Sharpless turned me on to this week's game, Execution. He gave me only two instructions, which I will pass onto you and demand you follow to the letter:
1. Do not read any of the comments or replies on the game's official download page.
2. Play the game at least twice.
As always, I'll talk about what makes the game interesting after the jump, but I must insist that you do not hit the jump until you've played through at least two times.
I mean it. Don't click "read more" until you've already played and understood the game for yourself.
The idea presented in this game is hardly original, but it still represents the first time anything like it (in my memory) has actually been done somewhat successfully. Hideo Kojima talked about possibly making a game where death is truly permanent, but I've never seen anything of that sort actually implemented until Execution.
Granted, it's a secondary character that dies permanently rather than the player (it'd be much harder to permanently kill your player and expect them not to resent you), but the idea is still original.
What did you do when you first loaded up the game? Did you shoot the victim immediately? Did you wait a while, testing the other keys, trying to find a way to do something else? Did you think about things for a while before offing him? Did you quit the game? Your personal answer may define a lot about your personality, especially where your experience with videogames is concerned. During our discussion about the game, Sharpless told me, "Just for the record, I lost. Fast. That's what I get for playing too many shooters and not caring about dead people."
I wouldn't go so far as to say this game shows how you'd react in real life -- games can't represent that enormous a choice -- but it definitely says something about your state of mind as a gamer, and what we've come to expect from modern videogames. If you've got a gun, we're told, and there's a person in front of you, you should probably shoot them. Every FPS in existence is based off this simple pact between designer and player: I'll put bad guys in front of you, and you shoot them. Done. Thematically, Execution complicates this.
Something just occurred to me as I wrote the previous paragraph. You know, even after you've killed the victim, the game never tells you that he was a good person. Once the player finds out the victim is dead for good, the game doesn't try to make you feel guilty by pointing out they were innocent or decent or American; it simply points out that this nameless, faceless person is truly, permanently dead. The simple fact that our actions have true consequence makes the player feel guilty. It could be Osama Bin Laden underneath that hood, for all we know, but the player still feels awkward and guilty because they truly killed him.
The thematic implications of the game are incredibly interesting not just in terms of personal morality, but also game design. No matter how many games pretend to offer the player "choice" or "consequence," we as gamers know that our second chance, our extra try, is but a single quickload away. When playing Knights of the Old Republic, we have to suspend our disbelief and pretend that we're making choices as if their consequences were permanent, despite the fact that many of us will probably make a permanent save file before any big plot branch just so we can go back later and see how things would have worked if we'd just chosen a different path. Execution, like life, does not afford such luxuries to the player. Yeah, it's technically possible to find the registry change the game makes and delete it to bring the guy back to life, but that requires a level of skill most players don't have. The majority of players will, I assume, try to re-download the game just to bring the guy back to life. Thankfully, this doesn't work, and the player is left to consider the consequences of their actions.
Since I assume a significant number of you will instinctively shoot the victim and never see the "victory" screen, I'll just describe it to you. Basically, if you press escape while the prisoner is still alive, then the sniper scope fades to a screen saying "YOU WIN" and the game exits. If you go back into the game, the victim will still be there, tied to the post.
But, yeah. A very interesting experimental game about a very specific idea. What do you think? What did you do?
Contest:
5:07 PM on 05.23.2008
| 
I did initially look for a way to save the guy though, but then realised its just a game and shot him. Not being dismissive of your arguement or anything, but that was just my mind process.
Goddamn.
I think this qualifies as an art-ish exhibit. And it can't really be put in a museum. You would almost need to put this in a special museum, where every patron is given a PSP and you go around downloading games or something.
i looked around the screen a bit. thinking. what the hell am i doing in this basement with tumbleweeds and weird plants growing? why is this dude just tied up?
i was really hesitant to shoot him because nothing was going on, just this blowing wind.... in a fucking basement, then i rememebred the game was called Execution, so i shot him
i loaded it up a couple times, then re-unzipped it, still dead. fuck that.
I shot him within a few seconds of quick, looking around. Then I blasted him right in the head... and now I feel like a complete dick.
And now, a quote from either an epic troll or a dipshit:
Um, this is veary (sic) confusing, you cant win, you just shoot the dude, or exit the game.. sorry 2d but this isnt that good
So, am I to believe that my video card honestly can't handle a 2mb game? Man, I failed harder than all of you that shot him.
It was obvious from the moment it loaded what you weren't supposed to do according to the writer of the game, but to me it ended up not having any deep meaning because it wasn't veiled at all.
However, if there were to be any underlying message behind the game or about the player, then alot of it is inaccurate.
Yeah, I'm just trying to justify the fact that I shot him after about a minute or two of pressing everything, except the escape key evidently, trying to find a way to not kill him.
I understand what he's doing with the second play through, but we should've been given something to indicate that the person tied up to the pole wasn't someone that deserved to die. For all I know, he could've been an 85 year old man that just fingered his grand daughter's butt hole...
I didn't really realize what I had done until I fired up the game a second time and read the screen that said, "It's already too late." And when I found that the guy was still dead...well...that definitely put an effect on me more than any other choice I've made in a game as far as I can think back to. Whether it be Mass Effect, KOTOR, or even GTA IV. I realized what I did was irreversible, and well, I felt shitty...
I actually think the escape command must NOT be made explicit for the reasons you mentioned.
The choice not to kill is only meaningful if you feel as if you're disobeying the game by doing so: if a game offers you a chance to kill someone or not kill them, and labels those choices explicitly, then you're essentially playing by the rules when you make your choice, thus devaluing that choice.
As this game is ostensibly about the consequences of your actions, especially where listening to authority is concerned, the escape command must be hidden; if you were in the military and were ordered to kill this guy, then your superior officer wouldn't say "you can kill this guy or let him live" -- he'd tell you to kill him outright, and it'd be up to you, as an individual, to disobey that rule and let him live.
Since you're not told that pressing escape makes you "win," then those few gamers who would rather press escape and quit the game -- an act which is NEVER seen as affecting the story or gameplay -- experience a much more profound result. If I'd rather not play a game than shoot a guy tied to a post, then I'm rewarded for it. If I'm told I CAN quit the game with escape, then the choice becomes far less meaningful, because I'm being told it is an option. The decision isn't coming from within.
If it was times square and there was a bunch of people walking on the streets, then this would be a different story.
It's brilliant.
If only I had the capacity for intelligent discussion at the moment.... Alas.
I'm glad you pointed this out to us, Rev.
If nothing else, I had an excuse to fire up the ol' REGEDIT and dick around with my computer and fix some stuff I'd been meaning to fix.
When a game starts out: "Your actions have consequences. You either win or lose. Do the right thing." It's pretty heavy handed as to what they're trying to say.
However, if there were instructions, you would have been given a *choice*... not more than likely be drawn to the inevitable conclusion that if you have crosshairs and a guy tied to a pole and nothing else on the screen reacts to being shot, there is a high probability that there will be killing. That, and by casual examination, this is a GAME called EXECUTION, where execution means shooting someone.
It's funny, but I instantly thought of a comedy show (maybe on Nickelodeon) where this commander of the police kept getting himself shot by saying fire while in front of the prisoner.
But as all is said and done, I shot him to get back to my desktop. And when I reloaded the game and saw the message, I wasn't exactly surprised.
I knew before I even downloaded it what the game was going to be. That's insanely predictable. I knew from the name what the scenario would be (an execution), I knew just by the fact that all there was is a single guy and you having a gun that this was going to be some morality ploy.
Like many other people, I shot at the wall thinking I could fool anyone else in the game if there were any. I also shot his foot which apparently causes blood to pour out of your head.
I give it a 0 on any scale that 0 is the worst score. It is generic and predictable which does nothing to advance a view point as I see it as laziness akin to someone flinging their own feces on a canvas and calling it art.
How do I get into the registry? I want to be the in-game Jesus now.
It gave me a good bit to think about, anyway.