How Do Games Grow Up? 248
Gamasutra is running a piece by game designer Brice Morrison questioning the lack of games for grown-ups — or, more accurately, the lack of an intellectual progression in games like that which exists for books, movies, and other creative works.
"While my interests in other media grew substantially more adult — from Nickelodeon to CNN, from Dr. Seuss to George Orwell — games did not seem to have a more intelligent counterpart for me to move on to. As I entered college, I became less interested in mindless entertainment and more interested in encountering new ideas. I didn't want to kill time; I wanted to take advantage of it. I wanted to challenge myself with profound concepts, to learn of new paradigms, processes, and possibilities. ... So what exactly are the barriers of entry for great thinkers (or groups of thinkers) to leave their mark on games? What must happen for games — or interactive entertainment, if you will, to mature as a medium?"
but..but.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Sometimes gamers don't *want* their games to become more complex as they mature.
Take for example the Caesar 3/Zeus/Cleopatra games of Impression Studio's. They decided it was time to go more mature and produced Children of the Nile', which was more complex in many ways, and altered the gameplay to make the game 'more challenging'. However the result was a game which differed so much from the core attraction of the previous titles that it bombed, going onto the bargain shelves really quickly. So then they took a step back and released Caesar 4. A bit too high on the system spec requirements, but nice looking, a decent evolution of their core game, and really good fun. In many respects its similar to games they were producing five years previously, and this was a good thing.
And what about that other great failure of progression when they decided Worms need to be 3D? Talk about New Coke...
I've been playing games for the last (counts on wrinkles and old person skin blemishes..) 24 years, so I'm well aware of the evolution of the industry. Some evolutions have been great, better AI, improvements in graphics, more depth in games, stuff like that, but others, like 'customer as potential criminal suspect', not so much.
New types of game have appeared which I really enjoy, though I have to say, very few groundbreaking games, which is surprising. Instead I've also noticed a tendency for games companies to pound a franchise to death with endless tiny iterations until it gets to the point that the only new thing in some new releases are new skins, a few extra effects and some more items.
A good game should evolve, true, but each iteration should be an obvious advance, enhancing the core elements that make that game fun to begin with. What it shouldn't do is catch 'New Coke' disease, or pretend to be a new version worth a whole new purchase when the content changes are less than some decent games companies (Id, Valve, Egosoft to name a few) release as free content updates.
Adult vs not-for-kids (Score:5, Interesting)
Usually the "adult" label is used not for actual weighty content geared for an adult audience with mature tastes, but just a repository for those things that traditionally children shouldn't be exposed to. Sorry, that doesn't make it adult-oriented, that just makes it non-kid-friendly, and typically can be best described as adolescent (boobs, explosions, gore, swearing, "gritty", "edgy", etc) content that would make Beavis and Butthead proud.
In my case, I've left all the AAA titles and tended towards puzzle games, where at least I'm challenged to expand my thought processes and puzzle solving abilities. There are some plot-heavy RPGs and FPSes nowadays with some challenging concepts or unexpected twists, but they still tend to be buried in adolescence to make them marketable, ignoring the amount of >30yo and female gamers who are no longer enticed by such or are even turned off by it.
I do commend Nintendo for putting a lot of focus on basic fun, party, family-enjoyable games which have been explosively popular without the adolescent slant, but they still do leave the adult-minded player wishing to be challenged at a more cerebral level.
Re:My advice - don't look for satisfaction in game (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:My advice - don't look for satisfaction in game (Score:1, Interesting)
What piano-playing skills are useful in the world outside piano-playing? Are they ones which aren't possible to be gained playing videogames that also rely on rhythm, timing, hand-eye co-ordination and a swift interpretation of displayed information into the relevant key responses?
Being "able to play (a piece) on demand without thinking" certainly doesn't suggest it's an intellectual accomplishment.
Re: Chess! (Score:5, Interesting)
Really now.
Anand just won the final step of the total unification of the world chess championship, and Slashdot couldn't be bothered to report it. I USED to think chess was at least slightly Stuff That Mattered.
Re:My advice - don't look for satisfaction in game (Score:4, Interesting)
Playing piano is great and all for novelty, but it's not really a useful skill. It won't be needed often, if ever and it's not something that is noticeable unless you are one of the best.
I take it you've never spent time in a pub band, or even writing songs with your mates in a garage band. Being able to play a musical instrument is very rewarding even without 'being noticed'.
I don't mean to put down your daughter, but I doubt she will ever reach that "level".
I'm pretty sure she'll never be a concert pianist, either, but claiming that the ability to play a musical instrument is something that will not be used often or ever just sounds ridiculous. Or maybe I've just been trolled...
Because its hard to preserve narrative momentum (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, I'm sure the Tactics Ogre games had a great story, but I didn't really follow it after playing the games for a few hours. They would have cutscenes that introduce some characters, plot points etc. then you would have to battle for about 20 minutes, followed by another cutscene, followed by more battle etc. The battles were fun(or else I wouldn't have played the game), but it certainly was time consuming, so when you mix in the fact that I had other responsibilities, the whole thing became very hard to follow. Eventually I just skipped through the plot and went straight into the gameplay.
IMO the best game stories are the ones that give you a connection to your character and motivation for achieving the objectives. Thats it. If you want a book, read a book.....
Re:Adult vs not-for-kids (Score:3, Interesting)
That's exactly one of the problems with games nowadays. I want to play an RPG being a middle age man with experience, not a youngster who cannot think or control his hormones.
I want to choose over different moral dilemmas and face the consequences. A game where I could relate to the main character and not wanting to strangle him/her because their inept social or observational skills.
I want a game for adults, not an adult's game (read: boobies).
Re:You do realize the other hobbies are the same? (Score:1, Interesting)
That's just the thing. All hobbies are entertaining, engaging, can be beautiful and most of them stimulate creativity. Games are no exception. I fail to see why you'd put games in a different league.
Re:You do realize the other hobbies are the same? (Score:5, Interesting)
And I was introduced via gaming to:
- the wonderful world of logic
- the worderful world of algorithmic thinking, and splitting a problem into (semi-)self-contained, manageable parts
- the wonderful world of painting (a texture) or storytelling and creative writing (e.g., a new quest arc)
- the wonderful world of taking decisions in split seconds, and of accepting that you don't always have the data or time for the perfect choice
And a few others.
Games aren't just about playing and achieving a high score, but also about trying to make your own (back when you could realistically make a ZX-81 game in a day or two) or modding (the more sane alternative nowadays.) I was programming assembly within a year of being exposed to my parents' ZX-81, for example. It's skills I still apply at work every day.
Which is also why I'll call it "looking down upon it", if your best answer is along the lines "gaming is only for killing time, and you should do some RL stuff instead." You don't have to give up gaming to start using your head and getting RL skills. You might, however start taking them a part a bit too, not just playing them. And if you're going to say it's still something done instead of gaming, well, not quite, it's more like complimentary. Unless you know what the game does and/or don't like it enough in the first place, you won't start modding it.
But even that might not be truly needed. There are games where you apply logic within the game, and I even remember two where they had a programming language integrated right into the game. And I don't mean for modding, but you could actually program the character's cybernetic implant to do something else and help you in some way while you run and gun.
I'm not an auto hobbyist, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with your point. Not only that, but to learning how to fix cars can actually foster some understanding, however limited, of basic to intermediate level mechanics and electronics, depending on the vehicle. Sure, you probably won't understand engine harmonics and such, but that's what engineering classes are for.
Re:Immersive Storytelling (Score:1, Interesting)
How about not mere immersive storytelling, but interactive fiction?
Infocom's Trinity and - even more so - A Mind Forever Voyaging [wikipedia.org] come to mind as games that were on a par with literature. AMFV started with a sufficiently fascinating premise; what would it be like to be an AI? It then got into an exploration of sociology/politics/economics, and in the 25 years since the game was written, everything in the real world has turned out pretty much like the game world projected.
Re:My advice - don't look for satisfaction in game (Score:1, Interesting)
As someone who has played a lot of piano in his life, I agree with you on some points but disagree with your notion of gaming. Music is very rewarding and fulfilling, that's true. However, you say that games are inherently just for "killing time" but I don't think it has to be that way. That would be like saying books are just for killing time. Some books are trashy and only provide value in entertainment during the time you read it. Others inspire deep thought and provide value throughout your life.
Without RTFA, it seems that the article is saying that those kinds of games are missing. I agree with him (disagree with you) that it's possible to create these kind of deeper games. Games are just another medium. However, I believe that their interactivity makes it much harder to achieve that same depth.