The Swapper:
Before the article: The blog has fallen quite a bit behind. I just moved and haven't been able to write recently. The plan is to return to the semi-regular schedule I had before. See the first article on the Swapper here.
Beyond all games I've played this year
and last
(short of the Talos
Principle), The Swapper most
commits itself questions of a philosophical nature. But this always
leads to an issue, a conundrum: Does it properly address philosophy,
while not allowing it to overshadow or detract from gameplay?
For instance, a developer could knit
with their philosophical inclination a thin veil, applying only the
shallowest of knowledge, the names everyone already knows, the
symbolism they acquired, or the details known only by perusing a
Wikipedia page on the topic. If it seems as if there are a variety
of the most popular philosophical jargon spread indiscriminately
through, like darts thrown without thought against a wall, or raisins
clumped together in cake (by an inexperience cook) the author
demonstrates their ignorance.
Or perhaps a developer constructs a
thin, brittle shell of composed of academic knowledge, but without
understanding. They might have read the right books, studied the
correct courses, but failed to transform the information they
absorbed. Inadvertently, the references employed might emphasize the
writers lack of subtly, an inability to imagine genuine uses for the
topic.
Both of these techniques may be wielded
as an aegis to shelter behind, but falter as storytelling devices.
If the author fails to communicate their intent through either
technique, the player sees the plot as obscure or obvious. A
bewildering mystery or a boring repetition of a previous invention.
This is not to claim philosophy (and its common companion, mythology)
need be unambiguous. Well crafted, a philosophical game can leave
space for debate among the players. But if all possible answers fail
to validate the experience, it can only be called unsatisfactory.
Returning to the The Swapper,
what detail of philosophical debate can one expect from a four hour
game, where discussion should acceded primary importance to gameplay?
An examination of both philosophical
detail and its interaction with the plot requires observing four
points of review; the philosophy of the Mind, the Triumvirate, the
Watchers, and the ending (and beginning). All these topics are
unavoidably composed of spoilers.
A quick review of the situation before
we begin. Far in the future, humanity has exhausted Earth's
resources and sent vast space stations into distant regions to supply
it. The stations conduct research and collect material to return to
struggling Earth. The player first encounters the protagonist as
they are forced into a escape pod, which crash lands on the planet
Chori V. Traveling over the surface, the protagonist is able to
access a teleporter in a base on the planet and uses it to travel to
Theseus Station. There is only one person alive, though there were
hundreds before the Event. The Station is full of giant rocks, which
the data logs (and the lone survivor) call Watchers. The scientists
of Theseus invented, before their untimely demise, a device which can
both clone the user, and swap their Mind into any other being. The
protagonist uses this swapper gun to travel around the station and
overcome obstacles.
The philosophy of The Swapper is
an excellent attempt at a thought experiment: What if you obtained a
device which could transfer the Mind of yourself into another body?
The philosophical paradox of the Mind has troubled philosophers for
centuries. By mind, philosophers mean that part of you, which refer
to as the you. The thing reading these words and thinking about
them. Though this article won't delve deeply into the quandary, a
basic introduction seems reasonable. Two main positions about the
Mind have emerged and they can be summed up as follows. Is the Mind
a separate, nonphysical entity? Or is the mind only the brain, the
body? The former is Dualism (humanity is composed of two
substances), a belief which corresponds to the belief in a soul and
free will. The latter position is called Monism, and related to the
belief that everything is matter, materialism
(Monism can also refer to the belief that everything is composed of
one substance). The first was popularized by Descartes (and is
often called Cartesian Dualism), while Spinoza
and Hegel were Monism's strongest supporters. Many people today are
dismissive of those who subscribe to the belief they disbelieve, but
for anyone interested in pursuing the topic further, accepting either
theory requires accepting results which seem both absurd and
terrifying. This is not a solved problem except for the narrow
minded.
It's
admirable for The Swapper
to attempt a story, which imparts philosophical knowledge without
trying to convince anyone, and for this reason, it seems unlikely
anyone will find their opinion altered by the experience. Yet, the
game strongly implies Dualism is the correct answer. In its most
basic form, how can one answer: What is the swapper swapping, without
answering “the soul”? If it is not swapping a non-physical
entity, it must be swapping a physical “thing” composed of
matter; an atom, a chemical composition, an entire brain. If
swapping transfers a physical component, the scientists aboard the
station should have been able to measure the difference (possibly by
a simple test, like weighing the subjects before and after), and
prove their theory.
But
this conversation isn't as lifeless as the Station itself. Along the
way the protagonist encounters a companion. At first there seemed to
be multiple survivors on the station, for I was aware of a few,
different, ongoing conversations. Additionally, the voice often
seemed to be speaking to a third party. Compounding this error was
the dark aesthetic of The
Swapper, people are
wearing spacesuits, and subtitles used different names for a reason
which will be explained. But overtime it became clear, all the
speakers shared the same voice, and in the end the protagonists
discovers there are three people in one body (the Triumvirate).
Apparently, a Scavenger had found the station already in decay (after
the Event). Two of the original scientists of the station had used
the swapper to place their Minds into two brains in jars before the
catastrophe. They convinced the Scavenger to absorb them into her
body. Dennett,
one of the two Minds, argues that the soul, and even choice, are
illusions. The Mind is only the brain, which is composed of matter,
and matter is predetermined by the laws of the Universe. The other
brain, Chalmers,
defends Dualism, citing her own situation as proof, one body, three
minds. But, as already stated, there is no clear answer by the
author on who is correct. An examination of the Watchers and the
Ending is necessary to develop the idea, and judge its effectiveness.
That's a topic
though for Monday.
Recent:
Relevant:
Comments
Post a Comment