|
I’m pissed. My problem doesn’t completely
lie with players of videogames. They are free do as they please.
Though, when one only cares about playing games to obsessive levels, I
do get disappointed and want to kick them into realizing they are
capable of so much more than following a list of orders and pushing the
right buttons.
No, my problem is mainly with the fact that by
and large the videogames industry prides itself on making the most
addictive games possible. It’s become a selling point to claim just how
addictive the game is. Or to a lesser degree, a developer will claim
that someone can put in many hours because of its replayability just
for the sake of replay rather than to learn something new.
I
can’t think of any other media; theater, painting, music, film, novels
or other, where the industry works extremely hard to create addictive
works and then further encourages that practice by trying to create
monetization schemes that benefit the most from addicted players.
I
don’t like it. Not at all. I have a very different philosophical
approach to game design. I want to create games that people only need
to play once. They are certainly free to play more than that, but it’s
not necessary because they get a satisfying experience the first time
through.
As a social progressive game designer, I see so many
people who are unknowingly victims, locked inside a vicious cycle,
unable to escape because they don’t know any better. Games have the
power to help free people from being victims in their daily lives.
Whether it’s being a victim of prejudice, bullying, sexual harassment,
social status, economic systems, disability, disease, or even their own
mind, many people are trapped in a vicious cycle of victimization and
can’t find ways to break away.
A game can do that though. It’s
an idea that has yet to gain mainstream acceptance. Critics of the
idea, without being able to see my vision with their own eyes, may call
this a boring serious game, or a not so fun self-help game. It’s more
than that. It’s an inspirational experience that one can relate to and
gain valuable wisdom and knowledge to apply to their own lives.
It’s
the Erin Brockovich of videogames.
Erin Brockovich is a woman
who fought against PG&E in court for polluting the drinking water
of Hinkley, CA. The citizens had an abnormally high rate of cancer and
sickness. Through her hard work and determination, she taught herself
law to take on the powerful utility company, PG&E. The sick
citizens whom she fought for were compensated $333 million after
winning the suit. While money will never help them regain the health
and lives lost, what she did was prove that one person can make a
difference for a community by fighting for their ideals and justice.
Erin
Brockovich’s story inspired millions and became a very successful film,
nominated for several academy awards. Her story is one that can inspire
someone to act in similar ways to fight against an injustice. It’s a
story, no scratch that, it’s an experience that can be replicated in a
game and give people not only the motivation but the real life tools
and skills to apply in their daily lives.
In the United States,
I look around and I see people who are victims of 24 hour news channels
that lack news, victims of a food industry that lacks sustenance and
victims of a health care industry that does not care.
It’s all
shit and it’s all wrong. Everyone knows it, but few act. If only they
knew their power. The games industry thrives on power fantasies, but
not the kinds that can change a person’s life. Instead, it creates
addictive escapist fantasies and many developers pride themselves in
that. They pat each other on the back and tell one another they earned
their pay by making people happy, by putting smiles on their faces. By
helping them escape all shit that’s killing them.
No, they’re
not doing that. Not at all. They’re only delaying the routine of
victimization, if only for a few hours. But when players turn off the
game and get back to their daily lives, the problems are still there.
The media still controls what they think. The food still clogs their
arteries and the drugs still create more problems than they solve,
forcing them to take more drugs. The vicious cycle continues.
They
don’t have to be victims though. My own battle with Crohn’s disease is
proof of that. I was once a victim, of my own vanity. Of my own low
self-esteem. My acne. I took all kinds of acne medications, one after
another. From low grade to the motha-fuckin’ A-Bomb itself, Accutane.
It destroyed my immune system. Years later, I was diagnosed with
Crohn’s disease, an inflammatory bowel disease. Symptoms for people
with Crohn’s can range from blood in the stool, fistulas, bowel
obstructions and uncontrollable diarrhea.
It’s a shitty way to
live… I can joke about it because my Crohn’s is now in remission. I
learned how to break free from the vicious cycle by not listening to my
pharmaceutical brainwashed doctors. Instead, I listened to my gut and
changed my lifestyle and diet. It took a lot of hard work and
dedication, but my story proves the benefits one can wield by refusing
to be a victim.
I don’t think of Crohn’s as a curse. It’s a
gift. I now eat healthier than ever before and love to cook. I don’t
take life for granted. My experience proves people don’t have to be
victims, not of their relationships, society, technology, corporations,
government or of themselves.
However, people aren’t going to get
there without a little help. A game can be the hammer that smashes the
chains and breaks them free. But the kinds of games the industry
strives to make aren’t going to help anyone get there any sooner. To
help people realize their full potential and help improve the world, we
can start by breaking the vicious cycle on addictive multi-play games.
In this complex and increasingly dishonest world we live in, it’s time
the videogame industry stepped up to the responsibility it has when
wielding such a powerful yet largely untapped medium.
Also posted on GDAM (Game Design Aspect of the Month) blog and my personal blog, Reiding...
|
LBP, as the game context implies (a console in the middle of the living room with some friends and/or family together), is a good example of a game relying on replayability that is not lame, doesn't lack anything in its structure.
Most of the MMOGs, by the other hand, relies on replayability for "excuse" reasons - profitability or anything related, but NEVER game design. This is a clear example of a lame game, which lacks basic game design elements to fit on some "specific objectives". So it's easy to understand why those games are so similar, so spiceless, and enslave so many people's minds.
And just finishing: the only "hammer" that can truly break the chains you say, forever and ever, has a name: Jesus Christ. I know so many people that was cured from AIDS, broken rib, poliomyelitis... everything easy, free, instantaneous, and right in front of you. Ask for His name, and see how much He can do for you - about everything you may think.
I don't think a game could ever smash the chains that bind people, rather it could weaken them or give people the inspiration to do so themselves. In truth "addictive" games aren't so much the problem, as the useless content associated with those games. There's no reason that an MMO couldn't hold content that both inspired players to change thier lives, and also encouraged them to come back for help when they struggle (almost like an online AA meeting, use it until your ready to change, then come back if you waver).
Ultimately a little escapism isn't harmful, if anything it's beneficial, it's just when escapism turns into a long term prospect that it becomes problematic. This sadly is hard to stop despite the nature of your game, people will latch onto anything if it makes them feel better, whether or not it was intended to be addictive.
We have correspondingly developed a culture where passive entertainment dominates - the author speaks commandments from the heavens onto a meek, subservient audience, and the less "work" necessary to have this experience, the better. Games occupy an awkward, even disruptive position in society because they have a very hard time being passive entertainment, and in fact lose impact as they become increasingly passive. One could say that they're like sex, in that respect ;)
The chilling thing about this observation is that as an industry, we've put considerable effort, conscious or not, into ways of making games feel more passive so as to fit the cultural perception, with "gratification" mechanics like level-ups, special abilities, and power-ups, and perhaps more importantly than mechanics, the inclusion of passive storytelling in all its forms - characters, settings, environments, as well as plots. We do all this because we've discovered that the games don't sell without these elements.
But I wouldn't lose hope just yet. The features that emphasize a mindset of growth tend to poke through, regardless: achievements, unlocks, bonus points, and high scores are all examples of mechanics that reward growth of skill. As well, video game stories are nearly always "legendary" in nature, describing improbable feats and accomplishments, and this can be used to emphasize both gratification elements and growth ones: Gratification, because the game contains forces far more powerful and immediate than anything available to the player in normal life; and growth, because the game allows the player to "live" through an arc of development, whether the development be of a human character or an abstract thing like a nation.
I think the key takeaway is that you don't have take a direct approach and *tell* someone to realize their dreams; you only need to *inspire* them to do so. They can find the way forward from there.
Now when we look at media like books, television and movies there is an opportunity to affect change, but it's difficult. The vast majority of media is, as you point out, escapism at best. But, is that all bad? I would imagine that if everything was socially relevant it wouldn't be entertaining. It's up to the individual to control their escaping. I actually wrote on my blog about escapist activities, http://randomcrates.com/stop-numbing-your-life/.
As the industry continues to mature and we better understand how to tell engaging stories through games I think we'll begin to see an increase in motivational and inspirational games. However, I can't imagine it would exceed the ratio of other media.
I agree that games have the ability to be more relevant, but just because a game is escapist and playful, doesn't make it bad.
Doesn't this all come down to the longstanding identity crisis our industry faces? Are we an entertainment industry? Are we an artistic industry? Are we a computer technology industry?
Of course we're somewhere in between. I don't particularly agree with the author's emphasis or tone, but what we should take from this is that we need to ask ourselves these questions before we set out to make a game...
Just what exactly am I trying to create?
I just don't understand what you are proposing, instead of generalizations like "make a grand and important life changing non repetitive game", tell us what exactly you're proposing? As far as I can see you want to take the interactivity out of video games, any interactivity will lead to repetition. If I'm controlling a character, talking to people, or navigating menus, then at some point things are going to get repetitive unless I only do each action one time in the entire game. So there's really only two ways to accomplish what you propose: 1) take out all interactivity, or 2) limit any action you can take in the game to once. Problem with #2 is that movement will usually be an issue in any video game, so how do you not make movement repetitious, if movement is fast travel by menu you'll still have to travel to multiple locations through a menu leading to repetition. Problem with #1 is that you're now making a movie.
The only way to make a game that you propose is to undesign a game entirely, the ultimate sandbox, the player can do whatever they want whenever they want, oh and the game has to learn and adapt to everything you do, so yea I would say we're pretty far off from that.
BN - Maybe I'll explain my views later. Maybe not. In crunch hell.
Very good and uplifting (but sort of in that 'tough love' way)piece; I must say I'm genuinely surprised to find an article like this on Gamasutra, b/c I have a feeling what you're implying at (and I've done my share of viewing and reading on those issues, though not as much as I probably should). Sadly I think only the most select group of game designers out there would even have the capability of creating the sort of experience you talk about; we just gotta accept most of them don't think 'like that'. But for those that do, it could be a matter of having those ideas scare up the publishers or even respective developers, and the game just failing en masse sales-wise b/c most of the buying public (again, sadly) may not want those sorts of messages spoken to them.
I feel that it really comes down to the individual when they're ready to let those sort of messages resonate in them, but unfortunately most people are only ready when they're too late. As far as I'm concerned, I'm genuinely trying to keep an eye on the political and global landscape, b/c activities there (mostly of stuff that doesn't get covered at all in the news) has me worried about the future of all industrys-gaming and otherwise-and not just industries. Though I'll admit some of that information is a little suspect in itself, it deserves a critical look.....and now here *I* am going off in some wholly different tangent xD.
More back to the point, I feel there'll one day be a market for those sorts of games, but the industry itself is going to have to garner more mainstream acceptance. Which, frankly, scares me a bit. I've seen what happens to industries once they make it fully mainstream, like music and film; where the news types are more concerned about the latest dating or sex tape scandel and "who's wearing who" rather than the actual products. I don't want the gaming industry to take that route-sometimes I'm not even sure if it *could* take that route, though it'd be pretty cool to hear if Shigeru Miyamoto was spotted using specially-branded Sonic clubs at a golfing game I suppose ;)-because then there's a good chance the non-mainstream stuff (which already has a hard enough time as it does) will become completely irrellevant to the industry's eye until there's some sub-industry to help support them, akin to the Cannes film festival for non-Hollywood productions. The problem there, though, is that very few of those Cannes flicks go on to become major blockbusters, though I'm full aware most of them don't want that level of exposure.
On the contrary, I'm sure a good # of the smaller developers making these more niche games eventually want that level of big-time exposure, but if they are assimilated to a Cannes-like environment, chances are they'll never get it. All of this eventually applies to the 'serious game' sector as well, b/c while it may be enough to have your message reach one or two people and *hope* they spread the word, it's likely a lot better if your message goes through as few systems as possible to reach the largest audience; getting the product to the largest crowd and motivating them should be the goal. But if the industry truly goes down the road I outlined above, that will simply never happen.