You need to play Passage.

[YouDigress]

Have any of you folks played the game Passage?

I guess it was an entry in a contest where you had to create a game that could be beaten in five minutes or something. I stumbled across it when browsing 1Up's 101 free games feature.

I finished it, and it was one of the most moving experiences I've had playing a video game. I don't want to spoil it, so I'm going to wait until I see if people have played it or not, but you really should. It's quite an experience.

EDIT: http://hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/passage/

Thought I'd put the link there so you wouldn't have to find it.

[Brad Gallaway]

Never heard of it before you posted, but i just played it...

at first, i didn't get it, but as the game went on i started to see its elegance.

in retrospect i think it's not only phenomenally clever, but also quite sophisticated, especially in terms of how low-tech it is.

the blur effect, especially... i initially thought it was just some random thing, but the significance of what it meant hit me at the end.

it might sound silly, but the game seems sort of like an electronic poem.

excellent recommend, YD.

[Reharl]

How many lifetimes can there be in five minutes? And how many different ways to deal with the inevitable burden of death when they expire?

The simple eloquence of this little game is nothing short of staggering. During my first incursion I delved deep into the areas, finding treasure chests, amassing riches, always pursuing and seeking the next box of goods, always keeping an eye out for a blur that symbolised things of value. Then I died.

The second time, I moved forward. I found a companion. We trudged together, stopping only to find what rewards were already on our way. As the time moved forward, so did the difficulties increase. We couldn't fit between the tight passages that I could have negotiated alone. More than once we had to backtrack and find a better, safer, larger path for us. As the night fell, she died. Shortly after, so did I.

And now, what happens if I go backwards? Or if I seek treasures and joys with my companion, but do not move forward? What's to keep me from staying put and letting the five minutes sip away my existence? Why did I want to go back to the game and move forward, accompanied and loved?

Oh, this is a clever little game, which speaks of nothing new but uses the medium in a most interesting way. The allegory of carrying out, by your own hands, a whole life under five minutes, with nothing else following the bleakness that always ensues, is an elementar, familiar, and thus powerful statement. Why is this so different, atypical? I have been tasked of developing and planning lives before, even generations, in games such as Civilization or SimCity. Yet, something always followed; a better, more advanced reality, a remnant of my actions past. I have been tasked of driving and moving forward episodes in some characters' lives, their adventures. But the game ends and their life continues, or at the very least something lives on. Passage ends with a black screen. So perhaps it is true that of all living things, man is the one that conquers death by way of the works he leaves behind. Why, then, is that black screen ever so uncomfortable?

This reminds me of an altered first level of Super Mario Bros I once saw, held at an exhibition somewhere. There were no barriers and no finish lines, only a race against the ineroxable ticking clock. Some players rushed and rushed until they fell. Others took the time to calculate their steps. Some even invented obstacles and jumped between clouds or other patterns they had imagined for themselves. The end was the same for everyone, and yet all that played had their ways of getting there.

[idiotic]

I don't get it.

[YouDigress]

I didn't want to drop the "games as art" bomb here because I've been browsing other forums discussing Passage, and in all of them, the discussion has boiled down to two extremes: people who claim to "get it" much more so than everyone else and then lord their artistic sensibilities over everyone else with condescension to the nth degree, or people who flat out refuse to see the game as something more than a game, and claim that "the gameplay sucks, thus, it is not art."

Let's try not to devolve into that.

[idiotic]

It's all a blur to me.

[Avptallarita]

Oof. Fascinating little thing. Has more personality and content than most of the stuff I tend to get on my gaming screens.

The fact that it's only five minutes long is not a weakness of course, but it is a limit - it's a wonderful work, but a very small wonderful work.

Personally, I consider it a brilliant idea and an extremely clever exploitation of the medium, especially in the sense that it distances itself so much from the concept itself of "game" (in other words, it thinks outside the box - puts the art before the "fun factor" or what have you). I too thought it was a pretty moving experience, in its own small way, and I friggin' love that blur effect.

I forwarded this to my seminar group on narrative theory. Thanks for the link.

[Mike Doolittle]

Originally Posted by idiotic

I don't get it.

You must not appreciate art.

For me, the most introspective thing I gained from this "digital poem" is that I wasted five minutes of my life playing it.

[idiotic]

Originally Posted by Mike Doolittle

For me, the most introspective thing I gained from this "digital poem" is that I wasted five minutes of my life playing it.

It helps if you're a pretentious wanker - or don't have a life to begin with.

[videochilex]

Originally Posted by Mike Doolittle

You must not appreciate art.

For me, the most introspective thing I gained from this "digital poem" is that I wasted five minutes of my life playing it.

Not getting something is an appreciation within itself. You dont need to like or understand art the way someone else does in order to to appreciate it.

[Mike Doolittle]

Oh, I get it just fine. And I think it's clever for what it is. But I think it's a stretch to call it some big artistic achievement, and I certainly don't think his muse on mortality is either original or remotely profound.

[idiotic]

I certainly appreciated the spatially circumscribed aesthetical renditions of the flesh.

[Avptallarita]

Originally Posted by Mike Doolittle

You must not appreciate art.

For me, the most introspective thing I gained from this "digital poem" is that I wasted five minutes of my life playing it.

You're not forced to appreciate the intent, but it's pretty nonsensical to criticise it from a utilitarian point of view. I suppose most other videogames you play are time meaningfully spent.

Also, no-one's claiming this is the next Sistine Chapel. It's just a different way of using the medium, and what people are pleased to find in it is the intent to make a videogame whose finality is saying something (however modest or unoriginal the message may be) rather than merely making money. The fact that it does so successfully with such low technology is what makes it so impressive.

[Mike Doolittle]

Originally Posted by Avptallarita

You're not forced to appreciate the intent, but it's pretty nonsensical to criticise it from a utilitarian point of view. I suppose most other videogames you play are time meaningfully spent.

I do appreciate the intent. And yes, playing a good videogame is time well spent.

Also, no-one's claiming this is the next Sistine Chapel. It's just a different way of using the medium, and what people are pleased to find in it is the intent to make a videogame whose finality is saying something (however modest or unoriginal the message may be) rather than merely making money. The fact that it does so successfully with such low technology is what makes it so impressive.

Like I said, I appreciate it for what it is. It's mildly clever and kinda sad as a digital, high school emo poem. It's a crappy game though. The way some people are talking about it, you'd think it's some profound artistic achievement.

The creator's own message of the pointlessness of the gameplay drives it all home: this kid is emo.

Yes, you could spend your five minutes trying to accumulate as many points as possible, but in the end, death is still coming for you. Your score looks pretty meaningless hovering there above your little tombstone. This treatment of character death stands in stark contrast with the way death is commonly used in video games (where you die countless times during a given game and emerge victorious---and still alive---in the end). Passage is a game in which you die only once, at the very end, and you are powerless to stave off this inevitable loss.

Maybe if the game actually allowed you to do something remotely interesting, the inevitable "loss" would actually feel like a loss instead of the end of a really boring game. And with regard to treatment of death by other games, clearly he never played Shinobi for the Sega Genesis, in which I died repeatedly, then threw my controller across the room and blurted out expletives until my throat went dry.

Also, if it's supposed to represent mortality, why does the ticker only move if I walk around? Is the author saying that if I sit on my ass, I can live forever?

I know I'm being hard on the game when it's just a silly little digital poem of sorts, and about as low-tech as you can get. But that's only because some people (like, the first three replies in this thread) are raving about how brilliant and profound it is. I think it's fine to say it's a mildly clever allegory and a creative use of the medium, but that's about it. It's a boring game and I found it about as profound as my backside. Anyway, I'm not going to get into some big debate about the game. If it moved you to tears then yay for you. Just my two cents.

[idiotic]

Originally Posted by Mike Doolittle

I do appreciate the intent. And yes, playing a good videogame is time well spent.



Like I said, I appreciate it for what it is. It's mildly clever and kinda sad as a digital, high school emo poem. It's a crappy game though. The way some people are talking about it, you'd think it's some profound artistic achievement.

The creator's own message of the pointlessness of the gameplay drives it all home: this kid is emo.

Yes, you could spend your five minutes trying to accumulate as many points as possible, but in the end, death is still coming for you. Your score looks pretty meaningless hovering there above your little tombstone. This treatment of character death stands in stark contrast with the way death is commonly used in video games (where you die countless times during a given game and emerge victorious---and still alive---in the end). Passage is a game in which you die only once, at the very end, and you are powerless to stave off this inevitable loss.

Maybe if the game actually allowed you to do something remotely interesting, the inevitable "loss" would actually feel like a loss instead of the end of a really boring game. And with regard to treatment of death by other games, clearly he never played Shinobi for the Sega Genesis, in which I died repeatedly, then threw my controller across the room and blurted out expletives until my throat went dry.

Also, if it's supposed to represent mortality, why does the ticker only move if I walk around? Is the author saying that if I sit on my ass, I can live forever?

I know I'm being hard on the game when it's just a silly little digital poem of sorts, and about as low-tech as you can get. But that's only because some people (like, the first three replies in this thread) are raving about how brilliant and profound it is. I think it's fine to say it's a mildly clever allegory and a creative use of the medium, but that's about it. It's a boring game and I found it about as profound as my backside. Anyway, I'm not going to get into some big debate about the game. If it moved you to tears then yay for you. Just my two cents.

You can say that again.

I do appreciate the intent. And yes, playing a good videogame is time well spent.



Like I said, I appreciate it for what it is. It's mildly clever and kinda sad as a digital, high school emo poem. It's a crappy game though. The way some people are talking about it, you'd think it's some profound artistic achievement.

The creator's own message of the pointlessness of the gameplay drives it all home: this kid is emo.

Yes, you could spend your five minutes trying to accumulate as many points as possible, but in the end, death is still coming for you. Your score looks pretty meaningless hovering there above your little tombstone. This treatment of character death stands in stark contrast with the way death is commonly used in video games (where you die countless times during a given game and emerge victorious---and still alive---in the end). Passage is a game in which you die only once, at the very end, and you are powerless to stave off this inevitable loss.

Maybe if the game actually allowed you to do something remotely interesting, the inevitable "loss" would actually feel like a loss instead of the end of a really boring game. And with regard to treatment of death by other games, clearly he never played Shinobi for the Sega Genesis, in which I died repeatedly, then threw my controller across the room and blurted out expletives until my throat went dry.

Also, if it's supposed to represent mortality, why does the ticker only move if I walk around? Is the author saying that if I sit on my ass, I can live forever?

I know I'm being hard on the game when it's just a silly little digital poem of sorts, and about as low-tech as you can get. But that's only because some people (like, the first three replies in this thread) are raving about how brilliant and profound it is. I think it's fine to say it's a mildly clever allegory and a creative use of the medium, but that's about it. It's a boring game and I found it about as profound as my backside. Anyway, I'm not going to get into some big debate about the game. If it moved you to tears then yay for you. Just my two cents.