Hmmm…maybe it’s time to go back to the first one and reacquaint myself with it.

http://metroid.wikia.com/wiki/Chozo_Statue

This visual sign-posting and context setting is used throughout the series. For example, in Metroid Prime, each of the main areas starts out looking okay, and then slowly, as you venture closer to the boss, you can see the scars in the land, whether it be suggested by phazon, cracks in landscape, more industrial elements, or space pirate laboratories. It’s great that despite being on the black and white Game Boy, Metroid II still retains this form of narrative. Given that the graphics are limited and Metroids could be anywhere, the shells are all that’s needed, so long as they’re prominently placed.

Between the impossibility of plowing through the lava in the earlygoing and the instruction manual’s suggestion that “you must learn to work around it”, though, the game does a good job of implying a “rule” that going through the lava is forbidden, and it feels at first like you’re someplace you’re not supposed to be. Still, you’re right, there’s no glitch here, no game genie wizardry that’s breaking the game. The “subversion” is of a rule the player creates thanks to the environment and the context- like you say, an artifice. That the game allows the player to challenge those assumptions only adds to its effectiveness.

Thanks for the comment!

I’m not sure that I agree with you regarding the term “subversion”. If the player can do it, then it should be assumed that the designers are allowing them to do it. Unless it’s something that the player obviously shouldn’t be doing, like abusing glitches. There’s not much point in guessing authorial intent.

What I love about the Metroid games is how they make players feel as though they’re “getting away with something” when they discover a hidden secret or obscured path. The reality–and beauty–of the situation, however, is that the game was designed to make the player think this way: it’s an artifice. Great article.

At my school, our theatre department doesn’t do comedies. Our director doesn’t see something as art unless it’s really saying something profound. To her, theatre needs to go beyond being “fun”, and in the plays she chooses, a laugh in the wrong place can derail the entire performance. Those plays contain scenes that are funny, or even hilarious, but the memorable moments are rarely fun. Life changing, perhaps; but fun, certainly not.

I think that what you said here also touches on a general trend I see in gaming: we’re finally moving past some of the old mechanics, whether by creating new game mechanics (e.g. Wii, Kinect, etc.) or by filling in other areas like writing. RPGs rarely had engaging mechanics, and so had to rely on good stories; now shooters are cliche unless they stand out somehow, whether by having a good story or concept (e.g. Bioshock series), or by changing the mechanics (e.g. Borderlands combines a shooter with Diablo-style skill trees and loot). Playing with the mechanics seems to me to be an attempt to find the fun factor again; but fleshing out your old mechanics with deep stories built on rich themes and complex characters – that goes beyond fun, to the realm of meaning, purpose, and…art.

Thanks for your insights!

I think what you said about a full range of emotional responses, including fun, is correct. I don’t appreciate a game that goes out of its way to be un-fun, but I appreciate anything (game or otherwise) that is honest. If the narrative, characters or theme aren’t fun, but it’s an honest expression, then I support it. I’d prefer fun, but I think I know what you’re saying about full range of meaning, even if it’s not light hearted.