Why games feel irrelevant?

[miffy495]

Ugh. Here comes the inner child stuff...

Really though, is it so bad that the vast majority of games are vapid experiences? Games are, primarily, a source of entertainment. While social commentary and validity don't hurt the experience, it needs to be in a game where it's appropriate. If the commentary isn't fun and doesn't fit in with the game design, then why do we crave it so much? Katamari Damacy is regarded extremely highly around these forums, but really has no relevance whatsoever. It's just good fun. Gaming at its purest, you might say.

I'm all for games that'll challenge the way you think, but that's a lot harder to do when you need to pull the player through the experience rather than simply letting them watch it happen to someone else. Let's not forget that games are supposed to be FUN. Everything else is just bonus.

[Salka]

Well, you have a choice of how you want to spend your entertainment time, do you want to watch ER, The Simpsons or play a video-game?

Anyway, don't get too het up over this thread it is only theoretical, I'm not saying that games -suck- because they aren't as thought-provoking as other medium, games are like toys come to life, Army Men toys that play back with you and try to run your Micro-Machines car over while shooting at it (GTA). Castle Greyskulls, with living henchmen in. Dolls that pretend they have feelings. etc. ETC.

Maybe it is enough that some of them try to reawaken our inner child? (pretention-on-a-stick).

Given that choice, I would definitely play a video game. I can tell you with absolute certainty that I would NOT rather watch The Simpsons or ER.

There are plenty of games that are thought provoking, and plenty that are not. Like movies. Somebody mentioned that the Sims gives you an insight into life. I have no idea what on earth you're talking about, but surely that would mean World War games give you an insight into life during WW1/WW2... Espionage Games give you an insight into life as a spy... Survival Horror games give you an insight into the life of a person who may be trying to escape a house full of zombies... surely, if The Sims gives you an insight into life than pretty much any game can. Although funnily enough I didn't come away from any of those games thinking, 'Oh, what a merry insight into life that was!'

I don't play video games to become enlightened. I play them because I want to have fun and be entertained. There are plenty of games that deal with issues such as racism and inequality if you want, and they can be found in the 1 - 5 year olds section of any video game store. Knock yourself out, if you really think you need to be taught about racism some more.

[Spaff]

(Although I think there's room for some irrelevant gaming. Now excuse me while I work on an article about precisely this issue. Pray I actually manage to finish this one.)

there isnt really an issue here, just some confused fans of E.R wandering into the forums looking for more hot gossip about the next episode of ali mcbeal and what they will come away with at the end of it! Perhaps they will feel more

accepting of blacks! or maybe they'll rekindle friendship with their mother because ali told them to.

*sigh*

[Bud Muhnquai]

The Sims is (maybe inadvertently) insightful in terms of reproducing a narrow mental model of how many people in modern, capitalistic societies view the possibilities of their lives and their notions of progress, weighted extremely heavily towards materialism.

That's not something the game sets up the average Joe to notice, though.

No, it shows us that our lives would be much more rewarding under the fascistic rule of a faceless dictator with really big hands, and that life would be better if we gave up our control on it, and allowed ourselves to be guided by forces beyond our imagnation.

Essentially, it shows us that if we give in to "God"'s will, we'll have an easy ride through life. It's all a sham put in place by the Christian Church. And its also a paedophile training assualt course. Obviously.

[DanJW]

OK, I want both types of games. Games for pure gameplay and joy (katamari damacy) and games with a meaningful story. The first is fairly easy to find, the second is not.

This is why some people try to come up with a new name for the second kind, be it "interactive stories" or whatever. Because they are not really a game, they are a new way of experiencing a narrative, just as novels once were - whereas once the only way to experience a story was from oral tradition, at some point in became a personal and private thing via written word. Now we can interact with the story and it becomes even more personal and private, perhaps. But this new method is, as mentioned, immature and has yet to find truly satisfactory methods for conveying the deep seated human truths that are at the heart of all great stories (in any medium).

It's this potential that interests me most about games; but of course a lot of the time I just want to shoot stuff, stack things or roll a giant ball around.

[Spaff]

You can make up junk like that about anything you like, it doesnt make it any more relevant to anything.

The point of computer 'games' is to 'play' them in order to have 'fun'

not to come away from them feeling enlightened, even the huge long story based ones with acting.

Similarly the point of those TV shows mentioned is not to give you an insight into anything at all.. even the story based ones with acting. (sadly none actually mentioned yet.)

So if you want to see 'relevance' in everything you do dont bother playing games, they arent there to teach you right from wrong or tell you if gays are good or bad, they are there for people to enjoy playing and clearly you dont.

[Spaff]

OK, I want both types of games. Games for pure gameplay and joy (katamari damacy) and games with a meaningful story. The first is fairly easy to find, the second is not.

This is why some people try to come up with a new name for the second kind, be it "interactive stories" or whatever. Because they are not really a game, they are a new way of experiencing a narrative, just as novels once were - whereas once the only way to experience a story was from oral tradition, at some point in became a personal and private thing via written word. Now we can interact with the story and it becomes even more personal and private, perhaps. But this new method is, as mentioned, immature and has yet to find truly satisfactory methods for conveying the deep seated human truths that are at the heart of all great stories (in any medium).

It's this potential that interests me most about games; but of course a lot of the time I just want to shoot stuff, stack things or roll a giant ball around.

ok thats interesting, who doesnt want story?

But story, even if it does follow the classic paths of story telling, is different from the poor argument that started this thread. I want story too, but i dont want the game to end and there to be an overall mesage, a lesson to be learned like it's some crappy episode of Quantum Leap* or like the end of He Man where theyre like, "remember dont be mean to you sister!"

*just series one folks, calm down, the rest of the show is awesome.

[DanJW]

A novel is for entertainment also, but the best novels have strong themes that are worked into the plot in an artful manner. Why not the same for games? There is no reason. Should every game be like this? definately not. Probably 1 in every 100 or less. And where did this term "enlightened" come from? No-one expects to learn something completely and utterly life-changingly new from any fiction, except maybe once or twice in a lifetime; but that doesn't mean you can't be shown old things in a new way that feels rewarding.

Some books are considered worth reading through for everyone. Shakespeare is not to everyone's taste but most people agree that it is important enough to force upon schoolchildren, and that everyone ought to read some at some point in their life. The same could be true of some "interactive digital media" or whatever term you want to use.

edit: thought spaffs first post was replying to mine.

Well, there you go - games where you actually notice the "lesson" are those where the lesson is poorly implemented. What we want is more instances of good design that make the whole thing feel natural and right.

[Spaff]

you want double dash to teach you a life lesson Dan?

[Pulpo]

And to Pulpo : The Last Laugh by Friedrich Murnau was made in 1924, this is the oldest piece of art in movie I can remember and I'm not the type to remember those things; so.. I don't think art waits for technology to become stainless, it just need it to have matured. And frankly, Video game technologies have reached maturity for 3/4 year now .. it's the publishers and manufacturers who haven't...

It seems to me that you don't even have the slightest idea of what it takes to develop a game.. There are no standards, everytime a development begins everything has to be made from scratch (middleware? engines? hah), like Warren Spector said: "game development require's to reinvent the camera every time a project begins". And if we talk about "methods", just today some mature books about game design are starting to appear (Rules of Play for instance)..

Game technology might seem cool to the end user that likes "cool graphics" just like people were amazed with Mellies movies back in 1910.. But if you know what goes behind the game code, game technology still needs to mature quite a lot..

And no, it's not graphics nor sound what we need more of..

[Salka]

The Sims is (maybe inadvertently) insightful in terms of reproducing a narrow mental model of how many people in modern, capitalistic societies view the possibilities of their lives and their notions of progress, weighted extremely heavily towards materialism.

That's not something the game sets up the average Joe to notice, though.

That's the biggest load of bullshit anybody has said yet in this thread.

And ultimately I find all this talk of fun as the point of games to be rather misguided. Why do we worship games like Beyond Good & Evil and Ico so much? Not because they're balls-out ridiculously OMFG FUN! There are plenty of other games that are much better at being fun than those two games. I think we're mainly drawn to the sense of heart these games convey. .

I honestly don't understand what the problem is then. These games obviously already exist, games such as BG&E, Ico, etc. Are you trying to say that ALL games should be like them?

And if you truly respect that, I think you've got to acknowledge that gaming, something that we spent shitloads of hours doing, can't be content with merely being fun

I can. Also, there are lots of games that have good stories and characters, so I don't actually HAVE to be content with games merely being 'fun'. So I don't know what you are talking about.

[DanJW]

you want double dash to teach you a life lesson Dan?

Did you only read half my post, or are you deliberately trying to wind me up? ¬¬

That's the biggest load of bullshit anybody has said yet in this thread

I can see his point. If you view the Sims as an actual simulation of modern life, then you come to the conclusion that the main aspects of modern life are buying stuff for your house, and leveling up your reputation with neighbours. It is difficult to see how such a simulation could be made without just a little bit of satire involved.

I honestly don't understand what the problem is then. These games obviously already exist, games such as BG&E, Ico, etc. Are you trying to say that ALL games should be like them?

the point is that as good as these games are, they are just the tip of what could be done. We don't want it to stop there, and then have more ico's etc, we want to go further.

I can. Also, there are lots of games that have good stories and characters, so I don't actually HAVE to be content with games merely being 'fun'. So I don't know what you are talking about.

He's talking about how from a scientific or philosophic point of view, anything that humans invest this much time in must be beneficial to them in the long term in some way. ALthough it might just be that our unconcious mind thinks that we might be required at some point to shoot/drive/puzzle/craft/roll a giant ball/talk our way out of trouble, and need some practice.

[baconian]

this is from the first page, I'm a bit reluctant to join in at the current point of the (hah!) discussion.

In a movie, the main character(s) can die horribly in the end, and even fail at their mission, but the movie can still be satisfying and feel "complete". Doesn't the fact that the player is in control of the main character(s) preclude the possibility of making "failure" a success, without having to take control away from the character (e.g. make it an ending cut-scene)?

Toss your mind back to Monkey Island the first. In the insult swordfighting, after a point, you don't get very far until you realise that the best strategy is to play to lose, so that you can hear all the appropriate insults & responses and use them later.

This is a a place where failure can lead to success in a game. In fact, a fundamental part of game playing (in all its forms) is learning from your mistakes, a skill that makes you a more capable human being.

[vimes]

It seems to me that you don't even have the slightest idea of what it takes to develop a game...

Maybe. I've been following a Computer Science cursus for 4 years, I've worked on a few game projects but I don't pretend to be an expert. Do you ?

There are no standards, everytime a development begins everything has to be made from scratch (middleware? engines? hah), like Warren Spector said: "game development require's to reinvent the camera every time a project begins".

"The decision to use the original Unreal Engine as the foundation for Deus Ex was one of the best decisions we made : Unreal, and the Unreal toolset, freed us to focus on design issues rather than technology"

Isn't Deus Ex, like, the best game he ever made?

I also believe there are standards of development -I got a design doc template from Chris Taylor dated of 1999- the problem is that a lot of team fail to apply them [cf DoubleFine issues or the 50 french game studios which died in the past year]. A clue of the standardization - good or bad - is that investors trust their money into video games more and more.

One way or the other, we're not talking about the same thing : you say that technology needs to mature while I say that it's mature enough to make more elaborate games in terms of content. So, it's not like we disagree.

On the whole, I would back up Treesus when he says that games could be more meaningful while avoiding to teach the player a lesson; they could be as subtle as any other media.

I 've just finished reading Lord of the Flies and clearly, the purpose of the writer isn't to teach the reader a lesson : he just tells a story of a bunch of kids going through adventure on an deserted island. But you go away with something else about society, human nature, etc...

That being said "Spa(n)kster minus Marek" is righteous in its/his/her fascit attitude : games are, at core, entertaining/fun and games that just fit this expectation perfectly need to remain. But there again, let me quote Je -er .. -Treesus "We don't want it to stop there, and then have more ico's etc, we want to go further." and I'm concerned because it seems the market isn't going to diversify.

... and I really can't imagine what kind of enlightment someone can get during an ER episode.

[Pulpo]

Yes.. we do agree and I must say sorry for looking arrogant on my post, I did not intended to offend you.

well, Warren in your quote there prooves why relevant games aren't common: he can afford Unreal Engine . Most of game developers don't. And the reason is because good technology is still only available to the richest in our industry (EA). There's no solid technology, middleware, engines (torque being a pseudo-solution) available to most game developers..

-don't get me wrong, I loved Deus Ex and I find it a terrific game that actually says something-

Due to the high costs, creative freedom is tied with business.. and no innovation, something-different, artistic games are common to see. Because everyone keeps focusing on the superficial side of things: Graphics. Visuals have been the cool thing during the whole existence of this industry.. and as long as it keeps being like that: we may very well forget good interactivity which is the sole thing that makes games what they are.

The analogy I do with movies, it's because it happened the same exact thing when film was getting born..

PS: Good book Lord of the Flies..

[toblix]

Toss your mind back to Monkey Island the first. In the insult swordfighting, after a point, you don't get very far until you realise that the best strategy is to play to lose, so that you can hear all the appropriate insults & responses and use them later.

This is a a place where failure can lead to success in a game. In fact, a fundamental part of game playing (in all its forms) is learning from your mistakes, a skill that makes you a more capable human being.

Yeah, but this isn't what I mean. The "losing" here is just really figuring out some gameplay mechanic that you need to understand in order to win. My view is this: What if Guybrush got sworded in the gut and died right there, on the road? No player would just go "Oh, so that's the end of the story, right here. Good game!". My point is that even if a game system/world is free and unlimited, if you're going to tell a good story, you can't rely on the freedom. Eventually, you'll either have to make it so that every possible outcome of the gameplay gets some form of closure (which is impossible), or ever so gently nudge the player towards the limited set of endings which will satisfy him/her.

This sort of fits with why I don't spend much time on games that start with "Sim". They never have goals, and never a "story arc", so they're just toys or simulations, which start to get boring the minute I get a sense of the "gears" and mechanics behind the game. If The Sims was really unlimited in possibilities, I'd do nothing but play it, but when I've spent a couple of hours on it, and realise that I can't really build the house of my dreams, since I'm limited to the tilesets and dimensions that the game supports, and the people can't turn into completely unique characters, just pre-animated models with combinations of some limited number of stats, it feels so empty. SO EMPTY!!!

[baconian]

Wellll, at no point will there be a game that's not based on a limited set of stats, but perhaps one that hides that fact so well that you can't tell. But at that point, the interactions with the game would seem so realistic that it would be pointless to play it, and you might as well just go out and interact with some people.

Games are supposed to be limited, and toy-like. Japanese gardens and stuff.

If losing in that context doesn't do it for you, and you want a game that takes you to heaven/hell or something when you die, that remains part of the limited set of interactions that the game affords. A game that allows freedom while somehow concurrently making some relevant point about life, the universe and everything, is just the hard problem (I don't think it's impossible) that game industry visionaries have been taking on all along. (grumpygamer.com , erasmatazz.com , interactivestory.net ...)

[Salka]

Argh FGHadrlkhgadlhkgaflkhag

He's talking about how from a scientific or philosophic point of view, anything that humans invest this much time in must be beneficial to them in the long term in some way

I don't see why. I played RE4, it took me 31 hours to complete. I didn't come away feeling enlightened, but it made me fucking happy. Man it was a good game. I'm sure it wasn't beneficial to me in any way other than making me happy. Isn't that good enough?

Would it have been preferable if I'd have come away from that experience, empathising with possessed spanish villagers and enlightened about how valuable life is and how we, as humans living in modern society, can affect the lives of those living around us either for better or worse? Or some bullshit?

I can see his point. If you view the Sims as an actual simulation of modern life, then you come to the conclusion that the main aspects of modern life are buying stuff for your house, and leveling up your reputation with neighbours. It is difficult to see how such a simulation could be made without just a little bit of satire involved.

It's a pretty bollocks simulation of modern life, isn't it??? Or maybe I just find it shit since the main aspects of life here isn't buying stuff for the house... or leveling up a reputation with the neighbours either ¬ ¬

[AndyB]

What I'm suggesting is what the qotm says, "Storytelling is mostly about people. Games are mostly about things, so far. It is easier to create mathematical simulations about things than people. "

Or in other words these games are based around things and simple objectives - shoot them all, catch, race, jump! Rather than about people and their feelings, quirks individualities ETC.

[Erkki]

I think Spafster is totally missing the point of this discussion (or circling around the edges of the point, or whatever), but that's possibly only the point as I see it and not the point as AndyB intended.

Anyway, WTF?

[Spaff]

ok, what is the actual point thats being argued right now? i'm lost and really dont understand you any more. So i'm jsut gonna write some stuff about.. erm... this

"Storytelling is mostly about people. Games are mostly about things, so far. It is easier to create mathematical simulations about things than people."

are you arguing that games are currently failing to tell stories effectively and you want them to?

quake, double dash, neo contra, pikmin, wario ware, electro plankton, nintendogs, mario bros, sonic, DDR, advance wars, world of warcraft, GT4, ace combat, burnout, street fighter, doom, coh, darwinia, diablo, tetris, lumines, puyo pyo pop, tomb raider.

should you come away from these games with an insight into life?

should snooker, darts, poker, chess, twister, monopoly etc be about human emotion and storytelling?

No. Do they bear any relevance to life? No, only if you make them. Are they fun to play? depending on who you are - yes!

thats the whole point of a 'game'

so what medium do you want?

TV shows and story telling in general are non interactive media with a linear story that reaches an end that you have no say in.

Story telling in games is usually a sideline for the game to exist. They give the game objectives more reason to exist giving the player a sense of purpose.

sure games with more in depth story lines exist, but you shouldnt just play a game purley to advance the story line to the next point, otherwise the gameplay itself becomes pointless and it may as well be a book or film.

kotor, ico, bge, psychonauts... the gaming should still be the primary focus of them... guess what? IT IS!

Sure, sometimes I want a game with a good story, but i want to enjoy playing the game and having the story advance due to my actions and enjoying those actions rather than doing something crap and then watching a cutscene for ages

i want to have fun playing the game. FUN. And to be honest, an unreal response form an NPC or a terrile piece of voice acting wont ruin my enjoyment of the game. poor controls, bad puzzles, terrible gameplay. those are the things that will make me annoyed.

the story is second place, a fucking bonus to a good game.

and p.s remember that this conversation started with

"But it seems to me that so many games are irrelevant except in terms of being short-lived fun to pass the time with, no matter how good the game. Because, they do not speak of anything particularly relevant to our society. You don't feel as though you have come away with a new insight into society / human nature / life / ourselves after playing a platform game or Doom 3."

and my main argument (i guess?) is - good, they shouldnt do that, they should just be fun to play.

[BigJKO]

The way I see it, the point is: Storytelling, when present, isn't strong enough.

Doesn't everyone pretty much agree with that?

[toblix]

Wellll, at no point will there be a game that's not based on a limited set of stats, but perhaps one that hides that fact so well that you can't tell. But at that point, the interactions with the game would seem so realistic that it would be pointless to play it, and you might as well just go out and interact with some people.

Are you serious? If you got a game that was 100% realistic, would you just do the stuff you usually do? Me, I would kick someone's ass.

Games are supposed to be limited, and toy-like. Japanese gardens and stuff.

Why? Can't a game be complex and deep, like a European garden?

If losing in that context doesn't do it for you, and you want a game that takes you to heaven/hell or something when you die, that remains part of the limited set of interactions that the game affords. A game that allows freedom while somehow concurrently making some relevant point about life, the universe and everything, is just the hard problem (I don't think it's impossible) that game industry visionaries have been taking on all along. (grumpygamer.com , erasmatazz.com , interactivestory.net ...)

You still don't understand what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying that I want all games to be unlimited in scope. I'm just saying that if a game is supposed to have even a hint of story, the player won't be satisfied until he's reached one of the predefined endings, and the nature of games dictates that you have to win ("beat the game") in order to do this. A movie can end with the main character dying a meaningless death or something, but when that's the case it's supposed to be that way. In a game, such an event would constitute a failure, and if that failure is supposed to be a point of closure or whatever, for the story, the entire game would be this free-form mess that shouldn't attempt to have a story in the first place. Gaaah! I don't know how to express myself!

[miffy495]

Why can't a game end this way? Why not have a story where dying is impossible until the script calls for it, but failure occurs in other ways? I'm not sure if it SHOULD be done, but there's nothing really stopping you.

I really couldn't agree with Spakster more. My first thought when I read that bit about the Sims giving us the insights into the way our society functions was "Wow. This person is really good about bullshitting themself to give meaning to things that have none. My philosophy teacher would love him."

This was pretty accurately, though perhaps less tactfully, summed up by "That's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard."

Not that you people looking at the Sims as you do is WRONG, but don't you think you may be reading just a little too much into these things? I doubt Will Wright ever said "I'm going to make a game that challenges the way people think about our modern society, but only if they look really, really hard for the message." It's far more likely his idea started with the phrase "Hey, y'know what'd be fun..."

In short, if you apply that kind of thinking to every video game, then every video game is suddenly blessed with the deeper meaning you guys all seem to be striving for. For me, I'm perfectly happy just having fun.

[Salka]

Right and how does this give us an insight into modern life? How does this make us come away enlightened, and about what??

Please explain.

Who here has come away from The Sims and found that it has in some way influenced them or offered them an insight into life? Anybody? Nobody? Maybe you all failed to see the insight that is accidentally there.