Yes, definitely shades of "Avatars LLC" or directions we could have explored more there: We at least toyed with the muddled situation wherein a character could be in the context of the game-within-a-game story the "villain," yet this "villain's" actions are justified within the meta-context of "I am self-aware, these NPCs are superficial scripted sprites with no actual will of their own, therefore actions I take to try to free myself are okay even if I 'harm' these entities, because they are not real and it is just a game."
The trouble for me is just that such a plot makes sense within a virtual world with AI, but a primitive visual novel doesn't fit that bill. There's no interaction or freedom of the player that warrants such AI. There's far less choice for the "player" than there was in an old Infocom text-based adventure. The conceit of the meta-story relies upon the idea that this game "reality" has the sort of sophistication that would make sense if game characters had some form of AI ... but not in the actual game mode presented to the player.
But, eh, that's just me overthinking it, right? Honestly, I don't know that I even WOULD think in this direction except that we'd already explored similar territory (in less-horrific ways, for the most part) where "black box AI" was used as the justification for spontaneous self-awareness of game entities. (Well, that, and a convergence of alternate realities through hand-wavy treatment of quantum mechanics with the idea that "synecdoches" could somehow lead to a sort of "quantum lock," which I think would be an absolutely absurd model for an infinite multiverse, even when I don't know the least thing about actual quantum mechanics. "It is very similar, therefore it attracts.")
Okay, backing up a step. What makes this "plausible" to the casual reader is the "black box" effect. For instance, most of us do not have an exhaustive knowledge of every last town in the United States, so it's not that much of a stretch for us to imagine a fictitious town somewhere in rural America. It's probably even easier for someone who doesn't live in or care much about "Flyover Country." It is a fiction that doesn't compel us to group the story into "fantasy" or "alternate history."
Now, invent an entirely new STATE, or an especially large city (Metropolis, Gotham) and it starts to feel more fanciful: It's harder to imagine that something like that could actually exist out there without us (the typical readers) knowing about it. Or, at least, if you live in the US. It might not be such a stretch for an audience in some other country with only a vague understanding of the US. Similarly, for US readership, it might be perfectly acceptable to invent a tiny country in Africa, Europe, or Asia ... but not so much if you actually lived in that area and know there's no room on the map to squeeze that in.
In science fiction (or comics), once upon a time, we could appeal to something like "gamma radiation" and it might sound like a plausible excuse for some person to develop strange new "mutations" and powers, because it's something little understood by the general populace. Outer space was once seen as a much more lively place in popular fiction. In the 1980s, computers and "computer wizzes" were capable of outright magic -- but such depictions were considered jokes to computer geeks such as myself who actually went to "computer clubs" and toyed around with making our own games in BASIC or even dabbling in a bit of machine code.
Now, though, "strange radiation" is far more associated with causing cancer in the popular conception than any remote chance of "super powers." And it's downright silly when some TV show portrays a cartoonish conception of a standard computer interface, when a very significant portion of the audience is actually familiar with using personal computers, tablets, smartphones, etc. (I wonder if anyone ever actually goes to a "computer club" anymore?)
Where I think this game arguably goofs up is that it relies upon the idea of the "black box" being the inner workings of a video game (and a very, very primitive sort of game, at that), but it ALSO relies on the game player being savvy enough to navigate through file directories to find and delete a file in order to progress in the story. Someone who just relies on complete automation of the installation process from Steam, who never messes with mods, who has to rely upon an "uninstall" process to remove a game (if he even does it at all before running out of space) is the most likely to feel more comfortable with some suspension of disbelief regarding the magical inner workings of a computer game. Someone who's comfortable enough to actually follow some clues in the game and start deleting files from the game directory is probably a lot less to be completely naive about how game mechanics work. Someone who's more likely to willfully suspend disbelief for the sake of the story is LESS likely to be comfortable with making that tinkering step required to get to the end of the story.
Or ... that's my gut take on it. There's enough of a "fan base" out there that ... eh, I can't seriously pretend my opinion really matters at all. ;)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2018-09-18 12:08 am (UTC)The trouble for me is just that such a plot makes sense within a virtual world with AI, but a primitive visual novel doesn't fit that bill. There's no interaction or freedom of the player that warrants such AI. There's far less choice for the "player" than there was in an old Infocom text-based adventure. The conceit of the meta-story relies upon the idea that this game "reality" has the sort of sophistication that would make sense if game characters had some form of AI ... but not in the actual game mode presented to the player.
But, eh, that's just me overthinking it, right? Honestly, I don't know that I even WOULD think in this direction except that we'd already explored similar territory (in less-horrific ways, for the most part) where "black box AI" was used as the justification for spontaneous self-awareness of game entities. (Well, that, and a convergence of alternate realities through hand-wavy treatment of quantum mechanics with the idea that "synecdoches" could somehow lead to a sort of "quantum lock," which I think would be an absolutely absurd model for an infinite multiverse, even when I don't know the least thing about actual quantum mechanics. "It is very similar, therefore it attracts.")
Okay, backing up a step. What makes this "plausible" to the casual reader is the "black box" effect. For instance, most of us do not have an exhaustive knowledge of every last town in the United States, so it's not that much of a stretch for us to imagine a fictitious town somewhere in rural America. It's probably even easier for someone who doesn't live in or care much about "Flyover Country." It is a fiction that doesn't compel us to group the story into "fantasy" or "alternate history."
Now, invent an entirely new STATE, or an especially large city (Metropolis, Gotham) and it starts to feel more fanciful: It's harder to imagine that something like that could actually exist out there without us (the typical readers) knowing about it. Or, at least, if you live in the US. It might not be such a stretch for an audience in some other country with only a vague understanding of the US. Similarly, for US readership, it might be perfectly acceptable to invent a tiny country in Africa, Europe, or Asia ... but not so much if you actually lived in that area and know there's no room on the map to squeeze that in.
In science fiction (or comics), once upon a time, we could appeal to something like "gamma radiation" and it might sound like a plausible excuse for some person to develop strange new "mutations" and powers, because it's something little understood by the general populace. Outer space was once seen as a much more lively place in popular fiction. In the 1980s, computers and "computer wizzes" were capable of outright magic -- but such depictions were considered jokes to computer geeks such as myself who actually went to "computer clubs" and toyed around with making our own games in BASIC or even dabbling in a bit of machine code.
Now, though, "strange radiation" is far more associated with causing cancer in the popular conception than any remote chance of "super powers." And it's downright silly when some TV show portrays a cartoonish conception of a standard computer interface, when a very significant portion of the audience is actually familiar with using personal computers, tablets, smartphones, etc. (I wonder if anyone ever actually goes to a "computer club" anymore?)
Where I think this game arguably goofs up is that it relies upon the idea of the "black box" being the inner workings of a video game (and a very, very primitive sort of game, at that), but it ALSO relies on the game player being savvy enough to navigate through file directories to find and delete a file in order to progress in the story. Someone who just relies on complete automation of the installation process from Steam, who never messes with mods, who has to rely upon an "uninstall" process to remove a game (if he even does it at all before running out of space) is the most likely to feel more comfortable with some suspension of disbelief regarding the magical inner workings of a computer game. Someone who's comfortable enough to actually follow some clues in the game and start deleting files from the game directory is probably a lot less to be completely naive about how game mechanics work. Someone who's more likely to willfully suspend disbelief for the sake of the story is LESS likely to be comfortable with making that tinkering step required to get to the end of the story.
Or ... that's my gut take on it. There's enough of a "fan base" out there that ... eh, I can't seriously pretend my opinion really matters at all. ;)