Slashdot Mirror
How Do Games Grow Up?
Gamasutra is running a piece by game designer Brice Morrison questioning the lack of games for grown-ups — or, more accurately, the lack of an intellectual progression in games like that which exists for books, movies, and other creative works.
"While my interests in other media grew substantially more adult — from Nickelodeon to CNN, from Dr. Seuss to George Orwell — games did not seem to have a more intelligent counterpart for me to move on to. As I entered college, I became less interested in mindless entertainment and more interested in encountering new ideas. I didn't want to kill time; I wanted to take advantage of it. I wanted to challenge myself with profound concepts, to learn of new paradigms, processes, and possibilities. ... So what exactly are the barriers of entry for great thinkers (or groups of thinkers) to leave their mark on games? What must happen for games — or interactive entertainment, if you will, to mature as a medium?"
I didn't want to kill time; I wanted to take advantage of it. I wanted to challenge myself with profound concepts, to learn of new paradigms, processes, and possibilities.
That's your problem right there. Games only kill time. The skills you acquire as you progress in a game, generally speaking, can only be used in progressing within the game's framework.
However, learning a slightly more challenging real-life task gives you more skills with long-term usefulness; My youngest daughter is learning piano, and we view each new challenging piece she has to learn as a 'boss level' - no matter how impossible it seems initially, we know from previous examples that eventually she'll conquer it and ultimately will be able to play it on demand without thinking.
So my advice is - don't look for more 'grown up' games - challenge yourself with something much more rewarding and useful in the long term.
Squirrel!
The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
Squirrel!
If I wanted to pursue more 'intellectual pursuits', I would socialize
This is /. I anticipate a problem with this approach.
Squirrel!
Sometimes gamers don't *want* their games to become more complex as they mature.
Take for example the Caesar 3/Zeus/Cleopatra games of Impression Studio's. They decided it was time to go more mature and produced Children of the Nile', which was more complex in many ways, and altered the gameplay to make the game 'more challenging'. However the result was a game which differed so much from the core attraction of the previous titles that it bombed, going onto the bargain shelves really quickly. So then they took a step back and released Caesar 4. A bit too high on the system spec requirements, but nice looking, a decent evolution of their core game, and really good fun. In many respects its similar to games they were producing five years previously, and this was a good thing.
And what about that other great failure of progression when they decided Worms need to be 3D? Talk about New Coke...
I've been playing games for the last (counts on wrinkles and old person skin blemishes..) 24 years, so I'm well aware of the evolution of the industry. Some evolutions have been great, better AI, improvements in graphics, more depth in games, stuff like that, but others, like 'customer as potential criminal suspect', not so much.
New types of game have appeared which I really enjoy, though I have to say, very few groundbreaking games, which is surprising. Instead I've also noticed a tendency for games companies to pound a franchise to death with endless tiny iterations until it gets to the point that the only new thing in some new releases are new skins, a few extra effects and some more items.
A good game should evolve, true, but each iteration should be an obvious advance, enhancing the core elements that make that game fun to begin with. What it shouldn't do is catch 'New Coke' disease, or pretend to be a new version worth a whole new purchase when the content changes are less than some decent games companies (Id, Valve, Egosoft to name a few) release as free content updates.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
Plenty of "games" for grown ups that are challenging...
- Programming
- 3D modelling
- Spreadsheets
- Online banking
- and so on...
Usually the "adult" label is used not for actual weighty content geared for an adult audience with mature tastes, but just a repository for those things that traditionally children shouldn't be exposed to. Sorry, that doesn't make it adult-oriented, that just makes it non-kid-friendly, and typically can be best described as adolescent (boobs, explosions, gore, swearing, "gritty", "edgy", etc) content that would make Beavis and Butthead proud.
In my case, I've left all the AAA titles and tended towards puzzle games, where at least I'm challenged to expand my thought processes and puzzle solving abilities. There are some plot-heavy RPGs and FPSes nowadays with some challenging concepts or unexpected twists, but they still tend to be buried in adolescence to make them marketable, ignoring the amount of >30yo and female gamers who are no longer enticed by such or are even turned off by it.
I do commend Nintendo for putting a lot of focus on basic fun, party, family-enjoyable games which have been explosively popular without the adolescent slant, but they still do leave the adult-minded player wishing to be challenged at a more cerebral level.
Yeah but real life has a completely messed up difficultly curve.
The boss level of 'getting up in the morning' comes first, and then it's much easier after that.
The claims that games don't provide a challenge, no depth. The game he uses as an example, and the only example? Mario.
This is like saying TV provides no depth, after you spend all time studying the shopping channel.
There are other games. Games that have tried to go beyond a simple platformer. Wether they succeed is up for question but when I see someone talk about the lack of depth of games and his example if a simple platform console game I get visions of a large lumbering stone creature that lives under bridges.
So his mother was never intrested in playing Mario. So what? My mother was never intrested in reading the adventures of "Spot" either.
Somebody give this guy a PC and some decent games. Hell, even consoles have the occasional title that pushes the envelope a bit (so, I am PC snob, sue me) but if he never played more the mario then the problem is not the game industry but his own lousy taste.
Complaing that Mario not anything more then a mindless (if fun) time waster is like saying Popcorn doesn't have enough nutritional benefits, however true it is, it is retarded observation. Mario and Popcorn are light fluf, devoid of meaning or value except. That is their goal.
But we get the post true intentions. Apparently the future of gaming is weight loss gaming. WHEE! Because a program that tracks your weight becomes a game just because it is on a console? If this is the example of growing up, of challenging your mind, taking you new places, then I take Mario any time (and I hate Mario since I suck at platforms ergo platforms are stupid).
Perhaps this developer needs to grow up and realize that not everything has to be liked by everyone. I had a grandfather who never ever had a telephone. Never needed it, never wanted it. Does that mean telephones are without value to those who use them? That the telephone companies needed to worry about this "lost" customer?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
You work for Mary Poppins ???
A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go doooooown.....
Squirrel!
It really depends on the game. Action games do improve hand-eye coordination and reflexes. Strategy games improve planning and leadership abilities. RPGs are basically like long books and carry their own rewards in the form of their stories (unless you hate books also).
Playing piano is great and all for novelty, but it's not really a useful skill. It won't be needed often, if ever and it's not something that is noticeable unless you are one of the best. I don't mean to put down your daughter, but I doubt she will ever reach that "level".
I talked to someone in a research group working with optical tweezers on biological cells, and they asked potential PhD students if they played games since it actually gave them a head-start when operating these equipments. It was of course not the sole criteria for accepting a PhD student in their group, but they had empirical evidence gaming was a benifit. :)
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
"Don't look for 'grown up' games"? Um, what about guitar hero? You mentioned learning piano; surely learning guitar would also be an intellectual pursuit.
Games today IMHO can be compared to blockbuster movies: Lots of special effects and mass market. If you have a brand (GTA) or a star (Lara Croft, Mario) you repeat the concept - with better special effects and a larger budget - as long as you have a ROI, sometimes (always?) sacrificing artistic ambitions for the bottom line. But some Hollywood studios (and most publishers for that matter) use some of the blockbuster cash to subsidize experiments for smaller audiences and there also is a rather large independent scene with smaller budgets using festivals (e.g. Sundance in the US) that create visibility. Maybe the game industry - and the blockbuster publishers - should invest some money in more experimental concepts - kind of a Bell Labs for gaming - and provide visibility for these beyond the large trade shows.
mod -1: inconvenient truth.
Being good at Guitar Hero won't give you much benefit when you actually try to play a real guitar. In fact, the immediate good results you get from GH could actually discourage you from going through the basics of learning how to play the real thing properly.
Squirrel!
The Victorians mailed in a letter. They want their parlor room piano back.
If I understand you properly, you are saying that the skill of "Piano" carries more value long term than any particular game which now has a short lifespan.
Thing is, "Piano" playing itself is already starting to be passed by, except for the modern ofshoot of playing Keyboard in a small band. Then the grownup game is arguing with band members with "creative differences".
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Really now.
Anand just won the final step of the total unification of the world chess championship, and Slashdot couldn't be bothered to report it. I USED to think chess was at least slightly Stuff That Mattered.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Playing piano is great and all for novelty, but it's not really a useful skill. It won't be needed often, if ever and it's not something that is noticeable unless you are one of the best.
I take it you've never spent time in a pub band, or even writing songs with your mates in a garage band. Being able to play a musical instrument is very rewarding even without 'being noticed'.
I don't mean to put down your daughter, but I doubt she will ever reach that "level".
I'm pretty sure she'll never be a concert pianist, either, but claiming that the ability to play a musical instrument is something that will not be used often or ever just sounds ridiculous. Or maybe I've just been trolled...
Squirrel!
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I hope you do realize that the same applies to most of the RL skills waved around as "yeah, but look what _my_ hobby teaches me" proof that someone's pet hobby is better than gaming.
E.g., yes, your daughter's piano skills. (God knows how many kids have been tortured with _that_.) Unless her goal in life is an underpaid job in an orchestra that skill is useful for exactly one thing: more playing the piano. Usefulness for any other RL activity: zero.
And yes, you could say that she's going to be a great pianist and earn teh big bucks by being some concert's super-star. Guess what? His chances are about as good to make money as a gaming superstar. Or rather, your daughter's chances are just as bad. Not everyone gets to be Fatal1ty and not everyone gets to be a superstar musician. There are 1000 times more people wanting such a job, than people who actually get one.
But at any rate, the same chances apply to making living out of gaming. He can theoretically end up making a living out of being a top gamer, same as your daughter can theoretically end up a legendary pianist. Your daughter can end up a composer instead, and he can end up a game programmer with that experience. Your daughter can end up scraping by on a minimum wage playing in some orchestra or some unknown band in a bar, he can end up a minimum-wage game tester.
More likely, for most children who went through that, the only result is, ta-da, that they killed some time with it.
So remind me, exactly what do you base that snottiness on, when you look down upon his hobby? No, seriously.
But let's move on, let's see more poster children for "look at what a cool RL hobby I have" idiocies that get waved around all the time:
- mountaineering, camping, and other excuses to go out in the wild. Exactly what skills do people learn there, and when will they apply them IRL? Because it seems to me that the only times when you'll apply any of them, is... next time you go do that hobby. That's it. E.g., exactly when will you have to find north by the moss on the trees... in a city? If you want the actual useful version of that, get a GPS navigation system. No, let's make no bullshit pretenses, it's just a way to kill time.
- fishing. The chances you'll ever feed and clothe your family with a fishing pole, are practically nil. You'll never catch enough fish to sell them and, say, pay for your kid's clothes and education with it, because fish are freaking cheap. You'll never get a job to sit near a lake with a fishing pole, either. The way it's done nowadays is with big boats and nets, not with a fishing rod. And even, let's say, in a post-apocalyptic Fallout-type scenario, where are you going to fish? There just aren't enough rivers around to support even the most minimum population that way. Most have been depleted already, and you may notice that the fishing hobbyists go to some fish farm actually, where fish are artifficially fed and raised for that. So again, chance to ever get any other use out of that skill: zero. It's just a way to kill some time, and any skill you get there will only ever be used when you next go fishing.
- messing with one's car. I hate to break it to some people, but _very_ few even save any money there. Yes, everyone has some anecdote of that time they fixed the car themselves and saved a fortune. But almost everyone forgets those other times when they just made it worse and had to pay more to get it fixed, or the money spent on all those extra bits and pieces and tools that never actually got used enough to pay for themselves. And usually what they save is not worth the time spent there. There are people who practically live in the garage. Even if you saved $100 once (and you won't save more, unless you also smelt and forge your components too), if you spent 20 hours in
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
when you mix in the actual gameplay. If I'm watching a movie or reading a book, other than "real life" interruptions, there is nothing to stop me from finishing the whole thing without pause. Games however have to break up the narrative to allow your character to do things.
For example, I'm sure the Tactics Ogre games had a great story, but I didn't really follow it after playing the games for a few hours. They would have cutscenes that introduce some characters, plot points etc. then you would have to battle for about 20 minutes, followed by another cutscene, followed by more battle etc. The battles were fun(or else I wouldn't have played the game), but it certainly was time consuming, so when you mix in the fact that I had other responsibilities, the whole thing became very hard to follow. Eventually I just skipped through the plot and went straight into the gameplay.
IMO the best game stories are the ones that give you a connection to your character and motivation for achieving the objectives. Thats it. If you want a book, read a book.....
Monstar L
this thing sucks because it is not some other thing.
You can have something which is completely utilitarian, which is not a game. These programs exist: Iraqi culture simulations, reflex training programs, etc.
You can also have something which has a sense of whimsy and fun. This is a game, and some of them have the potential to make you think or to awe you with their beauty.
I don't know what the author is bitching about. He wants games without the fun, it would seem; games which take themselves as seriously as he does. Those just aren't games.
He thinks games are a medium on the level of television. This is wrong. The computer is the medium. Games are merely a flavor of program, much as game-shows are flavor of television. Do you expect your game-shows to "progress intellectually" as you age?
Fucking games journalists. Enough pretentious, bullshit opinion pieces. Get back to your fucking jobs.
In any game which is both attempting to tell a story and be an 'adult' (as in intellectual/emotional maturity, not 18+ content) game, the gameplay should be *part* of the narrative.
Games which have to put the narrative on pause are really just short stories laid on top of game mechanics that, as you say, would do just as well without.
Indeed...
Seriously speaking, though, the popularity of flash games has also much to do with the fact that they're right there, easy to access. You receive an e-mail from a friend with a link to a new one, click it and can immediately start playing.
The current video-games now have online content and easy network access, but you still have to change medias and spend time and money. That makes a lot of difference.
Games simply containing sex and violence doesn't really sound like what he's looking for. Instead, by the sounds of it, he's looking for depth and challenge. The top games in this field IMO are:
Interesting that they'll all PC games, but after browsing my console game collection I came up pretty close to blank. Mass Effect is great fun but isn't actually all that deep when you get down to it. The Fire Emblem series is mentally challenging but not as deeply as the broader strategy and tactics games available on PC. The various other genres that I may seem to be ignoring such as sport, fighting or racing aren't really designed to expand the mind like a good piece of literature can - which is no criticism of those genres, but merely pointing out that they exist for a different level of entertainment.
I take it you've never spent time in a pub band, or even writing songs with your mates in a garage band. Being able to play a musical instrument is very rewarding even without 'being noticed'.
Probably not, this is news for nerds after all, not news for musicians ;D
Certain games in the Myst/Riven series, for example, have been challenging in an intellectually stimulating way, most notably Riven and Uru.
Many strategy games, particularly turn-based strategy games, also fit the bill.
I don't think games will ever become "educational" at the adult level, because in large part pedagogical concerns are part of the world of work for adults (stuff you have to learn for work, stuff you have to learn for this project or that one, etc.) and the point of gaming is to escape the world of work... unless we begin to transition to a society in which regular user interfaces for work-style tasks are constructed with game-like interfaces and metaphors, but I dont' see that happening.
The point for an "adult" game is to keep it from being utterly mindless and/or adolescent, to provide intellectual stimulation by requiring the juxtaposition and analytical processing of facts and information, even if these are fictional and appear in the context of a game.
To that end, my vote goes to the best of the puzzle/adventure games (the good ones with "puzzles" the scale of the entire game stretchign across contexts, not the shitty ones which have tended to be truly horrible an mind-numbing) and the turn-based strategy games.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
My dad plays card games and tetris. I think as we get older, a) our imagination becomes stifled by greater experience of a world that is real and b) the time an average adult has and is willing to invest in games diminishes.
For these reasons I'd suggest as games mature they become less fantastical, and simpler in concept - or more or less the opposite of what you may imagine as a game maturing.
They said the same for Cinematography, Photography , Theater and even written books, starting from Plato.
This just in, apparently people have different opinions when it comes to games. Just like....everything else! Full story at 11.
I think the reason is partly technical. Games are by definition interactive. Interactivity requires logical rules that can be expressed in programming. But there aren't any good programming solutions for social or intellectual interaction. Gaming AI is still in its infancy, even if people are working to change that. Right now it's much easier to model objects colliding than people being social or intelligent.
Games' focus on guns, cars and jumping can surely be attributed to a range of reasons, including tradition and male domination, but I think it's primarily because there's no way of realizing anything else in code yet. We're still waiting for an AI revolution that can match the graphical revolution we've seen in the last decade.
Load Failure. Possible corrupt record.
(R)etry, (P)anic, (E)migrate?
How come nobody has yet mentioned IF Archive? The most innovative, thought provoking and literary games are not on your regular console.
Text adventures come in several flavours, many are typically puzzle-based, while others are just a sequential narrative. These have all the advantages of a novel in terms of profound concepts, possibilities and adult themes. But the active involvement that they require to keep the action going makes them a different experience compared to passive uncovering of the plot: they make you think about the storyline, step by step, and get involved in it in first person.
Also there are an annual competition that regularly provides new material, free to play. Some of these beasts provide the most original and interesting gameplays I've seen in a long while; see Galatea as an example (you can play it online).
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
Are you married? There's your BOSS level. Then the kids... little mini bosses, all the damn time! :)
You can prevent those from spawning, but it takes a lot of fun out of the game.
Leaving for work... those are the easy levels.
Yeah, but the traffic jam level is a drag. I wish they'd replace it with some sort of mini-game.
I agree with your point. Not only that, but to learning how to fix cars can actually foster some understanding, however limited, of basic to intermediate level mechanics and electronics, depending on the vehicle. Sure, you probably won't understand engine harmonics and such, but that's what engineering classes are for.
"Little is much when little you need."
You know, to get out of the traffic jam level, there's a telecommute mod. That makes the 'wife' boss appear in every level! Now, if your playing a quake style game, that's bad. If it's more like leisuresuit larry... That's good.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
Deus Ex. Might not be as recent as you want but it certainly had a great mix of narrative and gameplay.
Something more recent but not as good, Assassin's Creed and the Halo Saga.
Then how is it different than playing games?
and most of the newer fighters coming along are video games in a sense anyway, because you no longer have direct control of the plane, and instead feed inputs to a computer which decides how best to interpret those inputs without letting the plane fall out of the sky.
Most of the time the value of the game is in the players' choice of games and purpose for playing them. Games are marketed primarily as entertainment, so most have an entertainment portion, but there are many games trying to teach people things, and many people repurpose games to learn from them (ie driving and flight simulators, the many games commissioned by the military for recruiting and training).
As many have already said, the question is not whether games can convey meaningful messages and expose people to new ideas, as they certainly can do so as much as any book, movie, or TV show. It's a question of what games you decide to play. Action games (whether FPS or otherwise) have started to bring in more story elements, but for the most part they still fall into the same realm as an action movie, and are mostly action-driven entertainment. An RPG, for the most part, is centered on story, it's simply a question of how far the developers were willing to go with a particular story.
Even a fairly light-hearted story like that in Disgaea (a console strategy-RPG) brings about some questions about good vs. evil, and how perspective can change what is good or evil (and for the most part, even though the game doesn't really take itself seriously, it's an idea to which a lot of people seem to need exposure). Even fairly open-ended RPGs like Fallout could have a lot to tell us, and more people are getting involved in writing for games every year that take their work more seriously than anyone involved in Super Mario Bros.
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Another nod to Deus Ex here. My favorite games provide "literary" qualities alongside good gameplay, and Deus Ex is a perfect example of that, exploring political and individual philosophy in surprisingly great depth.
Bits of Chesterton's The Man who was Thursday are scattered around the game. Moral choices are made. Free will and the nature of humanity is examined. The final decision in the game is essentially picking which of Aristotle's "good" governments you'd prefer (democratic city-states (Tong), aristocracy (Illuminati), or Philosopher-King (merge with AI)). Very deep, especially for a game that's primarily an FPS.
1. When I take my holy-spec raiding in WoW, I make 24 people very happy too. Used to be 39 >;)
2. Actually, the point was that we should stop measuring it all by utility, money, investment, etc. We do things because they're _fun_. And that goes for both my gaming and your playing an instrument.
You probably didn't put years into it, just so one day you can make those people happy at that wedding. You did it because you _liked_ doing it, right? The utility came incidentally, but what kept you doing it was that you _liked_ it. (If it was as a hobby, and not as a job, that is.) Let's not make further pretenses and accept it as just that.
3. What I'm trying to say is basically this: there was once a society and a culture, where once you've "grown up", you're supposed to no longer have any fun. You must think only of making/saving money for your family's survival, and spend every waking hour dedicating yourself to . Hence, that if you have any fun, and can't justify it as some kind of investment, you're irresponsible, immature, or a few other choice insults.
Some people IMHO seem still stuck in that mentality: that if they do anything, they must justify it as some kind of investment in the future. It must be "building character", or "learning RL skills" or whatever other excuse.
And I'd have nothing against it, if that was actually what they did. E.g., if they actually took a course or a certification or whatever actually qualifies as learning actual skills.
But most of the time it's flat out a lie. They just went and had fun, and any utility is at best incidental or non-existent. But they still have to pack it in that socially-acceptable lie. God forbid that they'd admit that they did something just because they liked doing it.
And I'm saying: let's stop that pretense already. We're already a few generations past the point where that bleak, no-fun-ever existence was necessary or even justified. We can afford to kill some time with the things we like. Be it a computer game, or playing an instrument, or tuning a car. Let's for once just admit, basically, "I did it because I liked it, and to kill some time."
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
There's also the public transportation mod. But it's not available in all locations and is buggy to boot.
That rises the question of why you are participating in a discussion about video games. It also rises the question of "Why": What criterion would use of time need to satisfy in order to not be considered "waste" by you, and why ?
A bold claim. Can you back it with reasoning ?
Being entertained is a goal in itself, meaning that it satisfies a feedback loop in your brains, which is interpreted as a reward by them. Benefits towards meeting your other goals are a nice bonus, but not really necessary.
"Play" and "life" are not mutually exclusive, you know. And what, exactly speaking, makes being successful in life superior to being successful in a game ? Both bring you satisfaction, and both are ultimately fleeting moments.
"Meaningful" and "real" are useless in a discussion such as this, since what is meaningful to me isn't necessarily meaningful to you, or the other way around. And while "real" has an objective meaning, it seems that you meant it in some vague philosophical sense, rather than the objective one.
Perhaps you meant "useful" - the term "occupational game" hints that way - but that then rises the questions of: useful towards what end ? And why is that end more worthy of pursuing that the entertainment from playing games just for amusement ?
What purpose, exactly speaking, does this serve ? What is it that you want us to "Do", and why should we ?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.