Great article. Much kudos to Colin. Thanks also to Laura for her insight, and of course everyone else who's contributing to this discussion.
Innovation in games is something that's fascinated me since I first picked up a joypad, so much so that I'm currently pursuing the means to do some serious academic research in the area, hopefully to the betterment of future titles.
I guess in the 'games as challenges' vs 'games as narrative' debate, I personally lean heavily toward the latter.
This is not because I believe stories to be the most significant or integral element of games - far from it. I just don't believe stories and games have to run on 'parallel yet separate' tracks either, so that at any given point they're jostling each other for the gamer's full attention.
More on this in the paper below, which I think comes pretty close to the way I think on the issue:
http://www.digra.org/dl/db/07311.40380.pdf
Granted, we can talk about the best stories in traditional media being reliant on a high degree of authorial control (for pacing, foreshadowing etc.), and we can talk about games not necessitating a story of any kind. But as far as this long-time gamer is concerned, the beauty is, was and always will be in the *mix*.
I think the point of this article (and an incredibly admirable one at that) is that if we don't start *trying* - taking chances, searching for new ideas from unfamiliar quarters - then there isn't a hope in hell that a more diverse creative future will ever be realised.
If that happens, we as gamers (now, as Mr. Pitts mentions in his article, more numerous than ever before) will be doomed to tread the same mechanical circles, until we finally get fed up, hang up our pads and cynically declare: "That's it, I have officially seen all that games have to offer. I'm done."
I don't think that's a future any of us really want to see (nor, I hope, are likely to) - but in order to avoid it, we have to at least acknowledge that its on our horizon; that if we keep putting one foot in front of the other without stopping to check the scenery or look where we're going, we shouldn't be surprised if we end up there inadvertantly.
The overall lack of innovation in gaming seems the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy. By applying constraints on what we believe can be achieved, we constrain what actually results from our efforts. This is the main reason I think the views Colin has expressed in this article are significant, and should be acted upon by those committed to making games more of its own 'art-entertainment' form than a commercial commodity.
Forget specifics, forget genre (whether in terms of game or story), forget PvP, multiplayer, sandbox or campaign. First say 'What do people want to experience that they fail to see in games?' Then ask 'How might one put such things into a game?' Finally, ask 'What would be the experiential benefits of doing so?'. I believe this is the 'idea mining' process Colin touches upon in his penultimate paragraph.
Such an approach, applied with sincerity and dedication, will (after some trial and error) result in developers - whether indie, mainstream, minor or monolithic - hitting gems of original gameplay and narrative structure combinations. The results would be instances of that moment when the two coalesce and are imbued with a significance that they could never have achieved alone.
My dream: a game that can integrate a tense and engrossing yet adaptive narrative with an interesting variety of engaging and apposite game mechanics, drawing the player into the action at key points, yet still allowing them the freedom to explore the world - learn its nuances and secret places, make meaningful choices with coherent and lasting repercussions, discover things organically and apply them in novel ways.
Yes, its a lot to ask, but several games in the last few years have made crucial steps towards this goal (for the sake of argument I'll cite Oblivion and Fallout 3, and their respective mod communities - but there are of course others). It may take years, perhaps decades to achieve, but if we can experience just a few of the elements I mentioned above within a game, why can't we experience *all* of them?
Yes, there are practicalities to consider. Asset generation and management seems to me a particularly problematic area. For example, to create a game with incredibly varied dialogue (presuming you want this dialogue to be spoken) would take hundreds of hours of voice acting, and a sufficient number of talented enough voice actors not to break the illusion. Not to mention creating a system that could recognise in what situations it would be appropriate to have NPCs deliver those lines (something that is, incidentally, related to my research focus).
Clearly this isn't feasible in 99% of games. Put simply, more content = longer dev cycles, and game producers are understandably loathe to work on content that they know most players will not eventually see. For most of them, talk of these kind of issues is likely to seem thoroughly indulgent and highly impracticable.
My solution: I think devs should look seriously into working closely with academic institutions to create 'game dev lab' type projects; where novel ideas and experimentation can be promoted; timescales aren't necessarily constrained by commercial deadlines; input from various different quarters (e.g. writers, artists, experts etc.) can be managed; and responses from potential players can be gauged. This would free up the devs themselves to focus on their slated projects, as they wouldn't have to expend a large proportion of their own resources to innovate. I envision the results as 'unpolished' early demos with original mechanics and game ideas, that the devs can then integrate into their projects - take, run with, polish up and finally release.
I have been reading on these issues seriously for what feels like an eternity, but is in reality about two years. I might as well take this opportunity thank the Escapist and all its contributors (in print, video and on these forums) for being part of discussions like this. Whether or not important to those who make decisions about what kind of games we'll see in years to come, its heartening to know people care enough to dedicate some serious thought to these issues.
