By The Keystone Newspaper The creator of this game never confirmed a narrative, so its themes can have several interpretations
By Paula Guarderas
Title: Loved (2010)
Developer: Alexander Ocias
Platform: Browser
Reviewed On: Browser
Publisher: Alexander Ocias
Designer: Alexander Ocias
When asked about Loved (2010)’s meaning, the developer Alexander Oscias said that, while the game has themes of dominance and power, he doesn’t want to provide a “full overriding answer” because it would defy the point of the game.
When creating it, he intended for people to reflect about the games they play, and to acknowledge the player directly instead of them excusing their in-game actions as their character’s fault.
While these themes and the use of fourth-wall breaks are popular nowadays, they were rare when the game came out, making it stand out.
Despite the creator’s defiance in confirming a narrative, the confrontational dynamic between the player and the narrator drives a clear message about toxic relationships.
Whether it is between a couple, a parent and their child, or a person and God is up to interpretation, though the general consensus is the first option.
Photo Credit: Paula Guarderas
The game begins by asking the player a pair of questions and immediately disrespecting them regardless of their answer. If we say we are one gender, the game calls us an infantilized version of the opposite.
The narrator refuses to provide instructions to play the game, but if we say we don’t need them, it gets offended and says we will fail. Loved breaks what are considered general “must haves” of any game, in that it should teach the game’s mechanics and use the player’s gender appropriately (if given the option to choose it).
Granted, this won’t interfere with the player’s understanding of the game, as the avatar is the same genderless blob regardless of what one selects, and the movements are standard with the use of Arrow Keys.
The hostility is there to cement the toxic behavior of the narrator. If the game has an effect on the player, it is done through psychological manipulation; the narrator praises us when we obey their (sometimes outrageous) demands, and degrades us when we don’t.
Photo Credit: Paula Guardera
If the player follows the requests, the game becomes more detailed and easier to navigate, but it’s at the expense of taking the harder route and purposefully harming the avatar.
It doesn’t matter if one has followed all the instructions, if one fails the “Don’t die” order even once, all efforts become for naught and the narrator acts like the victim, forcing the cycle to repeat. Even so, after having a “perfect” run, being able to collect the coin at the end feels unrewarding.
And if the opposite is done, in the route where the avatar refuses to listen, bright, colorful glitches appear, clogging the screen more and more with each sign of rebellion. It makes the game harder, and the player is still asked to “stay” with the narrator in the end, but it allows the player to see a bright mix of colors if just for a moment, in contrast to the stagnant black and white from before.
Remembering Ocias’ intentions creating Loved, the game could be a subtle meta-commentary.
If one follows a game’s structure, they are simply following its purpose and rules. But the player could also gain a “colorful” experience by taking advantage of loopholes and testing its limits (e.g., reaching the top of the left ledge at the beginning, the spikes disappearing leading to a tunnel), encouraging a degree of rebellion and desire to explore the game for a more engaging experience.