On Weaponized Architecture

I’ve been anticipating Leopold Lambert‘s Weaponized Architecture since I became aware of it last fall. After wrestling with Amazon pushing my order for three months, I finally bit the proverbial book bullet and ordered it from the United Kingdom. After a short time, it was in my hands, and I took time this past weekend to sit down and read the whole thing in  a go.

The argument of the book is simple: architecture is always political. The design and construction of things in the world are such that their very existence, and the way they frame space and possibility, has measurable political effects in the world. In this way, “weaponized architecture” describes a kind of architecture that takes this seriously and lends itself to application.

Lambert spends the first third of the book outlining a general theory of the politics of architecture. The second is a reading of the colonization and subjugation of Palestine by the state of Israel through the principles outlined in the first section. The third develops an architectural weapon that could be deployed in Palestine in order to resist the urbicidal methods of erasure that have been and are used to fragment and destroy the Palestinian people and their land.

Lambert is pulling very heavily from Deleuze and Guattari’s theories–he devotes an entire chapter to the ways in which striated and smooth space get deployed in everyday architectural realities. Since the “core” of the book is a reading of architectural violence being done is Palestine, Eyal Weizman’s work on the IDF’s wall-removal attack tactics shows up several times as well. Lambert doesn’t stick to theory, however, and interviews with Brian Finocki and Raja Shehadeh bring really ground the more theoretical aspects of the the book in contemporary art, architecture, and Israeli and international law.

The third section mostly abandons theory for speculative design praxis. What does it mean to turn architecture into a weapon? Lambert designs a resistant structure–the Qasr–that could be deployed in Palestine that would fight against both traditional apartment block architecture (we are warned that these can always become prisons in the first section) and the ways in which architecture can be absolutely erased and replaced by colonial structures.

The structure is camouflaged by appearing at a distance to be Bedouin tents–nonpermanent, ephemeral. Below there is an underground structure that pulls from Deleuze and Guattari’s (and Reza Negarestani’s) notion of the hole. This hole is reinforced with shotcrete, and it is modular enough that new alcoves and tunnels can be built to support extra inhabitants. 

The beauty of the design, though, is its life cycle. It is meant to be cleared out. The expectation is that, at some point, the IDF would find out about it. It would be deemed illegal, uninhabitable even though there are inhabitants. It would be deemed cost-ineffective to destroy, so it would be cordoned off, filled with dirt, but still there. The revolutionary potential lies there. Lambert writes

The Qasr’s ruin thus remains in the landscape. Time accelerates then the process of hybridization between the building’s material and the site’s earth, dust, rocks and wild vegetation. The Qasr seems, this way, to become a product of its territory in a strange inversion of claims. Children of Salfit find in it an unexpected ideal playground, both frightening and attractive. The ruin is visible from the city and everybody know it as the building that the Israeli’s did not succeed to erase. [159]

I’m done. Go buy the book.

Posted in General Features | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Released: Alpaca Run

I’ve released a new game called Alpaca Run. Go play it!

apr

A month or so ago Samantha Allen and I went to Johnson City, TN to participate in a panel on sexism and gaming. On the way home, Samantha explained a concept for a game about alpacas that would go along with a song she had written. When she was done, I was all “yeah, that could be a game.”

Then I went home and spent a few weeks working on a game.

Alpaca Run is a cross between a runner game and a music video for Samantha’s song “Transcontinental Alpaca” (which you can buy for $1 here if you want).

You do three things: you jump, you collect apples, and you listen to a song.

Inspirations for Alpaca Run include: the Soundplay series that Kill Screen sponsored, the Bit Trip Runner games, running alpacas, and the feeling of absolute joy you have when you embody a jumping alpaca.

Notably, there isn’t a fail state in Alpaca Run. I want everyone to complete it. I want everyone to have a fun journey and to get to listen to a cool song without failing over and over again.

Big up to Samantha Allen for music/vocals/concept, to Joe Culp for the beautiful background images, and to Guy Conn for sound engineering work.

GO PLAY ALPACA RUN! GO!

Posted in A Game I Made, General Features, Video Games | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Walter Miller’s Alien Invader

It swam like an airborne jellyfish. A cluster of silver threads it seemed, tangled in a cloud of filaments–or a giant mass of dandelion fluff. It leaked out misty pseudopods, then drew them back as it pulled itself through the air. Weightless as chicken down, huge as a barn, it flew–and drifted from the direction of the sphere in a semi-circle, as if inspecting the land, at times moving against the wind.

It was coming closer to the house.

It moved with purpose, and therefore was alive. This Lucey knew. It moved with its millions of spun threads, finer than a spider’s web, the patterns as ordered as a neural array.

- Walter M. Miller, Jr., “You Triflin’ Skunk”

Posted in Quote Time | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Alan Moore on Writing

Posted in Comics | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

On Small Town Gay Bar

Small Town Gay Bar is a film by Malcolm Ingram about gay bars in the American South. Specifically, it is about Mississippi, but there’s nothing particularly unique about the location–the content of the documentary could be about anywhere in the South. The broad argument of the documentary is that small gay bars in small Southern towns are necessary places for the development of queer communities in these places, which is kind of a “no duh” thing when I write it down. However, most of the documentary is constructed from interviews with average bar goers, people who just want to go and have a good time and meet people and just not be surrounded by straight people all the time.

The documentary hits hard for me because it is a portrait of a community living under occupation. Discrimination is a problem for anyone who isn’t a straight white cis male in America, but the South is literally another country when it comes to those things. I experience Small Town Gay Bar like I do the writing of James Baldwin or Virginie Despentes or Frantz Fanon. Here is a document of what it is like to live in a world where a huge chunk of the population wants you, at best, to be punished for living. At worst, they call for your murder and social castigation.

I don’t have a comprehensive read on the film. I don’t have a criticism or a review, although I will say that the Tour of Gay Bars in Northeast Mississippi segment was certainly my favorite part of the film.

Small Town Gay Bar is available on Netflix Instant.

Posted in General Features | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Leopold Lambert on Architecture and Occupation

Occupation is a second way that architecture is used to serve military purposes. Of course one could think of the Roman Legion’s settlement and some other temporary military structures; nevertheless, it seems more interesting here to understand the word military as an ensemble of means by which a nation exercises its power over a group of people. In this regard, occupation appears to be even more efficient when it is applied through a civil materialization rather than a strictly military one. 19th and 20th centuries’ European countries understood it perfectly and their bureaucratic administration-architecturally organized and represented-probably acted (and sometimes retroactively still do) more on the colonized country’s biopolitics than the colonizer’s army did.

Leopold Lambert, Weaponized Architecture p.18

Posted in Quote Time, Theory | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

On The Max Payne Franchise

paynes

I’m in that weird interstitial period between semesters, and I have somehow managed to keep deadlines at bay enough to do something that I’ve wanted to do since last November: play all of the Max Payne games back-to-back-to-back.

What follows is a few words about each game.

I. Max Payne

The trick in my situation was that there was no trick, no matter what the movies tell you. No rules, no secret mantra, no road map. It wasn’t about how smart or how good you were. It was chaos and luck, and anyone who thought different was a fool. All you could do was hang on madly, as long and as hard as you could.

A list of things that happen in the first thirty minutes of Max Payne: the protagonists wife is killed by horror-film line spouting supermethheads, the couple’s child is murdered, Max Payne drives a train through a wall, and the player dies about five hundred times before she figures out how the combat mechanics actually work.

The narrative of Max Payne sets up the content for the rest of the series: Max begins the game with nothing to lose, becomes embroiled in a gang war that can only be resolved with a gun in each hand, and then realizes that he is involved in a conspiracy so large that it can’t be understood. With that knowledge, Payne decides that all he can do is sacrifice his body so that those benefiting from the conspiracy will pay for their crimes. A few hours later, the game ends.

Those are the broad strokes, and I have to say that Max Payne is merely serviceable in the macro; it is a third person shooter with an interesting story, but nothing special.

Max Payne‘s micro, however, is amazing because it is designed around the enclosed interaction. Because of what I assume has to be technical limitations, the AI of the enemies in Max Payne is not very good. In fact, when they catch sight of Max, they fire, run toward him, fire, and then repeat until they are five feet away going full auto with an uzi. To avoid huge swaths of enemies literally swarming the player, the game is designed in rooms; each one has particular enemy placement and a predictable pattern that the player comes to memorize.

I say this because I quick saved outside of every room and had to replay each and every one of them two or three times in order to not be killed. I developed a set of reflexes and a sense for signal reading–I ducked and dodged and bulletjumped my way through the game. In 2001, Max Payne was a pretty interesting and difficult game that allowed you to pretend you were a hard-boiled Neo from The Matrix; in 2013, it is a third person Hotline Miami without any hammer-shaped questions about our complicity in violence.

Max Payne is a puzzle game that you solve with bullets.

II. Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne

Like always, the dead had all the answers I was missing. It wasn’t that they weren’t eager to talk. Quite the contrary. The dead had plenty to say. And once they started, they would never shut up. Their words keep you awake at night.

This seems to be the most lauded game in the series, but I’m not sure why. It could be that there was enough time between the release of the first game and this one to allow people to remember the cool parts of the first game (bulletdodging, gritty crime stuff, Captain Baseballbatboy) and forget the punishing difficulty and nightmare sequences that featured a screaming infant with the occasional woman’s scream layered over the top of it.

The Fall of Max Payne continues the story. Max starts out doing his job, gets embroiled in a conspiracy, and everything spirals upward from there. I played through the game in (basically) one extended session, and I can’t really explain what happened; Max shot people, justice was had, and yet another woman that Max Payne loved was killed for a plot reason that is dubious to say the least.

I wasn’t so impressed by the second game, but I can say that there are two design choices that I enjoyed:

1. The final boss fight is a torturous encounter where the player has to shoot some super tiny pegs out of ceiling architecture. The first game had something similar–you had to use a sniper rifle to shoot some cables in order to kill a helicopter. This was something you had never had to do before in the game–there had been no precision shooting at any point in the game before that. Max Payne 2 follows this pattern, and just like its predecessor, tells you precisely fuck all about what you are supposed to be doing.

Cue fifteen full minutes of me running in a big circle and shooting my gun and screaming at the top of my lungs. I think that kind of final boss design is neat in retrospect.

2. There is a level where you control another character, Mona, instead of Max. It seems like a lot more care went into the design of those levels, and I thought that her animations were a lot more polished than Max’s. I would rather play a Mona Sax game.

III. Max Payne III

I’m a dumb move guy. ‘Hey Max, we’ll drive out to the runway.’ No thanks, I’ll take the main entrance with a big shit eating grin on my face and let these assholes take turns trying to kill me. That’s my style, and it’s too late in the day to hope for change.

Years after the events of the previous game, Max is a washed up detective and a serious alcoholic. He’s a terrible shell of the man we knew before, who was already basically hollow. Then Max, in a drunken stupor, shot a twenty-something square in the chest. I saw it; shit, I pulled the trigger.

That’s the tone of the third game. It isn’t a strange semi-parody of crime fiction and generic tropes. It is full-on “take this social text seriously,” and playing it directly after the first two games was a shock. Seeing bad thing after bad thing happen to Max and the people who depend on him is supposed to bond the player with him, but toward the end of the game I started to see it as grim humor. You come into contact with Max Payne and your chances of being burned alive or shot to death go up about 1000%.

I also feel like the power of the first two games is that the player has very few tools at your disposal to deal with the problems that the game throws at her. When I play Max Payne, I feel like I am being forced to keep forward momentum. Hanging back just means that more enemies are going to path at me, and I can’t really do much other than run. This forces a particular style of play–Max has a gun in each hand, and you know damn well what you have to do to progress.

I guess what I am saying is that the conversion of the Max Payne games into a cover shooter slows down the pace of the game, and more than that it makes the player feel like there are actual options. You can choose to play defensively, only taking shots that matter, and slowly progress through each room until you hit an inevitable two minute cutscene where Max walks through a door to an aching voice over. In previous games, there were no options, no defensive maneuvers. You dodged and shot and died, or survived on a sliver of health, because that’s all you could do.

The Max Payne of New York City lives on that sliver of health all the time, and the moment of adrenaline where you barely kill three enemies with well-placed bullet time shots is absent in Max Payne 3. Every moment makes you feel like a hero; each set piece is designed to fill the player with a sense of power.

That’s not the Max Payne I know and love. My Max Payne is a paper thin thing that is 85% blood colored. He’s always one door away from being eradicated. The chunky meat man of Max Payne 3 is an entertaining bald version of my paper man; he’s an imitation. He’s boring.

 

Posted in Video Games | Tagged , , | Leave a comment