I imagine this discussion has been before, but every time I've see it, I see something new. I also hope that I can achieve new light on a done topic.
Games are in a constant state of change. It's expected of a game to be different from the last one. Even sequels have to innovate or we just won't accept them. Gameplay is in a constant state of flux, however, I think it's noteworthy to mention that this flux has slowed down in recent years. This flux can be attributed mostly to the fact that the genres are established and it's less about making new and more about perfecting what's already there.
And I'm fine with that. Shooters are getting more and more satisfying, RPGs are feeling tighter than ever, RTS games are broad and mostly approachable, etc. Slowly, but surely, every genre is getting better.
Graphical innovation is also coming to a slow. Games will always look better as time goes on, but there isn't another quantum leap around the corner. There is no jump between 2D graphics and 3D graphics on the way. Textures and details are what's improving.
Innovation today is branching off in two directions.
The first of these is attempting to change how games are played by doing away with tradition. I'm talking very specifically about Kinect, Move, and the Wii. These types of controllers produce naturally simpler games, but in the end, it's change; it's innovation. And the thing is, it's a generally accepted change. People are buying the Wii and Kinect's sales are looking promising*.
I don't imagine many people who will read this will really want that kind of change. We're a sort of people who like improvements rather than changes. The genres are established, we like them, and we want them perfect. It's understandable and I agree with that.
The second way of innovation is the one I support the most. As I said, the genres are established and they're improving. In fact, I would say in terms of actual gameplay, things are fine-tuning now. Anyway this form of innovation is storytelling.
So the artform is pretty much established. Like filmmaking before it, gaming had to go through a period of experimentation and establishment. Making good art is practically impossible when the technicalities aren't set. It's like trying to sculpt when you don't know which tools to use. Gaming knows its tools now, so it's time to start making real art.
Video games can tell a solid story now. The cinematics are becoming something solid for sure. Look at the Mass Effect games... brilliantly told. Those are a step in the right direction.
But we're missing a piece and that's the interactivity. Video gaming is a unique art form in that it allows the audience to interact, to be a part of the artist's world. With that said, I believe it's essential for games as an art form to utilize that interactivity as a tool for the progression of the storytelling. There shouldn't be a breaking up of cinematics and gameplay; they shouldn't be separate.
Let me give you an example: Limbo.
If you haven't seen Limbo, you need to. But anyway, it's a very simple side-scroller. But it's horrifying. You're a little boy lost in a dark, ugly world. There are giant spiders and other things out there to kill you. The gameplay itself is what makes the game great. You have to feel the little boy. You're afraid to go on, but you have to. His experience is your experience. It's a mix of atmosphere and interactivity.
It's a simple indie game too, not a big budget, big developer game. It's small and you can get it from the XBLA. But games like Limbo are the way forward. I'm not saying all games should be dark side-scrolling, but I am saying that gameplay need to become integral to art and storytelling itself.
It's not an easy step. Traditional storytelling techniques simply don't apply to where I believe gaming needs to go. This is a completely new way of thinking, but it's a very positive one. If more games starting thinking in this manner, then games would truly become a respectable art form. In their present form, however, most game storytelling is imitative. We see the stories as cinematic, basically meaning "like a movie."
We need to get rid of that "like a movie" label. Gaming needs to stand on its own merits. I believe that we're just scratching surface of that with games like Limbo.
Alright, please argue with me, agree with me, insult me, or just stick around and enjoy the free nachos. Up to you.
*I don't have any numbers on Move's sales, so I didn't mention it.
Games are in a constant state of change. It's expected of a game to be different from the last one. Even sequels have to innovate or we just won't accept them. Gameplay is in a constant state of flux, however, I think it's noteworthy to mention that this flux has slowed down in recent years. This flux can be attributed mostly to the fact that the genres are established and it's less about making new and more about perfecting what's already there.
And I'm fine with that. Shooters are getting more and more satisfying, RPGs are feeling tighter than ever, RTS games are broad and mostly approachable, etc. Slowly, but surely, every genre is getting better.
Graphical innovation is also coming to a slow. Games will always look better as time goes on, but there isn't another quantum leap around the corner. There is no jump between 2D graphics and 3D graphics on the way. Textures and details are what's improving.
Innovation today is branching off in two directions.
The first of these is attempting to change how games are played by doing away with tradition. I'm talking very specifically about Kinect, Move, and the Wii. These types of controllers produce naturally simpler games, but in the end, it's change; it's innovation. And the thing is, it's a generally accepted change. People are buying the Wii and Kinect's sales are looking promising*.
I don't imagine many people who will read this will really want that kind of change. We're a sort of people who like improvements rather than changes. The genres are established, we like them, and we want them perfect. It's understandable and I agree with that.
The second way of innovation is the one I support the most. As I said, the genres are established and they're improving. In fact, I would say in terms of actual gameplay, things are fine-tuning now. Anyway this form of innovation is storytelling.
So the artform is pretty much established. Like filmmaking before it, gaming had to go through a period of experimentation and establishment. Making good art is practically impossible when the technicalities aren't set. It's like trying to sculpt when you don't know which tools to use. Gaming knows its tools now, so it's time to start making real art.
Video games can tell a solid story now. The cinematics are becoming something solid for sure. Look at the Mass Effect games... brilliantly told. Those are a step in the right direction.
But we're missing a piece and that's the interactivity. Video gaming is a unique art form in that it allows the audience to interact, to be a part of the artist's world. With that said, I believe it's essential for games as an art form to utilize that interactivity as a tool for the progression of the storytelling. There shouldn't be a breaking up of cinematics and gameplay; they shouldn't be separate.
Let me give you an example: Limbo.
If you haven't seen Limbo, you need to. But anyway, it's a very simple side-scroller. But it's horrifying. You're a little boy lost in a dark, ugly world. There are giant spiders and other things out there to kill you. The gameplay itself is what makes the game great. You have to feel the little boy. You're afraid to go on, but you have to. His experience is your experience. It's a mix of atmosphere and interactivity.
It's a simple indie game too, not a big budget, big developer game. It's small and you can get it from the XBLA. But games like Limbo are the way forward. I'm not saying all games should be dark side-scrolling, but I am saying that gameplay need to become integral to art and storytelling itself.
It's not an easy step. Traditional storytelling techniques simply don't apply to where I believe gaming needs to go. This is a completely new way of thinking, but it's a very positive one. If more games starting thinking in this manner, then games would truly become a respectable art form. In their present form, however, most game storytelling is imitative. We see the stories as cinematic, basically meaning "like a movie."
We need to get rid of that "like a movie" label. Gaming needs to stand on its own merits. I believe that we're just scratching surface of that with games like Limbo.
Alright, please argue with me, agree with me, insult me, or just stick around and enjoy the free nachos. Up to you.
*I don't have any numbers on Move's sales, so I didn't mention it.
