Topics

Here's my blog. About games and... stuff? Now you can judge me.

http://janosbiro-en.tumblr.com/

This comes from this topic.

Sunny Penguin,

I sense a major cognitive dissonance happening here. First of all, I was not angry at all. Maybe you imagine me angry because you feel I'm attacking something you value. I don't follow conspiracy theories, ufology, mysticism or apocalyptic madness. I've read Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World and I consider myself quite balanced between skepticism and wonder.

If you really wanted to take the high ground what you should have done was answer my questions intelligently with arguments that empowered your views instead of brushing everything I said off as 'laughing at you' and not worth your time - I was being deadly serious and your attitude is insulting. If you are not going to answer this properly, then don't bother answering at all. I do not want to waste more of my time.

I think we are having a big misunderstanding, or maybe a language barrier, but I swear I was trying to answer you the best way I can. I tried to be funny just to avoid being too boring, but I was not joking. I understand that it may look like a joke to you. I may be challenging some very strong assumptions you have. But I never thought my attitude would be considered insulting, really!

I read about civilization critique since 1998, and I discuss it since 2002. It took me 4 years just to take it seriously. I had a lot of long discussions about it. Your reaction is absolutely normal, I've seem questions like yours many times. But I feel that we can talk about this for pages and pages, and still wont be enough to make you comfortable with that idea. Its just a VERY unusual and delicate subject that I would rather not discuss in here. If you are really curious about it we can open another topic. Don't take this as an insult, please.

I'm very much aware of paleoanthropology. Sure, I know it looks crazy to talk about 100.000 to 200.000 years if we usually mark 50.000 as the beginning of symbolic culture and 10.000 as the beginning of agriculture and sedentary settlements. It is very distant from what you expected (ten years, twenty years). But I said that to imply that I believe civilization is something that is within us since the beginning of the "modern man".

We usually think of human history in a very small scale. Suggesting that something went "wrong" right in the beginning of humanity sounds absurd. But it is exactly what the myth of the Fall of Adam tells us. This idea have been around for a long time.

The question is not what I would change. Yes, I'm only human. And we developed these amazing skills that allow us to be reasonable, even if in the end we may reason about reason itself and realize it was all vanity.

You cannot survive without money, IN THIS CULTURE. But people certainly can survive in another culture, if we don't kill them to take their resources, of course. The fact that you compare money to oxygen and water is a symptom that this way of life is as important to you as life itself. So maybe you will fight to death to defend it. But there is no money in bartering cultures. Its a HUGE jump from one thing to another. The idea that you can have a fixed exchange rate for things was not always obvious, it is very recent. Even bartering is very recent, because it demands surplus. The selling of entertainment services and full-time entertainers are even more recent. It all depends in the scale of time you use.

But that means nothing, since we are here and now. I only said that you can make games without having nothing to do with the game business. There is nothing WRONG with being paid for doing what you like. It's not a right and wrong question, it is just that you need enough people doing the hard work for you so it becomes possible to live as an artist or a philosopher... That's why civilization is based on slavery. Slaves can be substituted by machines, but it is not that simple. We are still trying to make it work.

I understand making a game is very hard and so you want to be paid for doing it. But you also have to understand that your game have to be worth of my time and my work too. How will you make sure it will sell if you are making a game YOU would like to play, but not sure if anyone is quite like YOU? To reduce the risk, your best option would be to follow popular trends. But that's very restricting, people would get bored soon, so let's do like other industries did in the past: let's diversify production by categorizing consumers in different sets of "individual tastes". Segmentation. The media made a good job convincing people they should all consume different things because they have different personalities. But the problem now is that the offer is growing much faster than the demand. Don't worry, we have a thing called consumerism. We make sure people will pay absurd prices for games just like they pay for clothing brands; they will buy games they will never play; they will buy disposable mass produced games, hate them, and then buy handcrafted indie games just to feel better; they will fund games; and they will spend money on game related events and merchandise. Now everybody is happy and gaming is growing fast and healthy, just like any business that is about to crack. But, don't think about it, enjoy while you can.

No, really, I know how it sounds, but the reason why we think so differently is that we have different visions about capitalism. I have nothing against you, I just looking at it from my own point of view, and something doesn't seem right.

You seem to quote all the theories to arm yourself with more ammunition but do you honestly think that these figures would all agree with each other? You appear to have a mish-mashed view of the world. These are just theories - it's time to get your own opinions. AGS forum does not require essays at the level of a doctoral thesis, where you have to substantiate everything you say by quoting someone more established than you. It is staring to look quite  desperate the way you argue with people.

I see... Well, you think I'm fighting for superiority, but I'm just answering you calmly and patiently. I'm not desperate at all. I'm sorry if this is not the place, but I just don't know how else I could express my thoughts. My world view cannot be easily summarized. Sure it's just theories. I don't discuss opinions, I discuss reasons.

You imply that ancient cultures are bad: "there is no "trial and error" and no "constant improvement".

No! You imply that "trial and error" and "constant improvement" is good, so the lack of it is bad. Not at all. Those are very modern values.

Let me rephrase: Civilization did a great job diminishing the problems itself created, as long as it can continue creating even worse problems.

That's life and there is nothing we could change about it.

Sorry, are you saying civilization is hierarchically superior to other ways of life? Like an alpha culture? Or are you saying social inequalities are comparable to natural hierarchy? And what about using the concept of profit to talk about nature? What do you mean?

If humans are not creative, then what is the point of literature, music, dance and games?

Really, what's the point? Ask different cultures, and you will get different answers. I was only showing the distance between our culture and those that would say that all those things are divine, they connect us with a higher level of existence, they are transcendent. So it doesn't really comes from us, we are just allowed to participate. Be thankful for that! If this is a very hard concept to grasp, sorry about even mentioning it here... I did cause I wanted to show how big games can be.

what is your perfect world?

I don't see the relevance of this question, but there is no perfect world. There are the things that will last enough to be part of this world, and the things that will fall before. Civilization, so far, in my view, has not earned a place in this world. All I know is that we can live in a very different way.

In 2007 there was a topic in this forum titled "What is a game?". I recently wrote an academic paper on the subject, and I think my point can add to the discussion, so I'm summarizing it below, in the form of a forum topic. Consider this a "game theory" topic.

The Danish researcher Jesper Juul (2003) listed seven different definitions for the term "game", citing from Huizinga (1949) to Salen and Zimmerman (2004). His own definition is: "A game is a formal system of rules with variable and quantifiable outcome, where different outcomes are assigned different values, the player exerts effort to influence the outcome, the player feels attached to the outcome, and the consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable".

Professor Jan Simons (2007) stated that theorists like Juul, Aarseth, Eskelinen and Frasca separate the concept of game from the concept of narrative, as if they belong to totally different categories. Thus they created a division in the game studies between "ludologists" and "narratologists". For ludologists, games are not about storytelling, they have to be understood "in their own terms". The controversy over the status of games as art falls precisely in this context.

Ralph Koster (2013) agrees with the ludological position, stating that games have to be fun, and fun is defined as "the act of mastering a problem mentally". Fun is different from delight. "Games are not stories. Games are not about beauty or delight. Games are not about jockeying for social status. They are, in their own right, something incredibly valuable". See the image below:



My point is that the conflict between "ludologists" and "narratologists" is not purely theoretical. The major reason why ludologists choose to follow such definition of game is that they wanted the game industry to be fully independent from other entertainment industries, like the movie industry. Arguments on both sides demonstrate that, and the image above makes it clearer too. That's why the Independent Games Festival, which has almost only ludologists as judges, doesn't have a "best story" category. That may also explain why games focused on narrative, like adventure games, are somehow considered "minor" games.

The sociological question of the emergent game industry fighting for market territory against the established movie industry may explain the real issue behind the discussion. Understanding it may may help the game culture to find it's balance again. There is no reason to exclude or despise gamers and game designers that see games as an interactive way to tell a story. The ludological definition become too restrict when you look at some experimental, artistic, conceptual or "story-driven" games that do not deserve to be called "non-games" or "quasi-games" just because they cannot be defined as "games" in ludological terms. The very idea of using "game designer" instead of "game maker" comes from this sociological background.

Some may even consider the ludological definition as reductionist. The concept of game is reduced to the mechanics that allow the game experience. In the AGS community, it seems most people agree that creating a good game involves creating a good story. But game designers all around the world are learning to think like ludogists, because ludology books are now considered the most advanced and influential game theory available. The consequence? What do you think?

HUIZINGA, Johan. Homo ludens. Taylor & Francis, 1949.

JUUL, Jesper. The Game, the Player, the World: Looking for a Heart of Gameness. In Level Up: Digital Games Research Conference Proceedings. Utrecht: Utrecht University, 2003, p. 30-45.

KOSTER, Raph. Theory of fun for game design. O'Reilly Media, Inc., 2013.

SALEN, Katie; ZIMMERMAN, Eric. Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. MIT press, 2004.

SIMONS, Jan. Narrative, Games, and Theory. Game Studies, Volume 7, issue 1, 2007.

As Vito Gesualdi said in a 2013 Destructoid article titled "In defense of shorter games”, the common statement that a game would be better “if it wasn't so short” is rarely a valid criticism. This is especially true for games that are focused in telling a story. If the story is complete, it makes no sense saying it is too short. The Lord of the Rings book, for example, has 480 pages. If you take 2 minutes to read each page, you can read it in 16 hours. Is it too short for an epic story? Well, most people think it's not short enough. They say Spritz is genial because it makes you read faster. But when they release play a full, beautiful game that takes 5 hours to complete, everyone will say it's too short for the average price of a commercial game. Why?

I've played free indie games with 5 minutes length that were worth more in game experience than 100 hours of mindless repetition in blockbuster games. Why do we care so much about spending more time in games, and less time reading? To Gesualdi, the problem is this stupid idea that games should occupy a large amount of your time in order to be worth the price. The implicit idea is that games are the kind of entertainment that serves to keep you occupied for a long time, instead of giving you something to think about for a long time, like a book, a movie or even a TV series. Games are pleasant time-wasters created to fill your time with mindless activities, keeping you from thinking about reality. That's why you need fast-action gameplay and realistic graphics. Is that it?

People pay $50 for a full season box set of a TV series with 20 episodes of about 30 minutes each. That's 10 hours of entertainment, and they never complain that it is “too short”. Besides, games are much more expensive to make than TV series. What makes them expensive is not the duration of the game, but mostly the graphics. And yet you will see reviewers saying that a game it's too short for its price. That simply makes no sense.

Because of such idea, game designers now have to inject pseudo-content in their games to make them commercially acceptable. What “pseudo-content” means? It's content that doesn't add to the game experience, it just adds to the game length. Game designers learnt how to employ Pavlovian conditioning methods to keep the players repeating routines that would be otherwise considered boring and pointless. It's about building long corridors connecting the rooms, where the real content is, so you don't get there too soon, and then filling these corridors with lots of random variations of things that barely relate to the game plot.

Most so-called “full-length” games are not really large, they are inflated with pseudo-content, and you know it. But still we keep telling ourselves that “this game is great, but it's too short”. Let's think about it: there is no such thing as “too short”. Games are either complete or incomplete; they can never be too short. If the purpose of a game is to provide a game experience, and not to keep you occupied so you forget how miserable your life is, than you can't be serious about it being “to short for its price”, unless you are really talking about a drug. You should even pay more for a game that cut's the crap, delivers just what you paid for, and lets you free to do more interesting things than killing a thousand enemies, solving annoying puzzles or collecting a thousand things, even if that means having some time to discuss the topics raised in the game with your friends. You don't have to stay hooked in fantasy worlds all the time, you know? That's not even healthy.

The game industry will not die if you choose to have a life. If you think games are only worth when they make you stay long hours looking fixedly to a screen, not caring about anything but what is happening there, then let me tell you something: Games are great additions to life, but not very good substitutes. Games shouldn't be treated as a drug to keep you away from the burden of being alive. Real life still has more important experiences, and it's not so expensive. You should try it more often.

The point is very simple: Quantity is not quality, so length should not be so important when judging a game. If we keep saying that games like Portal are “too short”, we will keep receiving games full of pseudo-content, and we will be wasting time that could be better used, with better games for example. State-of-the-art graphics are very expensive. If you want to spend less money in games, just ask for simpler graphics. But if you prefer to use your graphics card instead of your imagination, then pay for the quality, not for the quantity.

Please answer this simple question: What's the hexadecimal code for the 1.982.128.129th digit of Pi?

Hi everyone,

Following the idea outlined by Greg Costikyan, the Game Criticism group aims at offering critical analysis of games as cultural works, instead of simple consumer reviews. It will also contain discussions about game studies, game design philosophy, game industry and game culture.

To promote the group, we will be giving away free steam game gifts. The first one is this:



Follow the link to participate, help promoting the group, and good luck!

Hi,

Want this game for free?

http://steamcommunity.com/id/janosbiro

Please?

Real life has some pretty unfair puzzles, doesn't it?

Just wanted to share this thought with you...

When I watched this "documentary" I felt like absolutely everything about this whole world is sickly insane, utterly wrong, and irreversibly rotten to its very soul. All we care for, all we want, all we built, all we do, all we are. Every single thing, except maybe the will, this fragile little will, to change. Change EVERYTHING. Then I thought: can we make a game about it? And I was back to "normal".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weAFLcaa8nI

Anyone here played Sophie's World by The Multimedia Corp?

http://www.adventuregamers.com/games/view/16382

Hi,

I originally posted this in the Critics' Lounge some days ago. Since I got no replies, I figure either it simply sucks or it's in the wrong place (haven't seen much about writing there, just music and visual art). In the small possibility that someone might give me some feedback on this, I'm posting here. Please, do not refrain to give some honest criticism.

“Memory. Memory is everything...
What are photographs if not crystallized pieces of memory? And who would we be without those pieces to tell us who we are? Memory encompasses the whole mental and emotional universe inside of us. Our knowledge, our identity, our affection, our love… Memory is what makes us real. It's everywhere, at every second of our lives. It's our reality. Without memory, there would be just a blank emptiness; there would be nothing but death. Memory is life.
Memory is everything. And now memory is failing me…”

Mia is an artistic photographer whose life is turned upside down when she discovers that she can erase other people's memories with a simple thought. Now, she has to learn how to control this newfound ability in order to protect her family from those who want to use it for hideous purposes, while crossing paths with a dangerous psychopath that has a special ability of his own…

Prelude: Trauma

I close my eyes and try to concentrate in my speech. The interview will start at any moment and I'm afraid everything I rehearsed yesterday will fade away the moment I present myself. I can't fail this time. Not again. I need them to accept me…
-   (Gaarder) Miss Lang? Mia Lang?
-   Me.
-   You're next. Please come in. Have a seat.
-   Thanks.
-   Make yourself comfortable. My name is William Gaarder, this is professor Tolbert and professor Fuhrmann.
-   Hi!
-   If you don't mind, we will start the interview now.
-   OK.
-   (Fuhrmann) So… It says here you want to work with photography, and your main theme is childhood memories. Is that correct?
-   That's it.
-   So start by telling us, what is memory to you?
-   Well, memory is quite a huge topic. One can dissert about memory in psychology, where you have conscious memories and those that are repressed and remain in the subconscious. Or we can speak about culture heritage, the rituals and monuments that keep our collective memory alive, our history. A philosopher can speak about how memory deceives us, how it's not trustable at all. And finally you could define memory simply as data storage, either in a human mind or a computer. But when I say “memory”, I talking about so much more. I'm talking about identity. I'm talking about knowing who you are, eventually forgetting it, and maybe remembering it. I mean memory as the pieces that constitute all of us.
-   (Gaarder) Very well. And why did you choose photography as your medium?
-   Yes, photography changed everything, that's part of my thesis. When the camera obscura was invented, it was just an optical curiosity. But then its concept helped create the monochrome, and that was a bomb! I mean, it was a revolution. Since the middle ages, rich people were the only ones who could pay for a portrait, trying to eternalize themselves in pieces of art. Photography started to change that, as portraits began to become popular in the middle classes. Photography played an important role in the cultural revolution that sprawled from the industrial revolution. And now, with digital cameras, we have a whole new kind of revolution. Anyone can take pictures, and everyone is taking pictures of everything, all the time. Many people think it's easy to be a photographer today, but they forget it's not the technology neither the technique. It's the art. A real photographer has a lot of sensibility. He senses color, light, framing, movement, moment… We have to see the world as a piece of art made of living light, and we have to be in the exactly right spot, with the exactly right configuration, to capture the most beautiful shot available, and it may happen as fast as lightning.
-   (Tolbert) Sorry my dear, this is very interesting, but how exactly does this relate with childhood memories?
-   Sorry, I get excited when I begin to talk about photography.
-   (Gaarder) That's all right, we understand.
-   So, to answer your question, miss Tolbert…
-   You can call me Micheline, my dear.
-   Micheline… OK. Photography is part of our lives now. We all have family photos, and we know how much they are important to us, how much meaning they have to us. They are somehow our link to the past. And this is a relatively new phenomenon in human history. When we look at the photos of our childhood, we start to think about who we were, how we changed, the dreams we had, the bad things that happened, and the choices we made… while childhood is an important topic both in psychology and modern art, photography provided us with an instant way to materialize the past, as a proof of what happened, a proof that we are not always the same person we used to be. A proof that a different person existed back then, and maybe it is still alive inside of us. Maybe we want to be more like this person again. It's all about redemption, you see?
-   (Tolbert) I see. It's about knowing who you were in order to change who you are, am I right?
-   Exactly. So my work will try to access how people think about themselves through photography.
-   (Gaarder) Very good. I understand that you have a passion for photography. But we would like to know why you choose this subject. Why memory? Why childhood? How did you found this subject?
-   Er… That's a very long story…
-   Don't worry, we have plenty of time.
-   Are you sure you want to listen?
-   (Fuhrmann) Miss Lang, we are in fact obliged to hear, as knowing the candidate personal trajectory is part of the selection process to have your project approved in this institution.
-   Ah, OK. Well, then I have to talk about how I began to think about it, I guess. I was always fascinated with memory, and the lack of it, mostly because of, you know… Things, in my life.
-   (Fuhrmann) Can you be more specific?
-   Well, I had some odd experiences with memory lapses, if you can call that.
-   (Gaarder) Are you talking about amnesia or something like that?
-   Sort of. Well, let me put it this way: I met some guys that had pretty strange tendencies to forget about things they shouldn't.
-   (Tolbert) Pardon. I don't follow…
-   *Sigh* All right, it's about boys… All the boys I hang out with seem to have some… memory problems. It's like a curse or something.
-   (Gaarder) I see… *tries not to laugh* *Tolbert smiles* *Fuhrmann raises his eyebrow*
-   No, really! Can you believe I had four different boyfriends who simply forgot my first name? Can you think of a simpler name than Mia?
-   (Gaarder) Wow. That's quite a lot of boyfriends you must have had, don't you think?
-   OhmyGod, I so totally screwed this up…
-   (Tolbert) Not at all, my dear. We are not here to judge your personal life. Simply state your influences, and that's all.
-   (Gaarder) Yeah, sorry about my comment. I didn't mean to judge you; I simply didn't have a great social life when I was young.
-   I'm so embarrassed. I wish I could control my big mouth sometimes…

She closes her eyes and her fists for a second, wishing they could just forget what she said. And when she opens her eyes, they are staring at her, expecting her to say something. She is confused. Eventually, Gaarder intervenes.

-   Miss Lang? We are waiting you to answer professor Fuhrmann's question. Are you having some problem to define what memory is to you?

Her eyes widen in disbelief, her hands begin to tremble. She is in shock.

-   (Tolbert) Dear, are you all right? You look pale.
-   (Gaarder) Maybe we should give her 15 minutes to recompose, she's probably nervous with the interview.
-   (Fuhrmann) Agree.
-   (Gaarder) Miss Lang, you have 15 minutes. Don't be late or we may not be so kind.
-   (Fuhrmann) *Looking at the clock* My God, time flew today!

She stands up, without saying a word, goes directly to the toilet, and then throws up. She washes her face, then looks at the mirror, thinking:
What the hell happened back there? It's like they… they forgot everything I said! How is this possible? I can't… I can't go back there. I have to go home. Mom will tell me what to do. She always does. Damn! I wanted so much to have my project approved…

Chapter One: Safety

...

EDIT: Thanks to Andail criticism, I will try to do something different.

First, this would be a blurb for a short story, a back cover text, to introduce the story and main theme (I got this idea from this post, so that explains why I chose to write it like that):

---

“Memory. Memory is everything...

What are photographs if not crystallized pieces of memory? And who would we be without those pieces to tell us who we are? Memory encompasses the whole mental and emotional universe inside of us. Our knowledge, our identity, our affection, our love… Memory is what makes us real. It's everywhere, at every second of our lives. It's our reality. Without memory, there would be just a blank emptiness; there would be nothing but death. Memory is life.

Memory is everything. And now memory is failing me…”

Mia is an artistic photographer whose life is turned upside down when she discovers that she can erase other people's memories with a simple thought. Now, she has to learn how to control this newfound ability in order to protect her family from those who want to use it for hideous purposes, while crossing paths with a dangerous psychopath that has a special ability of his own…

---

That was my first draft, I was still conceiving the story, and it should become a readable short story in the end, if nothing goes wrong. But I realize now that I wrote too many poems, and when I try to write short stories I still get something like a mix of poetry and reality that makes the reader confuse. I actually like that, but other people seem to need to understand things in order to enjoy them... I like Kafka and Jorge L. Borges, so that explains a lot about my style.

So, instead of actually writing the story, I chose to simply describe it as it came to my mind. Maybe a more gifted writer will be interested in this, so consider it as it is.

I think about this story with a prelude titled "Trauma", 3 chapters, relating to the 3 stages of trauma recovering: "Safety", "Acknowledgement" and "Re-connection", and one conclusion, titled "Fully recovered".

The story would go more or less like this:

Prelude: Trauma

Starts with Mia trying to get her photography art project approved for founding by the campus art department. She talks a lot about the philosophy of memory and photography. During her interview, she discovers that she has the power to erase people's memory whenever she wants, and soon she figures that she has being doing that for a long time, unconsciously.

Chapter 1: Safety

Her father works at a big corporation. When visiting her father at work, a company man named Edgar unwittingly discovers her powers by listening to his recorder. First he is only curious, but then he realizes she is a mine of gold, and he will eventually threat her family to get her by his side. He sets up a radio com-link so his associate can remember him of anything while keeping a safe distance from the girl, in case she tries to erase his memory to escape, so he is somehow immune to her powers. He tries to force her to erase specific business memories from his competitors.

Meanwhile, one of Mia's boyfriends, Richard, the only one who could never forget her no matter how many times she erased his memory, is attacked by a mysterious man in the park. This man has a power similar to Mia's, but he does not simply erases memories, he drains all the good memories of a person for himself. He has become addicted to it. The victim, having nothing left from it's own life but the painful and distressing memories, often commits suicide a few days later.

Chapter 2: Acknowledgement

Richard's mother notices her son is different and calls Mia's mother, which is an old time friend, thinking that he is suffering from depression because of Mia's rejection. Mia believes her powers somehow messed up with his head, and tries to help him. He explains to her that the only thing he can remember about her is bad feelings, feelings that come when they were arguing and when she rejected him. Yet, he would rather have this than have nothing about her. I've planned Mia describing Richard as something like this: "I used to love him, but he is too irresponsible to be in a relationship. For instance, he only cares about making stupid point and click games".

Having such strong memories of love for Mia in his head, the "serial killer" who attacked Richard, a man who introduces himself simply as Ben, is now obsessed about Mia. He figures out she is special, and goes after her. He finds her in the very moment Edgar is confronting her, and "saves" her from Edgar for good. She then believes he is a good person, and tells him about her power. He tells her he is just like her, and then tell her that the only reason she can erase specific memories is because she can actually read the memories of someone, if she tries. He teaches her how to to use her power to steal someone else's memories, but she refrain from doing it. When she reads his memories and find out who he really is, it's too late for her to run.

Chapter 3: Re-connection

He ties her to a chair and start torturing her by telling that she was done it already many times, she has forgotten because she used her powers on herself. Using the memories he stole from Richard, he tries to convince her that she is actually his partner in crime, and that she enjoys to see people suffering. She resists, managing to call the police while erasing the "real-time" memory from his head, temporarily paralyzing him. But she can't hold it much longer, and he suspects that she used her powers on him, so he tries to use his power to make her "life" just miserable and empty enough so she would rather join him. But somehow, his powers don't work. He realizes she just erased the memory of how to use his powers. He then tries to attack her, but she starts to erase ALL of his memories.

When the police arrives, they see a man with a frighted expression. He doesn't responds to the police commands, so they threaten to shot him, but Mia unexpectedly jumps in front of the guns shouting "Don't shot. He is innocent. He is just a little boy". She tries to explain his mind is now of a 10 years old boy, and is not guilty of any crime, and should be taken to a place where they could take care of him.

Conclusion: Fully recovered

Mia thinks about all that happened and tries to figure out what to do next. She can set herself the goal of trying to restore, somehow, the memories that Ben stole from Richard, even though she would like him to completely forget her, she realizes the memories he has of her are an intrinsic part of his personality. In other words, he can't live without them. If this is enough as a proof of love, it is her choice. The other choice is to completely eliminate from her own mind any part related to her power, including the ability itself, in the same way she did with Ben, so she can be just an ordinary person. That's the end.

Hope someone eventually gets to read it.