This article made me think of video games and how a few of them have made really innovative uses of space (no, really!). One of my all-time favorite is a game called X-Com from 1993 (called UFO: Enemy Unknown in the UK). It's basically a turn-based tactical strategy game. Perhaps its most defining feature is almost completely-destructible terrain. The gameplay ends up being very similar to the Israeli invasion descri…
Nakatomi Space
11–20 of 20 posts
Re: Nakatomi Space
#12Re: Nakatomi Space
#13This article made me think of video games and how a few of them have made really innovative uses of space (no, really!). One of my all-time favorite is a game called X-Com from 1993 (called UFO: Enemy Unknown in the UK). It's basically a turn-based tactical strategy game. Perhaps its most defining feature is almost completely-destructible terrain. The gameplay ends up being very similar to the Israeli invasion descri…
Re: Nakatomi Space
#14This article made me think of video games and how a few of them have made really innovative uses of space (no, really!). One of my all-time favorite is a game called X-Com from 1993 (called UFO: Enemy Unknown in the UK). It's basically a turn-based tactical strategy game. Perhaps its most defining feature is almost completely-destructible terrain. The gameplay ends up being very similar to the Israeli invasion descri…
Two games I relate to on the theme of navigation of space are the Thief series, and Far Cry 2.
With Thief, you have a rough map, and your task is to navigate the territory to get to your goals, avoiding hazards such as loud tile and metal, bright lights, guards, traps etc. With a selection of arrows for making the ground silent, extinguishing torches, and rope arrows for climbing, it can be a lot of fun. Constantine's Mansion (Constantine's Sword mission) is a particularly architectural delight, with optical illusions and a network of grassy tunnels joining different floors.
Actually, a defining metaphor of the first two Thief games is architecture as sexuality; in the first, your enemy is the earthy Pagan Trickster and his co-conspirator, wood nymph Viktoria, and you pursue him into the bowels of the earth. In the second, your enemy is a technocratic religious self-described prophet, and you pursue him in a monstrous skyscraper of metal, working your way up and up.
Similarly, a substantial and (for me at least) entertaining part of Far Cry 2 relates to the navigation between mission objectives. The roads are patrolled, and intersections are heavily enough guarded that clearing them risks depleting ammo, so the best policy is generally to navigate in the gaps between the roads, choosing crossing points, swimming in rivers, selecting the right angle of entry approach for mission destinations, etc. Given that every main mission involves at least three different destinations (one to your buddy in a safehouse, one to the buddy's preferred mission target, and a third as the original mission), you need to enjoy this navigation to get the most out of the game. (Most people didn't; it seems they stuck to the roads and found the guard checkpoints tedious.)
As to games like Half-Life and its successors in particular, they seem to me to inhibit exploration and be very linear. Any time there's an interesting passage hidden away in a corner, I make a note of it and scout out ahead to see what the mainstream alternative is; but in HL2 and episodes, it usually turns out that the main branch is a dead end, and you must go back and investigate that hidden passage. So it kills any chance of you feeling clever, and makes the unorthodox mundane.
Re: Nakatomi Space
#15This article made me think of video games and how a few of them have made really innovative uses of space (no, really!). One of my all-time favorite is a game called X-Com from 1993 (called UFO: Enemy Unknown in the UK). It's basically a turn-based tactical strategy game. Perhaps its most defining feature is almost completely-destructible terrain. The gameplay ends up being very similar to the Israeli invasion descri…
Re: Nakatomi Space
#16Would anyone really characterize the villains in Die Hard as 'terrorists'? What exactly is terrorizing about drilling into a vault in a secure building in order to steal money? How are they not just robbers ?
They pass themselves off as terrorists to the public to hide the robbery plans, for a lot of people, that's probably what stuck.
Re: Nakatomi Space
#17Excellent find. However he mischaracterizes one segment of Die Hard that would actually strengthen his thesis. The article argues that the logic of Die Hard rewards those who "infest" the spaces they inhabit, traversing them creatively rather than via their intended corridors, elevators, and doorways. He uses the L.A. SWAT team running across Nakatomi Plaza's rose garden as an example of this. I'd counter that the SW…
Im not sure it is less interesting; I think mostly they used it poorly. Airports are a fascinating place and at times (i.e. when he used the storm drains to get out to the runway) I think there were examples of "Nakatomi Space".
The main problem was that an Airport is a very large and very open space - they didn't use that well.
Re: Nakatomi Space
#18"What I find so interesting about Die Hard—in addition to unironically enjoying the film—is that it cinematically depicts what it means to bend space to your own particular navigational needs. This mutational exploration of architecture even supplies the building's narrative premise: the terrorists are there for no other reason than to drill through and rob the Nakatomi Corporation's electromagnetically sealed vault.…
Re: Nakatomi Space
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
They pass themselves off as terrorists to the public to hide the robbery plans, for a lot of people, that's probably what stuck.
Also, it conveniently avoids spoilers.
Re: Nakatomi Space
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, it conveniently avoids spoilers.
The movie was released in 1988. It's hard to spoil something that has already been consumed, processed, excreted, and reused to make a garden.
The point is, spoiling it adds nothing to the conversation: "I watched the movie and you got this plot element that, while important to the film, is completely unimportant to your point ... wrong!". On the other hand, not spoiling it lets anyone a bit too young to have seen it the first time around not have their experience of the film permanently altered for the worse. There is no contest. Don't spoil things, even if it's old as hell. It really, honestly ruins things for some people who are a bit behind the times and care about this sort of thing.