Lament of an anti-social gamer

There was a primer posted on Gamasutra a couple of weeks ago about the growing role of social communities in games (and the challenges of building one that works). It's probably obvious by now that there are huge advantages to building an online social community around games -- give your players a place to compare notes and shoot the breeze with other players, and you've got an almost surefire hit, particularly if the game already has a fanbase. Even games that are entirely played online anyway (say, World of Warcraft) have thriving internet communities because they give players another reason engage with each other while they should be working.

But is it possible to provide too many social options for players? It's a lot of work to set up such things, and there may be a point at which actual gameplay can be sacrificed for the sake of "social" features. The case in point is Spore. I was pumped about Spore before it came out. I bought it within a week after release. It's a great game, and it's revolutionary in several ways, but when you really dig into it, there's not much game there.

The Spore experience is so focused on encouraging players to share their creations with each other that I felt from the beginning as if I were missing half the game because I didn't care about looking at other people's creations. I love that other creations are pulled into my universe automatically, but I haven't spent a single minute looking at sporepedia online or making friends in the online Spore community.

(Full disclosure time: I'm not a heavy user of social media. I get it, and I think it's changing the nature of the internet before our eyes. But I lead quite an anti-social online life.)

It's becoming accepted generally that, if you don't build social features into your game, you better do it online. In fact, one of the suggestions I've heard for indie developers is to focus lots of attention on your online social presence. Make your game about connecting, not just playing, say the experts. They're probably right--all my favorite and most enduring entertainment experiences have thriving communities. My lack of participation doesn't mean it isn't there.

What I'm trying to find, being an ultra-indie, is the right balance. I can't build or support a big-time social platform to supplement my games. Even if I could, it would almost certainly seem incongruous with the scope of the games themselves. Nor can I hope to compete with the big casual game sites (which naturally have full-featured social elements).

Probably, as with most things, the answer is somewhere in the middle. Create a game with in-game social elements (like multiplayer) and then give players a simple way to connect with each other outside the game using existing platforms like Facebook apps or embeddable web site widgets. Guess I'll add those to the list of things to learn.

Puerto Rico and The Fountainhead

My wife and I got back from Puerto Rico a few days ago. It was a fun trip, very relaxing, and much needed. Basically the only thing I did while in the Caribbean was sit by the pool and read (with some eating, drinking, and snorkeling thrown in).

In my pre-trip search for a book to read, I stumbled on an old copy of The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand that I got from my father several years ago. It's hard to say what drew me to it, not knowing much about Rand or her books, except that I had never read it, and everybody says it's a classic. I'll forego a full review, but I will say that it started out really well, with interesting, complex, and often surprising characters. Unfortunately the story quickly took a back seat to a lot of preaching about the eternal struggle between society and the individual.

Any Ayn Rand critics who happen to be reading this, don't worry. I haven't turned into a raging Objectivist. Nevertheless, Rand's perspective (it's not hard to make a connection between the author's ideas and those of Howard Roark, the protagonist) did strike a chord with me. The notion of the self as humankind's quintessential trait and most valuable asset is hard to refute -- self-awareness being what separates us from the the animals, etc. But more than that, her portrayal of mass media and its influence on unthinking hordes of people was eerily reminiscent of today's reality TV culture.

The Banner (a newspaper in the book) used sex, violence, and gossip the same way CSI uses the shiny object effect ("it's...so...pretty") to draw millions of viewers, and ridiculous editorials in the book's fictional newspaper affected public opinion like today's 24-hour news stations, both of which spew nonsense because they know people just want to be told what to think. There's even a character who bears a healthy resemblance to Jerry Bruckheimer or Rupert Murdoch -- a media mogul who made his fortune by appealing to the lowest common denominator.

So what does any of this have to do with game development? Directly, nothing. But it's easy to make the same arguments about the money-grubbing and lack of originality in the video game industry as Rand made about architecture in The Fountainhead. Ultimately, I wonder if there's anything truly original to be gained from big studios whose collective goal is to rehash past success as quickly as possible. Rand places all her hope in lone, single-minded, and frequently outcast geniuses (Copernicus, Galileo, DaVinci) to move the human race toward a greater future.

Will some indie game developer take the industry in a whole new direction? With the ballooning budgets and shrinking quality of most games today (and art in general), it seems the indie scene is the only place left to look.

3D without (extra) headgear

Not much on the game development front to report today. I've been doing some modeling in preparation for my next project (or at least a pilot test of some concepts). Progress is slow so far. Even with a decent shortcut for character modeling, there's still a lot to learn. The hardest part has been keeping the model simple and clean so it doesn't have too many polygons and will deform properly once it gets into the game. Character design is quite tricky.

Regarding the title of this post, I saw an article this morning about a new television technology that can simulate 3D video without goggles. It basically sends two signals to the screen for every frame -- one contains the image itself, and the other contains a grayscale version of the image, which conveys the depth information. The grayscale image is used by a thin layer of...something...laid over the screen that tricks the eye into seeing depth where there isn't any. That's right, no 3D headgear required (except the round ones you've already got).

In addition to sounding quite cool, it struck me that this technology is reminiscent of bump mapping in games, which uses a similar grayscale image to trick your eye into thinking there's more detail on an object than there really is.

I think there's some amazing stuff coming in the next few years in computer interaction (multi-touch technology) and entertainment technology. It's hard to imagine the kinds of games we'll be playing in another five years, or on what kind of screen.

The "social gaming" phenomenon

As a follow-on to my last post, I thought I would point everyone to a Gamasutra article published yesterday that predicts the next big thing in gaming (now that music games like Guitar Hero and Rock Band are a "phenomenon").

The analysts polled in the article all seem to agree that the future of video games (the short-term future anyway) is going to revolve around "social gaming," games designed to be played with multiple people present in the room.

A couple of the analysts make a nice (if a bit obvious) comparison between such social video games and the classical board games of a generation (or two) ago. The current crop of games happens to be focused on music, but music isn't the root of the phenomenon, according to these folks. I never much cared for traditional board games, but I do agree with them -- we're just witnessing the next incarnation of group entertainment.

-------------

On an unrelated note, here's a quick hint about the subject of my casual side project...

Rock Band guilt

There's a great post over at Geek Studies today about Rock Band. The gist is that games just can't win:

If a game features violent activity that we could never (and, hopefully, would never) enact in real life, it gets criticized for encouraging real-life violence. If a game features non-violent activity that might even be considered worthwhile in real life, it gets criticized for discouraging real-life action.

In short, Rock Band has been getting some criticism (granted, it's pretty benign) for effectively discouraging people from learning to play real music.

I agree that this is a pretty ridiculous assertion, but I think the more important observation in this post is that games still seem to occupy some sort of limbo wherein we (as productive members of society) are allowed to play, but only if we feel some requisite twinge of guilt during or after all the fun.

I admit to playing Rock Band at a friend's house until 3 AM on consecutive nights. I marvel at the fact that I, the guy who flatly refuses to sing or dance in public, will excitedly take the microphone and sing songs far outside my vocal range while strutting in place (picture Mick Jagger) and dancing with the microphone stand (picture Steven Tyler--yes, my friend bought a microphone stand).

This is fun in its purest form, yet every time my friends and I (including my wife, and her sister, and my brother's wife) gather to play this game, someone will utter, once every half hour or so, "This is some nerdy shit." It's as if we all hear the little voice of society whispering, "You're wasting your time. Video games are for losers."

So what, I say! No one anywhere does anything productive on Friday night. None of us will ever be a rock star. That's not the point. The point is entertainment; the point is fellowship. And that's a lesson I learned from South Park.

Beowulf and video games, part 2

The other day I posted some thoughts inspired by the Beowulf movie's decidedly video game-esque animation and action scenes. Today I turn my attention to Beowulf's story. Now, I know what you're thinking: Beowulf's story is only similar to most video game stories because it sucks. By certain standards, it's definitely not that interesting. Just a few major plot points. Not many twists and turns. Pretty clear roles for the major characters.

A brief interpretation of Beowulf
On the other hand, I think the movie can be "read" not so much as an epic action movie but as an allegory or cautionary tale. I have to credit Roger Ebert at least partially for leading me to this interpretation. His somewhat disjointed review suggests an element of irony and satire in the film. I didn't really find either of those, but he did get me looking for a deeper layer of meaning.

Without giving any big spoilers, I think Beowulf is a story about the price of arrogance, greed, and lust. Ok, this isn't a big stretch -- our hero arrives at Hrothgar's hall boasting of his accomplishments, in search of riches, and not at all hesitant to ogle Hrothgar's wife in that ridiculous way macho protagonists always seem to do (as if to say, "You will be mine, oh yes, you will be mine").

The film's major symbolism, though, can be found in its antagonists. Grendel's mother, in her golden nude-glory, represents the seductive promise of wealth and power. Grendel himself represents the isolation and violent sensitivity born from a society built on greed (he made me think of the Columbine and Virginia Tech shooters). Beowulf's final foe is a physical manifestation of Beowulf's mistakes, a brutal (and large) reminder that leaders' mistakes beget very destructive forces.

Allegory and games
Ok, now the point. For all the discussion about stories in games (particularly the argument about whether they can ever be good), I find myself thinking that allegory could be a particularly rich device to use in game stories (no doubt it has been used before). There are a couple reasons why allegory seems to have a lot of potential for games.

• First, allegory is well suited for the kinds of stories and worlds that are often found in games. Science fiction and fantasy worlds in particular often deal in larger-than-life situations ripe for symbolism.
• Second, and more importantly, allegory can function even in an open-ended narrative situation. Symbolism can be established through visuals (like color or costumes) and sounds (musical themes) without requiring a particular order of events. Additionally, as Beowulf demonstrates, allegorical tales often work best when stories are simple, since there isn't as much plot to distract from the underlying meaning.

Should every video game be an allegory? Of course not. But as the debate over game narrative continues, allegory, as a time-honored form, seems like a good option for developers interested in telling stories of some depth without the pressure of coming up with a brand new narrative mechanic for games.

Is my game going to be an allegory? You'll have to wait and see.

Beowulf and video games, part 1

I saw Beowulf today. Though they took more than a few liberties with the story, it's a pretty good movie (to be fair, the "story" in the original epic poem is quite loose, so it probably needed some tinkering). Being a computer-generated, animated film, there are almost no limits to the scope of the visual effects, and there are certainly no limits to the stunts that the characters can perform.

Several things struck me about the movie as it relates to video games. The next few posts will explore the relationship between epic stories like Beowulf (and their movies) and video games.

Game action inspiring movies
First, while watching the climactic battle scene, I couldn't help but remember some of the boss encounters in the God of War games. With a physically idealized hero (thankfully wearing clothes for this fight) flinging himself around and methodically chipping away at a much larger foe, I could almost see a big button on the screen telling me to press X as fast as possible. I had the same sense when I watched 300, which clearly had some game-inspired action.



There have been film-inspired games for years, and many of them have endured criticism for seeming shallow and rushed to market. Of course, there have been game-inspired films and TV shows for at least a decade well (anyone remember the Super Mario Bros. TV show?). Momentum has been picking up in the last five years or so, with film adaptations of video games popping up regularly (the Resident Evil series, Doom, Silent Hill, Hitman).

The prevalence of movies based on games isn't at all surprising. What's remarkable is the extent to which a video game sensibility seems to be working its way into Hollywood action movies. Indeed, where else would you find inspiration for visualizing an ancient epic poem than our present-day escapist equivalent?

Maybe what I'm noticing is just an attempt by the movie studios to appeal to a younger audience. Maybe the people making movies now happen to be life-long gamers. Or maybe there's a growing expectation that movies provide the same kind of over-the-top, super-intense action sequences as games, where the player is in control. With no control to offer the viewer, do filmmakers feel pressure to choreograph game-like action sequences to avoid losing their audience?

Of course, it's also possible that the complexity of action sequences in films and games only reflects rapid improvements in computer graphics technology. These could be the images we've always wanted to create, but until now we couldn't realize them so well.

What do you think? Are films beginning to draw on some kind of video game aesthetic, or are games and films both just taking advantage of technological change to deliver more intense sensory experiences?