I honestly don't get it. The Castle Doctrine is basically the same game as The Mighty Quest for Epic Loot or, you know Dungeon Keeper. You build a maze, you build traps and then you invade other people's homes and try to get to the end of their mazes and traps. I just read the Polygon review and the reviewer says stuff like "The Castle Doctrine is a statement game" and "Setting aside the moral implications of its message". Combine this with the talk about the game on the bombcast and some chatter on the some forums (containing words like "deep" and "meaningfull") and I get the impression that many people obviously see something in this game that I'm not seeing. What is this grandios statement? I honestly don't understand what people are talking about.Some people are talking about how horrible it is that you can kill the wife. Really? I don't know how many people I killed in GTA, why is this suddenly important? The wife respawns every time you die, why should I care? The game is about getting money, and I get money if I kill her. It's not like I have any connection with her besides the game telling me that she is my wife, right? Am I just an ignorant idiot here?

Again, it's not like this is a new concept. Mighty Quest for Epic Loot is the exact same game, only (in my opinion) more fun and not as annoying.

I think it's not so much you killing people's families and robbing them, but more of the possibility of your own family getting killed. I suppose people can get quite an emotive burst of being given a real, virtual family and having to put them in real, virtual danger just so you can protect them.

Though that's just my guess, I haven't played the game before so I can't say definitively (and I wouldn't mind playing it, I think it looks pretty fun). But I definitely agree in that calling this a "deep and meaningful game" is a bit much.

There have been so many games like this in the past (by that, I mean games that are mechanically-simple, yet attach themselves to some controversial subject; check Newgrounds any day of the week to get your fill), and yet people who I might otherwise respect are treating this game like it's actually trying to say something profound. You're not "not getting it;" there's nothing to get.

From that Polygon review:

I was able to watch the assault after the fact via security tape. As my wife fell to the floor, her head fountained blood in an animated spray of crimson. The animation was, to my eye, the single brightest spot of color in the entire game. One must assume this is not by accident.

This guy can't be serious.

The Castle Doctrine is a statement game, to be sure

No. No it is not. Some guy made a fairly simple little game and attached an in-the-news title to it. That is all.

You might want to check what the guy who made the game has to say. He's pretty big on the right to defend your home with deadly force. "It's a game that's been done before" ignores little things like context. You're not defending a Castle, you're defending your home. You're issue is that you're actively refusing to connect beyond a mechanical level so it's only natural any message is going to be lost on you.

It's an indie game with pixel art by Jason Rohrer. Catnip for pseudo-intellectual hipsters.

If I have to look up what that guy who made this game thinks about life, than it is a terribly presented message, cause I shouldn't need to do that. And I'm not defending my home anymore than I do in Mighty Quest. If the game would let me decorate the house Sims-style then maybe I would feel some connection but just giving me an empty gray room and saying "THIS IS YOUR HOUSE" does not impress me a single bit. It's just an empty gray room. If there were some "pictures" or at least some furniture or really anything that would make it look like something resembeling a house, than maybe I could care a little bit. That could actually work. Give me a fully decorated house and then let me remove all the stuff bit by bit and replace it with traps, turning it from a home into a dungeon.

All I could think while watching the quick look was that I'd rather play a game like that in a funner setting. Yeah, sure, statements, but I don't want to run around breaking into other peoples houses to steal their shit and murder their families while they're... out doing the same?

That little tidbit alone significantly diminishes the impactfulness of the whole home invasion thing (like, completely). Everyone is doing it. Families are dying left and right, everything's getting stolen, players are getting killed in crazy house traps. Then they respawn and do it again. It's like making a game where the goal is to eat babies and then trying to say "LOOK AT HOW TERRIBLE IT IS TO EAT BABIES". It comes off as a game that's grim for the sake of being grim, where any serious messaging within is undermined by the gameyness of it all.

But again, that game part seems like fun, so maybe I'll check out The Might Quest for Epic Loot instead. I remember those old trailers they put out being kinda amusing.

It's because that this is the current chosen hot button topic. It'll pass, just like all the others. Hot button topics happen everywhere. News media, television, films. But they're simply a fleeting fad.

Okay, that makes sense. That's probably also the reason why I don't get it, cause I don't live in the usa and where I leave this is a non-issue. It just confused me cause, as I said, it's basically a stripped down version of Mighty Quest in a less intersting setting and less options.

But you aren't even doing that. You are defending nothing more than a safe full of money. Defending your home implies you would lose the moment you break in. You don't get penalized or scored badly the further the burglar gets into your house. Hell, they can wipe out your whole family but as long as they dont get to that safe you still "win".

Damn right I'll ignore the context when the game doesn't even make use of it.

Just out of interest, what games would you consider to be targeted towards legitimate intellectuals who are decidedly not 'hipsters'?

I feel the actual appeal of this game is going up against other houses and trying to loot them, right? I personally have no interest in playing this, so it doesn't matter to me. I agree its very similar to the games you mentioned.

@beachthunder: The good ones. Of course, "games intelligent people enjoy" and "games pseudo-intellectuals enjoy writing pretentious things about" are not mutually exclusive categories.

The industry as a whole craves for some deep and profound message conveyed through the medium of games and so a lot of the people covering games tend to reach for these messages. The one that bothers me is Patrick's mentioning of prison architect being a statement about the American prison system, It's a management game made by a bunch of Brits who when discussing the game barely even mention the subject and joke about punish / reform and executions in the game rather than have any stance at all on the subject. It's not a statement it's a management game where they decided the concept of running a prison would mesh well with the style of game they intended and any political message therein seems entirely accidental.

As for the castle doctrine if there's some edgy message about home defence that was intended it is heavily obfuscated by the pure Gamey-ness of the build a maze, invade other maze, leaderboard structure. Some times we see what we want to see in the swirling mass of killing dudes, grabbing coins, absorbing souls and getting points.

I had to ask people as well. I don't live in a country where sensationalism is a big thing. So none of this stuff was making much sense to me. Where I live video games are still video games.

Exactly. Add the fact that you don't actually make the home your own by decorating it or selling off stuff from it to defend yourself. You could change it from a home into a goddamn dungeon that is oppressive to both intruders and habitants. You could ask a very important question with this game - how far are you willing to go to protect your loved ones, and what if protecting them means alienating them and destroying the loving family atmosphere. Putting in graphics and telling you "this is your family" and "this is your home" does not work.

Look at stuff like Thomas Was Alone - that game literally stars rectangles, but it manages to make the player feel some attachment to them (even if minimal) through integrating the way they jump and their backstories.

@alwaysbebombing: I don't know. I think there can be value in political/religious/belief statements in games. Just because it's a hot topic of the day, doesn't negate the message necessarily. I mean, if it feels like a cash-in of the controversy, that's one thing. Hard saying where this falls on the spectrum as I haven't played it.

The concept of this game has existed, but how many of them were multiplayer focused? I honestly haven't played many of these types of games (does Evil Genius count?). Anyway, the multiplayer stuff seems interesting. And it's kind of a dark, controversial topic. Despite disagreeing with the views of the creator, I'm always open to seeing something from the other side of the fence. Then again, from a gameplay perspective the game seems tedious as shit. And maybe that's the point, and that's fine to a point. But that doesn't really entice me to play it.

I think a great example of a game with a deep message that isn't cashing in on hot button topics is Papo Y Yo. That was something I could absolutely find deep symbolism and imagery in. I appreciated what it was trying to teach me, and I identified with it deeply. So I do agree with your first statement and think you made some good points throughout your post. Those The Castle Doctrine is riding the wave of controversy that the video game industry seems to be pushing right now. Also, I don't want to imply I don't think video games don't have messages, I believe they do, and strong ones. But I believe they should come from a place of actually wanting to get one's demons out, or talking about something the creator wants to talk about. Not riding the hot button topic, which again, I feel The Castle Doctrine is doing. Good conversation, thank you :)

Basically it's a bad version of the Spy vs. Spy game.

You'd have to define intellectual. Someone who publishes in academic journals? If I were a PhD in math I'd be playing EVE, Dwarf Fortress and Crusader Kings II, and on Linux btw.

I'm really eager to see if he stands his ground (no pun intended) on never discounting the game, or whether he will cave in once he realizes that pricing a game like Minecraft doesn't make you successful like Minecraft. I don't mean him ill will, but the reasoning seems backward to me.

I'll agree with what's being said about the way the game looks and feels. Even though you're supposed to be defending your home and your family, the fact that your home is a massive grey box and your family respawns every time you die takes away from the weight of that. And how are you supposed to feel like you're defending against danger when you're telling your family to wait in your deathtrap while you go out to murder other wives and children? Everyone looks the same, everyone acts the same, and attaching a random name to sprites doesn't do much for me in the way of emotional attachment.

It bums me out that some people are so willing to throw gameplay and polish under the bus in this hunt for Citizen Kane. I'm all for games becoming "more" but I'm not willing to sacrifice even one ounce of gameplay for it.

If you were a PhD in math you could be playing Call of Duty right now and it wouldn't matter because your PhD in math proves your intelligence infinitely more than taste in videogames ever could :)

I have a Masters in Computer Science and I like the Castle Doctrine. Maybe you don't like it because you're a dumb ass.

Or maybe someones taste in video games doesn't have to be a reflection of their intelligence. Could be that taste is entirely subjective. Maybe.

@professoress said:

Sure. Your profession or education doesn't dictate your personal preferences, that's for sure. People like whatever they like.

I was playing along with @icemael saying this is a game for "pseudo-intelliectual" and @beachthunder saying "what is a real intellectual game?". I threw in my stereotypes of "intellectual games".

Pouahaha. If you want to debate a straw man, be my guest.

I was actually pointing out the absurdity in your own statement about how intelligent people would prefer a certain type of game. Thats your own straw man home boy.

I guess it wouldn't surprise me if the game is just trying to be manipulative with its themes. There are plenty of works in other mediums that do that, I don't know why games should be exempt from that critique. I guess I just don't like the idea of dismissing something just because it's talking about a hot button issue, not that that's what you're doing. Somebody earlier said something about this just being "catnip for pseudo-intellectual hipsters", which seems like a really dismissive sentiment based on the art style and creator alone. Then again, it sounds like this game doesn't really succeed in what message it is trying to deliver, both from a mechanical standpoint and narrative one. Which, in the end, is more damning than it being about hot-button issues. Regardless, I haven't actually played the game, so my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt.

One thing I will say, I appreciate when something, regardless of the quality of the product, can incite a rational, intelligent conversation about this medium.

@planetfunksquad said:

Since you want to know what I intended to say here's the conversation I was playing along with:

I threw in my stereotypes of the "non-hipster intellectual" which is a math PhD, something decidedly not hipster, and named a few "non-hip" games for "real intellectuals". Making tongue in cheek statements on stereotypes never goes well on message boards. This was not a statement about Castle Doctrine, this was a statement about stereotypes and "intellectuals". Anyway, I guess it didn't come out right.

@noizy: Fair enough. Apologies, I didn't get the context.

Sorry as well.

I like to go along with bold statements to take them into absurdity. It never works very well. I might need to revise/refine that strategy. It probably wasn't absurd enough to be clearly a false statement.

I think the whole stereotyping about "intellectuals", "pseudo-intellectuals", "nerds", and now "hipster nerds" is kinda of fascinating. I think when it comes to stereotyping, the causation is the other way around. People call other people "nerds" based on their interests. Someone doesn't grow to love playing chess because they are inherently "nerdy" or intellectual; they are called an intellectual or nerd by others (or some self-identify) because they are into a cluster of activities considered nerdy/intellectual.

I think the "faux nerd" concept is pretty absurd. It probably makes sense in high school where people call each other fakes and accusing them of trying to fit in. Calling content (music, games, etc) and their creators a catering to "faux culture" is pretty bad accusation. The only thing I recall was when a music band was called a "sell out" for becoming "too mainstream" and thus catering to the masses. It's probably a fairly inevitable rise and fall of any large cultural touchstone. I think the indie game movement is going through the same cycle of appealing to a niche crowd early on and becoming more mainstream. Now some devs are going through the same kind of shallow criticisms.

The Quick Look just made me think of Home Alone.

I'm sure it's controversial and deep and all that... but Home Alone.