Tuesday, June 25, 2013

The Armikrog Dilemma

Once upon a time, I was a child.

And in my childhood, there was a game.  It was called The Neverhood.

And this game was phenomenal.

Our hero, Klaymen, wakes up alone in a deserted world, and must solve puzzles and brave strange dangers to discover what happened to this abandoned paradise.  It's cool and weird and wonderful, with a colorful world (not as empty as it seems!), characters that sear themselves into your brain-engrams, and a story that goes eight miles deep.  And if there's one reason why it's my favorite game of all time, I'd have to lean on my previous post to explain it.  There's love and passion and one-of-a-kind creativity pressed into every clay thumbprint. It is unique, irreplaceable, a point-and-click platypus: accept no substitutes, because there aren't any.

Sadly, The Neverhood didn't sell well.  It's long out of print now, and so old that most computers can't even run it.  EA have been sitting on the rights for fifteen years, stoically disinclined to either sell them or develop a new game.

Then came Kickstarter.

And then came Armikrog.

"What's this?" said I, when it first hit my radar.  "Doug TenNapel, storied creator of The Neverhood and Earthworm Jim, is making a new game?  And he needs my help to do it?!  Quickly, kitten - dredge the couch for quarters!"

Let me tell you, friends - I salivated over the Kickstarter page.  I pored over every pencil sketch.  I watched this trailer too many times to count.

I have not pledged to this project.

Y'know, a lot has changed since The Neverhood came out in 1996.  What I know now, and what I couldn't have known then, is that Doug TenNapel is not only a brilliant, fantastically talented artist, but also a person with personal views I find appalling, and - here's the crux - a penchant for shouting those views from the e-rooftops.  MostlyRetro covers the specifics pretty well, but the AV Club's also done an excellent writeup.  Short story: while I would never advocate actively silencing him, I can't buy from this guy anymore.

"But Tex!" the kid in me says. "It's not like he's the man in charge - he's just the designer the studio hired!  And what about all those other perfectly nice wonderful people the studio ALSO hired?  When you go to a movie, do you think not a single one of those million and five people in the credits gives money to causes you find objectionable?  Come on, it's not like he's the CEO of a huge multinational corporation - any money he donates to Fear the Queers Inc. because of this project is going to be negligible at most.  And if you don't use your dollars to help prove that there's still a market for great games like these, how will they ever get made?"

My inner child can be a real punk sometimes.  Moreover, the super-annoying thing about being an adult is that you're old enough not only to know what's bad for you - cookies, all-nighters, methamphetamines - but also to have acquired some idea of what's bad for other people.  The alternative is saying, "don't worry, cherished friends and neighbors - I stand by you and support your fight for equality.  Except when I really want a new video game.  Or a fried chicken sandwich."  (And no matter which side of that fence you're on, I think we can all agree that selling your principles for a toy is poor form indeed.)

"Wow, Tex," you may be saying to yourself at this point, "this sure is a long-ass post for what basically amounts to patting yourself on the back.  And if you're so sure this guy doesn't deserve funding or a platform, why have you just spent 500 words showcasing his game?"

Well, three reasons:

1.  Armikrog and The Neverhood ARE interesting and special, and the more people are exposed to them, the more readily they can seek out and support projects LIKE these from people who aren't TenNapel.

2.  There are worthy conversations to be had, especially in this community, about separating art from artist and how the Internet has changed our ability to keep our idols safely up on their pedestals where we can't hear them.

and 3.  If you choose not to support this project, it ought to be because you've made a reasoned decision about it, and not because you never even heard of the damn thing.  (For one thing, it's worthy of notice, and for another, it's harder for people to claim censorship and oppression when everybody has seen and discussed the subject and THEN turned away.)

Anyway, the Kickstarter's still got a couple of days left, and I'll be interested to see how it turns out.  In the meantime, somebody tell me I'm not alone - when's the last time you regretfully stuffed money back in your wallet?

After many years' journey, Hoborg returned and was ready to build "The Everhood," a neighborhood that would last forever... so long as nothing went wrong.


  1. I don't blame you for no longer wanting to support that game. I wouldn't either. As much as I'd like to enjoy something I know I'd love, it's hard to when I know the creator has views that I find hateful and bigoted.

    1. That's the killer part of it! Even if you surrender and buy it, you can't totally enjoy it, because you keep getting that annoying twinge of self-recrimination. Shut the hell up, Jiminy Cricket!!!

  2. Ugh. I had backed it. Now I'm reconsidering; I had no idea about his views. I have a lot of trouble with this, because it's such a weird line to tread. If I magically gained knowledge of every bigoted persons views and agreed to not purchase anything from a company that paid any of them, I likely wouldn't be able to buy anything. That said, don't we have a responsibility to put our money where our mouth is, so to speak? I don't know.

    This comment, though, seems like it's picked directly from my brain, especially regarding Orson Scott Card: http://gameological.com/2013/06/foc-tennapel-armikrog/#comment-932810080

    Anyway, in this case, it seems likely that it's a moot point. It's looking doubtful that Armikrog will be funded, so I probably won't have a chance to give money to it either way. My mouse is still hovering over the "Manage Your Pledge" button, though...

    1. I know, right! I've thought about that too. But even if Mel Gibson and Gaffer #3 both donate $50 to Haters Inc., Gibson's got so much more at stake than the gaffer. One's doing an anonymous invisible job that puts food on the table, and the other's career is directly and continually shaped by the box office results he delivers, which in turn is largely dependent on how he's perceived by the paying public. Personally, I don't feel any obligation to try to be universally fair in boycotting products or people. I figure if you are so famous, so vocal, or so shocking that I trip over your politics without even looking for them, then you're fair game.

      (With that said, though, I can definitely get behind the "separate the art from the artist" sentiment. It's just so much easier to do once they're safely dead!)

      And in what would be the shocker of the week, if we hadn't already had about five since breakfast, it looks like Armikrog will make it!

  3. Eeeeeeeeh I'm pretty torn on this one. Like Matt said, if I refused to buy or have any association with anything related to someone who had an opposing political/religious/social/etc etc standpoint/opinion/etc... well... I'd likely be even more hermitized than I am now. Except I likely wouldn't even be able to play a majority of the video games I do.

    Even some [most?] video games — I don't care how one tries to deny it — on some level sensationalizes violence/sex/drugs (like movies/TV/Books/Ads), which in essence isn't good. We are to determine and understand that it is fake, but some may be unable to viably come to that conclusion. Buying/seeing these games/movies would in some part be supporting that, even if at a very stripped down "minor" level. How different is that in comparison to supposedly "supporting" another's views due to a purchase made?

    You can hymn (<- that right?) and haw until blue in the face really. Same as if you drive a car and are polluting the environment. Feeding your kids fast food causing them more harm than good.

    Walmart the "evil" empire treating it's employees bad, so you support Target instead. Target, though, pays about as much (perhaps minus the same level of controversy and offer better benefits), has had cases in court for not hiring based on racial profiling/prejudice, and so on.

    It's a slippery slope really and all depends on just how far you want to take it.

    "But when you support someone’s project, you’re also supporting what they believe in, whether you like it or not. And when you’re supporting Armikrog, you’re supporting the work of a person who has said some truly troubling things"

    This I don't believe. To say that because I buy a game means I support their views is BS. It's different I suppose, yet I view it as being akin to when the Iraq war was engaged and it was said if you don't support the war, you're a terrorist. Not a great example as in elections who you elect/vote for will directly determine those outcomes.

    If someone can't separate/differentiate I don't know. On the other end, what about all those others who were great people involved in the game you mention. What are your thoughts of them? Does not buying the game imply you are against their views and beliefs? What if it wasn't the lead that had been the target of controversy? What if say... 2 programmers and/or a graphic artist were highlighted as being the culprits of such beliefs/statements? Would you then not buy the game? Does their "status" play a role? If so, what does that imply?

    It makes me curious I guess. I just view it as being separate. I don't believe share nor support their beliefs just because I buy a product.

    I understand where things get murky when you actually find out someones beliefs/opinions rather than floating around being involved/associated with possibly the equivalent (or worse) in life, but have the nice bubble-wrapped sugarcoated barrier of ignorance to shield us. Is that really any better?

    Sorry, I hope that made some sense/was coherent haha. It all does in my head, but yeah... It's me >.<

    Jak at The Cryton Chronicles & Dreams in the Shade of Ink

    1. No, don't worry - I get where you're coming from! I had to think awhile about this myself.

      I guess at the end of the day, it's kind of like coming across some litter on the ground. I didn't put it there, it's not my job to clean it up, and most people wouldn't question me if I just kept on walking and let it lie.

      But I wouldn't justify that by saying, "Well, there's millions of tons of litter around the world, and I certainly can't clean it ALL up, so I'd be some kind of hypocrite for picking up THIS Slurpee cup and none of the rest of it." The little things do matter! Going to Target instead of Wal-Mart DOES force Wal-Mart to reassess its business practices, if enough people do it - and that makes a positive change for the people who have to work there. You can't sell your car, become a fruitarian, and go live out of a yurt, but you can totally ride your bike, eat a salad, and turn off your lights.

      And yes, you're absolutely right that it's a question of scale - there's not an easy, obvious place to draw a line in the sand between "famous enough to notice" and "too obscure to matter". But really, even the programmer and the graphic artist get vetted - just not by the general public. When Code Monkey McGee applies for a job, his employer is well within his rights to Google him, and take a pass if they don't like what they see. The general public does the exact same thing to every celebrity big enough to notice - in most cases, it's the only meaningful voice we have. (And man, I hope I'm good enough to someday have that problem!)

    2. Thank you so much for getting back to me, Tex! I checked back for a few days, but hadn't seen anything.

      Actually, I just shared an article/video on FB from an NBC report about Goodwill paying disabled employees pennies, while CEO make out like fat cats. I was like... damn, good thing I rarely ever donated there. Then I started to think about this post and checked back.

      (I wish Blogger had an easy notification option like Wordpress)

      As for Target, my mentioning it was being they have had their fair share of "ugly" publicity (albeit more shrouded) and then I suppose one is left to debate which is the lesser of two evils. Perspective on that is then naturally left to the Eye of the Beholder. You ARE shopping somewhere you may consider better than the alternative, but they are still douches, BUT there are likely actual places devoid of these issues. Then again, most companies have likely dealt with their fair share of lawsuits. I'm kind of curious as to how many larger businesses haven't.

      As for the application process for McGee, I'm assuming that process happens a lot. I recall the debate about employers asking for FBook passwords and all before hiring. That is kind of crazy IMO. Can't escape the All-Seeing Google Eye, though!

      dun Dun DUN!

      I truly hope you get famous enough to have to deal with the hypocritical, ridiculing public eye and TMZ! You best start picking up all the trash ASAP!

      Did you get into WRiTE CLUB? Don't tell me which piece naturally, if you did... I, unfortunately did not. :-( Rejected again! GAH!