Comments Disabled

Facing the music - (the myth of) realism in gaming

In a post on Game Design Advance, Frank Lantz writes...

Shouldn’t games be an opportunity for players to wrap their heads around counter-intuitive truths? Shouldn’t games make us smarter about how randomness works instead of reinforcing our fallacious beliefs? … And isn’t it therefore our job and our responsibility to guide players along that rocky path, no matter how uncomfortable it might seem… ?….

[I]f we have used computers to build intentional flaws into the numerical heart of our deepest and most cerebral games instead of using them to elevate our understanding of the computational heart of the universe, then we’re doing something wrong.

One of the greatest gaming experiences of my life was the way that Poker forced me to re-program my own kludgy understanding of probability. It took me a few years of dedicated play and study, years that included as much suffering as they did joy, and moreover in which the joys were somehow uniquely bound up in the suffering. But eventually I got to a place where sometimes I get a little glimpse of the world-as-probability, of the Bayseian logic that boils beneath the solid cause-and-effect surfaces of my everyday, results-oriented consciousness.

The problem with "truth" in video games is that games like STALKER (a realistic shooter from an Eastern European developer) are considered "clunky" and "broken" while games like Modern Warfare are celebrated for their “realism” and bombast.

There are a few problems with the poker example... poker is a *social* interaction, and the rewards come from that (and joining that "club") in a far more realistic way than joining the "hardcore" gaming crowd... I understand his point about simulations, but in many ways gaming has evolved (in the positive sense) *away* from these kinds of truths b/c the only way they can be expressed is the "do it again stupid" (DIAS) style of gameplay.

In point of fact, games were designed to *exploit* the DIAS mindset, and the cultural legitimacy of the medium has come to be (equated with? compared to?) the drop in this sort of DIAS gameplay. In a lot of ways the lasting cultural impact of games lies in the ability of early games to get more coins out of arcade players, and so proficiency in gaming came from being the most proficient at unforgiving gaming systems.

With gaming in the public eye defined as a hardcore, niche activity, the only way for gaming's onus to spread was outward and away from unforgiving systems, even alongside a concomitant push for "realism".  Within this framing device, the *only* way for games to get "easier" was naturally for designers to soften or bend the rules of "reality", and any push for more "realism" must almost by definition include a ramping up of DIAS, "hardcore" gameplay.

I can't imagine these associations disappearing any time soon, and until they do, we're stuck with the false dichotomy forced on us by our own history - where accessibility and realism are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

I have some more thoughts on the weight of video games' history on its present, and also on the way that so many aspects of culture, not just gaming, caters to the distortions about reality that we comfort ourselves with, and I hope to revisit those themes again soon.

A better story: knowing how to ask the right questions

In an interview with Jim Rossingol at Rock Paper Shotgun,  Brad Wardell (of Stardock) reveals that he has been working on a collaborative project with Random House to fill out the backstory for his upcoming game, Elemental: War of Magic, in hopes of producing both a series of novels and a more comprehensive game world.

I'm terribly excited about this development, and I hope this is a huge success for both Wardell and Random House.

___________

Let me show you what I see:

We've seen plenty of games die on the table for lack of good writing - and this *even when* writers (or in Fable 2's case, stagers and cinematographers) are in the process from the very beginning.

What games have had (for the most part) are designers who come up w/ questions, and they bring in famous writers to answer those questions. The problem is, these writers never really have the ability to ask whether those questions are even the *right* ones to answer, or whether a reworking and reframing the question (or throwing out altogether) would be the better option.

I'm not saying that editors are the best people for creativity (they interact with writers to make good product), but the fact that the Random House guys said, "no, *never* just do generic fantasy" is a *huge* deal.

________________

Motivation, logic, reason, a realized world and history - these are key to *any* story, and if games want to mature into a strong medium alongside novels and film, then *this* is essential. The happy accidents of Doom and the auteurism of early RPGs are no longer acceptable.

(NOTE: I'd be interested to see if the big boys like Bioware already employ an editing and review process like this... they're smart enough to have lead writers and series bibles, but I wonder, if ME had an editor, if it would feel less nostalgic and more innovative than it does right now).

Quotable Quotes: Creation and Innovation

"...An art game, by itself, is neither inherently original nor unoriginal. Likewise, innovation, by itself, is neither good nor bad.... In the same way that a knife can be put to good or evil purposes depending on who is holding it, a game can be great or terrible depending on who makes it....

A bad game is a bad game, and I think it's intellectually dishonest to act like big budget games are incapable of being unique while art games are original and wonderful by no merit other than the type of game they are. Let's judge these things on their own merits."

- Jim Sterling, "Art games aren't innovative and innovation isn't good", published on Destructoid

PS My dearest thanks and gratitude to Leigh Alexander, whose style of making quotes interesting I mimic here.

From the Archives: For the Kids

Dear people of the Internet: I don't want to disappoint you by not publishing content on a regular basis, so from time to time I'll pull a post out of the archives from blogs and message boards past to keep you entertained while I work on new content. This particular piece was the second of two posts on my first game culture blog, Leene's Bell. I really like this idea of gaming's accessibilty... on a lot of levels, gaming doesn't need Citizen Kane as much as Toy Story. Enjoy!

Note: This entry was originally posted to Leene’s Bell in November 15, 2008. Michael's original post is still online as well at the Brainy Gamer blog.

____________

Michael Abbott, of The Brainy Gamer, wrote a great post recently on the state of E-rated games, and the implications of that state for the industry. His post, and the comments which followed, really resonated with me, so I thought I would post my response on my blog. You can read the original post and the comments here...

Well, Michael, you almost make me want to go out and start a “critical review of kid’s games” site – all I need is a good business model. I think David S. hit on something really important that I don’t think many people think about – when kids look back at the games they remember nostalgically, it will be :gasp: licensed games and “me too” movie games. Horrifying, no? But then I think of the games I remember from my own childhood, and a good half of them were just as horrible (and just as licensed)… see most Disney-based SNES games, alongside any non-Disney licensed platformer (Rocko’s Modern Life anyone?) I still remember and love the good games that I played (and the SNES still has the lion’s share of amazing games), but that doesn’t negate all the mediocre-to-bad games I played and maybe, just maybe, enjoyed.

This observation elicits two responses from me. First, I think, “we should push for good games, so our kids will remember the good stuff”, and have classics to look back on that weren’t ten years outside of their play range on release (given the recent trends towards all the “classic” games earning M ratings). On the other hand, I honestly wonder if this is (sadly) the way that the industry (and nostalgia) work.

I have a good friend, who is critical of games’ flaws, but he enjoys playing licensed movie games of Marvel characters. He realizes that they aren’t that great, but he puts up with it because it is the only way for him to enjoy something based on his favorite (non-game) franchises. And I know that David’s 22 year old friend would roll his eyes at that as well, but like Leigh pointed out several weeks ago, we “gamers” are maybe one percent of all gamers.

Sometimes I think we serve as an echo chamber, trying to enact change or self-consciously define our favorite games as “important”, but going about it in such a way that alienates mainstream gamers (and most non-gamers) and only reinforces our own sense of superiority or “class”.

I guess, if I could summarize this extraordinarly long comment, I would say that gaming, as many have suggested, needs a Pixar (and I wonder if Warren Spector’s “this will piss so many people off” upcoming game might be the start): games that are fun across age groups, without pandering to either category. Maybe it won’t sell to the Gears crowd, but then again, as the Wii has shown, there is so much more to gaming than the Gears crowd, and I don’t think any one group should hold the monopoly on games’ “importance”. Here’s to hoping we can find a balance (and maybe echo chamber in that sort of useful direction).

The courtesy of not keeping up

Editor's note: I started writing this the other night, and worked on it for a few hours, but couldn't find a good way to bring it to a close. I'm still not 100% happy with it, but I need to post, so take this for what you will.

_____

Maybe it’s the grad school budget. Maybe it’s the time crunch. But more and more, the older I get, the more my gaming habits begin to resemble how I played games as a kid. It’s not nostalgia for me, most importantly, because it’s still reality.

Seriously, it’s the beginning of 2010 and i’m playing Fallout 3 Game of the Year (released 2008), an endeavor restarted shortly after finishing Mass Effect (2007 X360, 2008 PC) for the second time, all the while playing Bioshock (2007) again and working coop through Half Life 2 (2004). My game buying in the next 6 months? Let’s see: Mass Effect 2 on Tuesday (probably the only game i’ll pay full price for this year). What’s next? Err... Bioshock 2 for my birthday maybe? Dragon Age: Origins (Christmas gift) in between the two, or as that game that gets me through to Christmas 2010? More Half-Life?

I don’t think it’s any big revelation to the people who know me well to say that I’ve spent the last two years or so investing myself in news surrounding, and critical thinking related to gaming culture, but try as I might, I’ve never felt comfortable wearing the game enthusiast hat, and it’s very surprising to me.

As a burgeoning medium, video games have amazing, exciting potential that designers, writers and programmers are only just beginning to exploit. New independent and AAA games releasing every two or three months, developed by stellar teams with stellar ideas and (with a little hope and pixie dust) stellar execution. I have friends who want to be game designers, friends who own multiple systems and host wonderful (and phenomenally stocked) gaming nights and friends to play games online with until 5 in the morning (it’s not an uncommon occurrence).

Heck, I started this blog to write about game culture (among other things), and I’m even in talks with my (game design) buddy about starting our own gaming culture podcast (details forthcoming. Tell your friends).

I’m a collector of meaningful experiences, but when I look at a list of upcoming releases, or listen to retrospectives covering the year behind us and I’m left a little ... uninterested, borderline apathetic.

Something doesn’t add up.

I don’t think it’s because I just don’t care anymore, though I have to admit that a combination of video game crazy and lack of a commute have left me less involved in music and movies than I’ve been in the past. I could blame my lack of interest on cynicism towards the games industry, or the music industry, or the political machine, or whoever else is focus-testing just the right product pitch to sell me what I “need”, but that’s frankly too easy of an out, and one that, to echo Conan, I don’t think will get me anywhere.

Frankly, I just don’t think I can keep up.

I’ve discovered, thanks to the constraints before me, that in reality, I don’t miss trying to keep up. Whether it’s music, movies or video games, the financial and personal investment required for keeping up are not worth the costs on me or my family. I don’t begrudge anyone who wants to keep up, or even people who consistently try.

I think, just for me... I’m done.

So you all enjoy the trending and the hyping and the cogent-discussion-of-new-things... I’ll just stay over here, with my rereleases of Gamecube games, my Christmas Steam sale haul, and my third playthrough through Mass Effect 2. I love ya, but we can talk Call of Assassinated Metro Shock 7 when i can grab it for at least half off.

I’ll pay attention, don’t get me wrong. I just won’t keep up.

Think of it as abstaining... courteously.

From the Archives: A Shift in Perspective

Dear people of the Internet: I don't want to disappoint you by not publishing content on a regular basis, so from time to time I'll pull a post out of the archives from blogs and message boards past to keep you entertained while I work on new content. This particular piece was the first of two posts on my first game culture blog, Leene's Bell. So if you please, sit back and enjoy the first awkward, waddling baby steps into writing for a crowd that's *not* on my thesis committee.

Note: This entry was originally published under the title “epiphanies” on Leene’s Bell, September 11, 2008.

__________________

I have to admit – I’ve become partial to a number of video game blogs, many of which will be featured here in the coming days and weeks. Honestly, I have been surprised at the level of intelligence and thought being put into video game culture lately, and how writing about games has moved past the games itself to interrogate and explore gamer culture. I feel like (at least in some corners of the blogosphere) video game writing is moving beyond “oh what a gorgeous game” and “ooh look BOOBS!” into something more sophisticated and (I think) culturally significant. As a recovering academic (should finish my thesis on copyright soon [Ed's note - if he only knew...]) it’s really encouraging to see intelligent discussion about a topic I have loved since childhood.

Games and the curse of potentiality

It’s been an interesting couple of months watching the story around left 4 dead 2 unfold. Many people are excited; still more are frustrated and angry. Owners of the original Left 4 Dead feel slighted out of a future of support and new content.

It’s an interesting thing, potential. Players claim that they bought into L4D on the promise of future support, for years’ worth of meaningful updates and content expansions. It would seem that they bought into, not the reality of the game, but its potential.

It’s a wonder that potential hasn’t single-handedly ruined this industry.

Potential exists in exciting teaser trailers, in feature releases and press hypes. Potential sells players on the idea of a game, even if the end product is not as ideal. The opening to World of Warcraft sells my friend Dylan (among tens of thousands) on the world of Azeroth, even as they run around a cartoony landscape past chinese gold farmers and 16 year olds awkwardly roleplaying. Potential is the art of video games - the promise of interactive storytelling, of deep emotional connection, of meaningful choices and a malleable gaming environment.

Perhaps we are disillusioned with choice because our envisioned potentials butt heads with a consumer-oriented, product-driven widget approach to game design and marketing. Players expected l4d 2 to be Team Fortress 2 - the second coming of something magnificent, and not a list of (wonderful, mind you) new features and polished features from the game before. Call of Duty 6 is COD4, but with more “win”. And other innovations like Natal and the PS3 wand seem like gimmicky marketing ploys spawned from the Wii’s success.

Yet Natal, like WoW, matters to my friend Steve, who sees the potential of a controllerless environment to bring his wife and others into gaming who would never even touch a Wii remote - it’s not the reality, it’s the potential.

And yet potential sinks so much of what is good about our medium...

Potential leaves us cynical when Natal (maybe) follows in the footsteps of the Powerglove and the Sega floor sensor rather than the Wii remote or the DS.

Potential leaves us bored with Far Cry 2 while we devour Call of Duty 4.

Potential is too often the enemy of innovation - it leads us to hold “innovation” to the same (or a higher) standard than iteration, because when the realities of these games inevitably don’t live up to their imagined potential, we are much less disappointed with the games whose dreams were small.