Because there weren't enough silly names for random normal objects in Portal:
Aperture Science Photostatic Image Replication System (photocopier): "The unauthorized application of exposed gluteal regions to this device shall be grounds for immediate termination... of your employment with Aperture Laboratories."
Aperture Science Visio-Social Display (overhead projector): "The hygienic operation of this device is required under Section Nine, paragraph 4(b) of the Enrichment Center Principles of Operation. Appropriate sanitary facilities are scheduled for installation at this site in ..." *BZZTZcrackle* "... sday."
Aperture Science Remote Signaling Unit (telephone): "Use of the Aperture Science Remote Signaling Unit has been discontinued until further notice. Should you inadvertently find yourself operating this device, please report at your earliest convenience to the nearest Enrichment Center Decontamination and Retroviral Decommissioning Pod for absolution."
Showing posts with label writing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label writing. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Friday, February 15, 2008
Deus Ex
I've been an unabashed fan of Warren Spector's work ever since I brought home Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss in all its 3D glory, and System Shock after that. I'll buy any epic game he produces.
So I expected Deus Ex to be good... but even I was surprised that it was that good. I still play it every year or so as well, just to remind myself of how high the bar is set for all other games.
The thing that still amazes me the most, however, is how remarkably even-handed and thoughtful it was (and still is) on a subject that could very easily have been turned into a political soapbox. I've played games where the developers (who as a group tend to be left of center) obviously thought it would be funny to drop some gratuitous political cheap shot into the text. (I remember one bit of canned commentary from Sierra On-Line's Outpost as being obnoxious in this way.) When everyone on the development team thinks the same way politically, who's going to object to mocking the other guys?
But Deus Ex never goes for the cheap shot from any political direction. There are three or four places in the game where J.C. can have an extended conversation on liberty -- and the lengths to which one should be prepared to go to defend it -- with NPCs. It would have been easy (and must have been tempting) to write these as Socratic dialogues where one side is obviously "wrong." Instead, each position in these conversations is treated fairly and without any rhetorical stacking of the deck. The player is left free to think and decide for himself.
What's particularly astonishing about this is that Deus Ex was developed in Austin, Texas, which prides itself on being more politically liberal (in the U.S. sense of the word) than most of the rest of Texas. For game designers in Austin to have produced dialogues that the thinking person of any political stripe can appreciate... I still regard that as one of the most jaw-droppingly satisfying accomplishments in the history of computer gaming.
Deus Ex proved that it is indeed possible to feature smart, sharp writing on a touchy subject in a game that also offers plenty of problem-solving and conventional shoot-'em-up action. It's hard to imagine that we will see its like again any time soon. (And I'm including the upcoming Deus Ex 3, being made in Toronto, Canada, in that pessimistic guess.)
Any "Best Computer Game Ever" list that doesn't feature the original Deus Ex in at least the top ten is clearly broken beyond repair.
Dang. Now I want to go play it again Right Now....
So I expected Deus Ex to be good... but even I was surprised that it was that good. I still play it every year or so as well, just to remind myself of how high the bar is set for all other games.
The thing that still amazes me the most, however, is how remarkably even-handed and thoughtful it was (and still is) on a subject that could very easily have been turned into a political soapbox. I've played games where the developers (who as a group tend to be left of center) obviously thought it would be funny to drop some gratuitous political cheap shot into the text. (I remember one bit of canned commentary from Sierra On-Line's Outpost as being obnoxious in this way.) When everyone on the development team thinks the same way politically, who's going to object to mocking the other guys?
But Deus Ex never goes for the cheap shot from any political direction. There are three or four places in the game where J.C. can have an extended conversation on liberty -- and the lengths to which one should be prepared to go to defend it -- with NPCs. It would have been easy (and must have been tempting) to write these as Socratic dialogues where one side is obviously "wrong." Instead, each position in these conversations is treated fairly and without any rhetorical stacking of the deck. The player is left free to think and decide for himself.
What's particularly astonishing about this is that Deus Ex was developed in Austin, Texas, which prides itself on being more politically liberal (in the U.S. sense of the word) than most of the rest of Texas. For game designers in Austin to have produced dialogues that the thinking person of any political stripe can appreciate... I still regard that as one of the most jaw-droppingly satisfying accomplishments in the history of computer gaming.
Deus Ex proved that it is indeed possible to feature smart, sharp writing on a touchy subject in a game that also offers plenty of problem-solving and conventional shoot-'em-up action. It's hard to imagine that we will see its like again any time soon. (And I'm including the upcoming Deus Ex 3, being made in Toronto, Canada, in that pessimistic guess.)
Any "Best Computer Game Ever" list that doesn't feature the original Deus Ex in at least the top ten is clearly broken beyond repair.
Dang. Now I want to go play it again Right Now....
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Gordon Freeman's Epitaph
The question came up: What words would (will?) be written on Gordon Freeman's tombstone?
My first thought was a Buffy-esque "He saved the world (a lot)."
But on reflection, I like this better:
My first thought was a Buffy-esque "He saved the world (a lot)."
But on reflection, I like this better:
My name is Gordon Freeman
An ordinary man
An HEV suit on my back
A crowbar in my hand.
I did my part for liberty
With good friends brave and true
The free man perseveres through all
And so, my friend, can you.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Similarities Between Half-Life 2 and John Christopher's "Tripod Trilogy"
[NOTE: Minor spoilers related to the story of Half-Life 2 follow.]
I can't help but notice certain similarities between the story of Half-Life 2 and the wonderful "Tripod Trilogy" written in the late 1960s by John Christopher (pseudonym of Samuel Youd):
1. In the trilogy, humanity has been enslaved by conquering aliens, but there is a resistance movement. In Half-Life 2, humanity has been enslaved by conquering aliens, but there is a resistance movement.
2. In the trilogy, the landscape is dominated by menacing three-legged "tripods." In Half-Life 2, one of the most dangerous enemies is the three-legged "strider." (Of course both of these may simply be referencing the tripods from H.G. Wells's novel The War of the Worlds.)
3. In the trilogy, the first book is called The White Mountains, which is the location of the main human resistance organization the heroes are trying to reach. In Episode 2, Alyx points out White Mountain to Gordon, the landmark for the human resistance base (the White Forest Rocket Facility) that they're trying to reach.
Coincidence? Or a nice homage?
I can't help but notice certain similarities between the story of Half-Life 2 and the wonderful "Tripod Trilogy" written in the late 1960s by John Christopher (pseudonym of Samuel Youd):
1. In the trilogy, humanity has been enslaved by conquering aliens, but there is a resistance movement. In Half-Life 2, humanity has been enslaved by conquering aliens, but there is a resistance movement.
2. In the trilogy, the landscape is dominated by menacing three-legged "tripods." In Half-Life 2, one of the most dangerous enemies is the three-legged "strider." (Of course both of these may simply be referencing the tripods from H.G. Wells's novel The War of the Worlds.)
3. In the trilogy, the first book is called The White Mountains, which is the location of the main human resistance organization the heroes are trying to reach. In Episode 2, Alyx points out White Mountain to Gordon, the landmark for the human resistance base (the White Forest Rocket Facility) that they're trying to reach.
Coincidence? Or a nice homage?
Monday, August 27, 2007
The Interfering Organians
I always thought it was interesting that the Organians were presented as this very advanced race with the power to interfere in the conflict between the Federation and the Klingon Empire... but apparently they didn't have anything like Starfleet's Prime Directive to constrain the use of that power against less advanced beings.
This makes the Organians intriguing from a real-world historical perspective. TOS: "Errand of Mercy", which (according to Memory Alpha) introduced the Klingons to Star Trek, was written by Gene L. Coon. It's interesting to speculate on whether his US Marine Corps experience in Korea gave him a personal view of the Cold War that led him to conceive of the United Federation of Planets and the Klingon Empire as stand-ins for the United States and the Soviet Union respectively.
If that was the case, then Coon's Organian "solution" is pretty fascinating. Rather than concluding that a sociopolitical system based on recognizing the dignity of the free individual was intrinsically better than one based on the power of the state to compel obedience, Coon treated both parties as morally equivalent and their real differences as little better than the petty squabbling of children. The Organians are basically the equivalent of a disapproving parent who says, "I don't care who started it, I'm sending you both to your rooms for a timeout."
If "Errand of Mercy" was wishful thinking on Gene Coon's part regarding the US and the USSR, it's a good thing he never got his wish or there'd still be a wall in Berlin; the Cold War would never have ended in the West's favor (at least for a few years); the major powers would still be trying to prop up and knock down smaller countries as proxies; and everybody who had 'em would still be trying to stockpile nukes for the day the bad guys came across the "neutral zone" in force.
I consider this an example of the impatience common to those of a particular political persuasion. "You're not doing what I think you should do fast enough, so I'm going to make you do it right now" seems to be the attitude... the only problem with which is that people don't learn when "solutions" are imposed on them. Children need direction, but functional adults learn from solving their own problems. That's one-half of the reason for something like a Prime Directive. The other half is that if history shows us anything, it is how easily we slide from using power to solve the problems of others "for their own good" to accumulating and using power for its own sake. Best not to get into the habit of interfering with the internal problems of others.
(For those determined to see inconsistency in that principle regarding recent actions undertaken in Afghanistan and Iraq, please note that there's a difference between "interference in someone else's purely internal disputes which they can solve themselves" and "intervention in our own self-defense when nothing else will work." Intervention is a rational middle ground between isolationism and interference, and can be justified by evidence that one's security is meaningfully at risk. Having said that, I agree that reasons for action should never be allowed to become mere rationalization. A culture of intervention can too easily transmute into a belief in the rightness of interference, into an unquestioning acceptance of "we should because we can" thinking. That is a real threat, and it is right to caution against it... but setting a blanket policy that all intervention is forbidden is as childish as a policy that interference in internal civil matters is justifiable merely because we have the power to do so.)
All in all, the actions written for the Organians in "Errand of Mercy" has always seemed to me like an aberration in the otherwise consistent message of "might for right" in Star Trek. I never liked the moral equivalence the writer seemed to be drawing between democratic-capitalism and communism. I never liked the way that civilizations of intelligent adults were treated like children. (Shades of how the Vulcans treated Earth for years after First Contact, no?) And I never liked the deus ex machina ending to "Errand of Mercy" just from a pure storytelling point of view.
There was a deeper, truer and more satisfying story to be told here. Perhaps someday there will be an episode of a new Star Trek series that tells it.
This makes the Organians intriguing from a real-world historical perspective. TOS: "Errand of Mercy", which (according to Memory Alpha) introduced the Klingons to Star Trek, was written by Gene L. Coon. It's interesting to speculate on whether his US Marine Corps experience in Korea gave him a personal view of the Cold War that led him to conceive of the United Federation of Planets and the Klingon Empire as stand-ins for the United States and the Soviet Union respectively.
If that was the case, then Coon's Organian "solution" is pretty fascinating. Rather than concluding that a sociopolitical system based on recognizing the dignity of the free individual was intrinsically better than one based on the power of the state to compel obedience, Coon treated both parties as morally equivalent and their real differences as little better than the petty squabbling of children. The Organians are basically the equivalent of a disapproving parent who says, "I don't care who started it, I'm sending you both to your rooms for a timeout."
If "Errand of Mercy" was wishful thinking on Gene Coon's part regarding the US and the USSR, it's a good thing he never got his wish or there'd still be a wall in Berlin; the Cold War would never have ended in the West's favor (at least for a few years); the major powers would still be trying to prop up and knock down smaller countries as proxies; and everybody who had 'em would still be trying to stockpile nukes for the day the bad guys came across the "neutral zone" in force.
I consider this an example of the impatience common to those of a particular political persuasion. "You're not doing what I think you should do fast enough, so I'm going to make you do it right now" seems to be the attitude... the only problem with which is that people don't learn when "solutions" are imposed on them. Children need direction, but functional adults learn from solving their own problems. That's one-half of the reason for something like a Prime Directive. The other half is that if history shows us anything, it is how easily we slide from using power to solve the problems of others "for their own good" to accumulating and using power for its own sake. Best not to get into the habit of interfering with the internal problems of others.
(For those determined to see inconsistency in that principle regarding recent actions undertaken in Afghanistan and Iraq, please note that there's a difference between "interference in someone else's purely internal disputes which they can solve themselves" and "intervention in our own self-defense when nothing else will work." Intervention is a rational middle ground between isolationism and interference, and can be justified by evidence that one's security is meaningfully at risk. Having said that, I agree that reasons for action should never be allowed to become mere rationalization. A culture of intervention can too easily transmute into a belief in the rightness of interference, into an unquestioning acceptance of "we should because we can" thinking. That is a real threat, and it is right to caution against it... but setting a blanket policy that all intervention is forbidden is as childish as a policy that interference in internal civil matters is justifiable merely because we have the power to do so.)
All in all, the actions written for the Organians in "Errand of Mercy" has always seemed to me like an aberration in the otherwise consistent message of "might for right" in Star Trek. I never liked the moral equivalence the writer seemed to be drawing between democratic-capitalism and communism. I never liked the way that civilizations of intelligent adults were treated like children. (Shades of how the Vulcans treated Earth for years after First Contact, no?) And I never liked the deus ex machina ending to "Errand of Mercy" just from a pure storytelling point of view.
There was a deeper, truer and more satisfying story to be told here. Perhaps someday there will be an episode of a new Star Trek series that tells it.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Star Trek: Generations: Revised Ending
There's something that's been bothering me for a long time now, and I'm thinking maybe this is the right time and place to unload this particular bit of baggage.
Basically, like many Star Trek fans I have never liked the ending of Star Trek: Generations.
[Spoiler alert! If you haven't seen this movie, you might want to stop reading now. On the other hand, why would you be reading this if you haven't seen the movie? Hmm.]
The point behind this movie was to tie together TOS and TNG -- to pass the torch to the next generation. My problem was that this wasn't done anywhere near as powerfully as it could have and should have been done.
In particular, Kirk's death was astonishingly, unbelievably, heartbreakingly lame. There's no way he should have gone out like that. I mean, falling down a cliff after a fistfight? Huh? OK, yes, it's ACTION!... but how does that action show Kirk at his best -- at the helm of a starship leading a team of smart, skilled people out of a tough situation -- and how does it link TOS to TNG?
I don't think it did either of those things. So in my version of the movie, that's not what happened. Here's how my version goes....
...
We begin after the Klingon attack has destroyed the secondary hull of the Enterprise-D, and the saucer section is careening toward the surface of the planet Veridian III.
However, unlike the first timeline of the movie, despite the best efforts of the bridge crew to bring the saucer section to the ground safely, it crashes disastrously. Everyone is killed, with a broken Data surviving just long enough to communicate the extent of the disaster to Picard -- and then the collapse of the star Veridian due to Soran's missile finishes the job by destroying the entire planet.
Picard is then shown in the Nexus sequence as filmed. Kirk agrees to return to return to Picard's timeline.
But instead of Kirk showing up on Veridian III to help Picard win a stupid fistfight with Soran, Picard returns to the fight alone. He doesn't need Kirk's help; this time he's able to win the fight by knowing what Soran is going to do. Picard ducks Soran's punches with a smirk, and strikes Soran's arm so that he drops his weapon. (Remember, Picard had already seen all of Soran's moves in the first pre-Nexus timeline.) Soran, however, is a clever duck. Realizing that Picard knows what he's going to do, he changes what he would otherwise have done and scampers off to retrieve his weapon. This leaves Picard free to jam the launch sequence, and the rest of that scene follows as it did in the film.
Kirk, meanwhile, appears on the bridge of the Enterprise. Riker, recognizing Kirk immediately, explains the situation and cedes command to him as the (very!) senior Captain. Using his experience, Kirk is able to suggest some crazy-sounding trick to Data that will allow the saucer section to land safely. ("Trust me. It'll work," he says, flashing that trademark Kirk grin.)
It does work, and the landing goes better this time, but it's still bumpy. (Basically it would be the same landing from the first timeline in the actual film, only with Kirk in the Big Chair instead of Riker.) Everyone gets thrown around, but when the shaking stops everyone's OK... except for Kirk, who was flung across the bridge a couple of times and winds up under the Enterprise's dedication plaque.
It's clear that Kirk's injuries are mortal.
The bridge crew gather around him. In a voice labored with pain, Kirk slowly asks Riker, "Ship... safe? Out of danger?"
Riker nods, grief clouding his eyes.
Kirk smiles. "She's got the right name. Always take care of her, and she'll always bring you..." -- his eyes widen -- "...home."
And he dies.
The camera pulls back slowly to reveal the bridge crew comforting each other around Kirk's body, amid the debris of the bridge. As the camera pulls back further to the saucer exterior, we see various crew members emerging from the wreckage, alive and well because Kirk, for one final time, turned death into a fighting chance for others to live.
The rest of the film (excluding the scene of Picard building the cairn for Kirk's body) goes as originally shown.
...
Clearly I like this ending much better, and I hope you do, too, but I'd like to point out a couple of reasons why I think it's more effective.
One obvious element is the dying Kirk's quotations from previous Star Trek episodes. "Ship safe? Out of danger?" is from Spock's dying moments in Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. The other quote is taken from the very first TNG episode, "Encounter at Farpoint," in which McCoy, talking with Data, explicitly links "his" Enterprise with the Enterprise-D.
These quotes perform multiple jobs:
The other thing that's important for me is this death has meaning, where the one shown in the actual film did not. Kirk ends his days exactly where he should be, exactly where he always should have been -- on the bridge of the Enterprise, doing what he was born to do.
As Star Trek, and as literature, I believe this would have been a far better thing for this film, and a far better rest for the original series to go to.
Basically, like many Star Trek fans I have never liked the ending of Star Trek: Generations.
[Spoiler alert! If you haven't seen this movie, you might want to stop reading now. On the other hand, why would you be reading this if you haven't seen the movie? Hmm.]
The point behind this movie was to tie together TOS and TNG -- to pass the torch to the next generation. My problem was that this wasn't done anywhere near as powerfully as it could have and should have been done.
In particular, Kirk's death was astonishingly, unbelievably, heartbreakingly lame. There's no way he should have gone out like that. I mean, falling down a cliff after a fistfight? Huh? OK, yes, it's ACTION!... but how does that action show Kirk at his best -- at the helm of a starship leading a team of smart, skilled people out of a tough situation -- and how does it link TOS to TNG?
I don't think it did either of those things. So in my version of the movie, that's not what happened. Here's how my version goes....
...
We begin after the Klingon attack has destroyed the secondary hull of the Enterprise-D, and the saucer section is careening toward the surface of the planet Veridian III.
However, unlike the first timeline of the movie, despite the best efforts of the bridge crew to bring the saucer section to the ground safely, it crashes disastrously. Everyone is killed, with a broken Data surviving just long enough to communicate the extent of the disaster to Picard -- and then the collapse of the star Veridian due to Soran's missile finishes the job by destroying the entire planet.
Picard is then shown in the Nexus sequence as filmed. Kirk agrees to return to return to Picard's timeline.
But instead of Kirk showing up on Veridian III to help Picard win a stupid fistfight with Soran, Picard returns to the fight alone. He doesn't need Kirk's help; this time he's able to win the fight by knowing what Soran is going to do. Picard ducks Soran's punches with a smirk, and strikes Soran's arm so that he drops his weapon. (Remember, Picard had already seen all of Soran's moves in the first pre-Nexus timeline.) Soran, however, is a clever duck. Realizing that Picard knows what he's going to do, he changes what he would otherwise have done and scampers off to retrieve his weapon. This leaves Picard free to jam the launch sequence, and the rest of that scene follows as it did in the film.
Kirk, meanwhile, appears on the bridge of the Enterprise. Riker, recognizing Kirk immediately, explains the situation and cedes command to him as the (very!) senior Captain. Using his experience, Kirk is able to suggest some crazy-sounding trick to Data that will allow the saucer section to land safely. ("Trust me. It'll work," he says, flashing that trademark Kirk grin.)
It does work, and the landing goes better this time, but it's still bumpy. (Basically it would be the same landing from the first timeline in the actual film, only with Kirk in the Big Chair instead of Riker.) Everyone gets thrown around, but when the shaking stops everyone's OK... except for Kirk, who was flung across the bridge a couple of times and winds up under the Enterprise's dedication plaque.
It's clear that Kirk's injuries are mortal.
The bridge crew gather around him. In a voice labored with pain, Kirk slowly asks Riker, "Ship... safe? Out of danger?"
Riker nods, grief clouding his eyes.
Kirk smiles. "She's got the right name. Always take care of her, and she'll always bring you..." -- his eyes widen -- "...home."
And he dies.
The camera pulls back slowly to reveal the bridge crew comforting each other around Kirk's body, amid the debris of the bridge. As the camera pulls back further to the saucer exterior, we see various crew members emerging from the wreckage, alive and well because Kirk, for one final time, turned death into a fighting chance for others to live.
The rest of the film (excluding the scene of Picard building the cairn for Kirk's body) goes as originally shown.
...
Clearly I like this ending much better, and I hope you do, too, but I'd like to point out a couple of reasons why I think it's more effective.
One obvious element is the dying Kirk's quotations from previous Star Trek episodes. "Ship safe? Out of danger?" is from Spock's dying moments in Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. The other quote is taken from the very first TNG episode, "Encounter at Farpoint," in which McCoy, talking with Data, explicitly links "his" Enterprise with the Enterprise-D.
These quotes perform multiple jobs:
- They work as appropriate dialog for the scene.
- They reference previous Trek (as a gift for the Star Trek fans).
- They link TOS and TNG by reminding us that the Enterprise-D carries on the tradition of all the ships of that name.
- They allow Spock and McCoy, who were so important to Kirk, to make a kind of appearance.
The other thing that's important for me is this death has meaning, where the one shown in the actual film did not. Kirk ends his days exactly where he should be, exactly where he always should have been -- on the bridge of the Enterprise, doing what he was born to do.
As Star Trek, and as literature, I believe this would have been a far better thing for this film, and a far better rest for the original series to go to.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Text in MMORPGs
"There was lots of reading, much too much, in the game. ... We wanted more instant gratification: kill, get treasure, repeat. We needed to give people more of an opportunity to be a part of what they have seen in the movies rather than something they had created themselves." -- Nancy MacIntyre, senior director of SWG for LucasArts. (New York Times article)Despite Ms. MacIntyre's position, I'd also like to see more writing in graphical MMORPGs -- in fact, I believe there should be more opportunity for writing in MMORPGs generally.
I can easily imagine many kinds of writing:
- "atmosphere" stuff just to add depth to the world
- quest starters
- lore information scattered over many places... but not completely at random
- chronicles of player or guild exploits written by players
- guides to places/quests/gameplay written by players
- extended fiction inspired by the game world
In addition to straight literary value, these MMORPG things have the unique feature of interactivity to play with as well. Why shy away from exploiting that new opportunity?
Words shouldn't be mandatory in graphical games, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist at all.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Lyndon Hardy's Master of the Five Magics
I’ve addressed elsewhere the question of whether magic in books and games should be presented as a science or as an art. I didn't come to a conclusion, other than that both forms can be fun to experience.
For example, Ursula K. LeGuin's original Earthsea trilogy (definitely not including the brutish fourth book tacked on years later) was in large part so wonderful because it evoked some aspect of what we find so fascinating about "magic." The Earthsea trilogy expressed the "magic as art" position superbly.
For the other approach, I can't think of a better example than Lyndon Hardy's novel Master of the Five Magics. There were two semi-sequels, but MOTFM nailed the premise of magic as a scientific undertaking.
Because it took a somewhat more mechanistic approach to magic (as opposed to LeGuin's naturalistic interpretation), I'm a little surprised not to have seen the concepts of magic as expressed in Hardy's book show up in some MMORPG already. For those who haven't had the pleasure, the five systems used by Hardy and their governing laws are:
- Thaumaturgy
- The Principle of Sympathy: like produces like
- The Principle of Contagion: once together, always together
- Alchemy
- The Doctrine of Signatures: the attributes without mirror the powers within
- Magic
- The Maxim of Persistence: perfection is eternal
- Sorcery
- The Rule of Three: thrice spoken, once fulfilled
- Wizardry
- Law of Ubiquity: flame permeates all
- Law of Dichotomy: dominance or submission
Alchemy is mostly as you expect it: by properly blending items with the appropriate attributes you can obtain a final product with superior virtues, such as oils of heat resistance or gold from lead. The only problem is that each step of the blending process has a chance of failure -- for example, four out of ten times a particular step in a process might produce lightning or an explosion instead of the intermediate product you actually want. So you have to start with a much larger quantity of initial substances than you wind up with... and the more complex the changes, the more steps are required (and the lower the chance of success on each step).
Hardy's Magic is used to create magical objects. By repeatedly performing rituals of great complexity, common objects can be imbued with properties they can confer to their user. Rings can make their wearer invisible, carpets can fly, glass spheres can give light, and so on. The more perfect the ritual, and the more persistently it is applied, the greater the power of the object. Naturally, if you fail to correctly perform any ritual at any point, the object being given power will probably be destroyed.
Sorcery grants the arts of illusion, of enchantment, of clairvoyance, of fate, and of prophecy. Each of these is activated by speaking a charm three times, which sounds simple enough, but the more complex charms do not want to be said -- each word becomes more difficult to utter. The most complex sorcerous charms are nearly impossible to speak, but must be said without error (and cannot be abandoned once begun). A mistake will produce hallucinations, pain, and even death in the most powerful cases. But even if one succeeds, some amount of one's life force is drained away forever. Cast too great an enchantment with too little life force remaining, and goodbye.
Finally, Wizardry is about summoning and binding demons to your will. Flame is used as a connection to the demon's realm and the Law of Dichotomy requires that there must always be a contest between the summoner and the summoned. Fail to dominate, and the summoned demon will control the summoner.
The nice thing about all these powers is that there's a cost to them. None of the five magics are to be taken lightly, even if you succeed. In a story, that's great for setting up dangers to be overcome; in a computer game, it would be excellent for producing a more thoughtful approach to the application of power. No charging in swinging with these abilities!
Hmm. And maybe right there is the answer why these five styles of magic haven't been used in a new MMORPG....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)