Controllers have come a long way in the gaming industry. (you can check out an awesome controller family tree here) From the classic joystick of the Atari 2600 to the motion sensing wonders of today, control has always been an important piece of how we play our games.
This year's E3 gave us some interesting controllers from Sony and Microsoft (Microsoft's Natal and Sony's ....blinking... wandy... thingy). Jumping on the Nintendo bandwagon and trying to give us the next best method of playing games not with a controller, but with our bodies.This brings forth some interesting concerns.
Motion sensing technology is clearly doing very well in the markets. The Nintendo Wii is a hugely popular system that everyone and their dog seems to love. The system brings in a new level of approachability and natural game play that has brought new markets to gaming world. No longer are people intimidated by a device with hundred of confusing buttons on it. You just pick it up, and swing it like a tennis racket, and boom, you're playing. While Sony is seemingly playing catch up and pretty much mimicking the Wii, but with more precision and horsepower. Microsoft is trying to take this one step further, completely removing the controller element all together, but is the a turn for the better?
The natal has no controller at all, while that makes for a great presentation, how does that translate to real gaming? In the interview with Miyamoto, he states "As someone who thinks of things from the perspective of creating interactive experiences, I really think that you do need something. I don’t think as a creator that I could create an experience that truly feels interactive if you don’t have something to hold in your hand"
This is an angle that I don't think many people have looked at. In talking with all of my peers, I've only heard excitement concerning the natal, no concerns what-so-ever. I think this hinges heavily on what people want from their play experience. We've all seen the multitude of interactive software for the Wii, much of which has broadened gaming into many (somewhat) new areas. There are games that help you to work out now, there are games that help teach you to cook, help you learn new languages, or even teach you how to put on your make up (Hey, don't ask me, I saw it at Best Buy).
A controller often serves a double purpose in games. Not only does it give you a method of controlling what's going on, it also connects you with the system. The controller represents a very real connection between you and the world. You physically hold a piece of that world in your hands. The Wii uses this very well. When shooting a gun, flipping a frying pan, or even rolling dice, you have something in your hands at all times. It's very easy to feel connected with link as a marksman, when I have a physical object in my hand that acts as a bow and arrow. Without this device, I don't feel I'd get the same effect. It may not be a gun, or a hookshot, but I have something that acts as a frame of reference. How will I know what I am aiming if I don't have a something to aim? I feel like the full removal of a controller can actually hurt the immersion. I'm forced to rely solely on my sense of sight and sound to match up my movements and body with the environment. Losing the tactile representation could actually further disconnect me from the world. I suppose I could always just grab a shoe and swing it around?
With the new generation of gaming we are rethinking what makes "a game" and really pushing the boundaries of control. The input method of a game is crucial to the type of game your playing, and the experience you are providing. There are many types of experiences that simply will not work without some form of advanced control. No offense to my gamer brethren, but I feel comfortable betting that none of us are able to leap buildings in a single bound, or climb on ceilings effortlessly. These heavily action packed types of games don't translate very well to using full body motion control. As much as I love World of Warcraft, the idea of physically running from Orgrimmar to Silithus doesn't sound like "hours of fun!" to me.
I think the Natal will do very well. I can see it excelling in many areas and types of game play. There are huge numbers of possibilities where it could work wonderfully. I think simply navigating the xbox menu could be really interesting. Or the things I've heard about the netflix integration, or even a Wii fit competitor could all turn out to be amazing products. But when it comes to "Serious gaming" I don't expect it to shatter any molds. I love playing virtual sports games as much as the next guy, but when I'm slaughtering hordes of undead, scaling skyscrapers, or simply trying to enjoy a well told story, I don't want to break a sweat in the process.
Let's hope I'm wrong. :)
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
What's the story morning glory?
I read a really interesting interview with Shigeru Miyamoto today on Wired
This interview raised some interesting points with me concerning the importance of story telling. One of my professors at college continually referred to games as "interactive stories". We sat through multiple lectures comparing modern games to Hollywood movies, and exploring techniques for character development and story driven plot. We discussed the methodology behind telling stories, and how to obtain emotional reactions from players, just like movies. He said, more than once, that he will feel video games have reached a high point when a game impacts him enough to make him cry, like so few movies have. While I think these are all viable, important, and interesting topics worth of discussion and thought. I don't feel that games are about telling stories, but about providing an experience.
Mayamoto mentions "I’ve always felt that the Mario games themselves aren’t particularly suited to having a very heavy story, whereas the Zelda series is something that lends itself more naturally to that idea." He goes on to say that he intends for Mario Galaxy 2 to have as little story as possible. Being the polar opposite of what I was instructed in college, this made me think.
Do games really need stories? Are games interactive stories? what's the purpose of a story? The more I thought on this, the more I realized that linking games with stories is restricting gaming in a major way. I apologize to my college professor for rebelling against his teachings, but games don't have to have stories to be great. Did Pac Man have a story? I remember going into the Arcade as a child and being awed by the hundreds of different things I could be. I could grab a gun and be a cop on the beat dispatching the bad guys ruthlessly. I could jump in the cockpit and be a fighter pilot, touching the heavens and claiming the sky as my own. Or a martial arts master, beating down anyone foolish enough to enter my arena. Each game gave me an avenue to make my own story. Sure, there were games that had minor story driven elements, but with each experience I would dream up my own little story to accompany my game play. The game provided the experience, not the story.
I feel like our games have come full circle. The old arcade machines were about fun, giving you a quarter's worth of a thrill. Hopefully thrilling you enough to put in another quarter. Then came the consoles that didn't need the thrill to force you to pump in another quarter. Justifying the price of a whole game by giving you not a short, cheap high. But a long adventure with tons to do, and a story to enjoy. With modern hardware and systems, I see more and more games turning their backs on the story and focusing again on the experience. The Nintendo wii has seen huge amounts of success with nothing more than simply getting a player more involved. Get up, move around, play with your friends, just enjoy yourselves. Who cares why you're playing tennis? Or bowling? You're playing cause its fun, and that's all you need! Based on the announcements from E3 this year, Microsoft and Sony are right behind Nintendo with this mindset.
This is one of the reasons games amaze me so. No matter what you are looking for, you can find it in the gaming world. Do you want to be told a story about a far off land and a beautiful princess? Or do you want to get together with your friends and pretend you can play guitar? Are you simply in the mood to steal some cars and shoot random hookers? Maybe you want to sit down and learn to cook? Whatever it is you want, you can find it in the gaming world. With each passing moment there are thousands of people working their asses off to make sure that you can get whatever experience you want at your finger tips.
I find myself really excited for the new age of gaming. With the huge success of the Wii, and the announcements at this years E3. We are seeing the comeback of the thrills, and a less story dominated market. We are re-learning that games can simply be about fun and don't need a story to be successful. Paired up with the use of games as social tools, as the MMO market has shown, and we are in store for some really amazing products as these lines blur and bleed into one another. Before we know it, we will stop 'playing' games, and start simply experiencing games. Not only will we experience games, but we will be able to do it in a highly social environment where we can make our own stories with our friends, or we can experience a story created for us. Either way, it should be a helluva lot of fun.
This interview raised some interesting points with me concerning the importance of story telling. One of my professors at college continually referred to games as "interactive stories". We sat through multiple lectures comparing modern games to Hollywood movies, and exploring techniques for character development and story driven plot. We discussed the methodology behind telling stories, and how to obtain emotional reactions from players, just like movies. He said, more than once, that he will feel video games have reached a high point when a game impacts him enough to make him cry, like so few movies have. While I think these are all viable, important, and interesting topics worth of discussion and thought. I don't feel that games are about telling stories, but about providing an experience.
Mayamoto mentions "I’ve always felt that the Mario games themselves aren’t particularly suited to having a very heavy story, whereas the Zelda series is something that lends itself more naturally to that idea." He goes on to say that he intends for Mario Galaxy 2 to have as little story as possible. Being the polar opposite of what I was instructed in college, this made me think.
Do games really need stories? Are games interactive stories? what's the purpose of a story? The more I thought on this, the more I realized that linking games with stories is restricting gaming in a major way. I apologize to my college professor for rebelling against his teachings, but games don't have to have stories to be great. Did Pac Man have a story? I remember going into the Arcade as a child and being awed by the hundreds of different things I could be. I could grab a gun and be a cop on the beat dispatching the bad guys ruthlessly. I could jump in the cockpit and be a fighter pilot, touching the heavens and claiming the sky as my own. Or a martial arts master, beating down anyone foolish enough to enter my arena. Each game gave me an avenue to make my own story. Sure, there were games that had minor story driven elements, but with each experience I would dream up my own little story to accompany my game play. The game provided the experience, not the story.
I feel like our games have come full circle. The old arcade machines were about fun, giving you a quarter's worth of a thrill. Hopefully thrilling you enough to put in another quarter. Then came the consoles that didn't need the thrill to force you to pump in another quarter. Justifying the price of a whole game by giving you not a short, cheap high. But a long adventure with tons to do, and a story to enjoy. With modern hardware and systems, I see more and more games turning their backs on the story and focusing again on the experience. The Nintendo wii has seen huge amounts of success with nothing more than simply getting a player more involved. Get up, move around, play with your friends, just enjoy yourselves. Who cares why you're playing tennis? Or bowling? You're playing cause its fun, and that's all you need! Based on the announcements from E3 this year, Microsoft and Sony are right behind Nintendo with this mindset.
This is one of the reasons games amaze me so. No matter what you are looking for, you can find it in the gaming world. Do you want to be told a story about a far off land and a beautiful princess? Or do you want to get together with your friends and pretend you can play guitar? Are you simply in the mood to steal some cars and shoot random hookers? Maybe you want to sit down and learn to cook? Whatever it is you want, you can find it in the gaming world. With each passing moment there are thousands of people working their asses off to make sure that you can get whatever experience you want at your finger tips.
I find myself really excited for the new age of gaming. With the huge success of the Wii, and the announcements at this years E3. We are seeing the comeback of the thrills, and a less story dominated market. We are re-learning that games can simply be about fun and don't need a story to be successful. Paired up with the use of games as social tools, as the MMO market has shown, and we are in store for some really amazing products as these lines blur and bleed into one another. Before we know it, we will stop 'playing' games, and start simply experiencing games. Not only will we experience games, but we will be able to do it in a highly social environment where we can make our own stories with our friends, or we can experience a story created for us. Either way, it should be a helluva lot of fun.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Intro
The introduction...
I suppose this is where I am to write all about myself and attempt to convince you that I am the most interesting person in the world, and that you need to add me to your bookmarks and favorite and hang on to my every word. Sadly, this is untrue. I'm not the most interesting person in the world, and I highly doubt anything I do here is going to revolutionize either of our worlds, let alone "THE" world.
I surmise that this is the point where anyone reading this would ask themselves "Wow, why would I want to read what this guy writes?!" Well, the only reason to continue reading is because you are interested in a shared topic as myself. The topic of Game Design.
Now, before either of us can go any further, It's rather important for me to define "Game Design". I'm not here to talk about your level 80 orc necromancer, nor am I here to talk about your uber leet gamerscore. Though, each of those could lead to some important topics within the scope of game design. What I am here to do is to attempt to analyze the concepts of design on a higher level. Anyone can pick up a game, and say "oooh! this is fun!" but not everyone can define what makes that game, or better yet, analyze that, break it down, and learn to replicate or improve on it.
This is my goal with this journal. While I do not claim to be the authority on the topic, this is a place where I am able to critically analyze my opinions, my thoughts, and try to break those down and ultimately find out what makes the modern industry of gaming work, what makes games tick.
I suppose this is where I am to write all about myself and attempt to convince you that I am the most interesting person in the world, and that you need to add me to your bookmarks and favorite and hang on to my every word. Sadly, this is untrue. I'm not the most interesting person in the world, and I highly doubt anything I do here is going to revolutionize either of our worlds, let alone "THE" world.
This is my goal with this journal. While I do not claim to be the authority on the topic, this is a place where I am able to critically analyze my opinions, my thoughts, and try to break those down and ultimately find out what makes the modern industry of gaming work, and more importantly what makes the games themselves tick.
I believe this is where the majority of aspiring game designers break down. They don't take the time to critically analyze what is already out there, and to understand it. Nobody will give you a job in a creative field if you don't understand what makes a good product good, or a bad product bad. With this in mind, I'm going to be dedicating this first post to all of the aspiring game designers out there. In hopes that reading this will help to dust off the cogs, and make you think, even if just for a second.
First thing is first. If you hope to have a shot at getting into the gaming industry, you need to know exactly what it is you want to do. There are huge numbers of job descriptions within the gaming industry, most of which are fairly specilized. What are you passionate about? Take the time to really think on this question for a bit. This question alone can make a serious impact.
During my time in Art school, I met countless students who looked at games and say "I want to do that!" Which is a great first step, unfortunately, many people don't further research it or think past that concept. I know that the idea of it is what led me, personally, to college in the first place. As a child there were only two things I can only ever remember wanting to do two things with my life, one was be a doctor, the other was make games.
Through my studies and interactions within the industry, I personally found that "Game Design" was the place for me. Now, before either of us can go any further, It's rather important for me to define "Game Design". I'm not here to talk about your level 80 orc necromancer, nor am I here to talk about your uber leet gamerscore. Though, each of those could lead to some important topics within the scope of game design. What I am here to do is to attempt to analyze the concepts of design on a higher level. Anyone can pick up a game, and say "oooh! this is fun!" but not everyone can define what makes that game, or better yet, analyze that, break it down, and learn to replicate or improve on it.
But what does "make games" mean? On a video game specific level, this can have a multitude of defenitions. Everything you see in a video game was created by someone. As well as the huge multitude of things you don't see. There are large numbers of Artists and Programmers that work their assess off (and don't fool yourself dreamers, working in the game industry is not easy work) to make everything you see and do into a cohesive piece of sofware. There are huge numbers of play testers who spend well over 40 hours a week playing the same level over and over litterally trying to break the game. Again, a career path that many dream of (I want to play video games for a living!) yet many end up hating once they actually obtain it. (sit and think about it, really, take a minute to actually think about playing the exact same single level of a video game for 8 hours a day for a week. Does that sound fun? Think about equipping Item XYZ and walking around for 10 seconds to make sure it looks right, and doing this with hundred of items. Does that sound like fun, or like a job?)
My position here is with a focus on design. I want to use this space to ponder game theory, to look at games and understand what makes them work. Not programming, not art asset creation. But what makes them work with the human interaction. I suppose that this is more of a journey in self understanding and investigation into the behaviors of human interaction and entertainment then, huh?
Does the average gamer think about what's going on within the system when they push the jump button? Does the average person look at a game and think about the color scheme? I feel that in my individual interactions with hundreds of aspiring "game makers" (And I interact with hundreds on a daily basis) most stop their thought at that point. They say "I want to make games!" and end it there. I constantly hear "I could do this better" or "this would be better if" within circles of gamers. This is where the fire dies. I attempt to push these comments further, I say "Oh? How would you make it better?" or "Why would that make it better" only to be greeted with responses along the lines of "It would be more fun." or "Cause it would be better". Thanks for the deep thought there.
I suppose I've rambled long enough, considering this is an introduction. I guess my ultimate goal here is to have documentation of my self exploration into game design and gaming theory. And hey, if I'm lucky I'll meet some cool people along the way.
I apologize if the writing here is a bit scatterbrained. I'm quite tired at the moment.
I suppose this is where I am to write all about myself and attempt to convince you that I am the most interesting person in the world, and that you need to add me to your bookmarks and favorite and hang on to my every word. Sadly, this is untrue. I'm not the most interesting person in the world, and I highly doubt anything I do here is going to revolutionize either of our worlds, let alone "THE" world.
I surmise that this is the point where anyone reading this would ask themselves "Wow, why would I want to read what this guy writes?!" Well, the only reason to continue reading is because you are interested in a shared topic as myself. The topic of Game Design.
Now, before either of us can go any further, It's rather important for me to define "Game Design". I'm not here to talk about your level 80 orc necromancer, nor am I here to talk about your uber leet gamerscore. Though, each of those could lead to some important topics within the scope of game design. What I am here to do is to attempt to analyze the concepts of design on a higher level. Anyone can pick up a game, and say "oooh! this is fun!" but not everyone can define what makes that game, or better yet, analyze that, break it down, and learn to replicate or improve on it.
This is my goal with this journal. While I do not claim to be the authority on the topic, this is a place where I am able to critically analyze my opinions, my thoughts, and try to break those down and ultimately find out what makes the modern industry of gaming work, what makes games tick.
I suppose this is where I am to write all about myself and attempt to convince you that I am the most interesting person in the world, and that you need to add me to your bookmarks and favorite and hang on to my every word. Sadly, this is untrue. I'm not the most interesting person in the world, and I highly doubt anything I do here is going to revolutionize either of our worlds, let alone "THE" world.
This is my goal with this journal. While I do not claim to be the authority on the topic, this is a place where I am able to critically analyze my opinions, my thoughts, and try to break those down and ultimately find out what makes the modern industry of gaming work, and more importantly what makes the games themselves tick.
I believe this is where the majority of aspiring game designers break down. They don't take the time to critically analyze what is already out there, and to understand it. Nobody will give you a job in a creative field if you don't understand what makes a good product good, or a bad product bad. With this in mind, I'm going to be dedicating this first post to all of the aspiring game designers out there. In hopes that reading this will help to dust off the cogs, and make you think, even if just for a second.
First thing is first. If you hope to have a shot at getting into the gaming industry, you need to know exactly what it is you want to do. There are huge numbers of job descriptions within the gaming industry, most of which are fairly specilized. What are you passionate about? Take the time to really think on this question for a bit. This question alone can make a serious impact.
During my time in Art school, I met countless students who looked at games and say "I want to do that!" Which is a great first step, unfortunately, many people don't further research it or think past that concept. I know that the idea of it is what led me, personally, to college in the first place. As a child there were only two things I can only ever remember wanting to do two things with my life, one was be a doctor, the other was make games.
Through my studies and interactions within the industry, I personally found that "Game Design" was the place for me. Now, before either of us can go any further, It's rather important for me to define "Game Design". I'm not here to talk about your level 80 orc necromancer, nor am I here to talk about your uber leet gamerscore. Though, each of those could lead to some important topics within the scope of game design. What I am here to do is to attempt to analyze the concepts of design on a higher level. Anyone can pick up a game, and say "oooh! this is fun!" but not everyone can define what makes that game, or better yet, analyze that, break it down, and learn to replicate or improve on it.
But what does "make games" mean? On a video game specific level, this can have a multitude of defenitions. Everything you see in a video game was created by someone. As well as the huge multitude of things you don't see. There are large numbers of Artists and Programmers that work their assess off (and don't fool yourself dreamers, working in the game industry is not easy work) to make everything you see and do into a cohesive piece of sofware. There are huge numbers of play testers who spend well over 40 hours a week playing the same level over and over litterally trying to break the game. Again, a career path that many dream of (I want to play video games for a living!) yet many end up hating once they actually obtain it. (sit and think about it, really, take a minute to actually think about playing the exact same single level of a video game for 8 hours a day for a week. Does that sound fun? Think about equipping Item XYZ and walking around for 10 seconds to make sure it looks right, and doing this with hundred of items. Does that sound like fun, or like a job?)
My position here is with a focus on design. I want to use this space to ponder game theory, to look at games and understand what makes them work. Not programming, not art asset creation. But what makes them work with the human interaction. I suppose that this is more of a journey in self understanding and investigation into the behaviors of human interaction and entertainment then, huh?
Does the average gamer think about what's going on within the system when they push the jump button? Does the average person look at a game and think about the color scheme? I feel that in my individual interactions with hundreds of aspiring "game makers" (And I interact with hundreds on a daily basis) most stop their thought at that point. They say "I want to make games!" and end it there. I constantly hear "I could do this better" or "this would be better if" within circles of gamers. This is where the fire dies. I attempt to push these comments further, I say "Oh? How would you make it better?" or "Why would that make it better" only to be greeted with responses along the lines of "It would be more fun." or "Cause it would be better". Thanks for the deep thought there.
I suppose I've rambled long enough, considering this is an introduction. I guess my ultimate goal here is to have documentation of my self exploration into game design and gaming theory. And hey, if I'm lucky I'll meet some cool people along the way.
I apologize if the writing here is a bit scatterbrained. I'm quite tired at the moment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
