In a 2011 lecture titled “Truth in Game Design,” developer
Jonathan Blow declared that games were a unique platform through which
to explore the mysteries of the universe. “We can come to the game with
question after question after question and type in some code and get
answer after answer after answer,” he said. “And if we’re tapping into
the right thing, then the volume of answers available to us can actually
be quite large.” Blow, whose time-bending puzzle game
Braid was a breakout hit, was speaking mostly of questions pertaining to theoretical physics and advanced mathematics. The questions
That Dragon, Cancer
is asking, on the other hand, are the kind of spiritual and existential
quandaries that have haunted humanity since Job: Why are we here? Can
we influence our fate? What kind of God would allow such suffering? How
do we endure the knowledge that we, along with everyone we have ever met
and loved, will die?
Unlike the games in Blow’s lecture,
That Dragon, Cancer
doesn’t provide any solutions to its queries. “A lot of people say art
asks questions, and that always bothered me. Why leave people with just
questions?” Green says. “But I find, through this process, that I do
have more questions than I did, and I’m not so keen or eager to offer
answers.”
Toward the end of
Thank You for Playing, the documentary about the game, there’s a scene in which you can spy a copy of
Reality Is Broken
on the Greens’ bookshelf. The manifesto, by designer and academic Jane
McGonigal, argues that we should engineer our world to be more like a
videogame, incorporating its system of rewards and escalating challenges
to help us find meaning and accomplishment in our lives. Green, though,
is doing the opposite. He’s trying to create a game in which meaning is
ambiguous and accomplishments are fleeting. He is making a game that is
as broken—as confounding, unresolved, and tragically beautiful—as the
world itself. hey
wait somberly in line: cosplayers, young women, middle-aged men. They
sit in front of the monitor, put on the Bose noise-canceling headphones,
and pick up the Xbox controller. Fifteen minutes later they stand and
push back from the table. Many of them affect sheepish grins, rise
quietly, walk off abruptly without making eye contact. A few get
misty-eyed, clearly shaken, collecting themselves before they leave. And
then there’s the developer who starts weeping and says, “I don’t want
to be here at PAX; I want to be home with my kids.” The couple whose own
daughter survived cancer and who have followed the game’s development
for years. The boy who staggers away from the screen as if emerging from
a particularly punishing roller coaster.
“Are you OK?” Green asks.
“It’s just so
sad,” the boy says in a hushed tone, staring
off. He wanders away, dazed. A few minutes later he returns to collect
the backpack he has inadvertently left behind.
Green, on the other hand, doesn’t at this moment appear particularly
haunted or upset. He stands in front of his booth with the studied
casualness of someone who knows that people nearby are talking about
him. His burly figure would be imposing if he weren’t dressed in cargo
shorts and flip-flops, a wardrobe that—along with his sunny,
authoritative demeanor—gives him the air of a summer camp director.
Despite the circumstances, he is happy to be here.
An experienced programmer, Green is relatively new to the indie-game
world. Until recently, he worked full-time designing software for a
Denver-based dialysis company, a job he held for 11 years. In 2008, just
before Joel was born, Green, who had long dabbled in filmmaking,
poetry, and art, decided to try his hand at game-making. He spent his
evenings and weekends learning how to use the Torque game engine and
cranking out silly iPhone trifles with names like
Sir Roly Poly and
Little Piñata.
They didn’t sell well, but Green enjoyed making them. He had always
fantasized about pursuing a creative career, and he and Amy hatched a
plan to save up enough money for him to quit his job after a few years
and build games full-time.
That Dragon, Cancer explores spiritual and existential quandaries that have haunted humanity since Job.
When the Greens received Joel’s first cancer diagnosis in January
2010, that creative outlet became more important to Ryan, even as it
grew more difficult for him to pursue. The Greens live in Loveland,
Colorado, about an hour from Joel’s oncologists in Denver, and Ryan
found his schedule overtaken by late-night trips to the emergency room
and overnight stays in the ICU, wrestling with feeding tubes and
chemotherapy pills, juggling childcare for the Greens’ other children,
and all the other logistical, emotional, and psychological challenges
that come with tending to a seriously sick child. Ryan’s boss told him
to take as much time as he needed, and he ratcheted back to working
about 30 hours a week. At the same time, he found himself taking on
contract game-design work, something to keep him creatively engaged
during those long and terrifying months.
Then, just under a year later, Joel was declared terminal. The news
caused Green to reassess his life. The dialysis company was giving him
paid time off and the flexibility to take care of his family, and he was
using it to work for somebody else. He was one month away from a
$30,000 retention bonus—money that was crucial to his plan to strike out
on his own—but he couldn’t stomach the idea of accepting it under such
pretenses. Over the protests of his employer, he quit.
“Everybody around me was like, ‘Don’t fall on your sword, you don’t
have to do this,’” Green says. “I don’t want it to sound more noble than
it was, but it just felt like a moment where I could have some
integrity.”
“You think, ‘Ugh, I kind of hate this, but I get it,’” Amy says.
“Both of us at that point were like, ‘Let’s do what you’re passionate
about and not just get through life. Let’s make decisions we love.’”
For Green, that meant making games that explored religious themes. He
started doing full-time contract work for Soma Games, a Newberg,
Oregon-based developer of Christian videogames. In late 2010 he met
Larson, an indie-game veteran from Des Moines, Iowa. Larson, another
devoted Christian, had been spending time on a “not-games” forum, an
online discussion for developers interested in avoiding all the usual
gamelike trappings—the puzzles and quests and levels—to discover what
else the medium might be capable of.
I Wish I Were the Moon was a clickable tone poem about lost love.
Proteus
had players wander around an interactive landscape. Larson says his
interest in not-games was purely intellectual, not spiritual, but the
effort to move beyond performance-based reward systems seems to track
with some of his deeply held philosophical beliefs. “The idea of grace
is that you don’t have to do something good to earn your salvation,” he
says. “People are always so concerned about what you do in a game, and
they can be that way about life too. Whereas some people, depending on
what kind of faith they have or what kind of person they are, that’s not
necessarily what defines them.”
Josh Larson quit work and lived off his savings to devote himself full-time to making That Dragon, Cancer. “We both felt compelled to do it,” Green says.
Larson,
an indie-game veteran and devoted Christian, had been spending time on a
“not-games” forum, a discussion group for developers interested in
avoiding the usual gamelike trappings.
Green and Larson cemented their friendship during a 2011 game
jam Larson organized to promote the development of what he called
“meaningful games.” At Amy’s suggestion, Ryan created
Giga Wife,
a simple, Tamagotchi-like game in which players pushed buttons to
deliver romantic gestures to their virtual spouses. In an explanatory
essay, he underscored the importance of marital mindfulness, confessing
that he too frequently took Amy for granted. “Most of my life has been
spent taking and pursuing my desires, in contrast to giving and seeking
hers,” he wrote. “I tell her I love her every day. But I’m not sure I
always do it for her. Sometimes I do it out of duty.” For his part,
Larson made a game based on the philosophy of Molinism, which theorizes
that God accounts for free will by knowing how we will respond to
certain conditions, then reverse-engineering the world to create those
conditions. In Larson’s game, players had to design an environment that
compelled an onscreen character to trip over a log and land next to a
butterfly, thereby sparking a lifelong passion for lepidopterology.
Soon the duo began talking about working together. After tossing
around a few ideas, Green suggested making a game about Joel. Larson was
instantly enthusiastic. “We both felt compelled to do it,” Green says
now. In fall 2012, Larson announced to Green that he would forgo all of
his contract work and live off his savings for a year to work on the
game.
“He said, ‘I feel an urgency in my spirit. I think you’re supposed to
do this and do this now, and I want to help you,'” Amy says. “Who does
that? They knew each other and worked together, but it wasn’t like they
were best friends. It was just unbelievable.”
The
videogame became Green’s primary method of dealing with Joel’s illness,
as well as his connection to a son he struggled to understand.
The Greens took a hard look at their own finances and decided they
could afford for Ryan to set aside his contract work as well and spend
three months working on
That Dragon, Cancer. But when that time
was up, Amy couldn’t bring herself to ask him to return to work. “I
remember thinking, ‘This is the most foolish thing I’ve ever done,'” she
says. “Living off our savings until we have nothing left—you can’t do
that with a kid who’s dying. You can’t do that in general! But I had
that conviction that I needed to let him do this.”
By early 2013, Green and Larson began showing scenes from the game to
potential funders—an urgent need, as by this point the Greens had
burned through their savings and were living off donations and loans
from friends. One of their first meetings was with Kellee Santiago, an
old acquaintance of Larson’s who was leading developer outreach for the
Kickstarter-funded Ouya console. Santiago had previously cofounded
Thatgamecompany, creator of the art-house crossover hits
Flower and
Journey,
and she was immediately drawn to Green and Larson’s project. “Five
minutes into it, in my mind I was canceling all my meetings, because I
wanted to spend as much time as I needed to talk them through this,” she
says. Santiago eventually agreed to fund the project, giving Green and
Larson enough money not only to support themselves but to hire three
more developers to work on it with them. (The money, along with some
other grants, lasted through November 2014, at which point the team
raised more than $100,000 on Kickstarter to complete the game.)
Green was accustomed to transmogrifying his life into art. He and Amy
had already made a short film based on their experiences with Joel and
had self-published a children’s book titled
He’s Not Dead Yet.
Now he channeled his frustration, fear, love, and hope into designing a
series of interactive challenges. One preliminary idea had players
struggling to insert a feeding tube into Joel’s nose. Another, called
“Auto-Tune the Noise,” poked fun at the barrage of well-meaning
advice—Have you tried oxygen therapy? Have you tried cutting out
sugar?—that they’d received over the years. Green wrote a minigame in
which players could shoot at targets that represented the terrible
decisions he and Amy were forced to make—whether to undergo another
round of radiation despite the damage it might do to Joel’s spinal
column, whether to give Joel antiseizure medicine that might cause
peripheral blindness.
Over time, That Dragon, Cancer became Green’s primary
method of dealing with Joel’s illness, as well as a way for him to
preserve a connection to his son, whom he struggled to get to know. In
real life, Joel couldn’t talk about his feelings, leaving Green to guess
at his thoughts and emotions. Joel’s reaction to radiation therapy was
particularly puzzling. Children usually hated being placed on the gurney
inside the giant linear accelerator, resisted the anesthetic, fought
and clawed at their parents and doctors every time they entered the
room. But Joel loved it. He grew impatient in the waiting room, and his
face lit up when the doctors came to get him, more excited than his
parents had ever seen him. Green couldn’t know just why Joel was so
enthusiastic about undergoing the anesthesia, but he wrote a scene
imagining the adventures Joel might be experiencing in his mind—riding
animals made of stars, giggling and tearing across the cosmos.
According to Green’s original design, the game would end with you,
the player, facing an array of dozens of levers. For a while you would
yank and tug at them, trying to discern the pattern that would unlock
the game’s conclusion. After a few minutes, the camera would pan up to
reveal the back of the console, its wires frayed and disconnected. The
levers were false, the game’s designer was in charge, and you were
forced to acknowledge that you were powerless to control the outcome.
That conclusion arose directly from the Greens’ religion, their
belief that God’s will was beyond human comprehension, that we are
operating within a divine plan that we may or may not have the power to
influence. Even as they pursued every medical option, their agony was
somewhat relieved by the conviction that Joel’s fate was ultimately in
God’s hands. “With God we don’t have to do the right things or say the
right things to somehow ‘earn’ his healing,” Amy wrote in an online
diary soon after Joel’s first biopsy. As Ryan worked on his game, the
Greens continued to believe they were on the cusp of a miracle: Joel’s
survival and recuperation in spite of all medical science.
But then, toward the end of 2013, Joel developed a new tumor near his
brain stem, and his health began deteriorating quickly. He struggled to
maintain his balance. His right eye turned more noticeably inward. He
began experiencing seizures and difficulty swallowing. In January 2014,
Joel’s oncologists told his parents that the tumor was untreatable. The
Greens traveled to San Francisco to take part in a Phase I experimental
trial of a new drug, but it was unsuccessful. On March 12, 2014, on the
recommendation of their hospice nurse, the Greens took out the feeding
tube that was Joel’s only source of sustenance. That night, they hosted
an evening of prayer and song at their home. At 1:52 am on March 13,
Joel died in his parents’ bed, with Ryan and Amy by his side.
When
you play the game, you know what Green didn’t know when he started
working on it. You know how the game ends. You know that Joel dies.
The team had discussed how they might finish the game after
Joel’s death, in case Green had to take a few months off to grieve. But
two days after the funeral he was ready to get back to work. If
anything, the game felt more crucial than ever. It had been written when
Joel’s death was hypothetical; now, in the shadow of the actual event,
much of it seemed irrelevant or off-base. The final, lever-pulling scene
came to feel particularly unsatisfying. Joel’s death may have been a
manifestation of God’s unknowable will, but Green found himself unable
to accept it, as the scene encouraged players to do. Over the course of
the next several months, the team decided to rewrite 70 percent of the
game, de-emphasizing Ryan and Amy’s experience and focusing instead on
scenes that directly involved Joel—caring for him, playing with him,
attending to him.
Working on the game also gave Green an important outlet, a way to
explore his grief and keep his son alive in his memory. In one of our
first conversations, he seemed startled to realize that he and Amy
hadn’t read many books or attended any support groups or counseling
sessions to help them process their loss. “I’ve used this game as a way
of wrestling with it,” he says, “more than the typical channels of
grief.”
“Ryan was able to spend the last year of Joel’s life, and all of the
time since he died, working on this game,” Amy says. “We’d love for it
to impact people and for it to be commercially successful. But there’s a
piece of me that says, maybe it’s just for us.”
Courtesy of the Green family

he
Greens—Ryan, Amy, and their four children—live in a small townhouse
about halfway between Loveland’s big-box commercial district and its
sleepy, red-brick downtown. Their home and schedule reflect a
laissez-faire approach to time and space management. The shelves and
walls are cluttered with family photos, paintings, figurines of a man
and woman cradling a baby. A stack of board games towers atop the
refrigerator. Two beat-up Xbox consoles inhabit the entertainment
center.
On a sun-blasted September afternoon, I pull up a chair in front of
their TV. Green takes a seat next to me. Larson, who has flown in to
work on the game for a few days, settles into an easy chair. Amy is here
too, sitting next to Jon Hillman, a local composer who signed on as the
game’s sound designer after meeting Green at a coffee shop. The game’s
two other far-flung designers, Ryan Cousins and Brock Henderson, are
waiting to discuss my experience via Google Hangouts. Green smiles and
hands me an Xbox controller. I am about to become the first person
outside the core development team to play a full run-through of
That Dragon, Cancer.
I am not a great player of videogames. I get disoriented easily, I am
quickly overwhelmed by complicated button combinations, and I often
pass right over the clues and prompts that designers use to nudge
players through the story.
But
That Dragon, Cancer is not a tricky game to master.
Indeed, it’s barely a game at all, more a collection of scenarios that
the player explores and clicks through. There is some degree of
agency—you can decide how long to spend in any particular scene, for
instance—but the overwhelming sensation is one of being a bug caught in a
rushing river; you might veer a few degrees in either direction, but
you can’t alter the overall flow.
All videogames are deterministic; some just mask it better than others. The
Super Mario Bros.
series may give the appearance of serendipity, but creator Shigeru
Miyamoto planned every surprise down to the pixel, a kind of 8-bit
Truman Show
of false autonomy. For all their free-range chaos, the massively
multiplayer games of the ’90s and ’00s were ruled by “gods” and
“immortals”—admins who could spy on players, take control of their
avatars, or single-handedly wipe objects out of existence. Today, many
of the most popular cinematic titles hew to what Koster calls the
“string of pearls” design: lots of freedom within individual levels, but
a rigid structure that ultimately forces the player’s hand. “You have
all the choices in the world, until you have to move on and do what they
tell you,” he says.
“I
remember thinking ‘This is the most foolish thing I’ve ever done,’” Amy
says. “Living off our savings until we have nothing left—you can’t do
that with a kid who’s dying. But I had a conviction that I needed to let
Ryan do this.”
“If
I look at the game objectively,” Amy says, “of course it’s all just to
make his life matter. You wanted his life to matter so much, and he died
young, and in a lot of ways his life will only matter if we make it
matter.”
In his recent book
God in the Machine: Video Games as Spiritual Pursuit,
Liel Liebovitz, an assistant professor at NYU, argues that such
contradictions are inherent to gaming, part of what makes them fun and
meaningful. “To be coherent,” he writes, “to be compelling, video games
must unfold in a way that allows players to continue and believe that
the decisions they make are their own, and that the game’s world,
preordained as it is, nonetheless allows for expressions of their free
will. Video games, in other words, depend much on the sentiment
expressed by the Jewish sage Rabbi Akiva, in
Pirkei Avot: ‘Everything is foreseen, and permission is granted.’”
But some game designers have taken the opposite approach, calling
attention to players’ fundamentally powerless position. The 2007
blockbuster
BioShock put players in the role of a vengeful
amnesiac who learns in a climactic scene that his seemingly independent
actions have been programmed,
Manchurian Candidate-style, by
the game’s villain—just as the player’s own actions had been programmed
by the game’s creators. In the comic meditation
The Stanley Parable,
a hapless office worker explores his abandoned workplace while being
harangued by the game’s domineering narrator, who grows more flustered
and hostile with every act of disobedience. But each seeming
transgression—going through the door on the right instead of the
suggested door on the left, for instance—is undercut by the realization
that it’s all part of the game’s inescapable design.
The 2012 cult hit
Dear Esther
pushes in an even more radical direction, removing every pretense of
autonomy. In the game, players follow a path around a deserted island.
As they hike inexorably to a tragic conclusion, they hear snippets of a
deranged man’s letters to his dead wife. The messages are delivered
semi-randomly; it takes seven or eight play-throughs to listen to all of
them. But even then, the story remains ambiguous, never completely
explaining who the characters are or how they intersect. The result is a
profound irony. While players can’t influence the game itself, they are
in many ways granted a more meaningful freedom: to interpret its
creators’ inscrutable logic. People went online to share their
outlandish theories, a fact that tickled the game’s designer, Dan
Pinchbeck. “This thing is so out of our control, in a way,” he told an
interviewer at IndieGames.com. “That’s a really lovely feeling.”
That Dragon, Cancer is very much in the
Dear Esther
mold, pulling players through an evocative landscape whose meaning
proves elusive. It’s not even clear what character you inhabit—sometimes
you’re Green, sometimes you’re a bird, sometimes you have no body at
all but hover above the action, watching from a benevolent remove.
Sometimes you interact with the characters onscreen—as when you cavort
in a playground with Joel—and sometimes you manipulate them, as if
you’ve entered their bodies.
Green, Larson, and the rest of the team monitor my play closely. Do I
realize I’m supposed to follow that sweep of light down to the
waterfront? Did I find the cell phone that unlocks the next stage of the
game? What did I think that wing-flapping sound indicated? Did I
understand why that blue van was parked under the lighthouse?
For the most part, I move easily through the game, but I get stumped
halfway through. Ryan is drowning, curled shrimplike in the middle of a
vast sea, a portrait of helplessness and despair. Looking up I see a
slightly damaged life preserver on the surface of the water. I realize
that, by steering the pointer near Ryan’s body and pressing a button, I
can get him to swim. But when I guide him to the surface, I can’t get
him out of the water. He sputters and gasps but won’t grab the life
preserver. I keep trying—five, six, seven times. Green, sitting next to
me, stares at me meaningfully.
“I think I need some help,” I say.
Green pauses. He doesn’t want to tell me what to do, but he’s willing
to give me some ambiguous guidance. “Well,” he says, “what can you do
other than swim up?”
That’s when I notice the light, glowing up from the bottom of the
sea. I reorient my pointer and urge Ryan down. It takes a long time, so
long that at one point I’m convinced I’ve hit another dead end and give
up. But it turns out I just haven’t gone far enough. Eventually, after
swimming for a few more seconds, I reach the bottom and the scene ends.
We all sit in silence for a moment, and then I hear Amy stirring
behind me. “It shouldn’t be that hard,” she says. “You’re making them go
down awfully far.”
Ryan grins, a little sadly. “Yeah,” he says, “I am.”
Courtesy of the Green family

y
turning his personal loss into art, Green has also been able to convert
his grief into labor. At times, that’s a gift—when he’s designing a
landscape or animating a character’s movement, he can almost lose sight
of the larger story. But occasionally he’ll be crippled by the enormity
of what he’s grappling with. Once, he says, he broke down sobbing while
positioning images of himself and Joel on a hospital bed. Cousins, the
designer, told me that he sometimes hesitated before sending Green new
animations of his son, for fear it might be overwhelming. Larson
sometimes has to take extended breaks, particularly when he’s doing
speed-runs—high-velocity run-throughs of the entire game—experiencing
Joel’s decline over and over again.
In a way, the process of working on the game in the months since
Joel’s death has given Green the opportunity to spend more time with his
son—or at least a digital approximation of him, what Green calls an
“echo” of who Joel used to be. “If I look at the game objectively,” Amy
says, “of course it’s all just to make his life matter. You wanted his
life to matter so much, and he died young, and in a lot of ways his life
will only matter if we make it matter. When the project is done, that
process ends. And then we get to see, does this matter?”
Toward the end of the run-through, I enter a giant cathedral. This is
the scene that Green has worked on most diligently since Joel’s death.
It replaces the lever-pulling scene, his initial idea to urge the player
toward accepting his own powerlessness. This is the scene, Green says,
that embodies all the wrestling with God he has endured since his son’s
death, the scene that once provided answers but now leaves only
questions. I brace myself.
“This isn’t quite done yet,” Green says. “I’d better walk you through it.”
I exhale and sit back as he takes the controller. A wave washes over
me. It feels like relief. It’s no longer my job to navigate this
treacherous emotional landscape. All I have to do now is put myself in
the designer’s hands.
The Green family relaxes at home in Loveland, Colorado. Ryan recorded his eldest sons’ voices for the soundtrack of That Dragon, Cancer.

ettle
into your chair. Turn to your left. There is Ryan Green, his hands on
the Xbox controller, his eyes focused on the screen. Face forward and
watch the game. Your view swings around the cathedral, awe-inspiring in
its size but clearly under construction. You see scaffolding, an
unfinished stained glass window. Now the picture swings around again and
you are looking at the altar, and there is Joel. He looks impossibly
small inside this vast expanse. Behind him, Jumbotrons recapitulate and
magnify his image.
Green continues to move you through the cathedral until you find a
spot about 20 rows back from the altar. Soon, the church fills with the
sound of prayer. These are the actual prayers that Ryan, Amy, and their
friends sang and whispered and screamed the last night of Joel’s life,
prayers that were not answered. “
Please!” you hear a voice bellow. “
Return this boy’s soul to his body!”
In two days, you will fly back to your family. At some point in the
future, hopefully long into the future, you will say good-bye to them.
You will leave them, or they will leave you. You may be able to
influence how or when this happens, but you cannot change the fact that
it will happen. You also cannot change the fact that whoever remains
will feel great pain, will ask difficult questions, and most likely will
not receive satisfactory answers. It may bring to mind the words of the
theologian C. S. Lewis, who inadvertently wrote about grief as
something akin to a dark, final level in a videogame, the miserable
reward for succeeding at love, “as if God said, ‘Good: You have mastered
that exercise. I am very pleased with it. And now you are ready to go
on to the next.’” When you read those words, months from now, they will
remind you of something Amy Green once told you: “Pain doesn’t mean you
failed. Suffering doesn’t mean you failed. In a strange way, I think
suffering may mean you won.”
But for now, sit here, in the Green family living
room. The cathedral scene is over, but Ryan does not offer you the
controller back and you do not ask for it. Joel is back on the screen,
but now he is healthy and happy. The room fills with his laughter—his
actual laughter, recorded before he died. Ryan pushes a few buttons and
makes Joel laugh harder. Don’t look directly at Ryan. Stare straight
ahead, but note that you can still see him, hazily, in your peripheral
vision. Take him in, watch him there, crying and smiling, playing with
his creation on the other side of the screen.
Comments
Post a Comment