Slashdot Mirror
Are Virtual Worlds Worth It?
Junks Jerzey writes: "SIGGRAPH's Computer Graphics has an interesting article titled Are Virtual Worlds Worth It? which looks at the ever increasing complexity of 3D game worlds, and how such complexity is often at odds with the whole point of games (i.e. fun gameplay). There's a lot of good video game history in there as well (remember Jumpman and Miner 2049'er?). This was printed in the May issue of CG which just went online recently." Though this piece gets into some technical information about gaming worlds and the design process (as well as the audience of today's games), it starts with the simple question: "Are computer games any more fun now than they were 10 years ago?"
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
I actually think that this level of abstraction has nothing to with what I call the empathy a player has with a game character. It has to do with far more esoteric elements, like dialogue and action and what other characters say about the player, the basics of character in traditional drama - and/or options given to players to shape that character.
For example, I feel that JC Denton in Deus Ex is, for the most part me, to some degree. I have shaped that character through various choices into representing how I tackle the game world, how he looks, how he behaves.
On the other hand, Solid Snake from Metal Gear Solid completely elicits my empathy despite being a fully fledged character who I don't choose dialogue for, who doesn't grow in skills of my choice, and looks slightly less realistic due to old technology. But when *spoiler warning* a certain character got sniped and I had to find a way to rescue her, my heart was pounding. In that moment I had a complete game playing epiphany, I was honestly concerned for the character involved and was really determined to get some payback. This was because the game had taken the time out to develop a relationship and put it in crisis.
Now that in Metal Gear Solid 2 I can actually read the expression on Solid Snake's face I think the empathic response will grow. It's a stated intention of Hideo Kojima to insure that his face will be readable as much as possible to convey that emotion.
On the other hand, I really, really cared for my Avatar in Ultima V, rendered in glorious EGA - especially, in another special moment in gaming, when I was asked to free an innocent man, knowing that it would get me into deep shit and danger. I was posed with a choice that had more consequence than abstraction survival by dodging bricks, and as a result I felt like I was in the world. This much feeling for a stick man.
Abstraction of character in the best comic books almost come off as a psychic defense; the cartoonish look of Barefoot Gen (autobiographical comic about the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima) or Maus have been stated as a means to try and work through the reality of the horrors portrayed.
The real important necessity for gaming, as I've been babbling about for years, is not the degree of visual realism, but rather the need for sharp characters and deeper plots than bad cliched retreads of the most juvenile and aesthetic elements of genre fiction. Get that right, and you'll see empathy skyrocket.
** http://www.nkhumanrights.or.kr/ ** Human rights in North Korea. 1 million estimated dead from starvation.
Here's my list, off the top of my head, and what made the game good in my opinion:
GAME....................GOOD FOR
Jumpman(c64)...........Needed tactical think-ahead movement to avoid death.
.......................Variety of traps and tricks.
Impossible Mission.....Groundbreaking for complexity of the "map".
.......................Required logical thought to evade the robots.
.......................That scream sound when you fall to your death was addictive.
.......................(The first time I played I kept throwing myself to my
.......................death just to hear it again.)
Phantasie 1,2,3........Predecessor to the Ultima series, by the same guy.
.......................Fun map exploration, party-style D&D setting.
.......................Could change the item descriptions in a text file, so
.......................after a while I was fighting with "trashcan lids",
......................."Big sticks", and so on.
Atari 4-paddle games (like Warlords, Quadrapong, etc) - Instead of
.......................the impossible task of making the computer an interesting
.......................challenge, it put the players against each other, but
.......................in the same room. (Moderm net play is too impersonal.)
Civ (original).........Nice game length, and a user interface that was efficient.
.......................(unlike Civ:CTP).
Lemmings...............Hilarious premise, and a fun challenge to boot.
Does this mean all new games are bad? No, just that the extra graphics and sound don't really make a game good all by themselves. It's important to have a good, *fun* idea at the core of the game. Ask yourself the question, "Would this game still be fun if the graphics and sound weren't as good?" If the answer is "no", then there's no substance to the game.
One modern game I do like is Thief 1&2. Why? Because they had the balls to try something *different* instead of just another Duke Quakem clone. Much like Ultima Underworld (which was also by Looking Glass), this game was groundbreaking and unique without needing the best graphics of the day - they relied on other stuff to make it a good game - like a plot, and a realistic set of physics. (While the graphics engine in Thief wasn't the greatest, the realistic physics for throwing projectiles and shooting bows was awesome. Having an FPS where you have to arc your shot was a new idea, and they did a good job with it.)
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
The answer is that realistic virtual worlds make games more interesting and more immersive, but fail to make up for a failed basic premise. If a game is well thought out and well designed, the realism added definitely increases the fun and value. A pretty game that is not fun to play lasts only as long as the eye candy is still intriguing.
This is why there are still plenty of people playing Quake and Starcraft. They are poor examples of current (audio visual) technology, but as games they are just plain very entertaining.
What we lack currently is the killer app for virtual worlds: a game that is both technologically stunning as well as based on a framework that keeps gamers playing. It's a hard mix to achieve, because so much work *is* required for modern games. We've come a long way from the days of 2d scrollers; many modern game projects are beginning to look more like movie sets. Getting all that fancy technology (and complicated geometry) working may require more effort from designers than ever before, but if they can pull it off they can also show off a game that is more amazing than previously thought possible.
Let's first look at the evidence:
;-)
:-)
Numerous people love 3D shooters (Quake, Thief, Counter-Strike, CTF, etc). Lots of people love 2D RTSs (Age of Empires 2, Starcraft, Majesty, etc), and other people love traditional games like Cards, Chess, Backgammon. Many people enjoy the socializing, goodies, trading, and virtual community in RPGs (UO, EQ, AC, Diablo 2, Balder's Gate), and yet others love the retro C64, Apple ][, Atari games (*cough Apple ][ : Aquatron, Rescue Raiders, Gemstone Warrior cough*) , while others love a good puzzle game (Monkey Island, Zork, Myst, etc). And last but not least, there are a good number of people who enjoy sports games (Football, Basketball, Soccer, Driving, etc)
And what conclusion can we draw?
How complex were the games from yesterday? For the most part, they "were simple." People want something that is "fresh" and "exciting." Adding complexity to a game, i.e. more detailed world, is the easiest way to do this. (Note, that I didn't say the best way
If we look at the (short) history of computer games, are today's games just as fun as the "oldies"?
Not everyone has the same taste, but Yes! Today's games are just as fun. (Popularity is ONE way to guage this.)
One thing we all must remember, is that good gameplay is, for the most part, independent of graphics and sound, but great graphics and sound helps the player to be immersed in a world. Something which seems to be lost on most publishers chanting the mantra "MUST SELL 3D GAMES." (Could you imagine playing Thief without 3d sound? Ugh. Playable, but the expercience wouldn't be that good.)
You can still have a good game and have bad graphics. A bad game with pretty graphics is still a bad game (even though it still might sell)
The main problem is there are a lot of REPEAT games out there. Of course it's not as fun playing the ump'teenth version of a shooter, because the INITIAL thrill of playing something ORIGINAL wears off, but slowly we are seeing NEW genres. i.e. Thief, Majesty, Sims.
One should note there is an interesting parallel with the movie industry. We could ask the same question: Are movies still fun to see after all these years they have been around? After all, the plot has pretty much been seen before, in either books, or previous stories. Movies are using the "latest 3D" rendering techniques to impress us visually, i.e. Matrox. And 3D sound is nice, but not essential to enjoy a good flick.
But what do I know, I'm just a game programmer and avid game player
Score 0: Obvious
All graphical game designers (pro and otherwise), drop whatever the hell you are doing and pick up a copy of Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics.
This book has some imporant original things to say about the way people relate to abstract vs. realistic images, and should be a handbook to anyone doing graphical games. He argues convincingly that people are more engaged by abstracted images of characters precisely because they are more unspecific. The trend in games to be more and more realistic works precisely against this principle.
The question of whether or not games today, with their visual richness, are any more fun hinges on whether or not that visual richness is being used in ways which enhance the player's relationship to the game or detract from it. Read this book to begin to understand how this works.
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
However, he doesn't note the business model that successful FPS games have used to overcome that problem: They open up the level-design specs, and make it possible for anybody to design their own level. That, plus the recent phenomena of near-universal Internet access, means that you can find people out there willing to give their work away for free as long as they get one e-mail's worth of praise for it. Egoboo is a powerful thing.
This puts a pretty radical paradigm shift into the gaming world: Your users determine the game's level design and play pattern. The most obvious example is that they can control the spacing and variety of obstacles (puzzles, enemies, etc.). But there are also people who have used the basic 3D engine at the heart of an FPS and applied them to uses that most people would have never predicted, including:
- Real-time virtual wedding ceremonies
- Animated short films set in the Quake world
- A virtual sysadmin tool that simulates kill -9 with a shotgun
It would be incorrect to argue that 3D-rendered games will lead to a lack of diversity in play. (They won't even completely eclipse other types of games: There will always be people who like Tetris or Scrabble or poker.) In some ways, 3D games represent a broadening of play that's pretty much unprecedented.Francis Hwang
Do domain names matter?
A lot of entertainment has to do with hightening your "immersion" in the experience. Be it an orchestra in a huge opera house, a movie theatre with THX sound, or a ten thousand dollar home audio setup, it's all there for the same purpose: to trigger a bigger reaction in the person experiencing some form of input.
:)
That's not to say PacMan wasn't immersive; the goal was to forget about real life for a while and see how many points you could stack up.
But the human philosophy is 'bigger, better, faster, more', and you can guarantee there were people who spent an hour at PacMan, and said 'what's next'?
Smoothly rendered hills with details fading realistically into the background, animated cloud cover, and dynamic lighting.. they're kind of the answer to that question. It doesn't make the games themselves any better, but it improves our perception of them.
Playing Q3, I find it impossible to ask the question of "do better graphics help?" seriously. There's times where you're so glued to the action and visual stimulae, when suddenly the fraglimit is hit and action halts, you come out of the game with a buzz.. and you're like, 'woa, that was awesome'.
PacMan was fun, yes, but I would be hesitant to accept that anyone ever got an adrenaline high off it.
Don't tell me for a moment that Ultima Underworld is anywhere near as easy to play as Deus Ex just for the 3d engine. UU's 3d world is a small, low res window where objects remain perpetually two dimensional and distort perspective. Repetitive textures lead to no real geography - the brain must adjust and form an abstract sort of wireframe map in the brain. Just getting your bearings is much more difficult. But the only thing that seperates the games, really, is technology. The storyline, characters, work on interface, and richness of the world is comparable today, and both are games far above the norm.
In fact, one could find that richness and depth in a much uglier game than either, Ultima VII - but I remember when it was coming out being blown away by the screenshots. Too many console launches and neat graphics cards since then, my brain is spoiled. Sure, there's even a correlation between filmic graphics and the bar set - does anyone remember watching Terminator 2 and thinking, well that's quite shoddy work? It was the first I can remember seeing where there wasn't a single dodgy effects shot - but today it's showing its age. Awareness of the illusion leads to disbelief, which is probably more important to games than even movies.
What seperates the games I mention above from others is a unification at every time they came out to be best at everything they attempted - technology and design both. We often argue for one or the other without ever thinking that the true beauty is when both work hand in hand. Building these worlds is absolutely worth it, and the best games continue to show the promise of the medium in the future.
But current development cycles in gaming seem to stifle this. I won't even get into this, as it's a much broader issue, but gaming is being changed from the outside in by a nasty corporate culture, shortened development cycles combined with large, uncommunacative teams, lack of support upon release, runaway and ludicrous mismanaged budgets, and worst of all SUITS who don't understand gaming and don't care and want no interest in advancing it as an art form. They want their merchandised rights title on two consoles and PC and done NOW, and to fix the problem they're going to hire 100 more people.
Retro gaming is an oddity at best, and doesn't address the larger issues of gaming entering the cultural mainstream. I say this as someone who collects consoles, aware of what gaming is becoming. Who Wants To Be A Millionaire PC edition will outsell Deus Ex two to one, I have no doubt of that.
And as more people come to the party they will expect a union between technology and design, the more mainstream audiences will demand a greater visual realism from games. There's no avoiding it. What's important is to give them both.
Or at least, that's what I think, but then look at Diablo II. Three year old graphics and console style gameplay - maybe that's the future (no disrespect to Blizzard as I find the product as addictive as crack.
** http://www.nkhumanrights.or.kr/ ** Human rights in North Korea. 1 million estimated dead from starvation.
If you go back and actually look at it, though, you'll find that there was just as high a percentage of crap (re: Sturgeon's Law) then as there is now. People tend to forget the crap, and focus on the stuff that was great.
One other thing to consider is also the fact that greater strides are always made earlier in any field than later. Bob Dylan was so groundbreaking because no one had ever done anything like it before -- but that was because rock and roll hadn't been around that long. Dylan himself is not particularly special; if he came along today, he'd probably be considered a talented artist, but hardly groundbreaking. (Someone else would have filled his role in the 60s.) The same goes for video games. When there's been 20 years of game development, it's a lot harder to be groundbreakingly innovative than when no one has done anything yet.
The point is, a lot of us were kids back when videogames first became popular. We are inclined to remember them fondly, but I dare you to go back and play Dig Dug or Frogger again now. Sure, it's a nice feeling to play again, but how fun is it? I rarely am entertained with more than nostalgia by the old games I used to love. Don't fall into that trap; before you go on about how games used to be so much better, go back and play them again with the hindsight of years to help you figure out what you really think.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
A lot of the "evolution" of games has been to make them more realistic. Real life ain't fun, though.
Take your typical combat sim...to play now, you must learn the entire systems of a modern jet fighter or warship. Great for those who crave realism and can immerse themselves in the experience, not so great for those who don't have 4 hours to spend in a sitting, who don't want to spend weeks learning how to start engines, and who just want to blow something up.
...for a poor game. One of my favorite all-time games to play was Combat on the Atari 2600. Even by 2600 standards it had pretty lame graphics, but it was a blast (and a sure way to wear out those awful joysticks!). Why? Because the gameplay was FUN. It had a whole bunch of options (tanks, bouncing bullets, big planes, little planes, etc), you could play over and over and over with few delays, and it was truly competitive -- there was a great mix of luck and skill.
It's like the BASF slogan - Graphics don't make a great game, they make a great game better. How many times have you said, "the graphics were cool but the game was okay" ? If the game is really fun you don't even worry so much about the graphics.
-------------
-------------
The truth is out th- oh, wait, here it is...
I remember an interview with a lead developer at Lookglass, during the development of thief. The interviewer asked the question, "How do you make the tradeoff between making something realistic and adding good gameplay?"
:)
"If reality was so much fun, people wouldn't need to play games."
That pretty much sums it up. Lots of people like "realistic" first person shooters. There's nothing wrong with that, but the people who prefer realistic FPS games over games with extremely well balanced gameplay (like Thief and Quake 3) usually have trouble with the "suspension of disbelief".
Myself, I have no problems believing I can carry 8 weapons, each weighing 40 pounds, and 1000 pounds of ammunition, and then jump over a 6 foot tall alien, doing a perfect 180 before landing. I guess I'm just gifted.
-Ted
A MUD (multi-user dungeon). The game is all text, yet it's just as fun as any other game that's graphical that I've ever played. Chalk it up to my personal preference if u like, but then log on and ask all of the people who still play it, there's about 65 people on at all times average, why they're not playing EverGay or Ultima GoneLine.
Screw graphics if the gameplay's not there.
The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all, is the person who argues with him.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
it starts with the simple question: "Are computer games any more fun now than they were 10 years ago?"
Which is, unfortunately, the wrong question. At least, if you're directing it towards *everyone*, and talking about *every* game. "More fun" is an almost dishonourably subjective phrase and one cannot just go ahead and ask it with a straight face and expect a logical answer. In the interest of proving this, I'll share my point of view.
Yes. The games that I play now are more fun than the ones that I played 10 years ago, and not because they are newer. I think the point of new gaming technology is to create new genres, not just keep rahashing the old ones with a higher polygon count. As an example, let's try Unreal Tournament. Admittedly, one of my own personal favourite games. The multiplayer FPS gaming genre has been around since Quake (okay: earlier, but it sucked then), but a game with the sytle, gameplay, and subtle complexities of UT have only been technically possible in the last two or three years.
Or how about racing games? I cannot imagine myself getting excited at watching little blocky cars whirr around a similarly blocky racing loop. No, something more is needed. In my case, I require a feeling of speed. No racing game will ever top the feeling of utter quickness of the classic WipeOut XL for the playstation.
Now, things like puzzle games (tetris), adventure games (zelda), and jumpers (mario) have their place. But that place is not for me. I never did like either Atari or NES when I was growing up. I had a far greater time tinkering with my Tandy 1000 80286. I just wasn't interested in something that looked so obviously fake. My first system was a Super Nintendo, but I didn't really start getting into serious console gaming until Squaresoft started releasing a few of their 16-bit classics (FF3, Chrono Trigger, etc).
Oh hell, I'll get off my pedestal now.
Baseball is an easier example. Suppose we can take the average abilities and performance of all the players in baseball, and assign it a number. Early on in baseball's history, this number will be fairly low, owing to the lack of years and years of development. When someone with extraordinary talent comes along, there's apt to be a lot more space between his "ability score" and the average (e.g., Babe Ruth). Now fifty years pass, and the "average score" has gotten a lot closer to its theoretical maximum (namely, the physical and mental capacities of humans). Nowadays, someone who is as good as Babe Ruth was, isn't going to be nearly as far above the average. It's not that people have less talent or skill as time goes on (or that the earlier people have more talent), it's just that the average ability level has risen, and it's much harder to exceed by a large margin.
And thus I agree with your statement that, "several classic games are just as great as the ones made today". I agree; games like Joust and Galaga and whatnot ARE as great as Half-Life and Civilization and whatnot. However, the "average" level has gone up quite a lot since the days of Joust and Galaga; all of the technology is far more advanced, and a lot of ideas that didn't exist back then, do now and are used by many or all games. So a "great" game today isn't going to be as high above the average as a "great" game of 20 years ago was. The two games are equally great, but the average has risen.
This is all better explained in Stephen Jay Gould's book, "Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin", so if you've got a problem with my analogies, take it up with Dr. Gould :)
Now this is all separate from the issue that people tend to fondly remember the greats of the past and ignore the crap. The "Nostalgia Problem" itself is in two parts:
1. Back in the "good old days", there was a higher percentage of quality stuff, compared to today when there is a higher percentage of crap. (This is usually false, although true in some cases.
2. The high-quality items of the past are, individually, greater than the high-quality items of the present. This is the issue addressed above, regarding the averages.
The first issue is one of selective memory; the latter is one of simply not being aware of the gradual increase in average ability of participants in a field.
This is not to say that some people will not truly find certain old games "better" than certain new games; your case obviously proves that it is possible (unless you are lying :). My point is that people will often dismiss the new in favor of the old, simply because they have fond memories of it, and that is something to beware.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Hmmmm...did anyone actually read the article or are they just keying off of the blurb on Slashdot? Go read it. It isn't saying quite what most people here think it is saying. It's not putting down modern games or saying that old skool games were better. It's a history of increasing game complexity and whether the escalating requirements have inherent limits, considering the goal of creating marketable and fun games.