite this, there were moments, deep in the bowels of some ancient ruin, being pursued by unstoppable, flying serpent-guardians made of stone, where I was truly afraid, despite knowing for a fact that there was nothing they could do to hurt or kill me, even in-game.

Thatgamecompany is renowned for not simply releasing action-oriented titles, but interactive works of art, which are specifically designed to provoke emotional responses in players. I would say that Journey achieves this goal in spectacular fashion.

You'll grow far more attached to this nameless, faceless avatar than you would expect.

The game opens on a vast and endless desert, with the player's non-gendered avatar sitting in the sand. It stands, and after a brief, wordless tutorial on how to manipulate the camera, the player is left to decide which way to go. That's it: no half-hour unskippable opening cinematic, no backstory, no text, no voice-over, no nothing. I found it deeply refreshing to simply be thrust into the game-world and allowed to make my own decisions about where to go and what to do.

Since the only moving thing in this featureless world of sand is a flapping "scarf" atop a nearby dune, the player will most likely decide to move towards that. As you crest the dune, the camera pulls back to simultaneously reveal a shining mountaintop in the impossibly-far distance, and a stunning panoramic vista of ancient sand-choked ruins. The word "Journey" fades into view above the mountaintop, and you realize that the developers have just gotten you to willingly walk right into the title-screen without even realizing that you were playing right along. Journey is full of moments like this, where gameplay and game-design work together, instead of at cross-purposes. Sometimes the camera-work was so smooth that it was hard to tell whether I was playing a game or directing a movie.

Another thing that I loved is that there's zero dialogue in this game. No text, no narration, no spoken dialogue, not even a HUD. Asides from the aforementioned title-screen and the end credits, Journey is a game totally devoid of linguistic content. Just like in real life, there's nothing blinking in the corner of your vision to distract you from what you're seeing and doing, which has the effect of keeping the player in the here-and-now, rather than distracted how many points they've got left or have earned so far. This game isn't about winning, it's about... well, the journey.

And what a journey it is.

When this vista opened up, I was literally struck dumb in the middle of a sentence; all I could do was stare in awe.

This game will take you over sand and under the sea and through the earth and up, up, up into the very highest reaches of the stratosphere. You'll run, leap, fly, swim, and even sneak your way through a world which feels simultaneously solid and otherworldly, plausible and fantastic. You'll feel wonder, foreboding, fear, sorrow, and even the tender concern for a beloved traveling companion.

You might even make a friend along the way: about two-thirds of the way through, I realized that I suddenly had a companion, a second figure identical to myself. Like me, it seemed unable to talk, but we could "sing" to each other (if you can call it that; it's really more like a pulse of white light accompanied by a tone and a glowing glyph). Since singing and touching refilled each other's jump-power, we stuck close together whenever possible. By the end, I was surprised at how emotionally attached I got to my nameless, faceless "buddy", even if s/he couldn't communicate with me in any linguistic sense (kind of like the Companion Cube from Portal).

"I am glad you are here with me. Here at the end of all things, Sam."

Journey is full of genuinely touching moments, despite not having a single word of written nor spoken dialogue. It's packed from beginning to end with a sense of wonder and exploration, of mind-blowing revelations and stunning, silencing vistas which emerge without warning. The desert (indeed, the entire game) reminded me of trekking over Sleeping Bear Dunes as a child: you never know what you're going to see when you crest the next rise, but it's sure to blow you away.

An Open Letter to the United States Congress

It's time to exercise your privilege and responsibility as a citizen of the United States of America. I encourage you to take a few minutes out of your (understandably) busy schedule to protect your Constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the presses, by opposing SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act:

- You can write your own letter, or copy and paste the one I wrote if you like it (see below), but make sure to say something to your representatives in the Senate and the House of Representatives. Remember that in politics, silence is consent!

- You can find out who your representatives are by going to whoismyrepresentative.com.

- If you've got the time, you can read the full text of the bill.

- If you don't have the time, you can watch Hank Green's video, "Top 5 Reasons ████ ██ ██████" which explains exactly why SOPA would be so bad for the internet and freedom of speech. (He talks about the movie "Akira" for the first 28 seconds, but rest assured, it's not irrelevant to the point he's making about SOPA).


Dear Congressman/Congresswoman/Senator,

I’ve been hearing a lot about the Stop Online Piracy Act (a.k.a. “SOPA”, or “H.R. 3261”), and most of what I’m hearing is very negative.

I may not work with the film or music industries, but I do work for Google (through a third-party vendor named Genpact), and I speak with small advertisers and online business-owners every day. I see firsthand how many Americans depend on the internet for their income; whether they have brick-and-mortar stores or are entirely online, the internet is the great equalizer of American commerce, and one of our only economic engines that’s doing well in the current economy.

I feel strongly that the powers which would be granted to large entertainment corporations by the provisions within SOPA are unfair to the aforementioned small businesses, as well as freedom of speech and freedom of the presses. Essentially, SOPA will allow a small group of persons not elected by the people to make themselves a de facto internet censorship bureau, with no forms of oversight, redress, or recall. It would be possible for large companies and entertainment giants to wage legal war on one another for the right to distribute content, but small advertisers (such as the ones I work with every day through Google AdWords™) simply don’t have the resources or the time to do that. They would be forced to allow large corporations to shut them down, and would have no effective means to challenge such decisions. Any content which media giants found offensive or inconvenient, they would be able to remove instantly from public view, without any need for a warrant, and without any form of government oversight.

Over the last few years, acts of so-called piracy have increased dramatically. I myself must admit to occasionally watching movies through YouTube and other video sites, but typically only when the film in question is fairly old or rare, and proves difficult to rent or purchase. With ticket prices as high they are, and the economy as it is, there are few Americans who can afford to take their entire family to the newest 3D blockbuster at $15 per person. When one considers that with the advent of user-generated content, one can find almost limitless entertainment online (and all for free), it’s not hard to understand why the market is less and less willing to bear the cost of traditional, “legitimate” means of purchasing entertainment.

I’m not trying to defend internet piracy. What they do is illegal, and involves the distribution of something they do not own and have no right to distribute, even if it is intangible information. But the free market, America’s vox populi, is trying to tell us something. The market no longer views entertainment as the sole province of content-creating professionals, but a collaborative process in which all people may participate. Our views on entertainment, and how much we are willing to pay to be entertained, are changing, and Hollywood needs to change with them.

Napster® and iTunes® are excellent examples of how big business changes (or fails to change) with the times. Napster showed up in the late nineties, ready to change the very nature of the music business, but rather than embracing a new, more efficient and democratic business model, the media giants chose to gang up and crush Napster® before it could mature. A scant few years later, iTunes® showed up on the scene with the backing of a major corporation, fast and reliable service, and prices which reflected how much people were actually willing to pay for their music. The result has been one of the most widely-used and enjoyed music download services in the world. SOPA seeks to undo the progress which has been made in the ten years since Napster® first pointed out that there might be a better way of doing things.

I don’t object to corporations having the power to protect their interests. I don’t even necessarily object to the large salaries given to powerful CEOs, musicians, and movie stars. What I object to is this attempt by Hollywood to dictate not just how people should spend their money, and how much money they should spend, but what people can and cannot put on the internet. The American government was created with a built-in system of checks and balances (as any grade-schooler can tell you), to allow each branch of government to prevent the abuse of power by another branch.

SOPA will grant corporations and CEOs, who are not elected by the American people, powers which are effectively the same as those possessed by certain branches of the U.S. government, but without any form of oversight, transparency, or accountability. This is an irresistible invitation to bad behavior on the part of those being granted these powers. I, for one, will not support this bill, nor will any Representative who supports it receive my vote in future elections. As a matter of fact, I will not cast my vote for any member of a Congress which allows such a bill to pass. I hate to hold your feet to the fire, but the duty of my Representative is to make my voice heard in Congress and the Senate, and if my current Representative is unable to do so, I will be forced to cast my vote for a Representative who is able to do so.

Furthermore, I feel that if America passes this bill, it will seriously damage our credibility in international politics, while we urge countries like China and Iran to stop censoring the internet in their own countries. If we threaten economic sanctions against these rogue states while simultaneously curtailing freedom of the presses and freedom of speech in our own country, we’re not just sending mixed messages; we’re undermining our own credibility, making it look as if the values we attempt to “impose” on the rest of the world are not even cherished and protected in our own country.

I may be only one citizen, but there are many others who feel the same way as I, but lack the time or the inclination to write such long-form letters as I have written you. Perhaps they don’t know about SOPA. Perhaps they don’t care. But I can say for certain that when small businesses start to go bankrupt because large corporations are blocking their attempts to upload new and original content to the internet, their ire will turn on those who signed into law the bill which allows those corporations to thwart their efforts to carve themselves a slice of the American Dream.

Sincerely,
David F.K. Wurtsmith

Robin Hood: A Real American Hero

With all the hoopla surrounding Russel Crowe's new Robin Hood movie, I've been hearing a lot about how the beloved hero is nothing more than a socialist thief, a tool of the New British Empire to weaken America's defenses by draining our coffers with needless welfare programs. A quick Google search reveals that there are quite a few people, mostly on the conservative side (though there are exceptions), who share this view of Robin as a wealth-redistributing traitor, stealing from those who had the Ayn Randian courage to "risk their financial well-being", cutting checks to layabout hog-farmers and welfare widows.

Now this made me mad. Robin Hood, unamerican? Please. How could you find a folk-hero more American than Robin Hood? Sure, his origins are English, but so are mine, if you want to get technical. He's very much a part of the American pantheon. He's our trickster-god, a cultural hero as precious to us as Jason to the Greeks, or Beowulf to the Saxons.

It is my contention that Robin Hood, by word and action, by thought and by deed, supports every single one of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law... prohibiting...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." When King John makes it impossible for Robin to live and operate within society, Robin simply uproots himself and his men to Sherwood Forest, where they live (mostly) unmolested by the State or its agents. And of course, the whole thing started because there was no way for Robin, or the people in general, to obtain redress for their grievances."

The right to bear arms and form militias? Oh, yeah. What are the Merry Men if not a militia formed by concerned citizens, working to overthrow a corrupt system?

Amendment three? That's a tough one. The quartering of soldiers wasn't really a problem in the middle ages; they just slept in tents and bought or stole what they could from the locals. But in Mel Brooks' Robin Hood: Men in Tights (yes, it counts as part of the mythos), Robin arrives home just in time to see the repo man hauling away his castle, so in a sense he's being deprived of his living space in order to finance the king's coffers. This ties nicely into Amendment Four, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure.

The Fifth Amendment is kind of a sprawling statement, but it guarantees, among other things, that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation." Robin and his Merry Men personally enforce this law for the benefit of the downtrodden commoners, protecting or compensating them for this unreasonable confiscation, often with arrow and sword if need be.

Frequently, Robin's death-sentence is handed down from on high by an authority (King John, or the Sheriff of Nottingham) who is anything but impartial. After the warrant for his arrest is issued, the legal system skips over all that boring "trial by law" stuff (which is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment) and jumps straight to the execution. Often, anyone who meets Robin is empowered (and even encouraged!) to kill him on the spot. This lack of a trial also violates Amendment Seven, which insists that "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved."

The Eighth Amendment protects against "cruel and unusual punishments," and torture, that confession-extraction method favored by medieval monarchs, certainly falls under that category.

Amendments Nine and Ten deal with powers denied to the State, and reserved for the people. Isn't that what Robin was always fighting for? The right of the common taxpayer to stand up and be heard by Big Government?

The fact that Robin's tale addresses the same issues as the American Bill of Rights, almost four hundred years before the Americas were even colonized, speaks to the timelessness and universality of Robin's crusade for freedom. His influence on the English-speaking mind is profound and long-lasting, and reminds us all of the need for brave men who will stand up to corrupt systems, and rally people with their words and their actions, to throw off corrupt rulers, and remind us that we're only as free as we make ourselves.

And if that's not American, I don't know what is.