On game design and the role of virtual worlds

[staggerlee]

I just finished reading this article on emotion and the evolution of gaming as a medium, and found it intensely interesting.

Rather than merely link it, I thought I'd try to get some kind of a discussion rolling on the topic. Can games offer more than just action? Does Armageddon? Should it? How can designers draw attention to those elements? Could a game actually become a literary experience?

I have plenty of thoughts on the matter, but I wanted to throw this out there and see what other people have to say  first.


PS: My girlfriend thinks that games are childish, sexist and reactionary. I'm inclined to agree with her.  I'd love to be convinced otherwise.

PPS: I love Post Scripts in digital mediums.

[mansa]

A lot of my game designer friends usually have a specific cool code item that they want to expand into a game.  Of course, they are usually making small games designed to play within a short, 5 minute play time.

For example, one person thought it would be cool to have a time-travel aspect of the game, where you can interact with your shadow, much like in the Braid game.
He created a demo of it on xbox live arcade, and showed it off to us.  We thought it was cool, but he couldn't sell it to our management team.
(This was in 2007, 2 years before Braid came out)

Other examples is an interesting ice level with different physics.

I guess in my experience in a small game company, the games that they create are based upon how much money they would make, rather than being unique with a storyline.  Storyline is usually secondary.

[staggerlee]

So you're saying that games lack artistic or intellectual value because they're produced for profit?

[mansa]

So you're saying that games lack artistic or intellectual value because they're produced for profit?

I'm saying that game designers usually code a game based on ONE idea they wanted to see coded.

And the rest of the games they make are based upon what the sales people decided to sell.

Storyline usually is secondary in the casual game market.  That's where I have most experience on the inside.

[Old Kank]

I had a big long response written up on perceptions of art and video games, but I decided to delete it all and just focus on this:

Can a game become a literary experience?

I don't think so, no, but I do believe it would be possible if we could shift our expectations.

The elements that make a game a game are the same elements that prevent it from being high art.  In Arm, for example, the concept of "winning the game" has a direct effect on Arm's would-be literary experience.  By introducing the player's motives and desires into the game, we lose the purity of the character's drives that would be needed. 

Would Of Mice and Men be as powerful a novel if you knew George was just looking to loot Lenny's boots?  What if Lord Templar Javert threw himself off Whira's Tower, never realizing that Valjean was not an honest man wronged, but a mul disguised by a mutant sdesc?

That isn't to say that PCs can't have purely IC motives, but collectively I think it adds too significant of a taint to the story.  Right now, at best, Arm could qualify as pulp fiction.  It's fun, it's enjoyable, but it's not a literary experience.

Aside from Arm and the "literary experience", I think there are several games out now that are trying to do just what you're asking.  (ie. Flower, Endless Ocean)  In my opinion, though, the more challenge and competition you strip away, the less "game" you have, and it becomes something new, not quite a movie, but not a video game, either.

[brytta.leofa]

girlfriend thinks games childish sexist reactionary

staggerlee, man, I don't know what any of these words mean.

But I do suspect that we, as a species corporate, both "design" and favor non-essential pursuits that reinforce our cultural gestalt.  As, in modernity, personalization is strained from labor by the engine of profit, the societal id finds its new refuge in those arenas that still admit an illusion of free action.

[Spoon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00n1j8q/Charlie_Brookers_Gameswipe/

Check it, especially you staggerlee. Kind of what you're looking for I hope.

[Gimfalisette]

A few thoughts.

First, what is the definition of "games" under which your girlfriend is operating? Specifically "video games"? Certainly, video games reflect our current society, which is pretty childish, sexist, and reactionary. But games on the whole are as old as humanity, and undoubtedly always reflect the values of culture, as brytta pointed out. When it comes down to it, games are just ritualized intra-group competition; methods to pit oneself against self or others, engage the brain, and have some fun. Maybe games stop us all from snapping and killing each other.

Can a "video game" be literature? I don't know. Does it matter? Does a game have to be "worthwhile," else it's worthless? Lots of things that humans do aren't really worthwhile. My kids and I built a sandcastle at the beach on Saturday, which then got smashed by some other people, and eventually went under with the tide. It was an activity that produced nothing, but it was fun, and it was something we did together. Isn't that what games are about?

The argument that games should be worthwhile, to me, kind of smacks of our culture's Puritanism / Protestant work ethic thing; if it's not productive (makes money or is "good art" or lasts forever), then it's not worthwhile. But why? That doesn't even make sense. That attitude is why the majority of Americans are sleep-deprived, because sleep is not clearly productive in the short-term.

As to whether games can/should offer more than action--well, the fact that ARM does offer more than action is why I'm here. I can get questy or PvP goodness at any number of MMOs or other text games. I've played plenty of them. But they never satisfy me, because there's no storyline. The storyline--paltry as it is sometimes--is exactly why I'm at ARM. Yeah, often it's a crappy, soap opera storyline without a lot of depth, but it's better than nothing, and I can usually suspend my disbelief.

[staggerlee]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00n1j8q/Charlie_Brookers_Gameswipe/

Check it, especially you staggerlee. Kind of what you're looking for I hope.

Unfortunately you have to be in the UK to play BBC videos. Which is incredibly lame.


I'm interested to see that the general sentiment here is that making a game "literary" (whatever that means) is impossible, at least in a multiplayer environment. I don't know that I disagree at all. However, while I don't think that the focus on competition is strictly necessary for a MUD to be fun... I tend to enjoy it, but that's a personal preference and by no means a necessary restriction on the game. On the other hand, I've always felt that  low brow genres and mediums could still have a lot to offer. There's no reason you can't still have depth, emotion and meaning built into a typically fairly empty medium.

I guess I'm in agreement with what everyone's posted so far.  On a whole I would say that the MUD is far from literary... but in the right hands, there can certainly be moments that have a deep resonance. Not many, but enough to keep things thoroughly interesting.

[Reiloth]

A few thoughts.

First, what is the definition of "games" under which your girlfriend is operating? Specifically "video games"? Certainly, video games reflect our current society, which is pretty childish, sexist, and reactionary. But games on the whole are as old as humanity, and undoubtedly always reflect the values of culture, as brytta pointed out. When it comes down to it, games are just ritualized intra-group competition; methods to pit oneself against self or others, engage the brain, and have some fun. Maybe games stop us all from snapping and killing each other.

Can a "video game" be literature? I don't know. Does it matter? Does a game have to be "worthwhile," else it's worthless? Lots of things that humans do aren't really worthwhile. My kids and I built a sandcastle at the beach on Saturday, which then got smashed by some other people, and eventually went under with the tide. It was an activity that produced nothing, but it was fun, and it was something we did together. Isn't that what games are about?

The argument that games should be worthwhile, to me, kind of smacks of our culture's Puritanism / Protestant work ethic thing; if it's not productive (makes money or is "good art" or lasts forever), then it's not worthwhile. But why? That doesn't even make sense. That attitude is why the majority of Americans are sleep-deprived, because sleep is not clearly productive in the short-term.

As to whether games can/should offer more than action--well, the fact that ARM does offer more than action is why I'm here. I can get questy or PvP goodness at any number of MMOs or other text games. I've played plenty of them. But they never satisfy me, because there's no storyline. The storyline--paltry as it is sometimes--is exactly why I'm at ARM. Yeah, often it's a crappy, soap opera storyline without a lot of depth, but it's better than nothing, and I can usually suspend my disbelief.

One of the few times I agree with almost all of what you said, Gimf. Well written.

I view video-games in a similar light. They are a distraction from the real-world, something fun to do by myself or with other people that isn't productive, because the rest of my life is so focused on that productivity. I work 5 days a week, I am a full-time musician and artist. This alone fills up..A huge chunk of my life. When I get home, I want to decompress. I want to listen to music, I want to play a video game, I want to read a book, I want to plunk around on the piano for a few minutes.

I will note that with Armageddon inparticular, the more time you devote to the game, the more of a reality it becomes. It's a dangerous line that has encroached on addiction in my life, and most probably, many of yours. It is a time-old saying on the GDB, but...When you reach the point where you're yelling at your girlfriend to leave you alone because you can't find a quit spot...Take a step back and really think about why you are so frustrated. Go on a walk. Take a deep breath and turn off the game, because that is all it is. A video-game.

As far as a 'literary' game...No. Nothing in Armageddon is lasting, and the story that it weaves is similar to a grain of sand on top of a dune. It constantly shifts, and each day it looks different. If literacy were legal in Zalanthas, and not restricted to the higher castes, it might be a different story. But I think the game is more similar to Gimf's sand castle. Which is half the appeal to me, honestly.

[Spoon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00n1j8q/Charlie_Brookers_Gameswipe/

Check it, especially you staggerlee. Kind of what you're looking for I hope.

Unfortunately you have to be in the UK to play BBC videos. Which is incredibly lame.

Aww, never mind. Maybe you can find it on one of those things we shouldn't mention on boards like this. A kind of fast rivery stream.

[AreteX]

It is unfair to lump "games" into childish, sexist and reactionary.  There are too many games to lump them all together like that.  Its like any of the other "all _____ are _____".

When I think of myself in a dream scenario, I think of myself as a writer(I have tons of ideas floating around in my head).  I don't know about you guys, but regardless of what people who are watching from the outside perceive, almost every one of my games is a literary experience.  I take all of these fantasy worlds, and I create a story inside of my head.  In Arm, I emote, and interact with people through text.  Whether my writing is wonderful or not, I'm still writing.  I am still creating and weaving a story regardless of any IC/Ooc motives behind it.  It is still being created, written, told.

As for game design:  I sit around with my friends when we're talking about all the cool games, or games that should of been and our ideas are made up for the coolness, the fun and for the story/idea of it all.

But I believe most games now are not designed to be epic, they're just designed to please as many people as possible to make as much money as possible.  Most people who design a basic concept for a game, would be more than happy to sell their idea to a company just to see it come to fruition.  Even if it isn't exactly how they planned it originally.

If you all do not consider ARM a literary experience I think you're sorely mistaken though.  You read a book, or a series of books, and all those words do is create images inside of your head.  Take you through a storyline, and its conclusion.

The only difference between a novel, and ARM or another roleplay mud is the fact that its a group of people telling a story, that is interactive, and able to change/adapt.  You are given text, written and dreamed up by another person, and you convert it to images, in the same manner as a novel.

But.. you're involved, you can re-write it, you can change it, edit it if you will.

So in a way, ARM is more of a literary experience than any novel that's ever been.