Yet we would do well to remember that Castle of Illusion wasn’t just a Disney game. (This is where the secular Christianity comes into play.) In that regard, it’s difficult to hold much of anything against Castle of Illusion. Taken on its own terms, the game’s a parable about how good and evil really are that easy to recognize how good will always win out over evil and, judging by the ending, how every person has a chance at redemption. But more importantly, Castle of Illusion makes no claims to being a morally complex story. For one, the game never follows its premises that far it only develops them to the point it needs to. We’re never given any reason to doubt the basic facts of the story: Mickey and Minnie’s inherent goodness, Mizrabel’s inherent wickedness, the logic that connects the presence/absence of beauty to their moral character, etc.įor all the problems those premises would introduce if followed to their logical conclusions (and they are legitimate problems to worry about), I don’t see the value in critiquing the game’s use of them. Based on this description, you’d probably think Castle of Illusion was the kind of game with a straightforward moral outlook, and you would be right. After following the Witch to her lair (the eponymous Castle of Illusion), it’s up to Mickey to collect the seven Rainbow Gems and rescue his love. Mickey and Minnie are on a date one day when the Evil Witch Mizrabel ( a slightly modified version of the witch from Snow White ) kidnaps Minnie, intending to steal her beauty for herself. Likewise, consider the story, which is best described as Banjo Kazooie if secular Christianity took the place of the humor. Put it all together, and you end up with an innocent, pure, and incorruptible worldview. Enemies are built out of soft shapes the environments tend toward cool colors that they subtly blend together. Moreover, the way they’re represented plays into the traditional Disney strengths. The visual style is a dead giveaway: the locations borrow widely from the world of fairy tales, forcing Mickey to explore forests, libraries/toy boxes (in miniature), castles, etc. Returning to Castle of Illusion, it’s easy to see what kind of influence Disney had on the game. Their works are idealistic they accept at face value the basic qualities of what they represent. Disney’s lack of desire to challenge is too transparent to allow for that. I should be clear that this isn’t the same as the cultural conservatism you see in Seth MacFarlane shows (particularly Family Guy ), which presents itself through a congratulatory but ultimately false sense of subversion. In more practical terms, this means the work in question is likely to promote conservative values, lest it make waves and alienate anybody who might have been interested otherwise. It’s an aesthetic style whose goal is to reach as wide an audience/selection of audiences as possible. Above all else it was a piece of promotional material for the Mickey Mouse brand, meaning Disney-style aesthetics would serve as the game’s foundation. What you end up with is a game that, while technically sound, leaves too little to the imagination while adding little to our understanding of the experience.īefore going any further with the 2013 re-imagining, I want to make it clear that I’m under no illusions regarding what the original game was. It overspeaks it overexplains it fills previously quiet moments with activity. The problem is that this Castle of Illusion doesn’t know how it should express that voice but feels compelled to express it anyway. The remake, on the other hand, has those tools at its disposal and is determined to make its voice heard. It was an approach that worked well for what the designers had in mind. īroadly speaking, the original game tended to leave things unstated because it didn’t have the tools to speak at length about them. To illustrate this point, let’s consider a negative example: the 2013 remake (more a light re-imagining than a strict remake) of Castle of Illusion starring Mickey Mouse. Silence can paint a picture in vivid detail in ways that speech isn’t equipped for. There’s a famous Wittgenstein quote that says, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” His point wasn’t that people should remain quiet on matters they’re unqualified to speak about, but that silence can be its own form of expression.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |