Sexuality, Sophistication, and Style

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Left - Fear Effect. Right - No One Lives Forever 2.

There is a kind of worldly wisdom in the saying "It isn't what you have, it's how you work it." But let's face it, the majority of games (on all platforms) seems to lack even a modicum of these three 'S' words. For all practical purposes, many of them don't really need it. Certainly Mario and Zelda don't. Ditto Pokeman and the Quake series (where the cool factor is measured not by your moves but how huge your rocket launcher is). Studying the development, execution, and marketing of computer games, specifically the high production ones, I noticed how very few of them pay that much attention to design in terms of constistency of vision, originality, and cohesion. They seem fragmented, and the experience of entering their world, at least according to my experience, feels rather fractured. Emphatically, many of these games' conceptions of these three 'S' words feel provincial to me. To put it bluntly, a nerd's conception, one who has never left his dark cubicle to fully explore the real world and taste its various offerings, trapped within his adolescent carnal yearnings devoid of subtlety and efficacious restraint.

The Hitman series, perhaps the finest embodiment of sexiness,

sophistication, and style in a computer game.

However, what scant number of games I feel present themselves successfully do it with damn good a conviction, perfectly or imperfectly. Take, for example, the sultry Fear Effect (PS1), with the dystopian Blade Runner like Hong Kong setting and the highly sexually manipulative yet distant Hana, her dark history and deadly profession cutting a swath of steely cosmopolitan eroticism in her wake. Fear Effect never hesitated in its certitude, it took no prisoners. Then there's No One Lives Forever and its sequel, the tongue-in-cheek humour and spy movie spoofing taking the limelight yet no more important than its cinematic knowingness or its smartness in period fashions and first class globetrotting.

There's also the Splinter Cell series, pushing the concept of silence and stealth and espionage as in itself a selling tool of cunning gracefullness and clandestineness laced with an undercurrent of erotic electricity. No different ultimately is the Thief series. Deus Ex suggests the three 'S' words but unfortunately fails to deliver, in the end constrained by the nerd's inexperience with, and trepidations of, the delicacies of worldly sensibilities: why was J.C. not allowed to take any of the women from Lucky Money back to a hotel room, but only permitted to watch two women dance together and flirt with each other steamily? The experience felt stunted, the player robbed of opportunity. There was nothing there similar to the gravity of worldly satiety as in Fear Effect, or the heaving lovesick cynicism and urban weariness of Max Payne 2.

The Hitman series, though, truly and eloquently proves that style can be everything, sophistication can be deadly, and sexiness a universe of nuances and exoticness far beyond the nerd's adolescent fantasies. Defying my receptivenss towards bringing gaming to as many as possible, I'll venture to say that the Hitman series is not for everyone, nor should it be for everyone. The beauty of this series lies in the very notion of it being an acquired taste. As with Thief and Splinter Cell and Deus Ex, it places heavy demands on the player, not just physiologically and intellectually but also psychologically and yes, cosmographically. That #47 wears an immaculate dark suit and tie (most likely custom tailored) and travels the world all in a day's work underscores the maturity and complexity of the game's universe, its elusiveness. A 13-year-old would not understand the gradations of this world, but certainly an older gamer experienced in matters of sexuality, cunning, and craftiness would.

Considering the average age of gamers is 28 years, with growing demographic of older gamers (yes, we are the ones who grew up with Pong and Pacman), these three 'S' apply more than ever, especially with the advancing technology capable of rendering in real time the subtleties necessary (facial expressions, body language, A.I.), as well as more cinematic narrative, and more emotionally charged story subjects. You brilliant developer nerds, listen up! Go outside, get a tan, and fly off to Paris and have an affair with a countess! You have no idea what you're missing, whereas we older gamers do!

So, whatchar thoughts on this?

[MrHoatzin]

I think that is a big problem in games and movies and with the normal people in general. Gratuitous coolness always wins when set against true style and cohesion of vision. Van Helsing in its opening weekend already grossed more than Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind did since it has been out (52 vs 31 million). That said, there still is a huge market for the people who watched the later movie... and yet it is so much easier to make gee-wiz crap than actually invest effort into filling the game with style.

[Alex]

Ah yes but gratuitous coolness has it's place, don't you think? I mean, do you really not enjoy any of those 'blockbuster' type movies and games? Ones which have all the muscle power and brains of a herd of angry yaks? I think that they too can possess a certain level of depth in that they can elicit base human emotions and wring them out like a damp cloth. To say that they are shallow and meaningless just because they have big explosions would be, i think, missing the point. People watch them because they don't want to have to think, but that doesn't mean they're stupid, it simply means that they want to (on a subconscious level) experience something which they will probably never know in real life. They want to feel those raw survival chemicals searing their brains. Is that so wrong?

[LeChuckie]

I agree

[Guest James]

Sexuality in gaming is a delicate issue. As you correctly state B, so often it is based on the nerd's perception of reality - witness the Leisure Suit Larry series. The likes of The Longest Journey have dealt successfully and naturally with adult relationships, and Blade Runner offered a comprehensive universe of adult reality, and was duly awarded a BCC 15 rating.

The avatars in the Deus Ex series have been weak, because I feel, ISA are afraid to impose a viewpoint or opinion on the character. Frankly I find it weak that the character programming has not developed to the point between the original and IW whereby the avatar would respond in a narrative sense to the player's actions, with predictive narrative and dialogue. This is especially true given the narrow scope of choices, that Marek highlighted in his excellent article.

Narrative "heavy" genres such as the adventure or the RPG obviously lend themselves to these elements. However, as the likes of Broken Sword and Gabriel Knight have shown, these tend to be done in a very "safe" manner. I query what is the objection to having Alex in IW be in a relationship with one of his fellow Tarsus students? Is this seen as an impingment on player freedom? If so, simply offer the player the opportunity to break up (or be dumped).

The analogy with film still holds; in silent movies, emotionally intense subthemes could not be portrayed, owing to technological limitations. As the recent screens of Unreal III have shown, we are beyond that point. Now games must involve the player in the manner so lacking up to now.

[MrHoatzin]

They want to feel those raw survival chemicals searing their brains. Is that so wrong?

You're talking about good movies. I am talking about utter tripe movies... Utter tripe movies see me walking out of the theater wondering why I spent five bucks on that thing. Only good movies give me some sort of catharsis.

[Alex]

The point i was making was just that a movie doesn't have to be sophisticated or mind-bending in order to be good. They can be brainless and look pretty but still be enjoyable.

[MrHoatzin]

They can be brainless and look pretty but still be enjoyable.

I never much liked Tim Burton.

[vimes]

The problem of games is that the possibilties they offer end with the boundaries of the developers' imagination. These boundaires are limited by :

1-technology

2-market demand

3-the inner fact that developers comes from computer science and that they unconscienly integrate what they see as the limits of the medium in their scenario.

To me, video games will make a great step in the domain of art an and adult medium when people coming from other horizons will be behind a development. This is these kind of people who can bring fresh ideas. I mean, if a guy comes and says i want THAT and if he's into computer science you can always argue and end up saying it's impossible whereas if the guy has no clue, you'll be forced to find a solution to his problem.

Regarding sexuality, i want this be around only if it's not light treated... I'm interested neither in some James Bond kind of sexuality("Oh#insert avatar's name#, you're irresistible!...") nor in some soap opera thingy. Sure, the first attempt to integrate sexuality will be like that but ... you know, I'm convinced there's room for others "points of view" on sexuality.

Style and sophistication, to me, have always been here , in some excellent games, and I think that they'll come back when people realize they need to focus on design rather than on trying to make a ground breaking 3D Engine.

['scuse my bad english, I hope it's still understandabe]

[MrHoatzin]

['scuse my bad english, I hope it's still understandabe]

Dear god, man, what language is that?! Speak! English! Like! Normal! People! Do! So! That! We! May! Understand! Wachatalkinbout!*

*) Every American who for some odd reason assumes I don't speak English at all has adressed me this way: stressing every word and yelling.

[manny_c44]

Meh.

Games really don't need to have these things. I mean look at what Max Payne 2 tried to do in terms of its love story, it just came of as kind of bizarre. I'm almost embarrased watching polygon faces kissing in a serious manner because its just so forced, so intentional, and so eerily robotic.

Plus when you think about it, "stylish" games like Hitman aren't exactly legendary in terms of gameplay. I'd say the aqcuired taste for this kind of obvious in-your-face style is better represented with coming to terms with the over saturation of sugar in Mountain Dew than coming to appreciate the tartness of a wine. Style and Sex are the last things someone needs to have fun...in a game....cough.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Sexuality in gaming is a delicate issue. As you correctly state B, so often it is based on the nerd's perception of reality - witness the Leisure Suit Larry series. The likes of The Longest Journey have dealt successfully and naturally with adult relationships, and Blade Runner offered a comprehensive universe of adult reality, and was duly awarded a BCC 15 rating.

Much of it also has to do with containing the content within the conventions of a genre. You don't typically expect romantic relationships between characters in a first person shooter. But it depends on the individual game. What if issues like that suddenly appear midway in an action game? For one thing it would throw the player off course in his expectations of what a game in that genre is 'supposed' to do, and he may have to re-align himself, especially if that subcontext became tightly integrated to his experience of the game.

The analogy with film still holds; in silent movies, emotionally intense subthemes could not be portrayed, owing to technological limitations. As the recent screens of Unreal III have shown, we are beyond that point. Now games must involve the player in the manner so lacking up to now.

There was also the censorship laws back then, quite prevalent during the first half of the century in Hollywood. This was a double edged sword in that while it hampered directors' expressive freedom outright, it also forced them to become more creatively Machiavellian with their subterfuge at presenting otherwise forbidden themes in their films. A good example is director Ernest Lubitch's Design For Living (1933), where his suggestions of a menage a trois between a young woman and her two male friends are strategically veiled.

And James, I think you'd be interested in knowing that in writing the script for our Curves of Danger game, I was actually working in that mindset (what if there some production code that prevented us?). Hence:

Flux: Tamara, stunningly late, as usual?

Tamara [looking at Phil, eyeing him up and down]: Oh God, Flux, even your insinuations have a sexiness about them. What is your damn secret? Do tell, my mental notebook is wide open.

Flux: Wide open, eh? Shall I get you a pen?

Tamara: Oh, please. At least wait until I had a couple of drinks before you show me your Mont Blanc.

The problem of games is that the possibilties they offer end with the boundaries of the developers' imagination. These boundaires are limited by :

1-technology

2-market demand

3-the inner fact that developers comes from computer science and that they unconscienly integrate what they see as the limits of the medium in their scenario.

...Style and sophistication, to me, have always been here , in some excellent games, and I think that they'll come back when people realize they need to focus on design rather than on trying to make a ground breaking 3D Engine.

This is partly exactly what's on my mind. I'm thinking that if/when this whole whorish yet natural obsession with technology levels off, we may begin seeing a re-focusing on content and its articulation. It may be a matter of writers and art directors being limited to the available tech, market constraints, and the provinces of developers and programmers, but if Hollywood directors back then were able to brilliantly circumnavigate the censoship laws, what's preventing highly talented writers, artists, and directors from doing the same to games?

Games really don't need to have these things. I mean look at what Max Payne 2 tried to do in terms of its love story, it just came of as kind of bizarre. I'm almost embarrased watching polygon faces kissing in a serious manner because its just so forced, so intentional, and so eerily robotic.

Plus when you think about it, "stylish" games like Hitman aren't exactly legendary in terms of gameplay. I'd say the aqcuired taste for this kind of obvious in-your-face style is better represented with coming to terms with the over saturation of sugar in Mountain Dew than coming to appreciate the tartness of a wine. Style and Sex are the last things someone needs to have fun...in a game....cough.

I disagree. Games really DO need to have these things. But I did specify that not ALL games should have them. I grew up on Atari, Intellivision, and hours and hours at the local arcade. We were so primitive then, but now look at what games can do today. That said, it's inevitable that there will be a focus on the content as per gameplay experience. A few devs, like Ragnar Tornquist (The Longest Journey, Dreamfall), Konami (Silent Hill series), and Benoit Sokal (Syberia series) are already exploring themes, subtleties, and drama in ways that your typical developer is scared shitless to do. Yes, there is absolutely ample room for Style and Sex. We simply need them to be treated with a more mature and worldly hand, beyond the adolescent nerdy programmer's fantasized and stunted projections that insult more intellgent gamers.

[Alex]

It seems to me wholly unfair for you to blame the relative immaturity of games solely on the developers. There are other factors which bring much more weight to any design decision than the designers themselves.

Yes, there is a high degree of whoredom when it comes to graphics but that should not be treated as some sort of affliction to be hurried out of the way as quickly as possible. It is because of these graphical processes that whole new areas of design possibilities open up which will allow for a greater variation in the sort of scenarios we can expect to see in a game. Any sort of personal connection, especially when it comes to sex, is practically an impossibility given the current standard of graphical capabilities, even with the likes of the Source engine around. I wouldn't even be using the word 'practically' if it wasn't for the fact that I happen to have one personal experience of feeling empathetic horror on the part of a game character.

People say "oh in the old days, we didn't really give a toss about how a game looked, it was all about the involvement, man" that is because the different styles between games were extremely limited and the speed at which that technology advanced was a very relaxed one indeed. What with Moore's Law, however, that speed has been increasing exponentially and we are suddenly seeing huge advances in the realism of game worlds every few months. As we haven't yet adjusted to this sort of technological growth it is hardly surprising to find a lot of companies trying to sell their products on that basis alone. While that is discouraging in one sense, it will also stimulate further progression which is, in my opinion a very good thing as it will, yet more quickly, allow developers to do what they actually want to rather than having to make do with what they've got.

'Making do with what they've got' is having bad consequences. As has been stated here already, trying to develop any sort of subtle emotional context, erotic or otherwise, when the characters involved are, to all intents and purposes, glorified Lego men is, quite frankly, laughable. It's like having to watch the most terribly acted movie of all time.

I admire what the developers are trying to do, of course, but when the results are uniformly bad, can you blame them for showing a preferment of, shall we say, less 'subtle' entertainment? But this is all by-the-by, and I suspect I am straying from the central issue I'm trying to make here which is that just because developers aren't making these stylish, sexual, emotional, whatever you want to call them, games, it doesn't mean that they don't want to.

There are two very big and very important entities stand in the way, publishers and consumers. The publishers, I will assume most of you guessed. They are very rarely interested in the artistic possibilities of a game unless it pertains to that rather fine picture of George Washington on a green background. Propose the gaming equivalent of Psycho (a violent film with no actual violence) and they will stare at blankly wondering whether the safest option would be to jump you or humour you.

Publishers are stifling beasts and if they say 'we want XYZ' very few developers will want to take the immense financial risk of defying whichever part of that demand is in conflict with their own interests. To ask what is preventing talented writers, artists and directors from circumnavigation censorship of games is susceptible of a ready explanation i.e. the man who pays them. He is only interested in shifting units and will, as a result, only back those designs which have 'fiscal possibilities' written all over them. He will not go out on a limb with risky games because the industry at the moment has huge development costs and low returns. If a game flops, millions are lost, it's as simple as that.

Which leads on rather nicely to my next point, where the publisher gets the idea about what will sell and what won't: the consumers. Yup, it is because of us and what we buy that we are constantly feeding our own demons. A publisher looks at the numbers and says 'look at all these games, isn't it interesting how their grossing profit has a direct correlation with the amount of blood discharged in each?' and you end up with yet more and more of the same.

The problem is that while you talk about the industry which needs to mature, to seem to neglect the public which that industry serves. Does it not also need to mature? When you think about it, from the point of view of the majority of publishers and gamers, things are looking pretty damn good. It's only from suffocating developers and people like us who crave nothing more than to be taken seriously who are left out in the cold.

But that's quite enough of me being insanely long and tedious for the moment. If you managed to read all the way to this point I congratulate you, and offer you this as a reward. I think you'll agree it was worth it

[Intrepid Homoludens]

I haven't ignored all those other factors you so eloquently brought. If anything, my longwinded rant stems from my personal frustration over the cyclic conundrum of publishers giving consumers lame tripe, with consumers buying it because it's all they're being offered. It's an awkared symbiosis. We, as consumers, should be more savvy in what we want out of games. I own very few games compared to the next serious gamer. This is primarily out of economy, which forces me to be more discerning and aware of what I'm looking for specifically in a game. I consider myself a serious gamer by criteria that I want to become emotionally involved in the experience, I can't simply just pick up a game and drop it 30 minutes later.

As per the reality of publishers going by numbers and dollars, that's a given in any industry, of course, and I haven't forgotten that, as you seem to think I have. There will be the maintstream mediocrity that rakes in all the money, but that's not to say that progress and innovation in content have no room at all. Again, that's a given in any industry, the possibilities that someone will break new ground, visionaries struggling at expression. What I'm looking for is that special game that explores uncharted territory by fusing technology with a sense of deep involvement that transcends the mere 'we-are-the-best-because-we-have-cool-graphics-and-tie-ins-with-the-latest-summer-blockbuster-movie' mentality, and appeals to the intelligence of the gamer. Until then there will always be gullible consumers and cold-headed publishers. It's turned into such a business, inevitably so. But that doesn't mean that I personally have to follow that bullshit. I'm too smart a consumer for that.

And I argue that it already has been possible to bring a higher level of subtlety to games as to draw the player in beyond mere button mashing and rocket launching. I mean, I teared up at the end of of Syberia, didn't I? I felt a great pang of sentimentality at the end of Gabriel Knight 3, didn't I? I felt a certain swoosh of slickness and polish playing some Hitman 2, didn't I? It wasn't just the fundamental gameplay, there was also a particular talent the developers tapped into to bring that deeper involvement in the gaming experience. My argument is for them to push it further and deeper. The technology is already there and willing. Why stop so soon?

[vimes]

People say "oh in the old days, we didn't really give a toss about how a game looked, it was all about the involvement, man" that is because the different styles between games were extremely limited and the speed at which that technology advanced was a very relaxed one indeed. What with Moore's Law, however, that speed has been increasing exponentially and we are suddenly seeing huge advances in the realism of game worlds every few months. As we haven't yet adjusted to this sort of technological growth it is hardly surprising to find a lot of companies trying to sell their products on that basis alone.

Objection,I totally disagree!

First, what with the "relaxed technology" ?! I mean seven years ago, you could see a ground breaking innovation every three or four months; of course, they didn't jump from a Ghz to another, but the innovation, so tiny they seem to be today were really important. When BAT was first released it was a huge improvment!

Then, how can you say that "the different styles between games were extremely limited " ? Have you really played some old retro games ? In the same month there you could play Monkey Island, Eye of The Beholder, Ishar, Powermonger, Zool and lots of other. Today, in western country you see a fucking lots of RTS, FPS and ... that's all.

Then again you say that due to the current technological growth we will soon be able to offer more emotionnal games but that because the growth isn't really... Its quite right but, for example,how do you explain that movies haven't wait or sound, or color, to give this kind of things to the audience ? And how d you explain that the major changes in games weren't linked to new graphic or physics engines but to pure gameplay innovation? Think about Call of Duty, for example.

I think that improving technology is a good way to allow designer to create more easily what they want to BUT the current limits shouldn't be excuses for poorly designed game. Whatever you say, there are a ton of ancient games that manage to create atmosphear where recent games fails.

'Making do with what they've got' is having bad consequences. As has been stated here already, trying to develop any sort of subtle emotional context, erotic or otherwise, when the characters involved are, to all intents and purposes, glorified Lego men is, quite frankly, laughable. It's like having to watch the most terribly acted movie of all time.

Well, the copmarison is not so good : there are other way to create emotionnal content that showing it directly to the players. If a technology can't allow what you want to do - and that yes, you've asked yourself this question twice, third or four times- then the best thing to do is to think of another way. There's always other way when it comes to storytelling or fellings.

I admire what the developers are trying to do, of course, but when the results are uniformly bad, can you blame them for showing a preferment of, shall we say, less 'subtle' entertainment?

I shall say yes. And I can't think of a developer or a designer that will depressly make a basic FPS because attempts to create a brand new genre have failed.

However, if it's a publisher, a producer or "life-or-death of the company" decision, you really can't blame them.

Well don't get me wrong, I understand the difficulty of creating games but I'm depressed to see that on PC, merely all of the games released are all heartless superproduction.

[Jayel]

I think those mature enough to seek the "3 s's" in their entertainment wouldn't bother with a video game and look elsewhere

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Well, I've found it. It's very hard to find, though.

[ragnar]

I think those mature enough to seek the "3 s's" in their entertainment wouldn't bother with a video game and look elsewhere

Precisely, we need to change that.

[Alex]

Right, well i'll try to make this reply a tad less 'eloquent' than my previous one.

Starting off with Homoludens, I accept that you cannot possibly state all of your feelings towards a subject of such complexity in a single post and that you are aware of the publisher/consumer conundrum that i was outlining. I felt however that, with particular reference to your quotes

but if Hollywood directors back then were able to brilliantly circumnavigate the censoship laws, what's preventing highly talented writers, artists, and directors from doing the same to games?

We simply need them to be treated with a more mature and worldly hand, beyond the adolescent nerdy programmer's fantasized and stunted projections that insult more intellgent gamers.

you were strongly projecting an image of developers which I don't happen to agree with. However, now that i understand better what you were saying, i can say that i agree wholeheartedly with you about the endlessly circling turn that the games industry is taking when it churns out yet more copies of itself.

I do have to say, however, that i disagree with you on some of your specific examples of games that try to break from that mould. Syberia left me cold (no pun intended) and felt forced, ungainly and stagnant. As for Hitman 2? The irony is that, for me, that game is a prime example of something which could have been so much more if it hadn't been trampled by the publishers. The premise of being a paid killer with no moral obligations was a fascinating one to me when it was first presented as Hitman, but the sequal felt far far too involved in a battle of good against evil. Suddenly the protagonist was no longer an indifferent murderer doing a job, it was essentially for the benefit of mankind, bless him. That soured the whole experience for me. I would have liked to have been given a contract to kill a billionaire who had dedicated his life to supporting orphaneges. I wanted to be the murderer of Martin Luther King. Not, you understand, because of any disturbing qualities in my own psychological makeup but because that would really make me think 'hang on, can i do this? should i do this?' in spite of the fact that it was only a game.

Now for Vimes. Firstly, i wasn't saying the technology was relaxed, i was saying that the relative speed at which it was advancing was relaxed, which is true. When i was talking about the limited styles of games, i wasn't talking about their premises or execution, i was talking about the way they looked. Everyone was painting a different picture but they all used the same brush.

When it comes to this:

Then again you say that due to the current technological growth we will soon be able to offer more emotionnal games but that because the growth isn't really... Its quite right but, for example,how do you explain that movies haven't wait or sound, or color, to give this kind of things to the audience ?

I'm afraid i don't have an answer to that because i don't understand what you're saying, so i'm sorry about that

As for Call of Duty there was nothing new in there, it was just more of Medal of Honour; set piece after set piece with only just above-par AI. I'm not saying it was bad, i loved it, but there was no innovation there in any sense.

As for saying there are a ton of ancient games where newer ones fail, the reverse is also true. it's a meaningless statement.

And I can't think of a developer or a designer that will depressly make a basic FPS because attempts to create a brand new genre have failed.

However, if it's a publisher, a producer or "life-or-death of the company" decision, you really can't blame them.

I don't know how you can say this when it's the developer that puts their neck on the line with every game. Until you become a hugely respected and successful company, practically every game you make is "life or death of the company" that's my point. If one failure could break you, why should you take the risk?

[Intrepid Homoludens]

It ultimately depends on what you want out of your investment. If you're after fame and money, sure, you'll give them what they want. But if you're in it for the love of new experiences and exploring uncharted territory to share with a very small niche market of gamers, then you have to accept that the rest of the world may not agree with you, you won't make much money. I'd take this second choice of pushing boundaries anytime.