This is my final post for Full Sail University’s Game History class. Enjoy!
Prompt: From the TED videos from this week we see two great designers (Dave Perry and Will Wright) discussing games and toys. Do you agree or disagree with their views on games and why? Can you see alternate views on design from their discussions?
Coming from the perspective that games are art, I fully agree with Dave Perry’s assertion that games should create emotion in the future. While Perry was only talking about the visual aesthetic that will come in the future for games, the student video he played talked about varying parts of games as art. I do think that, if video games need to have a legitimate view, games should be produced with the same depth and feeling as art. However, I do disagree with the theme of the student’s movie, which is trying to create a feeling that soon all interaction will be in the digital space. Theorizing that we will all be bytes in a world scares me a bit. This will create a feeling of sterility and alienation between the player and the real world.
Watching Will Wright’s talk, which was more like a 20 minute presentation of Spore, I can agree that gameplay can be considered to allow games to be more like “toys”, where each aspect of gameplay is like a separate toy that has a specific function. However, looking at games from this perspective fails to allow for innovation with the emotion making elements in video games. Ultimately, the innovation will be in the direction of technology, which can only be improved until it is no longer possible to improve it. Basically, this way of thinking will ultimately be the downfall of the industry, where we will have more games like Spore that will have no true value to video games other than the technology it employs.
As I said earlier in my post, I think that if games strive to become more like art, then we will have more games that push the boundaries, creating a form of video game renaissance where the only the visceral emotion is created in the player. Right now, since technology that drives video games (hardware and software) are now mature enough to drive innovation with how we perceive the world, we should use it to express our feelings about that same world, while giving players the tools to do the same thing. It is a hard mix to maintain, but it can be done.
Again, this is for my Game History class at Full Sail University. Enjoy!
The Prompt was: There was a time when people had thought the video game industry had died. Why do you think the industry fell into this slump?
Trying to surmise why the game industry failed in the early 80’s is very difficult because there are so many variables that I can explore. One specific reason would be the over use of video game licenses. Many of the manufacturers felt that the only games that could be made and marketed to gamers was “established” arcade hits. Since the market was flooded with the many versions of titles out there, and the lack of quality that games being produced offered, people just decided against buying. However, it may be true that the several consoles that were produced offered a better experience, many of the game buying public couldn’t “see” the difference.
Additionally, the lack of “arcade” quality games for the home also contributed to the game industry’s demise in the 80’s. Most of the game hardware couldn’t produce the same quality graphics, or substantial gameplay, which caused the buying public to hold off on purchasing the systems. A great example to look at would be Atari’s version of PacMan for the Atari 2600. The arcade version had vivid colors and well defined pixels for the main character (PacMan) and the enemies, as well as the maze and the “food” PacMan would consume in the game. The Atari 2600 version of the game had horrible graphics (instead of balls, PacMan would consume lines), two-tone colors, and the maze was more rectangular than square (The game’s maze would be stretched to all corners of a screen instead of having a black outline around it).
When companies did try to innovate (and not “upgrade” games), they did miserably at it. The first movie tie-in game, E.T., was also the first game to have many returns and bomb. The design was rushed and the game was put together in such a haphazard manner, that it became Atari’s final nail in their coffin. Had they waited for the game to be complete, and better, then they could have made more money and wouldn’t have needed to close up shop. Ultimately, the creation of shoddy games and no innovation killed the industry in the 80’s.
