It has been becoming fairly obvious to me that the video game industry is growing stagnate. Most games are either sequels or rip-offs of successful games. I understand why sequels are actually a good thing since they tend to mean that a product can be perfected. However, most games this year have reached their 4th iteration and show few signs of letting up. I'd say that is mostly a sign of greedy corporations that are scared of innovation and of innovators who are scared to try new things.
There is also a trend towards making games more "accessible", which results in making games too easy. I think game companies try to make their games accessible as to allow for a larger audience, which means more money. This does not however mean the game is any better. In most games the ideas of a "health bar" or lives have been completely eliminated. This isn't a horrible design decision by itself since the idea of having "lives" in a game was weird to start with. I think the decision to removes lives and such was made to reduce frustration. I don't think these type of decisions should be made from the point of eliminating a problem that resulted from the initial game design. The game design needs to be rethought from the beginning to prevent the frustration.
What I am attempting to get at is what I see as the purpose of video games. I see video games as fundamental a method of teaching and then testing the player. The progression through the game is simply a learning process. What I see as the downfall of many video games is that they assume that they are attempting to allow players to "play" a movie. To create for themselves a cinematic experience. I believe that movies and video games are very different media's that shouldn't be confused and video games should never attempt to replicate a film.
If we look at videos in the context of them being learning processes it becomes obvious why some games are successful and others aren't. Why are first person shooters becoming less successful? Because players have been learning the same thing over, and over and over and over and over again. Hundreds of games have gone over how to "push A to jump", "press right trigger to fire". Most games attempt to add in a little bit of a gimmick to this learning formula, whether it is squad tactics or neat powers in BioShock.
But take Rockband for example. This is a dream learning process. Three new controllers to learn to use. Tons of songs that are easily separated into different difficulties and it is easy to test the players on their ability. It is no wonder that this game is hyper successful.
So the question needs to be rephrased for game makers. For a long time they thought they wanted to tell stories, when in actual fact they just keep trying to teach players how to play a FPS. The question needs to be - What should we teach the player?
Kyler
4 comments:
I posted a similar article on my own blog just today. and, while you and i disagree, i have to admit i am very interested in what you are saying. Your argument really does approach the idea of a video games purpose from a new level. but, how much merit does it really have? Let's look at this in terms of other media. When you pick up a Stephen King or Tom Clancey novel, are you necesarily thinking, "oh boy i get to learn a new language today?" No. You're thinking, "Gee i hope the adventure is exciting." And, i feel that by and large this is the kind of thing we also want from our games. Rock band works, not because it involves learning new skills, but because it involves using those skills. Finally we get to play instruments or shooting guns or solving puzzles. Trauma Center works for very much the same reason. We get to play the doctor and experience battles that you would never see in the common FPS or RPG. So, the thing is, in order to reinvigorate the games industry we need to be constantly put in new situations. For example, instead of having yet another installment of the fight night series, why not have a game where you play as a boxing promoter/manager..finding new talent and honing their abilities.
Well just to begin, I am very happy someone else is actually showing an interest in discussing this topic. Here are links to two other posts I made on video games that might interest you.
Computer Program Design
BioShock
Now for a rebuttal I will discuss some of the arguments you have proposed.
When I was reading Tom Clancy books the part that I always found most interesting was actually learning about how the elite swat team functioned and the process by which terrorist where able to create a nuclear device. I could really care less about the actual adventure or the events that happened.
Or if I take the book by Ayn Rand "Atlas Shrugged", I vaguely care about what is going on with the characters, but I am most concerned about her ideas about morality and how to live your life.
In your interpretation of what a video games is, the adventure or vicarious experience is paramount. In my interpretation, the adventure or experience is simply used to support the underlying goal of teaching and testing the player.
One of the most important aspects of teaching is to provide motivation for the player to continue. Sometimes this is by providing rewards such as cut-scenes, achievement points, high score, or simply unlocking the next level.
Therefore in my interpretation the adventure and story is only fuel to help the player along in learning.
Your final comment about reinvigorating the games industry is spot on. However I think you example might show some of the misunderstanding that is everywhere in game industry. My initial interpretation of how to be a boxing promoter/manager would be a game about learning how to read graphs and charts and click buttons.
There are limitations of what can be taught in the video game medium. I think in some directions we have gone way too far and in others we haven't even scratched the surface.
Your view of videogames is narrow and close-minded. Games can be good at teaching. They can also be good at many other things, having no connection to teaching. They are good at giving us virtual societies. They are good at letting us experience new things for a moment. They are good at setting tasks. They are good at presenting worlds to explore. They are good at sparking the imagination. They are good at evoking all sorts of emotions. To put everything in the context of "What are you going to teach me today?" is to miss so much.
In theory, there is no problem with games which try to be like movies. The problem is when we don't look at each game on its own merits, and figure out what's right for that game. A platformer should not be like a movie. An action game should not be like a movie. A strategy game should not be like a movie. (There are exceptions to every rule, but these statements are generally true.) But if an adventure game were to be more like a movie, I wouldn't mind at all.
Similarly, if you tried to force me to learn things in everything I played, I'd get very frustrated. I don't know if I want to learn anything as I'm playing Animal Crossing. I'd rather have a big world to explore than lots of rules to understand. I'd rather have people to talk to than NPCs to study.
I see this everywhere. People who make strategy games think everything should be made like strategy games, people who make adventures think everything should be made like adventures, people with no vision mix and match and make messes. But no one group is to blame here. The problem is the sense, across the board, that games are just one thing.
As long as you think of games in such a limited way, you're part of The Problem.
I don't think I am as far off base as you are suggesting. I didn't define the term of teaching very well. I was thinking of it in a very broad sense.
I could go as far as saying that I equate "teaching" to experiencing anything new or old and increasing the level of understanding about it.
To quickly integrate your examples into my new definition.
Virtual Societies - Meeting new people. Experiencing new culture and places.
Setting tasks - Give the player a goal and by achieving this goal will have experience something new, or learned something.
Exploration - New places to see and understand.
Sparking the imagination - This is more of a result of experience and understanding.
Evoking Emotions - New experiences allow for stronger emotions to be created since they are fresh. Better understanding allows for more complete emotional attachment.
I agree with looking at each game for it's own merits and doing what is right for each game on it's own. This is one of the most important lessons I have learned in art school and one of the reasons I enjoy modernism. This is the reason I feel so strongly about Speed Racer as being a good movie.
Here is possibly a more general question to game makers that might agree with your conception of games needing a specific vision.
What exactly are we trying to do?
However I think if this question is answered with "entertain", the game industry will stay exactly how it is. I think the answer needs to be more along the lines of "to deepen understanding of..." or "to enlighten...". Something that goes along my broad definition of teaching.
Post a Comment