Most games are stupider than we realize

[BlaneckW]

http://beepsandboops.com/2012/08/video-games-are-stupid/

For someone who subtitled his book “Why Video Games Matter,” Tom Bissell spends much of his time in Extra Lives discussing why many games, in fact, matter very little. The book is ostensibly about why video games are sophisticated vessels of creativity. Bissell makes a compelling argument, but must overcome one major hurdle: namely, that video games often, if not always, fall short of real sophistication.

Torment’s cumbersome combat system ranges from terrible to extremely terrible.  The user interface is unkind, and the game’s quest tracking is spotty, leaving inattentive gamers scratching their heads as to the location of some critical NPC. But the game coasts along on the strength of its massive 800,000 word script and lengthy sections which are better compared to the puzzling fetch-quests of adventure games than to hack-and-slash dungeon crawls. You can play for hours without lifting a battleaxe. Many obstacles can be overcome with an insightful dialog choice if you’d rather avoid physical combat, and in fact you gain vastly more experience by navigating dialog trees than slaying monsters.

There can be no doubt that video games were born and flourished as amusing distractions – as virtual tennis, or games of extraterrestrial combat. There is nothing wrong with this, but it does pose a rather serious problem to people trying to elevate amusing distractions to, as David Cage puts it, “emotional journeys.”

Designers today are not looking into some indeterminate future where we have finally overcome the limitations of the medium; they’re making games right now that they could have made decades ago.

[Yitzi]

http://beepsandboops.com/2012/08/video-games-are-stupid/

For someone who subtitled his book “Why Video Games Matter,” Tom Bissell spends much of his time in Extra Lives discussing why many games, in fact, matter very little. The book is ostensibly about why video games are sophisticated vessels of creativity. Bissell makes a compelling argument, but must overcome one major hurdle: namely, that video games often, if not always, fall short of real sophistication.

Torment’s cumbersome combat system ranges from terrible to extremely terrible.  The user interface is unkind, and the game’s quest tracking is spotty, leaving inattentive gamers scratching their heads as to the location of some critical NPC. But the game coasts along on the strength of its massive 800,000 word script and lengthy sections which are better compared to the puzzling fetch-quests of adventure games than to hack-and-slash dungeon crawls. You can play for hours without lifting a battleaxe. Many obstacles can be overcome with an insightful dialog choice if you’d rather avoid physical combat, and in fact you gain vastly more experience by navigating dialog trees than slaying monsters.

That script and those dialogue trees are then its take on sophistication.  And depending on how it's done (I haven't played it, but have heard good things), that could be more sophisticated, and a better game, then any hack-and-slash could hope to be.

Sophistication in games can come from two sources: Either sophisticated gameplay (where RPGs tend not to do so well for the simple reason that there's only one "piece" to move, and that limits the available depth unless you're really good), or by taking the same sorts of sophistication found in other media and (hopefully) using the player involvement, or even better agency, unique to games to enhance it substantially.  Some games use one more effectively, others use the other.  And a rare few use both.  (And some use neither, but they tend not to be the top quality of games.)

Designers today are not looking into some indeterminate future where we have finally overcome the limitations of the medium; they’re making games right now that they could have made decades ago.

The biggest limitation in a medium like this is not realizing the potential you can use, so even if they could have made those games decades ago, the fact that they didn't was itself a limitation, and one that they're now overcoming.

[Nexii]

Does entertainment need to be profound in order to be fun - or worthwhile?  Ideally I suppose, it would be both.  But you could say the same of most TV shows, movies, sports, books, or hobbies in general. 

I would say one reason games have tended to be less profound and more shallow in recent years is marketing towards the casual gamer.  They want something visually appealing and fun for a short time, much like a movie or TV show.  Remember that games are a business first and foremost.  SMAC itself is probably a crowning example of a game with excellent sophistication, that did relatively mediocre in terms of sales when compared against.  It's hard to say why but it seems it did not have that "X-factor" of appeal.  But then again, popularity doesn't imply quality.  There are many profound or influential books that an average person never reads in their lifetime. 

A bit of a lament, but in the past, PC gaming was relatively expensive and gamers were thus on average more invested into their games.  Not everyone owned a PC, and for those that did, it was often their main hobby.  So you would see more depth in terms of mechanics and style (at least where technically feasible).  Hopefully the pendulum swings the other way.

[BlaneckW]

The biggest limitation in a medium like this is not realizing the potential you can use, so even if they could have made those games decades ago, the fact that they didn't was itself a limitation, and one that they're now overcoming.

They're not overcoming anything, the free-market sells to the lowest common denominator.

Does entertainment need to be profound in order to be fun - or worthwhile?

Yes.  Thank you for asking.

[Buster's Uncle]

Languge...

[BlaneckW]

Languge...

Language?  What about my disagreeable nature and offensive wit?

[Buster's Uncle]

We're getting used to that part.




Seriously, I've never perceived that you mean any malice, and I'll bust my butt to work with anyone who means well.

[BlaneckW]

Well, you know what they say...  but they usually don't know what they're talking about anyway.

[Buster's Uncle]

True, true.

My whole life is a long, lonely war with the Group Mind - it's a very stupid beast.

[Yitzi]

They're not overcoming anything, the free-market sells to the lowest common denominator, you want something more interesting you have to look between the cracks.  I'd be more likely to find the next best game from an indie developer than these a******s.

And are indie developers not designers?  There are definitely issues with the big names focusing more on tried-and-true formulae than on sophisticated innovation...but that's not an issue with "designers" as a whole.  (As for why they do it that way, it's because big high-graphics games are expensive to make, and they don't want to risk a bust.  The real question is why they don't produce indie-style games in addition to the big stuff...)

[BlaneckW]

And are indie developers not designers?

I didn't mean to imply that they weren't.

[Spaced Cowboy]

I've played a bit of Torment, it is a little off putting and I had to put it down due to too much complexity.  I like some, but that was too much.  all said i put in over 15 hours.

[BlaneckW]

I only played a little bit of it also, but I can see the appeal, though the gameplay lacks depth outside of it's text.  Personally, not a fan of overly-fantastic setting.

[Spaced Cowboy]

To me the biggest downside was the lack of a good fast travel system.  It is just too time consuming to go from one end of the map to the other.

[Dale]

There are definitely issues with the big names focusing more on tried-and-true formulae than on sophisticated innovation...but that's not an issue with "designers" as a whole.  (As for why they do it that way, it's because big high-graphics games are expensive to make, and they don't want to risk a bust.  The real question is why they don't produce indie-style games in addition to the big stuff...)

I talk a lot with game designers, both big name designers and Indie designers.  I talk with designers who moved from Publisher backed to Indie backed, and vice versa.  There is ONE thing in common with ALL designers:

- the belief that computer games are an expressive art and the desire to express themselves through games.

That is the simple fact.

------------------------------------------------------

HOWEVER:

Computer games are a commercial for-profit industry.  To be funded, a game must have potential to make a profit.  This is most evident where the game is Publisher backed.  The Publisher is a for-profit machine.  The Publisher uses the creative output of a studio to make money.  That is a VERY important distinction in Publisher backed games.  The studio wants to create ART.  The Publisher wants to create PROFIT.

So we have two competing forces: Art and Profit.  The amount of Art is directly related to the freedom that the studio has from the Publisher.  If the studio lacks freedom, then you get iterative proven-formula profit games.  If the studio is bloated on freedom, then you get risky boundary-breaking artistic games.  Quite often, the Publisher coughs up all the money, therefore taking all the risk.  In for-profit machines, you minimise risk and maximise profit.  Therefore, the Publisher usually wins out.

Indie developers however, do not have a Publisher.  But that does not mean they are free of the for-profit pressure.  This is seen most blatantly on crowd funding sites like KickStarter, where Indie developers will try to lure money by offering what they believe will make it.  They reduce the risk, to ensure money.

--------------------------------------

The way I see it, is that game designers will not be truly free, until the ART outweighs the PROFIT.