|
You know, it's funny.
I have a passion for video game design, but lately it's like I've been disinclined to play any games because they're all like a series of books playing on one theme from long ago that simply sold very well. I'm thinking that the crew over at Extra Credits (see link) are on to something with their "Why are games' appeal restricted exclusively to fun?" episode.
Game design nowadays seems less on keeping players engaged and more on keeping them entertained. That's all well and good until the player doesn't want to have fun. When the player wants to learn something, or expand their emotional horizons, or fall in love with a narrative. These A-list games aren't engaging, they're fun, and that's likely one of the many reasons why the gaming industry is the subject of as much scorn as it is.
We've lost the idea of games. We've embraced the idea of entertainment. So much so that our games-vs-entertainment dilemma has crossed over into manifestations in our present reality; Vancouver's riots over a game. Games recruiting for foreign military powers. Games that allow you to live the life of an elementary school murder.
These constructs have been stripped of so much meaning in their effort to entertain, in their effort to draw in their audiences and change their perception of the world. This stripped-down, entertainment-only perception is entirely without any larger meaning, positive or negative, and is therefore reduced to the essence of the act they are trying to allow the player to experience.
America's Army conveys a sense of unity through show of force to foreign powers. Call of Duty at first tried to convey the horrors of war, but then gave in to a near-future, all-hands-in deathmatch, where drones are called down as a reward for killing your opponent. God of War wasn't that bad in and of itself, but EA killing a goat and trussing it up as a sacrifice for the press conference? Despicable.
I long to return to a time where games narratives were crafted carefully, as a masterfully written book would be. Enough with this use-and-forget culture; it's time to create something with sustenance; something that can stand the trials of time and remain on its own of its own accord, something that we can measure our future attempts against. Something universal and awesome.
|
I'm not saying one or the other is bad, but, well, news flash, triple-A games are built the way they are for a reason.
In a literal sense, I think that would be an improvement. I want to buy the sort of game that has a non-focus-group-based reason for existing. There is currently no pressure or incentive to create something durable. Retail and Review mechanisms aren't currently wired to support long-term sales. It's an improving situation due to digital sales and (I think) finally hitting a graphics plateau where aesthetics can outmaneuver horsepower.
Nintendo actually has (or, had) a pretty good model for "archival quality" games, but they haven't really tried to use it on the 18+ crowd.
However, to play the devils advocate, there are times where people just want to pick up a game and have fun, i.e. Fifa, rather then to traverse through a story. I do believe that there needs to be a duality to the basic existence of fun and expression/experience in games. But if we strive to push the boundaries for a higher level of artistic expression so that the viewer(/player) can have a more substantive experience then maybe we won't have to stand in the same spot. Maybe we can look at the sun from a different angle.