Post by AllenSmithee on Aug 5, 2010 7:46:38 GMT -5
If I Live 'Til 90, I Will See 2084 (Simple Gaming/Games As Art/Et Cetera)
This isn't really about how well I wrote it, it was just food for thought, y'know? I'm not trying to be literary or anything, so it's pretty shitty. Just read it and think about it, and discuss
And y'know what? I don't think the premise of the game is entirely impossible by that point, unfortunately.
I mean, since 1940, we've traversed 70 years into the future, and compare that to now! I'm not history buff, but I believe that was like, nearing the end of World War II, so I guess computers first steps were just being made, for the A-Bomb's deployment. Or so the story goes, anyway.
But here we are! People are making robots who can actually answer questions legitimately! So if you look at that as a parallel to the start of the computer chips during WWII then… let’s see:
Early Android is to Early Computer Chip as Sentient Android is to PS3.
Omg. I’m frightened! I mean, that’s 70 years of progress! Even the last 30 years of progress for computers is fucking frightening! We went from Galaga (which has probably my favourite game logo of all time, btw) to Metal Gear Solid 4 (which has one of my least favourite updates to a game logo of all time, btw).
Wow. And that’s a pretty shitty example, I just wanted to talk about Galaga’s logo!
The point of this post isn’t whether or not we’ll be forked up the rectum by androids in the year 2084, and the point of this post isn’t whether or not we’ll have developed a better utensil than the fork by that point either… The point of this post is actually something completely different, but not entirely unrelated.
I’ve basically come into a rut in my gaming. In pretty much all forms. There’s a bunch of stuff I want, but I won’t be happy with it. I won’t be happy with it, because if I get one thing, there will be all of the other things I could have gotten. And, I can’t get anything at all regardless, because I don’t have any money. If I got a job I’d have money, but I can’t until I get my grades up and finish my community service hours -- See where this is headed?
That’s not the end of my rutted-ness! No, it goes further. I’m missing simple games. And I mean, I’ve got the Castlevania NES trilogy, and I’ve got Shatterhand, and I’ve got Batman, and I’ve got Mario/Duckhunt, but none of those really satisfy what I want. Well, Duckhunt might but it can’t. Why can’t it? Well, for one thing, I don’t have a Zapper. For another thing, I suck at Zapper games. So there.
If you couldn’t guess, I’m looking for simpler gaming. So why don’t all those sidescrollers satisfy? Well, I’ve played Castlevania a thousand times and have never beaten Death. Maybe someday, I’ll get the FDS version, and use passwords/easy mode. But I refuse to play further into the NES games, because I’ve got a personal grudge against the first. Also… they’re just not really what I want. Batman is pretty cool, but I’ve never beaten the level with the apes, and it’s the same as Castlevania, in terms of genre, and not being what I want. … Same with Shatterhand. Mario is also missing what I want, even though it might not seem like it. I just don’t really “click” with Mario.
But wait! There’s one more game I have on NES that just might do the trick, believe it or not! What’s that? Jackal! Well, it isn’t exactly it, but it’s close enough.
Alright, enough of that crap. Here’s the meat of the subject. Y’know, I once had a huge ROM collection (unfortunately not the Spaceknight, although Tony does!) that my Uncle gave me on floppy with some huge amount of Atari 2600 games on it. I had a ton of fun with these games! I definitely remember Spiderman, The A-Team, Pitfall!, Pepsi Invaders (and Space Invaders), Missile Command, and all of those pornographic games as well. That last item(s) on the list is particularly funny, it took me a while to learn that games listed as Majestic (I think?) were baaad.
So, most of those on the list are positive memories, even though the A-Team game sucked (which was unfortunate because I loved and still love the A-Team show… haven’t seen the movie, I’m gonna have to take it on its own in order to really get a kick out of it, I’m thinking) and Spiderman might have sucked. And of course the porn games sucked, and were a little scarring. Even without the porn they would have been scarring, those games are terrible! Oh, and I played Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but I didn’t know about the movie back then.
Okay, so, I’ve got all these memories, what of them? Well, now I’ve got better taste in video games, and sure, I like my modern games, and my less modern games, and my slightly unmodern games, and my classic games, but… There’s something about the purity of a good old school, arcade style game that I love.
So that’s the point. I want to play some of that classic shit, get the pure gaming down, because I like that type of thing! Here’s a bit of over thinking on my part, but I look at it like this:
Classic arcade style games and modern video games are completely different things. Pretty much, anyway. I mean, if I’m playing Pac-Man, I’m not thinking about the story or the graphics or anything like that, I’m worried about clearing the board and moving onto the next one! But, as games grow older, you get all these extra things. Things I don’t particularly care for all the time. Playing Yakuza, I was drawn into the story, hoping things would turn out alright for the characters, letting my emotions run wild as I fought hard to save the day, so it isn’t like I’m completely cold while playing video.
Still, I think that shows a big difference. But I’m getting ahead of myself! There are four general types of games, that cross over, successfully or not:
(1) Pure Classic Arcade Games
(2) Games With Story Used To Give Events for Gameplay
(3) Story Driven Intertwined with Games
(4) Adventure Non-Games
(1) I really need to get better titles for those things, don’t I? Sure, Berzerk gives Evil Otto a name, and there’s some kind of back story with Mazeons and such, but that’s an afterthought to fill space in an instruction booklet, and Evil Otto is an awesome name for something so… ominous and dreadful. But Berzerk is still just a game, the same way that Cops & Robbers is a game, it is something you play. Not “experience” or “watch”. And I wouldn’t call it art. I mean, there’s “artwork” in the game, but it only goes as far as a child’s doodles on the margins of a school test. Ultimately, the graphics or “art” (if you want to call it that) in Berzerk only serve their purposes for how the game plays out. And I could never ever find gameplay that is art. Can gameplay itself comment on a governmental issue (for example)? Not without the assistance of a narrative/dialogue and/or images, it can’t.
And that’s kinda what I like about these kinds of games. They’re not art, they’re just games! Cops & Robbers isn’t art, and neither is Berzerk.
(2) The next progression is games that use the story/events as an excuse for things to happen to you, the player, that you will enjoy. I guess this is kinda like playing Cops & Robbers if it were more like… Basterds & Nazis is to Allies & Axis. If that makes sense. Because sure, in real history shit happened one way or the other, and if you make a game based on history, it won’t always be the coolest/funnest it can be. But, if you do it the Tarantino way, you get lots of cool shit, and you can just change it to be fun!
I guess though, when you start getting into this type of game, historically, and practically, audio and visuals are also becoming a larger part of the experience. When I talk about video games, I wish there was better terminology because there’s the whole package (audio, visual, narrative, interactivity) and then there’s the game itself (interactivity, and the rules that surround it). For the most part, at least in a good -game-, it is this last part that should be what gives you fun. This is a really tricky subject to talk about! So, in this advancement of video games, the next closest to “pure game”, it is all about the player having a good time. I like this type of game! I like them all, actually, it’s just, y’know, at least here, it is all about me having fun. And, generally, here, the focus is still on the game itself: Interactivity and the rules around it.
(3) Mass Effect. Basically. I mean, the gameplay here is pretty boring. What fun do I get out of the actually game itself? It’s glitchy, frustrating (there’s a difference between hard and frustrating), non-rewarding, and pretty much just painful. What is good about the entire package though? Well, for one you’ve got a story a lot of people seem to like. I, personally, didn’t like most of the characters, so that hampered my enjoyment. I thought a lot of the codex stuff was cool, but in terms of design, I think that is counter-intuitive if you’re attempting at providing a huge interactive universe, et cetera. There’s more that’s counter-intuitive as well, and just in terms of world building! If I talk to someone, I can ask them extremely specific questions about their race and culture, et cetera. Nobody really does that. Considering how much people go on and on about Bioware’s storytelling, you’d think it’d be somewhat successful! Rather than having characters talk like they’re in awkward, two way interviews explaining everything in excruciating detail and giving us a codex for what you couldn’t tell yourselves, why not show us things in implied ways? Blade Runner has a huge world, and I’ll never know about half of it, and that is why it is believable! If I knew everything about real life, I probably wouldn’t believe it either. The reason I say this is because nobody, and I mean, NOBODY can write a successful history, especially a galactic history! Not even a huge Trekkie/historian could do it, because it would probably just mirror real life or be stupid.
This is the type of game that puts a story and a world first, and the gameplay is there because the creators decided not to make it a comic book (or anything else, really). Generally, where this type of video game fails is that the developers might have a “good” story to tell, but they forget to make a good game. And by game this time, I mean “interactivity and the rules that surround it”. As an example, I don’t think I’ve ever played an RPG where the gameplay supports itself completely. The closest I’ve gotten is Final Fantasy I, but, that’s not really in the 3rd category, and falls more into the 2nd. So, that just proves my point. I think that this type of game can be done well too, I’ve just never really played one that I’ve found matches up to my faves in the 2nd and 1st categories.
Also, I put “good” in quotations, because comparatively, these stories never really match up to the good (not in quotes) stories of other media. The games are art, because there’s so much art stuff in them, but even then, it isn’t like many games are really “art” in the same sense as other “pieces of art”. See, video games AND art need more terminology, both. I’m probably getting stuff wrong in the art department (badumcha), so I implore you to take a look at any modern English dictionary and see all of the different kinds. I go by the Webster ones in the book I have.
I’ve got ideas on how to do a game like this that I’d enjoy, and someday I hope to execute them. The chances are much slimmer than the chances of my creating games in the first two and the last category, due to the huge budgets required to make this kind of game successfully, or at least to my liking.
Metal Gear Solid actually falls into the 2nd category, I think, simply because the game and story are separate, and because the environments and boss battles are designed to get progressively harder and more engaging and so on. I think a big thing is dependant on how separate gameplay and story are. In the MGS games that I’ve played and watched, they’re mostly separate, and other than mission objectives, you can play the entire game skipping cut scenes, if you like. Aside from dramatic effect, where characters might tell you about themselves in battle (Olga for example), it is relatively distant. Of course, a lot of the judgment of which type of game MGS is, derives from the development process, I suppose. Also, keep in mind, I’ve yet to play MGS4 or any of the portable instalments.
(4) The adventure game. Can we really call it a game? It’s a slightly interactive comic book, but I derive none of the same gamey enjoyment that I get from Pac-Man and the like, out of solving puzzles and such to continue a story. I do love adventure games though! But I think of them as non-games. I don’t feel bad about it either! Take Snatcher for instance: Aside from the rare shooting segments, the game is completely menus and small brain twisters. It’s like calling a puzzle set a game, or calling a crossword a game, or a better example would be calling a logic puzzle a game. If I write a book where you’re only allowed to read the next chapter after you solve a logic problem, is that a game? No, because that’s exactly what an adventure game is!
So I guess that’s how it goes for me. What do you think about it?
This isn't really about how well I wrote it, it was just food for thought, y'know? I'm not trying to be literary or anything, so it's pretty shitty. Just read it and think about it, and discuss
And y'know what? I don't think the premise of the game is entirely impossible by that point, unfortunately.
I mean, since 1940, we've traversed 70 years into the future, and compare that to now! I'm not history buff, but I believe that was like, nearing the end of World War II, so I guess computers first steps were just being made, for the A-Bomb's deployment. Or so the story goes, anyway.
But here we are! People are making robots who can actually answer questions legitimately! So if you look at that as a parallel to the start of the computer chips during WWII then… let’s see:
Early Android is to Early Computer Chip as Sentient Android is to PS3.
Omg. I’m frightened! I mean, that’s 70 years of progress! Even the last 30 years of progress for computers is fucking frightening! We went from Galaga (which has probably my favourite game logo of all time, btw) to Metal Gear Solid 4 (which has one of my least favourite updates to a game logo of all time, btw).
Wow. And that’s a pretty shitty example, I just wanted to talk about Galaga’s logo!
The point of this post isn’t whether or not we’ll be forked up the rectum by androids in the year 2084, and the point of this post isn’t whether or not we’ll have developed a better utensil than the fork by that point either… The point of this post is actually something completely different, but not entirely unrelated.
I’ve basically come into a rut in my gaming. In pretty much all forms. There’s a bunch of stuff I want, but I won’t be happy with it. I won’t be happy with it, because if I get one thing, there will be all of the other things I could have gotten. And, I can’t get anything at all regardless, because I don’t have any money. If I got a job I’d have money, but I can’t until I get my grades up and finish my community service hours -- See where this is headed?
That’s not the end of my rutted-ness! No, it goes further. I’m missing simple games. And I mean, I’ve got the Castlevania NES trilogy, and I’ve got Shatterhand, and I’ve got Batman, and I’ve got Mario/Duckhunt, but none of those really satisfy what I want. Well, Duckhunt might but it can’t. Why can’t it? Well, for one thing, I don’t have a Zapper. For another thing, I suck at Zapper games. So there.
If you couldn’t guess, I’m looking for simpler gaming. So why don’t all those sidescrollers satisfy? Well, I’ve played Castlevania a thousand times and have never beaten Death. Maybe someday, I’ll get the FDS version, and use passwords/easy mode. But I refuse to play further into the NES games, because I’ve got a personal grudge against the first. Also… they’re just not really what I want. Batman is pretty cool, but I’ve never beaten the level with the apes, and it’s the same as Castlevania, in terms of genre, and not being what I want. … Same with Shatterhand. Mario is also missing what I want, even though it might not seem like it. I just don’t really “click” with Mario.
But wait! There’s one more game I have on NES that just might do the trick, believe it or not! What’s that? Jackal! Well, it isn’t exactly it, but it’s close enough.
Alright, enough of that crap. Here’s the meat of the subject. Y’know, I once had a huge ROM collection (unfortunately not the Spaceknight, although Tony does!) that my Uncle gave me on floppy with some huge amount of Atari 2600 games on it. I had a ton of fun with these games! I definitely remember Spiderman, The A-Team, Pitfall!, Pepsi Invaders (and Space Invaders), Missile Command, and all of those pornographic games as well. That last item(s) on the list is particularly funny, it took me a while to learn that games listed as Majestic (I think?) were baaad.
So, most of those on the list are positive memories, even though the A-Team game sucked (which was unfortunate because I loved and still love the A-Team show… haven’t seen the movie, I’m gonna have to take it on its own in order to really get a kick out of it, I’m thinking) and Spiderman might have sucked. And of course the porn games sucked, and were a little scarring. Even without the porn they would have been scarring, those games are terrible! Oh, and I played Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but I didn’t know about the movie back then.
Okay, so, I’ve got all these memories, what of them? Well, now I’ve got better taste in video games, and sure, I like my modern games, and my less modern games, and my slightly unmodern games, and my classic games, but… There’s something about the purity of a good old school, arcade style game that I love.
So that’s the point. I want to play some of that classic shit, get the pure gaming down, because I like that type of thing! Here’s a bit of over thinking on my part, but I look at it like this:
Classic arcade style games and modern video games are completely different things. Pretty much, anyway. I mean, if I’m playing Pac-Man, I’m not thinking about the story or the graphics or anything like that, I’m worried about clearing the board and moving onto the next one! But, as games grow older, you get all these extra things. Things I don’t particularly care for all the time. Playing Yakuza, I was drawn into the story, hoping things would turn out alright for the characters, letting my emotions run wild as I fought hard to save the day, so it isn’t like I’m completely cold while playing video.
Still, I think that shows a big difference. But I’m getting ahead of myself! There are four general types of games, that cross over, successfully or not:
(1) Pure Classic Arcade Games
(2) Games With Story Used To Give Events for Gameplay
(3) Story Driven Intertwined with Games
(4) Adventure Non-Games
(1) I really need to get better titles for those things, don’t I? Sure, Berzerk gives Evil Otto a name, and there’s some kind of back story with Mazeons and such, but that’s an afterthought to fill space in an instruction booklet, and Evil Otto is an awesome name for something so… ominous and dreadful. But Berzerk is still just a game, the same way that Cops & Robbers is a game, it is something you play. Not “experience” or “watch”. And I wouldn’t call it art. I mean, there’s “artwork” in the game, but it only goes as far as a child’s doodles on the margins of a school test. Ultimately, the graphics or “art” (if you want to call it that) in Berzerk only serve their purposes for how the game plays out. And I could never ever find gameplay that is art. Can gameplay itself comment on a governmental issue (for example)? Not without the assistance of a narrative/dialogue and/or images, it can’t.
And that’s kinda what I like about these kinds of games. They’re not art, they’re just games! Cops & Robbers isn’t art, and neither is Berzerk.
(2) The next progression is games that use the story/events as an excuse for things to happen to you, the player, that you will enjoy. I guess this is kinda like playing Cops & Robbers if it were more like… Basterds & Nazis is to Allies & Axis. If that makes sense. Because sure, in real history shit happened one way or the other, and if you make a game based on history, it won’t always be the coolest/funnest it can be. But, if you do it the Tarantino way, you get lots of cool shit, and you can just change it to be fun!
I guess though, when you start getting into this type of game, historically, and practically, audio and visuals are also becoming a larger part of the experience. When I talk about video games, I wish there was better terminology because there’s the whole package (audio, visual, narrative, interactivity) and then there’s the game itself (interactivity, and the rules that surround it). For the most part, at least in a good -game-, it is this last part that should be what gives you fun. This is a really tricky subject to talk about! So, in this advancement of video games, the next closest to “pure game”, it is all about the player having a good time. I like this type of game! I like them all, actually, it’s just, y’know, at least here, it is all about me having fun. And, generally, here, the focus is still on the game itself: Interactivity and the rules around it.
(3) Mass Effect. Basically. I mean, the gameplay here is pretty boring. What fun do I get out of the actually game itself? It’s glitchy, frustrating (there’s a difference between hard and frustrating), non-rewarding, and pretty much just painful. What is good about the entire package though? Well, for one you’ve got a story a lot of people seem to like. I, personally, didn’t like most of the characters, so that hampered my enjoyment. I thought a lot of the codex stuff was cool, but in terms of design, I think that is counter-intuitive if you’re attempting at providing a huge interactive universe, et cetera. There’s more that’s counter-intuitive as well, and just in terms of world building! If I talk to someone, I can ask them extremely specific questions about their race and culture, et cetera. Nobody really does that. Considering how much people go on and on about Bioware’s storytelling, you’d think it’d be somewhat successful! Rather than having characters talk like they’re in awkward, two way interviews explaining everything in excruciating detail and giving us a codex for what you couldn’t tell yourselves, why not show us things in implied ways? Blade Runner has a huge world, and I’ll never know about half of it, and that is why it is believable! If I knew everything about real life, I probably wouldn’t believe it either. The reason I say this is because nobody, and I mean, NOBODY can write a successful history, especially a galactic history! Not even a huge Trekkie/historian could do it, because it would probably just mirror real life or be stupid.
This is the type of game that puts a story and a world first, and the gameplay is there because the creators decided not to make it a comic book (or anything else, really). Generally, where this type of video game fails is that the developers might have a “good” story to tell, but they forget to make a good game. And by game this time, I mean “interactivity and the rules that surround it”. As an example, I don’t think I’ve ever played an RPG where the gameplay supports itself completely. The closest I’ve gotten is Final Fantasy I, but, that’s not really in the 3rd category, and falls more into the 2nd. So, that just proves my point. I think that this type of game can be done well too, I’ve just never really played one that I’ve found matches up to my faves in the 2nd and 1st categories.
Also, I put “good” in quotations, because comparatively, these stories never really match up to the good (not in quotes) stories of other media. The games are art, because there’s so much art stuff in them, but even then, it isn’t like many games are really “art” in the same sense as other “pieces of art”. See, video games AND art need more terminology, both. I’m probably getting stuff wrong in the art department (badumcha), so I implore you to take a look at any modern English dictionary and see all of the different kinds. I go by the Webster ones in the book I have.
I’ve got ideas on how to do a game like this that I’d enjoy, and someday I hope to execute them. The chances are much slimmer than the chances of my creating games in the first two and the last category, due to the huge budgets required to make this kind of game successfully, or at least to my liking.
Metal Gear Solid actually falls into the 2nd category, I think, simply because the game and story are separate, and because the environments and boss battles are designed to get progressively harder and more engaging and so on. I think a big thing is dependant on how separate gameplay and story are. In the MGS games that I’ve played and watched, they’re mostly separate, and other than mission objectives, you can play the entire game skipping cut scenes, if you like. Aside from dramatic effect, where characters might tell you about themselves in battle (Olga for example), it is relatively distant. Of course, a lot of the judgment of which type of game MGS is, derives from the development process, I suppose. Also, keep in mind, I’ve yet to play MGS4 or any of the portable instalments.
(4) The adventure game. Can we really call it a game? It’s a slightly interactive comic book, but I derive none of the same gamey enjoyment that I get from Pac-Man and the like, out of solving puzzles and such to continue a story. I do love adventure games though! But I think of them as non-games. I don’t feel bad about it either! Take Snatcher for instance: Aside from the rare shooting segments, the game is completely menus and small brain twisters. It’s like calling a puzzle set a game, or calling a crossword a game, or a better example would be calling a logic puzzle a game. If I write a book where you’re only allowed to read the next chapter after you solve a logic problem, is that a game? No, because that’s exactly what an adventure game is!
So I guess that’s how it goes for me. What do you think about it?
