Some pretentious conference-inspired rambling THE THREAD

[Garple]

You could make any game really and sell it to people,if it's good, it'll sell, I'm sure Mirror's Edge 2 would (I don't know if it's been cancel in the EA meltdown) oversell it's predecessor as is the case with AC2. You just need time.

They don't really have time, though, unfortunately, because they're accountable to shareholders who want a timely return on their investment OR ELSE.

[Lu]

Oops, sorry I skipped that, I would gladly elaborate but I'm not sure what is it that you don't get or what is ambiguous in the point of view I propose ?

This might be because I'm dumb, but I see a lot of words and I can't get a meaning out of it. I don't understand what is being said.

[OssK]

They don't really have time, though, unfortunately, because they're accountable to shareholders who want a timely return on their investment OR ELSE.

That is very true indeed and is a obligation by law in the U.S.

This might be because I'm dumb, but I see a lot of words and I can't get a meaning out of it. I don't understand what is being said.

What is being said is summed up as follow:

• Chris wants games to talk to him like books and movies and music do.
  
• I say games do not talk and that is why no-one has made a talking game despite all the very intelligent people working on them
  
• Why is that ?
  
• Because we are used to being told and to tell things by stories. There is a beginning, an end and when it stops, you can think about it as an object that you witnessed.
  
• But, in games, you do not witness, you act, therefore, your do not analyze it as something from the outside, you just accept the fact that it is you in the screen (Etienne-Armand Amato calls that instanciation).
  
• For instance
  
• I don't know if you've ever driven a car but it is basically the same. When you drive, you do not think about it, you just are the car and you move on a road. You think of the car as your body, you act through it and pressing the gas pedal is a bit like breathing, you don't think about it that much, you just do it.
  
• So in the car example, you are not driving per-se, you are moving. In video games, you are not playing the game, you are moving in the game.
  
• Therfore
  
• Therefore, Chris says "I want games to tell me something" my answer is, very simply put "you would have to say it yourself".
  

It is very simplified obviously, and the bold and list is to try and make it a simple read.

Post-disclaiming nonsense :

If it sounds put in a strange way with bulletpoints it's because I value your point of view and want you to understand what I'm trying to say.

Obviously not because I think you're a moron :s

[Chris]

That is very true indeed and is a obligation by law in the U.S.

What is being said is summed up as follow:

• Chris wants games to talk to him like books and movies and music do.
  
• I say games do not talk and that is why no-one has made a talking game despite all the very intelligent people working on them
  
• Why is that ?
  
• Because we are used to being told and to tell things by stories. There is a beginning, an end and when it stops, you can think about it as an object that you witnessed.
  
• But, in games, you do not witness, you act, therefore, your do not analyze it as something from the outside, you just accept the fact that it is you in the screen (Etienne-Armand Amato calls that instanciation).
  
• For instance
  
• I don't know if you've ever driven a car but it is basically the same. When you drive, you do not think about it, you just are the car and you move on a road. You think of the car as your body, you act through it and pressing the gas pedal is a bit like breathing, you don't think about it that much, you just do it.
  
• So in the car example, you are not driving per-se, you are moving. In video games, you are not playing the game, you are moving in the game.
  
• Therfore
  
• Therefore, Chris says "I want games to tell me something" my answer is, very simply put "you would have to say it yourself".
  

It is very simplified obviously, and the bold and list is to try and make it a simple read.

Post-disclaiming nonsense :

If it sounds put in a strange way with bulletpoints it's because I value your point of view and want you to understand what I'm trying to say.

Obviously not because I think you're a moron :s

I don't see any reason a game can't provide you a valuable revelation. I learn amazing things all the time by way of life experiences, and that's me doing things directly. Why wouldn't a team of developers be able to create a world whose interactive possibilities are genuinely enlightening?

Edit: Also, if the intellectual parallel to video games is driving or breathing, I think I'm justified in my frustration.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Chris

[Lu]

Post-disclaiming nonsense :

If it sounds put in a strange way with bulletpoints it's because I value your point of view and want you to understand what I'm trying to say.

Obviously not because I think you're a moron :s

That's absolutely fine. I got it, I think, but I don't think that I agree.

Let's say that you have a game. In that game there is a certain event where you witness police brutality, for example, a guy being tazered for no good reason. The designer dictates all possible interactions and the tools available to the player (the car, metaphorically speaking).

Does it not stand to reason that, as I use the tools to change the conditions, i.e., I decide to take action (or do nothing), the designer speaks to me through the myriad of different outcomes/interactions that take place?

Now, I know that even such a simple scene would be incredibly complex to execute. I imagine that, for it to be useful to the player, the designer must remain relatively neutral and the quality of interaction must be high. Meaning substantial, meaningful choices and enough of them.

Let's assume that execution of this concept is done perfectly. Wouldn't it have the possibility to make you learn something important about yourself?

I can watch a video or movie involving a similar scene, but then I question: "Jeez, I have no idea what I would do in such a situation." It could be really powerful to let you explore what you would/could do in such an event.

I realize that the premise above is flawed, but in my mind the designer does speak to the player, albeit with a lot more subtlety.

Then again, I guess the designer could also beat you over the head with it "How could you just stand by and watch? Shame on you! *wag of the finger* -10 Goodguy Points!!1", but nobody likes being patronized.

[toblix]

But if the game strived to be some sort of perfect simulation, allowing every possible outcome, etc., how would the game be able to speak to you in any way? Isn't the direction of the game, that degree of linearity (however subtle), really the game's voice? Isn't the spectrum of freedom of interactivity that goes from complete non-interactivity (like in books/films/music) to perfect freedom (like in real life), but not including any of those two, the thing that makes games special?

[Lu]

But if the game strived to be some sort of perfect simulation, allowing every possible outcome, etc., how would the game be able to speak to you in any way?

Well, I didn't mean to imply that the premise above was supposed to be a perfect simulation. Again, just that the player has enough substantial and meaningful choices to make.

What you would do could also change depending on the context of the game. For example, it's likely that you would make different choices if you were just an avatar through which you acted (the silent protagonist) and the choices you would make if you were put in the shoes of a runaway felon-wid-a-heart-o-gold.

Isn't the direction of the game, that degree of linearity (however subtle), really the game's voice? Isn't the spectrum of freedom of interactivity that goes from complete non-interactivity (like in books/films/music) to perfect freedom (like in real life), but not including any of those two, the thing that makes games special?

I think that quality of interactivity determines the game's voice.

[toblix]

Well, I didn't mean to imply that the premise above was supposed to be a perfect simulation. Again, just that the player has enough substantial and meaningful choices to make.

What you would do could also change depending on the context of the game. For example, it's likely that you would make different choices if you were just an avatar through which you acted (the silent protagonist) and the choices you would make if you were put in the shoes of a runaway felon-wid-a-heart-o-gold.

Okay, I misunderstood you. I'm not sure I understand you, though. In fact, I believe I may be missing the core of this discussion.

[gdf]

Interestingly enough, Far Cry 2 did something amazing and revelatory to me the other day. I was about to drive away having secured a checkpoint or safehouse or something, when I saw one injured guy hobbling away into the distance. At the time I had the scoped rifle equipped, so without thinking I zoomed in and shot him right in the back of the head.

The moment I squeezed the trigger I was horrified. Though he had suffered a lot through the loss of his friends and a terrible injury, he had still been alive. I acted through instinct more than anything, and games have conditioned me to just do that, which is probably a bad thing. I began to think of the possible outcomes, and then tried to justify my actions by convincing myself he was going to die slowly and in terrible pain, or that he would have shot himself because he had nothing left to live for. He almost certainly wasn't, though, was he? I thought about that for the next ten minutes of play. The next time that happens, if it happens at all, I'm going to think about it carefully before I just murder an escaping man in cold blood.

More of that please.

[Lu]

Okay, I misunderstood you. I'm not sure I understand you, though. In fact, I believe I may be missing the core of this discussion.

Don't worry about it. I'm quite tired at the moment and I believe I'm obfuscating my point with lots of unnecessary details. I'll try to boil it down to something more concrete.

OssK argues that games can't "talk" to you because games are participatory in nature (correct me if I'm wrong, OssK). The idea that, if you want something to speak to you, it has to be authored work.

My counterpoint being that I think games can talk to you because of their interactive nature; that the designer speaks to its user through the choices and tools he/she offers. Obviously, it greatly differs from how other media does it.

I tried to put it in the context of a hypothetical scene in a hypothetical game, but in retrospect I'm not sure if I succeeded. I admit that it's all kind of vague, sorry about that.

I think I reached my pretentiousness quota for the rest of the year, haha. I'm probably over-thinking it anyway. I often do that with things.

[toblix]

Okay, I see. Thanks for clearing it up.

So, if one imagines a scale of interactivity or freedom going from no interactivity at all (films) to full freedom (a theoretical real life simulator), games exists all over this spectrum, except for the extremes, which are either not games or not possible yet, respectively. At the non-interactive end, the games are talking toyou, like films and books are. You're told a story, and the interactivity is there to make things fun. At the fully interactive end, you're talking to yourself, since there would be no real feedback from the game, at least from the author's point of view, right? So, in the middle of this spectrum, which is where all video games lie, you're talking with the game. You're getting some degree of freedom and choice, and the game gives you feedback, both intentionally, in terms of the feedback the author has decided to give, and unintentionally, in terms of the scope and limitations of the game. Actually, I thought I was on to something when I started writing this, but now I'm not so sure. Apologies if you read this.

[miffy495]

I think I reached my pretentiousness quota for the rest of the year, haha. I'm probably over-thinking it anyway. I often do that with things.

Wow, a month early! Your superiors will be delighted!

[Lu]

Wow, a month early! Your superiors will be delighted!

You know it, man. Being my own boss, having to pat my own back the entire time gave me a mean case of tennis elbow.

Edit: Also, were you being sardonic? If so, ouch, man.

Edited November 27, 2009 by PiratePooAndHisBattleship

[OssK]

Edit: Also, if the intellectual parallel to video games is driving or breathing, I think I'm justified in my frustration.

Those examples are more of an example of instanciation.

I don't see any reason a game can't provide you a valuable revelation.

All that said, I don't either. Maybe because there of course is a way for games to reveal things to us but they very much depend on us to do that. So when you craft your game as a big company does, to widen the audience, if there is any message you would like to pass, you'd better have it written down plus said by a narrator and at a moment where the player is concentrating (Yes, I was very dissapointed at the end of HL2 when doctor something something speaks to us on screens and you have to stay there and watch him talk rather than having the ability to move around and play while listening to him).

What I am defending here is games cannot talk, they can contain amazing messages, enlightening perspectives, but as far as game game is concerned (as in, the player has control over what is happening).

What is said here is games can contain movies or books of music that would fit what you desire but they could also hold things that are not in that order of magnitude, that are on another scale, more or less talking to you.

The example given by GDF

The moment I squeezed the trigger I was horrified. Though he had suffered a lot through the loss of his friends and a terrible injury, he had still been alive. I acted through instinct more than anything, and games have conditioned me to just do that, which is probably a bad thing. I began to think of the possible outcomes, and then tried to justify my actions by convincing myself he was going to die slowly and in terrible pain, or that he would have shot himself because he had nothing left to live for. He almost certainly wasn't, though, was he? I thought about that for the next ten minutes of play. The next time that happens, if it happens at all, I'm going to think about it carefully before I just murder an escaping man in cold blood.

Is him taking a distanced look, realizing not the story that just happened, but what a state of war or urgency (if immersed) or fun (as it is fun to click on people and see them react) or even systemic purpose (because he fears that the enemy will not crawl to safety as a normal human being would do when wounded but would pick a gun and start firing at him again so he's a potential danger, I kill him) made him do.

Why wouldn't a team of developers be able to create a world whose interactive possibilities are genuinely enlightening?

Well, they could do two things to enlighten you :

Drive you through a series of events to have your mind in a certain spot and then try to have you think about what you want to do just as in a car you do not think "where do I want my car to go" but "do I want to turn left or right".

Or let you live in a special world that has different rules and laws and hope (or craft the world in such a way that it is likely to occur) that you would experience enlightenment by doing things you did not think possible.

Because I think it is the way of an adventure and we don't find it in games, to wander and ask "is it going to be possible ?" Just as you talked about The Shivah and said it asked of you to remember the names of people and actually pretend to be a detective. I think these cases of not assisting the player in every conceivable way are the routes to success, to you feeling like a fucking detective or an adventurer.

I learn amazing things all the time by way of life experiences, and that's me doing things directly.

Yes, because when you do, something unexpected happens, that is learning is it not ?

That is exactly what it is to me, something new emerges, something you didn't already knew. And that, I think we can agree on that, can perfectly happen in games.

Let's say that you have a game. In that game there is a certain event where you witness police brutality, for example, a guy being tazered for no good reason. The designer dictates all possible interactions and the tools available to the player (the car, metaphorically speaking).

Does it not stand to reason that, as I use the tools to change the conditions, i.e., I decide to take action (or do nothing), the designer speaks to me through the myriad of different outcomes/interactions that take place?

He does, but what is he saying ? Is he talking to you ? Not really, he is putting you on an edge™ to see what way you will go.

Now, I know that even such a simple scene would be incredibly complex to execute. I imagine that, for it to be useful to the player, the designer must remain relatively neutral and the quality of interaction must be high. Meaning substantial, meaningful choices and enough of them.

Let's assume that execution of this concept is done perfectly. Wouldn't it have the possibility to make you learn something important about yourself?

In that scene ? I doubt it, if the execution were to be perfect, I would certainly believe myself to try and do something. If I did and of course if it was made in such a way that the game would give an echo to that (what you did has consequences within the gameworld) I would probably not learn anything. Because I did what I believed to be right and have already been presented with that situation before. In that situation, I did not do anything, call me a coward because you'd be right to do so, but I did not put myself at risk for the well being of another person I do not know (thankfully, I did that in other occasions).

That was me weighting what I could do and what I risked to get in return. It was a public protest so I had all the chances to get tazed to for the fun of it and nothing would have changed.

Then again, I guess the designer could also beat you over the head with it "How could you just stand by and watch? Shame on you! *wag of the finger* -10 Goodguy Points!!1", but nobody likes being patronized.

He

He

He…

Does that not happen in every game you ever played ? People do like being patronized. Not every people but the "gamers" we have been talking about all thread long do.

[Erkki]

I'm with Chris and PiratePoo on this. In a way, the game designer is just an enabler, and the player decides if the game talks to them or not. But I think to a lesser extent you could say the same about movies: it's the story in the movie that talks to you, not the moving pictures. It's not the movie that talks, it's the storytelling.

And for people who only watch movies for action or boobs, the author's message might not get across either because they are refusing to see it or haven't developed the capability to do so. In case of a movie like Mulholland Drive, the author is talking to even less people, those who make a big investment into hearing what David Lynch had to say with it.

But I think in games the designer can also talk by forcing a choice on the player where the choice itself is a message, or choosing either path might reveal a different message or show a different perspective of the same overarching message.

[OssK]

I'm with Chris and PiratePoo on this. In a way, the game designer is just an enabler, and the player decides if the game talks to them or not. But I think to a lesser extent you could say the same about movies: it's the story in the movie that talks to you, not the moving pictures. It's not the movie that talks, it's the storytelling.

Well… No.

Maybe I want to state first that to me there is not really "sides" here but I might not get that across enough.

There is such a thing as cinematography and what is called "the cinematic language / grammar" but that is one with the actors, the camera movements, the lighting, and the music.

In games, the story is most often told with huge chunks of "I stop that media to impose another one".

Video game's way of telling a story is, for example, The last Express, in which you can witness the world living and breathing in front of you. Farcry 2 does some of that but in a dynamic way which is harder.

But I think in games the designer can also talk by forcing a choice on the player where the choice itself is a message, or choosing either path might reveal a different message or show a different perspective of the same overarching message.

Again, no. the designer does not declare anything, he proposes, he lets the player choose and reflect on that. There is authorial control but a branching undynamic story is likely to be very visible in today's state of the art so you will eventually be tempted to play again trying the other path.

But if you have valid examples of that assertion, I'm more than willing to reconsider my position which, as a game designer, saddens me a bit.

[spindrift]

Just chiming in to say I pretty much completely agree with PiratePoo and chris. I'm finding some of the other arguments in this thread baffling and self-contradictory. I can't parse them at all, unfortunately. I'm not entirely sure if that's my own failing, or not.

Also, fyi. The NYU Game Centre has the mp3s of an awesome series of lectures up on their site. Most of them deal, specifically or tangentially, with the exact issues in this thread, being the possible approaches of games as Systems to speak to us, and the problems involved in trying to implement that.

[OssK]

I can't parse them at all, unfortunately. I'm not entirely sure if that's my own failing, or not.

The whole of them will probably be published in the form of an article in a magazine so if you were so kind as to point said contradictions to me I would be most grateful

[Erkki]

There is such a thing as cinematography and what is called "the cinematic language / grammar" but that is one with the actors, the camera movements, the lighting, and the music.

Games have their language as well. It is not as well established yet and will probably never be as well defined because games can have more variety due to their non-linearity or just the huge difference between some genres. I can't agree that cinematography has a language and game design doesn't.

And cinematography is based on photography so you could say that if a movie says something through the "cinematic language", it stops its own media and imposes photography. For example, Tarkovsky's Stalker.

Most movies perhaps don't stop for that, but also in games like GTA you are told parts of the story while playing.

But if you have valid examples of that assertion, I'm more than willing to reconsider my position which, as a game designer, saddens me a bit.

Not sure if I have good examples, I'll think about it...

[OssK]

Games have their language as well. It is not as well established yet and will probably never be as well defined because games can have more variety due to their non-linearity or just the huge difference between some genres. I can't agree that cinematography has a language and game design doesn't.

Well, did I ever say that they don't ? For I do know that they have a language, a grammar. But it's not their variety that prevents them from having a constructed language, it's their youth.

The fact that games have been around for 20 years and that we have not stopped yet to have fun with the technology. So for now, people try new things with the graphics and the sound, for those are known elements.

To define a language you have to push games forward, try crazy shit that doesn't work and are probably not so fun to play through as they are imperfect. But those imperfect things, those lessons learned are not public, they are made into secret places where a few developpers hide and tryout things.

When you want to make a big game, you have to sell it first, to your banker or to your producer and those often do not care for gameplay because they don't know what it is. "What genre will it be, what other existing game will it look like ?". (and it's perfectly understandable)

You can sell Barbie meets God of War in the toilets, you just have to speak to them of game they know. If you are trying to sell a revolution in gameplay, it's actually very difficult. 1) because they don't even know what gameplay is 2) because revolutions are risky 3) because there are things economically viable, why bother ?

So yes, game do not have yet a defined grammar and I am definitely not the only one saying that (Clint Hocking for instance is trying real hard to define one). (I'd daresay also that it's a pretty acknowledged view amongst people that are game-litterated enough to talk as such a thing in my experience).

And cinematography is based on photography so you could say that if a movie says something through the "cinematic language", it stops its own media and imposes photography. For example, Tarkovsky's Stalker.

If you don't recognize that there is a specific language to cinema, I would not try to say no but I sure hope you have very solid arguments because there is pretty much a world of people against you…

The cinematographic language is one of lights and movement, it's pauses are, therefore, a way to express something in a universe that is supposed to be in movement. Whereas a photography is still and is supposed to be except if you live in Hoggwarts or whatever the name of that castle is.

Movements, they way actors speak and what is shown of them as they do, how they are lit and so and so and so… I'm not really going to define it all.

There is a language of cinematography

There is a undefined language to games.

Both of these are really hard to contradict to say the least.

Most movies perhaps don't stop for that, but also in games like GTA you are told parts of the story while playing.

Yes, that is correct : in-game cutscenes as they are called are probably as close as it can get. Providing they don't stop you for no reason at all like oops suddenly he stoped talking and the door is not locked anymore !

[Erkki]

The way I argued was knowingly hyperbolized, but all I'm really saying that while movies make use of other 'mediums' and it's accepted that they add their own thing to that, the same is true for games: it's not fair to say that the only way a player can experience something insightful while playing games only comes from the other mediums that the game makes use of.

I still have to think about good examples though... For one thing, you can learn something of how systems work if a game exposes that well enough and the system is not completely made-up fantasy. It's harder to learn that in real life or through other mediums.

[Erkki]

But if you have valid examples of that assertion, I'm more than willing to reconsider my position which, as a game designer, saddens me a bit.

Ok, so I thought of two small games that I think are good examples. And you can play them in just minutes if you haven't (probably the case with the latter one as it's not well known I think).

1) Passage. Somebody already brought this up in this thread, I think. It could be done as a silent movie, but the system would not become apparent, it might evoke slightly different emotions or thoughts.

(I think The Path works similarly)

2) Deirdra Kiai's Pigeons in the Park and/or The Little Girl Nobody Liked. Either could be done as a choose-your-own-adventure book or interactive DVD movie, but these are niche forms that I think can be considered inferior to games in that they offer only a small subset of what games could do.

Bonus) Far Cry 2.

You might learn from it that sometimes things just aren't up to you. You have choices, paths to take, but all lead to the same conclusion. You aren't the one in control, the one who you thought is the enemy realizes the larger situation before you do and is the one to actually solve that situation.

I think this would not have worked quite as effectively in any movie or book.

[OssK]

But I think in games the designer can also talk by forcing a choice on the player where the choice itself is a message, or choosing either path might reveal a different message or show a different perspective of the same overarching message.

So if this is the quote these games are exemplifying, I would have to object that Passage does not really propose any choice, it just builds a world in which you live an experience and then you build messages out of it. Roher (the game designer) gives you the opportunity to live an experience out of which you get meaning. So this is pretty much my point from the beginning : there is no story in there other than the one you make.

The other one is an interactive story, I don't see the game design telling me much here. There are different ways to tell the story depending on which kid you click (I couldn't try the windows one) but I don't see how it's in any way a message from the game desinger.

[Lu]

He does, but what is he saying ? Is he talking to you ? Not really, he is putting you on an edge™ to see what way you will go.

I don't agree with that. That feels like taking a concept and only looking at the outer layer and saying "That's what it is".

Also, if you admit to saying that the designer is saying something, then who is he talking to? If not the player, then what is the use of saying anything at all?

Roher (the game designer) gives you the opportunity to live an experience out of which you get meaning. So this is pretty much my point from the beginning : there is no story in there other than the one you make.

That doesn't add up for me. Aren't you forgetting that it's Rohrer who put meaning into the game in the first place? Surely, not everyone got the exact same thing out of it (as with any kind of medium), but it made a lot of people go "Oh, I understand what he is saying with this". That is Rohrer succeeding in conveying something to the player.

edit:

Also, fyi. The NYU Game Centre has the mp3s of an awesome series of lectures up on their site. Most of them deal, specifically or tangentially, with the exact issues in this thread, being the possible approaches of games as Systems to speak to us, and the problems involved in trying to implement that.

Thanks for that link, by the way. Currently listening to the Warren Spector one and loving it. ( << Don't worry, it's purely platonic. )

Edited November 28, 2009 by PiratePooAndHisBattleship

[Erkki]

Passage wasn't really an example of that quote, it was a more general example where I think a message through a game can be more effective than through other medium.

but I don't see how it's [Little Girl Who Nobody Liked] in any way a message from the game desinger.

The Pigeons game was a better example I think, though the gameplay was still only making dialogue choices. Do you mean you don't see it as having any message at all or that it's not a game design related message?

I might tentatively agree with the latter, but it's done as a game and I think you get the whole message only if you play several times. But isn't 'interactive story' a subform of game basically?