After uploading DWER to Newgrounds

I uploaded DWER, the game I made last year, on Newgrounds.
I uploaded it just because I wanted to check whether the ranking or medal system works well or not. But I got 16 reviews, some PMs came in and more than 2,000 plays in 3 days to date. Despite its lack of quality, the players are given a serious feedback.
As you can see, this game is based on a slightly sensitive issue called “eye rape”.
I think the reason why I made this issue into a game is that it is a sharp issue that I’ve been triggered. And there was an idea of what rules should be made to represent this issue.
As I have said in other articles, I work on subjects that I have interest in playing.
I would like to give a kind of an estrangement effect to the viewpoint of the issue through play rather than discussion, argument, persuasion.
But there are two areas of play model when you make it.
When dealing with games, the general concept of play is pursuing fun itself.
I can imagine Roger Caillois’s 4element of play or Skinner’s reinforcement theory to explain it.
However, if you pursue pure areas of this sense of fun, it is easy to disrupt your attitude toward materials and subjects.
For example, some players say that it would be more fun to score points on the act of shedding on women because the risk and reward are together. In another opinion, there was an opinion that we should give unattended time not to be perceived through items such as sunglasses. I agreed that it would be more fun to play the game if I really did it. However, if I pursue pure fun, there is a risk that the rhetoric I wanted to cling to could break down, which is ‘the game does not judge’. If the game itself already has a strong value system, it becomes impossible to play or be estranged because you can’t have enough distance from it.
For me, making games is also a process for understanding and accepting the world. It is a way for me to understand the composition of the world by reproducing the phenomenon with play mechanics and other elements. Somebody write to do this, and I make games to do it.

Therefore, we should not take one’s side while doing this. It is not a means for understanding, but a means of attacking. Also, in game design, where challenge and balance are important elements of fun, it is hard to use one-sided attacker as an instrument of fun.

“nice jab at those that get offended by literally anything”
“very decent reflection of our “progressive” culture where looking = rape according to crazy libtards”
“I think all of us men can learn something from this game.”

“respect women”

The players told me these thoughts about the game in the review.
They shared the idea of the intrinsic meaning other than the quality of the game or the high score strategy – the perspective for the game as the functional combination that produces fun. And the ideas were not entirely tilted.
Those 2 things were I admired while playing and observing ‘This war of mine’
When I started, I thought I would make it simple and light, but it was not easy to find the balance of results to achieve that goal.
In order to avoid feeling satirizing either side. I used  80s arcade metaphor to get framing effect.
And, although it is insufficient, I tried to draw character’s facial expression to give them their own point of view their own stories. To prevent it from getting too heavy, I placed a less aggressive female police on the results screen, Her dialogues were also expressing understandable viewpoint for each other.
It was my role to make rules to recreate social phenomena and make art and music to be not too serious to make players take one step away.
And thanks to the great players my practice was rewarded to some degree.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.