|
You mentioned a cathedral. Sometimes the visual communication in games is less about communicating meaning, and more about communicating aesthetics, or information. Even though it's such a visual medium. Do you have any thoughts on why?
AH: That's interesting.
MS: I think one of the problems when addressing this issue is that we're dealing with a lot of engineers in this industry, or people with an engineering -- or sort of a more scientific -- mindset.
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.
AH: There's a lot more ambiguity.
MS: Maybe they're making the painting because they want to find out what this feeling is that they have. And I do see that happening in games. There's a bunch of artists working in games, and they're not talking to the game designer or to the programmer, and they're just doing their own thing.
AH: But I think also the deal with games is it's not a visual medium. I mean, it's multimedia, to use a '90s word for it. So the visuals are not really the most important thing. And sometimes you see games that are an overweight of visual sensation to the detriment of, perhaps, the sound design, or the dialogue. I mean, how much bad voice acting have you seen in a really beautifully visually crafted game? So, you need all these things to work together, and to be brought up to the same level, and to support each other, I think.
MS: This is where the cathedral is a good example, because it's architecture, but also painting and sculpture.
AH: And sound and atmosphere.
MS: Theatre also. All these things come together.
AH: And I think that it helps if game developers think about all of these elements together, and don't sacrifice on the words that are being said. It's like you've got these characters that look great, but when they open their mouths, they sound like California surfers in armor or something. [laughs] You're just like, "Why did they write this? What are they saying?" Or the type of atmosphere that is created by the words or the music -- it's like, all these things support the visuals, and the visuals support the rest of it.
Aesthetics needs to be looked at as a larger area -- not just visuals. Personally, we think that aesthetics extend to the interactions that you do, like the way that you interact with the world, and the way the characters interact with you.
Fatale
Do you think they need to look at it more holistically -- is what you're saying?
AH: Yeah. That's what I'm saying. Exactly what I'm saying.
When you talk about the aesthetics of gameplay, it's not an immediately comfortable concept. People don't think of gameplay as having an aesthetic.
AH: In fact, control schemes are taken for granted. I mean, most games are AWSD with the mouse, or something like that.
MS: They're taken for granted, but within very strict limitations. Like, you can't really experiment with that. So, if you deviate from the convention, players will respond, "Oh, that's bad!" Try doing AWSD, and change it to AZWD or something. People would freak out! And I would call that an aesthetic assessment, actually. Aesthetic appreciation is also about recognition...
AH: In a sense, that's what's kind of cool about new control schemes like the Wii or Kinect, or something like that, or the Move. You get to start over. There's not this convention in your way, so you can think about how the characters interact with you, how you interact with the environment, in a different way, finally. So, it's not all this weight of convention. And so then that's when your interactivity can become aesthetic, when you make the interactivity suit your world, suit the thing that you're making, and can make that, also, part of the expression of what you're working on.
MS: I really think game designers put a lot of effort in making the controls feel nice. Feeling nice is aesthetics. But I think they do it just for that purpose, and I think that's where, sort of, there's something lacking for me, where you could use these aesthetics to put other types of emotions than just "it feels nice."
AH: I guess that's what they were trying to do with games like Heavy Rain. This is kind of what we're talking about, when we mean aesthetics of interaction.
MS: That's definitely an experiment in that direction. I'm not exactly sure if it's a successful one...
AH: But I enjoy the effort. That it's an attempt at an aesthetic in interactivity.
|
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.