#idg5202david

Corrypt is not by any means an “easy” game. The puzzle elements are mind-bending, the Magic elements completely chaotic, the anarchy of corruption is the most apparent and readily visible statement the game makes, at least in my opinion. 

For me, what was ludicrously weird, is the part where you save a small child.  What is different here is that the child has a set of unique characteristics;

1. It is the only intractable element, except magic, that can be moved from screen to screen. Well magic, cannot be moved, as such, it is more like persistent from screen to screen. The child is not persistent, so yes, i would say that it is the only object capable of moving from scree to screen

2. the child, although acts like a block, in most terms has the change that it follows the controller on two axes and not just one. The blocks can be pulled and pushed. The child drags along even sideways. 

This has the beauty of presenting the vulnerability of the child. The child feels sticky, attached to the player. Getting the child to stop following you is a choice, an effort. One has to get the child in a particular position and then almost slide him off, as if you are trying to brush him away. 

The child is also a burden, it is hard to move around, with this child physically attached to you, and his vulnerability, and lingering persistence almost prevents him from ever arriving to his mother. The player needs to go through repetitive “Shrugging off” of the child and has to go through various detours to be able to bring him to his mother. It is almost the child does not even want to get home, he’s happy tagging along. Why did he escape anyway... why did the child not want to get back to his mother? what did the mother do to the child? and why does the mother reward you with a path with access to the magicians, while telling you to stay away from them. Almost like tempting you, or daring you, to go talk to the magician. A little bit like showing you a big red button of doom and asking you not to press it.. 

Murray, in his Hamlet on the Holodeck text, spends a significant amount of time bringing up examples of  theatre pieces and commenting on the breaking of the fourth wall. Because of my obvious attachment to theatre, I felt I should make a small comment with regards to the examples and the claims that Murray makes on the subject. 

He mentions Langer's classic writing, particularly the strong quote "To seek audience participation in theatre is to deny drama is art". Murray proceeds to say that Audience participation is very awkward. I would say audience participation is in fact awkward. However that is highly dependant on style and the audience's preconception. 

First of all, I believe it would make sense to mention that Langer's Claim is now... not considered as so important anymore, not to mention that there are theatre styles that are solely based on audience participation.

I am not going to go into the oft quoted in game theory "Boal and the theatre of the oppressed", i'm going to mention a few more examples which are closer at hand. Take for example, the traditional christmas pantomime, Where audience are encouraged to "play" with the actors on stage. The Panto Call, for example, where the dame calls a short phrase to which the audience always have to answer back in rhyme. Or games played on stage with little children. 

But, perhaps a more significant example in this case is a particular piece of theatre I once worked on called "Love Lust and Lynching in Fuente Ovejuna", based on Lope De Vega's classic play.

This piece was almost solely based on audience participation, where at one point, we escorted the whole audience into the courtyard and the audience were provoked by the play's "villain" untill one audience member shouts back at the actor's provocations. At that point, all of the audience members were handed water balloons and they contributed themselves to the death of the much hated character. 

What seems interesting to me is that Murray describes later on in the text, that to maintain immersion (Murray calls it immersion, Slater calls it presence), one must make sure not to reach a climax, or not to exceed a certain threshold of stimulation. What i'm interested in is whether what happened there in that play is exactly that. The deliberate push over that threshold. In the case of the play, there was no apparent disruption in immersion, but a clear shift in state. That is from spectator to active participator. 

Perhaps what Murray describes as "very awkward" in the above statement is not audience participation per-se', but the change of state- from spectator to participator. Once participation kicks in, then, it is clear what the current situation is and therefore there is no need for awkwardness. The awkwardness resides in the transition. 

So where did the fourth wall go, once the water balloon assault had started, once the spectator-actor relationship suddenly became an actor-actor relationship, what was previously a stage became a playground. The area which was previously "Limited Access" suddenly opened its gates for an influx of new players, and all of a sudden we were all playing one big LARP with one common goal - kill the villain.

So, contrary to Murray's claim, when the audience reached into the illusion, it did not fade away. Theatre in its more traditional form, may not allow this happening. If for example an audience member had to begin yelling inside a theatre while the play is going on, the the audience members would most likely shush him. This is to restore his status as spectator, and therefore reset the awkwardness to zero. 

A game however provides that very environment which we mentioned before. One may, if he prefers remain a spectator, and some people tend to do that, by watching "Play-through" videos, or their own friends play the game. But a game itself, invites you to participate and play. So the audience participation here is not only allowed but encouraged, 

An interesting note, however, is how less awkward transition from spectator to participator when the focus is shifted onto games. The main difference here is the cultural predisposition, or expectations. Waiting for your turn in a Local-Multiplayer FIFA tournament is not awkward, and when your turn arrives you eagerly jump onto the chair and grab the controller. So, i would say that in all of this, the cultural expectations do make a big difference.