|
When I talked to Ken Levine about one of the inspirations for BioShock, it was during the financial meltdown in America, when Alan Greenspan, who was an Objectivist, said, "I thought this was going to work."
AH: But I was wrong.
But I was wrong.
MS: That's nice. [laughs]
AH: After all those years being the brainiac.
MS: Yeah, but, exactly! That's interesting, isn't it?
AH: That's more interesting than running around shooting things -- that's all we're saying.
MS: Yeah. Can't we express that in a game? That kind of realization, that his ideology failed? Isn't that beautiful? Isn't that more beautiful...
AH: Or more tragic? Than the 10,000 deaths of BioShock? Somehow that is the most tragic aspect of things. And to not get a full expression of that in the game -- in the game. Not just as the project as a whole -- because you get that -- but in what you do most of the time, or what the main joy of that experience is supposed to be. Right now, it's bullet porn.
I have a background in being very much a gamer, and of course I have aspirations of making games. I think most people, at least in their head, do, who play games.
On one hand, I can see the cultural relevance, but on the other hand, I might be another Ken Levine -- not to compare myself to him -- in the sense that I would want to stick with the conventions that I've enjoyed in games in the past.
AH: That's all right, too. But let's just realize that there are two different things that could happen. One is this, and one is that.
It goes back to the industry, right?
AH: Yeah.
People have something... Whether it's a stake in the industry from a commercial perspective, or just a stake in what they've creatively enjoyed for years.
AH: Yeah. I mean, one of the hardest lessons I've had to learn as a female in the games industry is all these guys really like what they make. I did not understand that for years. It was only until I talked to the maker of Alan Wake, and we were talking about it...
MS: Also a typical example of a game that we think could have been a lot more.
AH: Yeah, and I was expressing to him what I was saying about, well, "Yeah, would it have been more interesting without the shooting." And suddenly it dawned to me as I was talking to him, "Wait, he wanted to make the action game where the main thing is killing the zombies," or whatever the hell that was. He made exactly what he wanted.
And suddenly it clicked. "Oh, so, those guys who make Call of Duty want to make a 'sailing down the side of a mountain shooting shit' game." It was like, "Oh, okay. I get it now. This is why everybody seems so happy and creatively satisfied."
I took it seriously when they said "I'm making a game based on Objectivism that is talking about the financial crisis." I was like, "Okay. Let's do that!"
MS: Hey, but maybe they do. Maybe they succeed for gamers that are like them, that are used to the conventions.
AH: I know. I'm just saying my misunderstanding of the games industry, as a non-gamer, coming in making games -- I was taking the subject matter and the content in the cutscenes seriously. I was honestly looking for the stories that are on the back of the box, or the media, the propaganda, that they put out about the game.
I was thinking, "Oh, all this content is in there somewhere, and I just have to find it and I'm missing it," whatever. When in actuality, no, they really want to make another fucking first-person shooter. That's amazing to me. Still, to this day, I'm amazed by that.
I mean, they're always talking about creative frustration, and I'm just like, "Why don't you just make that thing you're talking about? I don't understand. Why are you making this other thing?"
It's money, right? And a developed audience.
AH: Well, that was kind of what I thought, but it's more than that. I think people really like it. I mean, they really like these things. So, all these guys get together and go, "You know what would be fucking cool? What would be awesome?" And they really do think it would be fucking awesome to make Duke Nukem Forever. I mean, okay. Now, I get that.
The Path
You talked about people pushing against certain constraints, while still wanting to create games like this. I think that's actually true. I think people who talk about that do feel they're constrained. But at the same time they do have this drive and desire...
AH: To make the thing that they love, from their childhood or whatever. But then I feel like they're just making excuses, often. You know, make a copy of Another World because you loved that game, and you thought it was genius. Go ahead and do that, but don't try to claim, "Oh, but I put this other level on top of it, that smeared some art content on top of it, so therefore I've made something of artistic worth."
MS: You feel that duality in a lot of games, I think, on several levels. That duality between sort of, yeah, like a more mature artistic experience, aesthetic experience, and a more playful, childlike interactive experience. And yeah, the tension is there, just because it seems like the creators don't choose. They want both things to be there, but both things are fighting with each other, and don't want to be in the same game.
Or, at least, expressed as a game. Narrative versus gameplay -- that's another level in which you see this kind of contrast.
MS: Yes, but that's a dangerous path, because then you slide very quickly into linear versus nonlinear, and that's really not what it's about. It's about expressiveness, about aesthetics. It doesn't have to be story. It could be a painting, too, or a cathedral, or a poem.
I think all of those things can be expressed with things that are very much unique to the medium, and all that. And I would actually argue that gameplay is one of the strange components that is not unique to the medium, that comes from that old age-old history of playful interaction between humans, with sports. It, in and of itself, is an alien factor. I'm not against alien factors. I really think we should embrace as much as we can, and mix it all up.
|
Printer-Friendly Version
I just love their perspective and agree with them. I want MORE. It's there... please, let's take it, let's write it, let's make it. Let's make FPS and RPG's and also all those games that we have been wanting for years.
Every time I imagine a new game, I always try to remember what I wanted as a kid and didn't get. And I see our present and all those things that I wanted to play back then haven't been done yet. I still want to see those games...
About the "bad" criticism they receive... I've been thinking a little about Nintendo. I'm a Nintendo fanboy so I'm very partial to them, but still, I feel like they get a lot of hate because they try to make some changes. And I feel like they got even more hate because they got a successful with something thy weren't supposed to (the Wii and the DS). I remember reading year after year "Nintendo is going down this year for sure" with some kind of ingrained resentment. Like they were angry that Nintendo tried something they didn't like and Nintendo proved that they were wrong about it not being possible and that you could actually make a great console without high-end graphics. And now we see all those articles of people thinking that Nintendo will go puff... finally. And that's talking about a huge company that takes some risks but it's still actually very conservative. So, my point is... there is so much hate and conservatism. Let's hope they grow up as well... it would be good it that happened.
I have 2 mentors with polar opposite opinions.
One believes games are money making machines and you shouldn't reinvent the wheel.
The other believes you should be in the games industry to create something amazing and would be crazy to make a game for money.
Thank you for this article which gives insight into both sides from experienced and informed opinions.
But I think the distinction needs to be made between interaction and interface. Interaction relates to how the player emulates the fictional world in their mind and in a sense affects it and how it affects them. Whereas what they were describing has more to do with interfacing. I think the problem with Heavy Rain is that the interface tries to be used as a literal and explicit aesthetic element. It shouldn't be about how the player presses buttons, it should be about how the player interacts with the world. Because the fictional world that the game aesthetically represents are where the ideas are transmitted and where the key concepts are explored, rather than the mechanical parts of the media itself.
Why design the aesthetic aspects of the interaction at the interface level? When it is approached that way, the aesthetics of interaction are consciously analyzed by the player, which simply drags them out of the experience.
Just love her saying that :)
That said, I respect the style of the article, because it really outlines the importance of narrative in video games.
And when you talk about expressing meaning, they often take that a little bit too literal. [laughs] As in language -- I have an idea, and I tell this idea to you. That's not really what happens in a lot of art. It's often a lot more intuitive, and artists play with the aesthetics. They don't know exactly what this message is."
Wow, Michaël Samyn defined myself! I love art, but I can't create it. I can do gameplay, game mechanics, I can design how the game works, how to challenge the player. But I can't portray art, I can't do a game make you feel anything other than "it's too easy, it's boring", "it's hard but I can win" or "this is impossible, I can't win".
About graphics and technical stuff: I see games have fallen into the "technology" trap, since they have "indulged" (for the lack of a better word) with the ideas of "graphics are everything." It takes but a small visit to Youtube to see how many self-proclaimed "hardcore gamers" will argue about games based on which one has the better graphics, or which engine is better, based obviously exclusively on the graphics, since we don't have access to all the game engines out there (I recall an argument some youtubers were having about how the internal use only Frostbite 2 was better than UE3 purely based on the frostbite 2 demo reel DICE showed at E3).
My point here is how developers add too many complications to the technical side of the games (as they said on this interview) but I think this is a part of some sort of vicious circle where you do that because that's what gamers want. You want to pushthe technology, and gamers want tech to be pushed because "that makes games better" (which is completely false). I've experienced that with my just-released indie game SteroidS (developed using UDK), a lot of comments go into "how dated it looks and how it doesn't take advantage of Unreal Engine," this last comment meaning "it doesn't take advantage of the graphic capabilities to make it look as good as Gears of War 3" (little they know I did take advantage of UDK's features, I just happened to take advantage of Unreal Script and Kismet, and that doesn't show in the visuals).
This also relates to how gamers (as well as some developers) make claims on how we desperately need new consoles, while this sometimes can be translated as "we want better graphics." Then come those claims on "how the PC offers a better gaming experience," and the reasoning behind that is basically the latest graphic card can display better graphics than the current generation consoles. In the meantime, there's still a lot that can be tried with devices such as the Kinect to create different kind of experiences. Unfortunately many of those would end up being ignored or would become a part of a "niche" because Modern Warfare 3 looks so much better than *insert fictional very original kinect title here*
About games being able to be a narrative/storytelling medium: We all know the "videogames are art" argument. We can debate whether or not games are an artistic medium or not, what merits do they have (like storytelling). However, how much importance those elements have if games will most of the time be judged based on technical aspects? I for one like the FEAR series a lot (not because they are FPS, as I'm not into FPS, for example I've never played CoD, nor I plan to), but I couldn't help to be very upset when I read this quote on the IGN review: "In terms of aesthetics, F.E.A.R. 3 provides passable graphics that look slightly dated but still get the job done."
You never hear film critics say "In terms of aesthetics, Shutter Island provides passable visuals that look slightly dated but still get the job done." A filmmaker can decide to shoot in black and white and everything is fine because that was an "artistic choice." A game developer decides to use Final Fantasy VII style graphics, gamers and reviewers alike will yell "this looks too obsolete for current standards."
But then the same people start arguing about why games aren't considered art and why Rogert Ebert is wrong when he states videogames are not art.
I for one think developers should start looking into games in a more creative ways and not just focus on make the most photorealistic games possible, and also not just give gamers "the best graphics money can buy" but make them think of games as something different. That's what many indies are doing, but the truth is indies will not change the way the world perceives games.
About the state of the industry in general: I sometimes feel certain gamers (specially the so-called "hardcore gamers") are not into gaming for the love of gamers anymore but because they like top of the line technology, and they can even feel insulted if someone suggests an indie/social/casual game. It turns out that, while "hardcore gamers" should be those that crave for videogames for the love of videogames, they are in reality "big budget games gamers" that want pixel-perfect precision and visual realism (no wonder why CoD 8 sold so many million copies last week, even if it's pretty much the same game as the other 7).
The media doesn't help either, with so much attention given to big budget games because that's what's "hardcore" and smaller games are pretty much ignored. Again, I can talk about this based on my experience with SteroidS, being ignored by many gaming sites because right now MW3 and Skyrim are the only things worth talking about (as well as Minecraft, but for the sole reason that it has a huge user base, as it was completely ignored by the same sites during almost an entire year until it gained momentum... but many brilliant indie games will not get the chance of gaining momentum because they are simply ignored).
I think the clearest example of this could be EpicBattleAxe as they provide "Gaming news and features that cut through the crap..." Visit their site and what you'll see right now is Skyrim, MW3, Uncharted 3... I'd like to know their definition of "crap," maybe low-budget, social, casual, less-known indie games?
I think it's important for people to criticize junk games, junk science, junk food, junk products, junk anything, but I don't think we need to feel frustrated at anything the industry is doing or anything end users are doing. Just keep spreading awareness and eventually there will be a wholesale return to quality and values and honesty. There's growing opportunity to create the equivalent of organic sustainable free range pesticide free high nutrient games and earn a living.
n_Tale_Of_Tales_Dark_Journey.php
I do take issue with some of AH's comments generalizing the industry and what people want to make. It's a huge industry with many people, ma'am. And please, do not judge others for what they want to make either. You're lucky enough to be able to do what you do for a living, so let others do what they do for a living as well. If they want to make COD6 - Post-Modern Warfare, let them. It's less competition for you.