 |
|
|
| |
Opinion: Why A Game Designer Outgrew Video Games
by Brice Morrison
|
|
| |
|
November 5, 2008
|
| |
[As kids grow, they may trade Dr. Seuss for George Orwell, and Nickelodeon for CNN -- but for what can they trade Super Mario Bros.? In this opinion piece, designer Brice Morrison laments the lack of truly mature games -- and examines what "adulthood" for games might look like.]
My mother was never interested in games when I was little. Looking up from her newspaper, she would give a soft smile as she saw my brother and I engrossed in Super Mario Brothers before slipping back into her reading.
"Mom!" we called. "Come play Mario with us!" We happily tossed her the controller, only to grimace as we watched her plummet poor Mario off a cliff accidentally. "I don’t like these games. You boys have a good time," she would say, handing the controller back to us. With a sigh, my brother and I would take back the controls and continue on.
Try as she might, my mother could never get the hang of moving that "tiny man", as she called him, around the screen. To her, games were toys; children’s playthings, a skill not worth investing time in.
Games provided no lessons, no useful knowledge, no reward that interested her. They were fine for us, but to her, an intelligent adult, they were a waste of time.
Only Entertainment
It was only a few years later when I myself began to share my mother’s point of view. I was disappointed to find that as I matured, I was leaving games behind.
While my interests in other media grew substantially more adult -- from Nickelodeon to CNN, from Dr. Seuss to George Orwell -- games did not seem to have a more intelligent counterpart for me to move on to.
As I entered college, I became less interested in mindless entertainment and more interested in encountering new ideas. I didn’t want to kill time; I wanted to take advantage of it. I wanted to challenge myself with profound concepts, to learn of new paradigms, processes, and possibilities.
To fill my growing need for intellectual nourishment, I left games and moved to other media, texts largely influenced by schoolwork. In the search for ideas, books more than satisfied me. Fiction and non-fiction books such as Brave New World and Seven Habits enriched my life and took me places I had never before been. Television and documentary films followed close behind. I was an "infovore", eager to learn all I could about the world I live in.
But the games I played appeared to have nothing to say in this discussion of the pragmatic. And so reluctantly I waved goodbye to my entertaining friend in search of deeper art and ideas.
As a longtime video game player, I wondered: did it have to be this way? Why were games stuck with a preteen obsession, while other media managed to satisfy different consumers at different stages of life?
Books were also capable of pure entertainment, so why was it that the written word was versatile enough to delve deep into the human psyche, while games could only provide simple fun? Surely there was a way to make games with more depth than Super Mario. But if so, where were they?
TV Can Do It, Why Can’t I?
I began to compare games to other communication forms, and I noticed that some media have hit the big time, so to speak. Television is one. Film is another. Books and magazines yet another.
All of these media are universally accepted and not even questioned when we see them expressing the deeper concerns of reality, simply a palette on which artists can create their craft. They are capable of being either pure entertainment or pure intellectual discourse. As a medium, they are free.
Games do not have this luxury. To many people, games are only allowed to exist for pure entertainment. Another medium that has succumbed to this sad fate is comic books. Artist Scott McCloud has written (and drawn) extensively about the tragedy of comic books. They, like games, are a medium which has yet to break out of its childish audience.
Only a small handful of comics have been able to reach deeper and more intellectual concepts than the slam-bang action of superheroes. Yet McCloud argues that comics as a medium are capable of so much more than children’s fantasies. Themes of romance, biography, satire, or surrealism are not out of their reach.
Perhaps comics are not yet down for the count; perhaps they will one day serve more purposes than children’s entertainment. For example, a comic drawn by McCloud himself served as the tutorial for Google’s newest Chrome browser.
But for a form of communication that has been around since the 1930’s, comics are a long way from where they would like to be: read by children and adults, men and women, expressing a multitude of themes and ideas.
Games As The Baby Brother
Games, luckily, are only about 30 years old at best, much younger than comics, and certainly much younger than books. As a medium, they have a lot of time ahead to grow and find their identity.
So what exactly are the barriers of entry for great thinkers (or groups of thinkers) to leave their mark on games? What must happen for games -- or interactive entertainment, if you will, to mature as a medium?
While no one knows the answer to this question, many people (and companies) have stepped up to the plate to attempt to bring games to the next level. The Nintendo Wii has been a monumental development in the games industry, not because of its innovative technology, not because is has helped get people off of the couch, but because of the way it has changed the audience.
My mother, who claimed she could never play games, frequently plays Wii bowling with my aunt. A substantial amount of Wii owners claim that it is their first video game console. This means that, by taking away the buttons that confounded my mother and replacing them with movement-based controls, Nintendo has opened up the possibility that games could be for people other than kids.
But Nintendo is not the only one moving the age of gamers up the scale. The ESRB claims that the average gamer is 35 years old, contrary to most anecdotal evidence. As kids (such as myself) who grew up on games turn into adults, the opportunity exists to satisfy their new tastes.
Who cares if games are played by an older audience? That doesn’t guarantee that it will become a truly respectable medium. Ian Bogost, professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology, wrote that games will not be truly expected as a medium until there are more boring games.
Only when games are mundane enough to be accepted as a method to, say, teach us how to drive safely, will games have truly arrived. While the goal isn’t to create boring games, the goal is to approach a world and a public perception where boring games are not outlandish.
So how do we get there? One step at a time. Games like My Weight Loss Coach, or independent titles such as Passage are slowly, one by one, changing the public’s conception of games.
As new titles appear that push the envelope of what people, like my mother, think of as games, we approach an environment where emotional and intellectual discourse is possible.
So what’s the big deal?
Games have a lot of growing to do before they are ready to be heard. But imagine when we arrive: a world where games could teach you how to drive better, how to write better, how to talk with coworkers and friends better.
Imagine games that could help you understand life outside of your country, to conceptualize the hardships of the poor. Imagine games that could expand your mind, and make your personal world richer than it as before. Those are games worth seeking out.
[Brice Morrison is a game designer who has been developing quirky titles since he was in middle school. Before taking a job at Electronic Arts, he developed several successful independent games such as Jelly Wars, an action adventure franchise, and QuickQuests, a casual MMORPG.
While at the University of Virginia, Brice founded Student Game Developers, an organization which continues to produce games every semester and open the doors to the games industry for students. His blog at BriceMorrison.com discusses games in a broader context and how they can be more than simply entertainment.]
|
| |
|
|
The problem with games is they're never designed around a thesis. No game director ever says, "Our new game is going to explore the theme of courage, or social injustice, or self-sacrifice, or political revolution, or the atrocities of war. A thesis needs to be formed at the very outset and everything else built up around it, otherwise you get shallow entertainment. The author of the thesis also has to have something meaningful, profound to say -- preferably something he or she struggled through.
Games lack human emotion, but that will change in time.
When it comes to pulling in an older audience I can't imagine my parents wanting to play Passage (though I might be able to persuade them to watch me play through it once) and they'd certainly need an explanation for the graphics and probably miss the message since it's a comment on games. On the other hand, whenever I call them up I can almost guarantee they'll be playing Guitar Hero 3 (which is the only game they have, apart from Wii Sports). Why? Simple escapism. Pick up and play. No big time commitment required to enjoy it. Co-op gameplay that lets them play with each other at their own level of difficulty.
Finally, games to help understand life outside of my country? Look to the indie community and titles like Darfur is Dying. But I can't imagine my parent's playing that either. They're too busy trying to complete 'Through the Fire and Flames' on Hard.
Comics originally tried to break out of child's entertainment into more mainstream and adult themes, but they came against hard opposition. Politicians, watchdog groups and ill informed people all around were dead set on keeping comics a child's thing. They threatened the comics industry with legislation and everything else they could throw at it. The result was no better than if legislation had passed. The Comics Code Authority was born with the sole purpose of keeping comics a child's medium. Exactly what they laws would have done but so much worse because the comics industry did it to itself. They did not have the benefits that the games industry has today.
The games industry is up against pretty much the same wall. We have politicians, watchdog groups and other ill informed people trying to keep games as a child's medium. But the games industry is fighting back hard. We have organized industry groups that fight legislation and ignorant view points.
But still our biggest problem is pretty much the same as it was with the comics industry. Ourselves. We have three console manufacturers who refuse to allow AO rated games despite the fact they all have parental controls that can block them on a family by family basis. We have retailers who will sell pornographic videos, magazines, unrated director cuts of R rated movies, but won't touch AO rated games with a ten foot pole. We have developers who would rather cut content from their games to lower the rating so that they could sell more copies rather than stand true to their original visions.
Our problem goes deeper than ratings though. It has only started in the last couple of years, but we are still struggling when it comes to great writing. Sure there are some great stories out there. But as Leo above said, where are the hard topics and emotions? Why are we simply striving for fun and fear. Where are the games that bring out the hundreds of emotions that the human mind is capable of. Where are the stories that deal with hard social and political topics.
Games just as any story telling medium are capable of so much more than we are currently working with. Until our blockbuster mentality erodes away and opposition to the medium's growth as an adult platform, we will stay in our current juvenile state.
"Games, luckily, are only about 30 years old at best, much younger than comics, and certainly much younger than books. As a medium, they have a lot of time ahead to grow and find their identity."
Games are not "30 years old at best", only video games are. Non-electronic entertainment and play is very old and, according to J. Huizinga, might even predate writing or drawing.
By using the generic term "games", one could assume that you are willfully ignoring board, role-playing and card games. I don't think it is possible to outgrow Chess, Go or Poker...
Sorry for the nit-picking.
I don't see the wii as a game changer for the industry (no pun intended) as many surveys have indicated that the majority of wiis are bought and then gather dust.
What we need are more games that help teach creativity, and that are fun for both children and adults - LBP is a great example of this. Adults and kids can work together or in tandem on it, and it fosters free thought - something that most games these days are sorely lacking.
I still love playing games, but as I get older, have a family, and have other responsibilities, I need a really good reason to blow what little free time I have on a game, especially considering the time commitment. I'd imagine this holds true for many others in their latter 30s and 40s.
I wanted to add to your Nintendo comments though as I've been recently thinking about how two of their games have improved my life. That is the phrase I used when thinking about it, and it seemed quite related to your thoughts here.
WiiFit is the first one. In playing the game, I learned things about myself that I didn't know and took an interest in my health that has changed my behavior. I don't play the game much any more, but I think about it often as it has affected how I feel about my health and exercise. My behavior has been forever altered. As a game though, I think most players dismiss it...perhaps it is too adult for them, though I fear it doesn't match the author's perception of 'adult.'
WiiMusic is the other game. I've been interested in music casually for many years. 20+ years ago I learned Piano and I also played Saxaphone about that time in elementary school. I'm not particularly good at either, though I'm at least a competent singer and enjoy singing with church choirs. With that background in mind, WiiMusic has really opened my eyes to the world of music in a way that not even my college course on music could do. Through both instruction and haivng the chance to tinker, I feel like a world has been opened to me as I've started thinking about how 6 parts go together to make something cohesive...or something noisy. It's been enlightening and very entertaining to experiment with sounds in a controlled environment that simplifies things to the point where I feel enabled, yet in being enabled I'm only more aware of how difficult it is to create music that sounds as good as I want it too. Again, it may not be the 'adult' the authoer is thinking of, but it does hit on the other points, entertainment that is expanding my understanding and feeding my need for intellectual nourishment.
Neither of those two games has been well-received by gamers, and that is unfortunate as it underlines the difficulty of creating something meaningful in the gaming space.
The main point is "video games" as a creative medium have still a lot to grow and mature. In time they will offer mindless entertainment, deep intellectual issues, and eventually a mix between both.
As a writer and game designer I look up to the narrative in books and films for guidance, but one must understand "video games" do not need an elaborate plot or thesis in order to be good or even exist.
For that matter, if the implementation of mature narratives and thesis in games is to grow, it needs to be taken into account right from the development start. Little by little progress is made and examples are already starting to show up.
A matter of time, I'd say...
Brice is saying the same things I've said for decades (at least since the late 1980s). However, electronic games, like comics and animation, are not restricted as many English-speaking people think. Only the English market is basically censored and restricted.
The Japanese market for manga, games, and anime evolved since WW II as the creators and audience evolved. Today, these media formats cover just about anything and everything imaginable, and some Japanese artists predict that there will soon be a new, specific genre - a "silver age" genre - aimed specifically at older, elderly audiences. Here's a link that summarizes and generalizes (the latter a bit too much, really) the evolution of Japanese visual entertainment, particularly focusing on shoujo (girls') manga, since WW II.
http://www.csuchico.edu/~mtoku/vc/Articles/toku/Power_Girls_Comics.html
American and European markets have the same issue with aging populations but have not evolved in this way.
One reason that popularity of Japanese entertainment has exploded around the world in the past two decades is because their media offer content that Western media products do not. If anyone wants to understand possible ways to expand games (and other media) all they have to do is analyze Japan's products in their native market.
No media needs a mature narrative or thesis to be a quality entertainment product in some fashion. These two traits are only one approach of many to offer a quality product. These two traits are typically needed to establish empathy and emotional rapport with an audience, though.
Maybe someday, the English market will grow up and evolve, too.
Saying that there aren't any games with a thesis is not entirely true. It is uncommon, but they do exist, and not in marginal titles, either-- The Zelda series, as a most notable example, where Miyamoto has explained the thesis behind it several times: moving from childhood into adulthood out of necessity, and developing a sort of personal courage in the process. Whether it does it well or not is questionable-- but it's been a stated overall thesis for the series since at least Zelda: Link to the Past.
Nor is it the only game out there that could be said to have a thesis statement, though again, it's of course questionable how well they present them. Fallout(1 and 2) were ultimately about a journey towards a necessary end(survival), and how that can change a person to the point that they're not longer welcomed by the very people they went through all that to save. Fable(particularly 2) is nearly completely about the consequence of choice, though you can argue how well it really does at conveying that. Knights of the Old Republic 2 treads this ground from a different angle, as well-- while it covers the basic Star Wars themes of Hero's Journey and Good vs. Evil, it spends a greater investment on the notion of 'ripples'-- actions propagating themselves to affect change greater than the initial action. Assassin's Creed deals with apparently evil acts sometimes being necessary for the greater good(which interestingly enough, happens on both sides of the game's conflict, making 'point of view' a secondary thesis). Even a game like Crackdown, which seems very straightforward on the surface, has something to say about means to and end-- I'd say that game doesn't support its message very well, but it's still there.
All of which is to say that I don't agree that games are missing a thesis. I'd instead posit that they simply don't support them very well-- but that's not unexpected from a medium that isn't focused on message. For that matter, film and television took some time to get around to doing those things well, as well.
As far as the article goes... I'd argue that the mature, intellectualism *is* available these days, and in increasing numbers. I'd question the assertations about the Wii-- I don't see anything maturing of the medium about that, but instead a broadening of the market that will allow more of the older population to *discover* the matured content that exists out there. I'd argue that it doesn't seem like Mr. Morrison knows what he wants from games. Are we looking for a jump from Suess to Orwell, or are we looking for a jump from Suess to Textbook? Or are we looking for a jump into mainstream acceptance? Is the medium's maturity about how mainstream it is, or is it whether there's a message, or whether we learn skills from it? Because I can't tell what the criteria being suggested here is.
I think we're in an interesting place right now, in terms of the games industry. We're, just now, getting into an era where video games are finally being made in a large part by the same people that grew up playing them. They're also being bought by peole that grew up with them in increasing amounts. And those people are having children of their own now, and raising them as parents that have lived with games themselves, which makes a marked difference in culture. These are people that don't necessarily see them as being just a child's media or a waste of their kids' time, and change their place in things accordingly. It's a relatively new media-- it's only existed ABOUT a generation at this point. It's had to grow up with its audience, and it has. And as it does, the audience broadens. Some things push it along, but that's a natural evolution, still.
We're still not entirely there, though getting closer. I think the next Really Big Game is not going to be the latest and greatest GTA with super-amazing technology, but is going to be the game that manages to not only have a message to deliver, but one that resonates with and challenges people, and more importantly, is actually fully-supported by the gameplay and technology used. So far, we get some great stories, but they're largely divorced from the fundamentals of playing. Gameplay for most games doesn't present the story-- it simply keeps people engaged long enough to be presented with it. Sometimes some ancillary game systems hook directly into the story-telling, but those elements tend to be pretty discrete from the main mechanics.
The question, of course, is 'how'? But if I had a definitive answer to that, I'd probably be much more thoroughly employed than I am right now...
It just seems like the same kind of games over and over and over.
You need more people in on the creative process... The industry says "Anybody can think up and idea" and that's true, but... If the people who do the coding never hear about it, the only idea's that are thought up are the developers idea's.
I like that Russell mentions how WiiFit and WiiMusic plays with his ideas of what a video game is.
I like movies. At most, a 3 hour commitment. A problem with a lot of games is that if you come up with a new idea, the plan is to always turn it into a 20+ hour epic. Adding nonsense to fill in gaps or leaving out love -- like a theme that holds it all together. Would Braid or Portal still have been worthwhile if they were only a couple hours long?
Do we need epic games? Why can't I spend $5 to download a game that takes 3 hours to complete and be satisfied? With the deluge of games coming at us from every direction these days, this is the way we should be thinking. Experiment with a theme, tell a story, interact with it and move on. More of an iterative process and maybe we'll learn more.
Thanks to Ephriam for bringing up the Comic Code Authority. I only recently read the Wikipedia entry on it and learned that its branding enforces censorship in a way that omits many serious themes. We suffer when developers or publishers are too afraid to try new ideas.
"But for a form of communication that has been around since the 1930’s, comics are a long way from where they would like to be: read by children and adults, men and women, expressing a multitude of themes and ideas."
In Japan and other Asian countries, manga are created for all. They are read by children and adults, men and women, expressing a multitude of themes and ideas. Is it just our culture holding things back here?
Even as a child I found playing game to be very beneficial. RPG's with epic storylines such as Chrono Trigger sparked my imagination and made me think more deeply about life in general. Heck, I even won a quiz contest in school because I was the only person who could name the moons of Mars, something I learned from playing Doom.
Certain games obviously lend themselves more to deeper experiences than others, but I don't think everything has to be a life altering encounter; there's a place for all types of games.
I challenge that games such as Mass Effect, Lost Odyssey and older Final Fantasy titles provide an experience just as deep and rewarding as any book or documentary whether it be 1984, The Giver or some other classic.
Between running a violent gang in Saints Row, to casting magic spells in some generic fantasy MMO, the majority of games don't include in-depth and realistic worlds and situations. This is the point most of the time, though, because you are supposed to be having fun doing things you couldn't necessarily do otherwise. So what do we do to get the balance of both doing the unbelievable while still being believable enough for mature players?
I suggest we take a cue from movies. Granted, some of the movies today are lacking in creativity (sex-comedies, and movies based off of shows we grew up on) but there are a few that have the balance of taking normal characters we can sympathize with being forced into extraordinary situations. The movie is their interaction with the situation; so if players interact with the world the game is in, is this not a common element that could be capitalized on?
There is also the overall theme of what the story-teller is trying to say, as mentioned in previous comments. Lots of games don't really say anything, usually because they don't have to. I have played games with good themes, though, and it makes a huge difference. Movies with good themes have more substance than those without of what movies I have seen, and unless it isn't very well thought out, it could do nothing but improve what is already there, and this opportunity exists for games as well.
If you compare games, which from an adult's perspective might have very little point, exaggeration, usually obscene violence or sexual material [large-breasted scantily clad women, anyone?] which is abstract or not, with characters (and/or some abstract representation of the player) in situations that might never happen....
...and compare it to movies which rely entirely on story, structure, themes, believable characters, and believable events, is it really a wonder which one the average adult will prefer doing?
Movies have the handicap of the audience not interacting with the medium, so in order to preserve their interest, they must have certain things.
Games have the handicap in that they have a player who is given some amount of freedom, so other things are done to keep the audience's interest.
Where is the common ground?
To answer the question posed, I don't know about Braid, but Portal is definitely worthwhile at a couple hours long, since that's how long it is, not counting the challenge mode thing. It's dependent on how well the player can wrap their heads around "thinking with portals", but still, the main storyline game is only 2-3 or 3-4 hours long, depending. Personally, my first playthrough took about 2.5 hours or so, and once I had the basic understanding of all the puzzles(because I'd beat it once), my second and further playthroughs have been about 90 minutes or so. It's actually one of the game's biggest strengths-- long enough to feel like it was worthwhile, short enough that the novelty doesn't wear off. It's longer, of course, if you add in the challenge rooms... but that's almost like a second game in the same package, than an integral part of the main game.
Games certainly don't need theses or stories. Geometry Wars is great as-is. But, if we want more mature entertainment beyond time sinks, consider conveying a message.
Only a small handful of comics have been able to reach deeper and more intellectual concepts than the slam-bang action of superheroes. Yet McCloud argues that comics as a medium are capable of so much more than children’s fantasies. Themes of romance, biography, satire, or surrealism are not out of their reach."
I take huge issue with this and with the insinuation that the comics code is still somehow relevant. Comics haven't broken out of their childish audience? Have you paid attention to anything published by Vertigo? Read DMZ or Demo by Brian Wood, Y The Last Man by Brian K. Vaughn, Maus by Spiegelman, Walking Dead by Kirkman, Preacher by Ennis, the list goes on and on... Those are comic series with huge sales that are absolutely not childish in any way. Indie books have been doing better than they ever have. Persepolis transformed successfully into a full animated feature. Sorry for freaking out here, but there are so much more than "a handful" of serious, adult comics and graphic novels.
In regards to the article, this is the same tired argument that never goes away. Games don't have to be laden with story or purpose to have worth or to be considered "mature". How many people consider Chess to be a child's waste of time?
This is a cultural problem due to the lack of artistic integrity shared by western auteurs. In other cultures where criticism isn't so rigid--that to follow human expression with violence and supression is a natural response--artistic integrity is more open to assert itself while even making a profit. This may be attributed to the audience having a more intimate relationship with the artist so that the art itself does not need to be widespread and open to everyone. Or it may be the amount of art saturates the viewer so that there is no room for objection, since the white noise created by open expression is impossible to navigate and have a concrete discussion about what truely is popular.
Here lies the answer to the question. Theme and mundaneity -- along with graphic fidelity -- of a videogame are only part of the equation for elevating the medium. The key component that the Wii has addressed is INTERACTIVITY by emulating real-world movements in a game.
The main issue non-gamers have with games is the relevancy of the input, as indicated by mom's disinterest in "moving that 'tiny man.'" While gamers quickly grasp the idea of pressing a button to cause an in-game action, most people don't understand why you would want to do that in the first place. The primitive input/output process in videogames is the aspect that is regarded as childish. However, people of all ages can easily understand what the underhand motion of the Wii Remote is for in the context of Wii Bowling, so the input makes sense to them.
The next step would be to increase the complexity of the motion input in the same way that gamers had moved from two buttons to 14+ buttons. The Wii has begun to address this with the Balance Board and the Motion Plus. By improving movement detection, games will be able to introduce more complex interactive concepts to a wider (and more mature) audience. Imagine how much easier it would be to understand the concept of black holes by manipulating virtual matter with your movement, as opposed to reading/watching graphics on a screen.
The key to elevating the medium is not only through theme, but through the method of interactivity. The only way videogames can be regarded as a mature medium is by focusing on the "interactive" in "interactive entertainment."
had the poster actually read McCloud's work, he would recognize Maya Codices as comics, the Bayeux tapestry as a comic, and so forth.
>> ...a world where games could teach you how to drive better, how to write better, how to talk with coworkers and friends better.
Totally agree, but rather than bemoaning some fictional "state of the art". look around at all the other game-like methods we have to do these things, particularly in the social sphere: Facebook, Flickr, IM, to name just a few... There's a much broader definition to gaming, that in my view, can be simply expressed by the very human question: "What if?"
THIS is the number one reason “mature” people don’t want to play games. It is the controller that makes games feel like a child’s toy. Really, when it comes down to it, games are a memorisation of which buttons to press, and how accurately you can use them to move about the game world. For example, in the case first person shooters, it’s a competition of “let’s see who’s got the best thumbs”. And it can be frustrating for a lot of people, to be shot in the back and have the crappy controls keeping you from turning around quick enough. And as mentioned, the Wii has proved extremely popular for older people, and all it really did was add a motion sensing gimmick. People flocked out to get them in a hope that it was the death of the ever frustrating game controller. So in a nut shell, most people don’t play games because they find them clumsy and frustrating.
Ideally, someone would invent some sort of gizmo that sits on your head, and it would be used to control games via the mind (after all, games will be the precursor to virtual reality). The controller strips so much freedom that is possible within video games, and this affects their design and ultimately how the story can be told. I disagree that games don’t carry any meaningful message, because a lot do. It just gets pushed into the background due to the inherent way games have to be presented. If the controller doesn’t change, games will be forever restricted to tedious button mashing and awkward analog sticks.
On another note I think I know which article by Ian Bogost you are reffering to: Interesting article and comments.
I made the comment that many games are “broken” and the average non-gamer is not aware of this – which in turn leads to a lot of misconceptions. Give it a read.
And I just read jaime's comment. Couldn't be more correct.
While there are definitely a large section of mostly mindless games on both the adult spectrum(condemned perhaps?) and the children's section(i'm looking at you here, mario party),
Gaming as a genre has
a) only seemed to grow more stale and commercialized and recycled as it gained mainstream acceptance and respect from the world at large, as bigger publishers started to copy the crap-churning methods of movies and television.
and b)
only catered to it's audience.
To say that gaming is childish and without depth while pointing to TV, Movies, and Books as examples that are, is simply a complete fallacy.
I know of craptons more worthless books, worthless movies, and especially, worthless TV shows, with less depth than the average Mcdonalds billboard in the entire series.
Plus, I would argue that the fact that they are telling preconstructed stories without interaction makes it infinitely easier to convey depth; all you need is 1 or 2 good writers, a decent director and decent actors. You don't really need to factor in too much of how the audience'll view it since, hey, if it's a drama and they're not into dramas, they'll just go watch a comedy instead; with games, one has to take into account all that a player can and can't do, and their motivations as well, making it a far more challenging task.
On top o' that, edu-tainment of any stripe so far hasn't impressed me all that much. Most of it is mindless, treats you like an idiot, and only teaches something that basically anyone with any amount of common sense and a little practice could learn on their own.
So no, once again, on edu-tainment and crap like wii fit making gaming more respectable, you fail. Just because grandma Daisy can now play games, and they are mundane and boring, does not make the genre more respectable; probably less so.
While games that incorporate more than just pressing buttons and waggling a control stick to make explosions are definitely a plus, I don't think exergames or edugames are the answer of themselves. Beyond that, you failed to acknowledge at all the impact of some of the truly serious games, which, i would wager, would give Troy and Braveheart a run for their money.
The naivete of this commentary comes from not realizing that games are facing many social and political pressures and have not yet achieved what society would classify as "art". All the other cited media have achieved some level of this distinction. As for games, they are still viewed as production toys, whereas I would define them as a collectively-created piece of interactive art. The reason games haven't achieved this lofty "art" status isn't necessarily the industry's fault - there are many societal roadblocks that need to be overcome.
I think a result of making more meaningful games is that games will reach a larger market and become more mainstream.
Some commenters have suggested that part of this problem is the input devices used to play games, and that the wii is helping to improve things. It would be great if it were that simple, but there are other problems in the way, too.
I think that even by the early teenage years, many people see the challenges they face as centering around relating to human beings - developing mental models of the people around them, guessing as to their beliefs and reactions. Developing such mental models is beyond the scope of even the most powerful consoles on the market today, and will continue to for some time.
While games can perform an escapist role for us, they still need to present both a pretext AND a set of interactions that we consider interesting. What we find interesting is generally what we are best at, and what we are best at is is often what we do for a living. Ironically, what we play at as adults may end up bearing a striking resemblance to what we work at, albeit with a few cheat codes enabled.
Meanwhile, there are an uncountable number of books, movies, and songs, and they vary from hollywood blockbusters to unknown musical gems produced in someone's basement. Not only is there a greater variety of professional content being made, but the basic elements are understood and imitable by consumers. That is, we all read and write on a daily basis, many kids learn to play instruments, and many of us have had some opportunity to walk around with a video camera trying to make our own (short and poorly edited) videos. This doesn't happen in games (digital or otherwise) - there is a perceived sharp divide between the developer and the consumer, and process of game development is completely mysterious to the average consumer.
The overall result is that the process of making games is seen as being the sole business of large companies who tend to care more about risk aversion than about innovation. I think gaming comes into its own when small developers are able to compete at the same level as the big developers, and game creation as a process is understood and practiced by consumers generally.
At their heart, games are entertainment first and beneficial second. Movies, TV, books, and magazines are also this way. The same can be said of even the most educational and thus arguably beneficial of the formats. That is, documentaries, non-fiction, and factual periodicals (not counting strictly reference materials, of course). However, there are some key differences between these formats and games.
Movies are an often-used hinge of discussion, and for good reason. Movies generally require only an hour or two to absorb, and in that time can communicate powerful messages. With just a quick glance at the IMDB top 250 it's easy to recall issues addressed and lessons that can be learned. It's been proven that we as people adopt our behavior in large part by emulating others or avoiding mistakes that others make. Yes, movies are entertaining, but they're also relevant -- giving us insight into our emotions, values, relationships, speech, law, society, etc etc. The best movies do this in a very detailed and tangible way. And they don't require the audience to learn some obscure technological skill that is not relevant outside the context of the medium. We absorb the real world in basically the same way as we do movies, all day, every day.
(For now I'll sidestep the value of a social excursion to neutral territory, i.e. movie theater, and leave it for a separate discussion)
It's basically the same with TV. Magazines are books are a little different. Books, or columns of words in any sense, achieve their power through efficiency. They're compact, cheap, and are packed with information. They have the ability to convey intricate and complex ideas relatively quickly -- the one requirement being that the audience has adequate language and comprehension abilities. The thing is, pretty much everybody can read. Reading is one of the biggest required skills of living life effectively. And the masters of the written word (i.e. those most historically recognized as influential and hence 'serious' and 'valuable') are generally the people with the greatest faculties of understanding. For games to reach their highest potential, a full entertainment system and those pesky proprietary technical skills are required -- and if you're serious about life, would you really want to invest the resources when other avenues are so readily available?
Even groups of friends are more relevant than games. Look at the popularity of social networks. It's not the software (Facebook, MySpace) that are most valuable to people -- it's the people. Social groups have always existed. It's just now that they're being represented in software. Other people not only serve our most basic, primal needs, but they can also be extremely educational. Just think of all the smart friends you have, and the great things you gain from engaging in conversation with them.
So, in that light, games become a waste of time and resources. Or primarily for entertainment only, with limited value in the form of insight.
All that said, there does seem to be hope for the value of games. But only in the distant future, it seems. The great novelty in games, and the thing they offer over other mediums, is interactivity. But to be valuable and relevant for most people (including highly social types -- whether we game makers like it or not: the majority of the world), the interface must change. The Wii is a good step in the right direction, but a small one. If a person is good at Wii Sports boxing, it's doubtful they'll be able to defend themselves in the real world with the skills they've gained. "Well, the same is true for watching Rocky," you might say. But Rocky also offers the other significant lessons of hard work, dedication, hope, and resilience. For games to be as effective, in an interactive way, at providing powerful social messages, they will need to approach the realism of simulation.
The Wii more closely approximates true simulation than other interfaces -- but it is still just that, an approximation. And an extremely rough one, at that. For real relevance to occur, games will need to be able to accurately detect and respond to people in an emotional and physical way. That includes reading body language, facial expressions, speech patterns, physical motions to a perfect degree (with tactical feedback), and responding in kind. Only then would accessible and timely relevance, as well as true interactivity, be achieved.
But for that to happen, there must be incredible and almost unimaginable advances in both software and hardware. Physical and speech detection systems, tactical feedback systems, and AI just to name a few. Until that point is reached, games will most likely be seen as for shallow entertainment only (or as minor tools for fitness or mental calisthenics). Even after major advances are made, they will face the challenge of being considered "serious art", as they will most naturally manifest as simulations. There is also the problem of the widespread adoption of, for most intents, what is frivolous technology.
And, I guess, it doesn't seem like any of those advances will happen soon. Of course I could be wrong :) Who knows what kind of secret projects are underway! And in some sense, I do hope that I'm wrong. There is immense power in games. All the fear and controversy surrounding them recently is for very real reasons. The most recent and tragic example of Brandon Crisp brings this point into sharp relief. My only hope is when these advances happen, they bring the effectiveness, wisdom and relevance that is the true mark of serious art.
- Abel Newt
To you mother who didn't see any value in playing video games, I submit this story:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E1DA123CF935A15751C0A9629C8B6
3
The doctor who's going to operate on your tumor is better off for playing video games, and as a result you stand a better chance of surviving surgery than if he didn't. Now ask the person who's about to have open heart surgery what they think of video games.
And to the people who say comics can't be "high art", I submit the Watchmen. If you can't see the "adultness" in Watchmen, you're simply stuck in an old paradigm. The same goes for video games.
-=B
It doesn't have to take a long time, the tools just have to be accessible to more than the - for lack of a better word - elite. Depth of creativity depends on who is able to create.. whenever enough thoughtful people are able (that time can come and go.. once it arrives doesn't mean that it's there forever) then that thoughtfulness can be put into the game/book/whatever.