|
Dear Reader:
Last week we discussed
the “Universal Game”, the game aimed at everyone. Many fascinating insights came out of this
discussion. We talked about how such a
game couldn’t just be a lowest common denominator game; how it would have to
cross language barriers and cultural differences… in short we talked about how many different
ways one could view the meaning of the words “Universal Game”.
What made this particularly interesting to me
was that it made me realize that even in a hypothetical discussion, the
universal game wasn’t the place to start…
The multi-layered game
One of the most
interesting things that came up as the discussion about the universal game raged
on was why we have so few games that work on multiple independent levels. Consider a movie like Wall-e, everyone from
very young children to jaded adults can enjoy that film and get something from it.
Viewers often (I speak from experience,
seeing that film with my youngest niece) walked away from that film with
completely different but equally satisfying experiences. This rarely happens in games.
I’ve been speaking with
other designers about this topic over the weekend and a few interesting points
have come up. First was that the genre’s
we address don’t lend themselves to this type of multi-level presentation; this
I believe to be patently false as things like Star Wars, Dune and Lord of the
Rings, all exist in that sci-fi/fantasy realm we so often occupy, and all of
them feature multifaceted and interpretable tales.
The second, perhaps more profound question
was, “What does it mean to work on multiple independent levels in an
interactive medium?” Does Bioshock fit
this criterion since it works for shooter fans as well as those looking for an
engaging story?
This second question is
actually too broad; it raises too many other questions, some of which have no
good answer. One common point of
contention was whether an interactive environment makes this sort of
multi-level experience harder or easier to deliver.
On the one hand it makes it more difficult as
the “author” has less direct control of the experience that their audience will
have, but on the other hand this interactivity lets us literally tell multiple
stories and explore multiple paths within a single title.
Conclusion
Again, I appeal to you
for your thoughts.
In my opinion this is a problem
worth solving, but it’s one we’ll only solve as a community, so feel free to
post here or email me at jportnow@gmail.com
or hit me up on twitter (JamesPortnow) with your thoughts.
Also, if anyone can think
of any games that really work well on multiple independent levels, send them my
way: nothing’s better to learn from than examples!
|
This seems to match the movie experience with your niece. Younger viewers may focus on the presentation, while years of movie watching make it hard to ignore the meaning and subtext of the same sequence.
Boon and Bateman say this helps explain why developers who "make games they've always wanted to play" tend to fail in the marketplace: they are so focused on the metagame that the literal experience is diminished, leading to less interest from mainstream gamers.
In short, it is certainly possible to work on multiple levels. I believe the answer lies in understanding the audience you are trying to capture. Do they play for the experience as presented? Do they seek to conquer a challenge? Or is something deeper at stake, like learning or therapy?