Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
September 18, 2014
arrowPress Releases
September 18, 2014
PR Newswire
View All





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:


 
New Order Design Versus Traditionalism, And The Terror Of Getting Old
by Ken Kinnison on 01/15/10 09:49:00 am   Featured Blogs

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community.
The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.

 

I wonder when I woke up in old person-Ville.

Bear with me- neither turning 30 nor being winded running down the block is what's making me feel old. Game dev 'voices' are. More or less, in the last year, it feels like more and more voices (via keynote speechs, articles on game dev and game player sites, etc) are promoting various new 'trends' in video games. Facebook as the new killer game delivery system, the death of graphics as a driving force (one of many, and it almost always was just one), the overwhelming desire to analyze, take apart, and determine the what how and why of a game.

Perhaps part of it is the (what I hope) is the new renaissance of the indie game developer. Established houses have grown to such a mass that they have become fearful of risk. (A typical irony, the more able to handle risk you might be, the more you avoid it?) So we see them as stagnant, or worse, that they hold back progress. We look to the indie developer to provide what they are holding back. In the end though, I expect their success rate to be no better or worse than the big time developers. Both sides of the line face challenges, in the end though both sides have dedicated people who love games. (If not, why not?)

Facebook, MySpace, casual games etc... this... is a nice new frontier... I guess. I'm confused, and somewhat defensive about the 'aura' that circles this. The gist that 'this is where things are going'. Somehow the big budget AAA games are dinosaurs. This goes along with the 'graphics are no longer a driving force. The success of the WII is often lauded as an example of this.... This question is driven further around my head by a challenge statement in one my wife's game dev courses- 'Story is not necessary for games'. Not being a part of the course, I can't rail against the wind, even as I walk with it. So I'll rail here- No, story is not necessary for 'a' game. Gameplay, in and of itself, is ALL that is necessary for a game. Though I wanna slam a big ole' 'but' here. Narrative can make ho-hum gameplay enjoyable. Some games simply wouldn't be reasonable without story. The same could be said for graphics, sound, or any other 'color'. Guitar hero could be played quite well with the sound on mute and the background turned off, but for how long would such a game hold your interest? Gameplay is the core, the meat, the gem in the stone. Give that gem a proper cut, polish, and setting, and you have quite the valuable. And my love of allusions goes further- You can have a simple listing of events- Boy meets girl, boy and girl fall in love, boy and girl die in double suicide. Or you can read Shakespeare or watch a play with pretty costumes.

And look it’s not new- http://www.designersnotebook.com/Columns/037_Dogma_2001/037_dogma_2001.htm (1)

My confusion stems from the apparent 'hidden' assertion, and in some cases not so hidden, that because x is successful, then all its predecessors and those like it must now be null. Never to come again. In some cases this is being applied rather liberally, 'Facebook games are popular and have more users than there are toasters in the world... therefore this is the new world focus'. If you agree with me that this sounds ludicrous, than my ranting isn't for you... you're allowed to my party... at which there may be cake. But for the others, I fail to see how iphone's/Facebook/flash games/cheese nips being popular means bupkis. These are new markets, in some cases new creative opportunities, at the least new monetary opportunities. It's this sorta 'jump on the bandwagon' atmosphere that has me worried about Project Natal. It will be one thing if the gestures are subtle and make sense, or are for a tangent of games, but I worry about the (hopefully unlikely) event that every game has to have various gestures, again making me jump around my living room when I just wanna trade some shells... yay. (On the other hand I look upon voice recognition with great hope and unfettered desire normally only reserved for my wife or a well made fresh pepperoni pizza.)

The points I'm making, without any 'flare' (well too much flare) are these- these new venues are great, but these aren't the difference between color and black & white, they're just different venues, different audiences, different control schemes. Casual games spreading to a wider audience does not mean the death of hardcore. It will probably lead to an eventual increase in hard core players. Hardcore's percentage may decrease overall, but that's only because the casual market has ballooned. As far as graphics, we're reaching a flat line, but I feel that has less to do with demand and more with tech and tools. (And quite possibly simple logistics limits... how much time do you give an artist to make a character face 'perfect'? Keeping in mind that consistency of style needs to be maintained across the game?) Note the fact that many Wii games, despite the supposed graphics inferiority, look as good as many offerings elsewhere. Frankly I don't think graphics was ever the sure fire draw people claim it was. Accounting for personal opinion, I don't know of any game touted purely for its graphics had 'staying power' once its gameplay or other elements fell flat. It is and was a factor, two 'good' games, one with mind blowing graphics, and one with 'okay but not bad' graphics will sell differently all else being equal. (2) Anyone who challenges this tends to bring about a popular game that they simply didn't like. If I get comments on this I'm interested to be proven wrong. As for why I'm suddenly odd about analysis of games- “Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the frog dies of it.” -E. B. White. I've been doing a lot of frog killing perhaps, so I'm being somewhat hypocritical. Part of it is certainly my uneasiness with the concept of 'making artful games'. They aren't a bad thing... I just don't want this... promise me you won't do this please! This-

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5191892

It gets worse. But I'm not going to search for anymore examples. This depresses me enough as is. (3)

I end up wondering if I'm desperately clinging to traditionalism. (Ergo, the opening line about feeling old.) And yet like most hard core gamers I find myself craving new experiences in my medium of choice. Tell me, is my 'triple A' hardcore world really obsolete? Should I go ahead and register me some twitter and setup my Farmville um... stuff? Kiss my Halo and Dragon Age buh-bye? Or is this new community just simply... louder? Or is traditional quiet just because there's nothing left to say? I admit I may be 'reading' these viewpoints stronger than they intend. But often they have wording that suggests all or nothing. I will endeavor to provide links at a later date.

 

(1) I've harped on this article before in private conversation. I think as is, it is flawed. It IS correct in some of its assertions, but perhaps overreaching. An over the top death animation is not an addition to gameplay, it is not a feature, at least one that can't stand alone. But just because something is formulaic does not mean it isn't worth making. I find the early books in the Shannara series (sorry Mr. Brooks!) very 'familiar for lack of a better term. But they are still worth the read. I still, time after time, enjoy orcs and the dark wizard/knight whatever that needs to be stopped from getting the McGuffin of power. Only our plucky heroes can save the day. Etc and errata. Just because something isn't entirely new doesn't mean it isn't good. But restraint should be used, and in the end it has to be made well.

(2) I'm getting convinced the line for what is 'good' and 'bad' is different. I'm not talking aesthetic, but the 'triggers' people look for seem to be different. For me, visual consistency is most important paired closely with lack of obvious defects. No seams, no obvious triangles (that shouldn't be), no pixilation etc. Then the ideal starts stepping towards wonderfully detailed and realistic (in context). I played a demo not too long ago that met these criteria, at least as far as I noticed. Its gryphon looked like they should, the minotaur were impressive, the people looked as good as people do, etc. Most reviews seem to knock the graphics. Maybe I just need better glasses. Or maybe they looked for different cues on what’s hot in graphics. Maybe they noticed (lack of) shadow detail, or HDR lighting?

(3) Yet I consider myself an ardent defender of games as Art. People's definition of what art 'is' expands and contracts and contradicts everyone else’s. Apparently my definition of what belongs in a gallery- the best the world has to offer, does not agree with either what the art community believes is the best the world has to offer, or what they believe belongs in a gallery. I hope it really is the latter.


Related Jobs

Digital Extremes
Digital Extremes — LONDON, Ontario, Canada
[09.18.14]

UI ARTIST/DESIGNER
Cloud Imperium Games
Cloud Imperium Games — Santa Monica, California, United States
[09.18.14]

Technical Designer
Cloud Imperium Games
Cloud Imperium Games — Santa Monica, California, United States
[09.18.14]

Technical Designer
Pocket Gems
Pocket Gems — San Francisco, California, United States
[09.17.14]

Associate Product Manager






Comments


Andrew Spearin
profile image
Welcome to the Postmodern era of games, Ken.

Stephen Chin
profile image
I think it's just the world getting bigger. I don't think AAA titles will go away... I just think with the vast market available AAA will be less in number as there are greater areas you can tap for cash. With the decreasing AAA titles however, I think (hope) that what AAA there will be will be better and less coat tail riding on each other. They will be one part of a set of company properties rather than the sole piece that makes them money.

Tim Randall
profile image
I'm happy for the indie developers and I'm glad to see so many titles available at the App Store... but rather like the author, I'm not convinced that the end of the world is nigh.

Rather, I think that a lot of people who don't know a lot about gaming (particularly the mainstream and financial media) are looking for the Next Big Thing to invest their money in... at least, until it becomes the Last Big Bubble.

John Petersen
profile image
Games aren't the way I want them to be. For years I begged and pleaded and waited and hoped they would come around to my way of thinking, and they still never have... Only thing I know I can do to change things just a tiny bit is to get in there, get my hands dirty and try to make games I do enjoy. And it's tough, not an easy task, lots of things to consider., do and learn.



So now I'm taking some steps, learning how to build computer games, all this time lost, when they could've just listened to me and could've done it more efficiently and a damned sure a whole lot more effectively.

Matthew Mouras
profile image
Well I wouldn't take too much offense to Dada... don't allow it to sit too long in your mind... because if you do - they win :)

Dave Endresak
profile image
Well, I agree with some of the general thoughts presented here. Then again, that's exactly why I have played games imported from Japan as well as games released in America, including various titles licensed from Japan and elsewhere, for over twenty years. Same with other media such as manga and anime. If the mountain won't come here for whatever reason, I'll go to the mountain... as best I can, anyway (which granted, is fairly limited compared to the native market in any locale, but anyway...)

Ken Kinnison
profile image
John- I'll bite, how do you want them to be? :o



Obviously there's things I want to do in game dev, I like the idea of presenting a world rather than simply writing a story. I get curious on these boundries to be pushed. Some need to be, some are just not technically feasable- or require a sacrifice in other areas. Ex- people have wanted destructable environments for years. We get them in games occassionally but either theres a sacrifice in visual or something.



Mathew- we mustn't let them win >_<

[User Banned]
profile image
This user violated Gamasutra’s Comment Guidelines and has been banned.


none
 
Comment: