Response to Brendon

I think that modern games definitely have an advantage in several economic aspects that give them a slight edge. Obviously larger market and more money involved, but also many gaming engines now exist which alleviates the game developers from spending time and talent on creating whole new gaming engines (Take anything from Bethesda for example, Fallout, Oblivion, these were made with Gamebryo); for those that don't know, the engine is really what runs the underlying code in the game, a developer can use an existing engine and put a different set of graphics and voices into it and easily make a new game. Much like a car, hence the analogous name.

Whenever I launch a game now I see a bunch of logos on the opening slate telling me that the game uses Gamebryo (engine), Speedtree (tree and foliage generation), Havok (physics simulation), there are others for lighting which escape me, and even more for sound. Because of these options they don't have to spend time on complex development and can commit more resources to creating deeper stories, plots and logic trees for the player to pursue, and thus heighten the degree to which the player has agency within the game. With all the technicalities taken care of, developers can focus on telling stories, which is what video games are great for!

That said, I love old computer games, especially Sierra and Lucas Arts adventures. There is a different amount of effort required to fully immerse yourself in these games, and they do tend to read like an animated book just waiting for you to click the right button to turn the page. But the stories themselves have always been more unique and more rewarding. Often people will state that new games spend too much effort on looking pretty but having no substance or depth to their stories, I'd say it's only partially true.

The developers of the older stock of games really had the hard road to forge, the first developers at Lucas Arts were writers, artists and musicians who had to learn to programme code to get their stories out there. Here's a great tour of iD software (developers of Wolf3d and Doom) in the early 90s. They had to build everything from scratch, but of course they were able to create more unique products because of it; the newer games don't have that, they're almost identical to each other (Fallout is just Oblivion with guns is a common saying) on the surface and in the mechanics.

Old games are finding new lives though on touch-screen platforms! They're also perfectly suited for the devices, this may just be an accident though due to the novelty of the platform.

Response to an overheard conversation

This post is the result of a conversation that I couldn't help but overhear during the break in the Wednesday lecture. I overheard someone saying how they would be put off playing some games because they would 'probably have to spend 5 hours reading a manual' which would explain how they actually play the game. I’ve played computer games since I was 4ish (end of the 80s) so I found this as a surprising statement, since I don’t recall even seeing a game guide (other than a control map) in several years, and tend to be able to pick up game controls almost instantaneously. I initially put this down to my long association with video games and having learnt one game you tend to know them all.

I now realise that this can also be a result of a conscious evolution of gaming interfaces by developers to maintain a consistent set of controls for their games. As we have learnt in discussions on immersion, it is important not to allow the interface to be a barrier to immersion, since any kind of disruption to play breaks immersion by bringing the players own physical reality back into frame, the controls need to be kept understandable or simple to serve as an extension of the person. Most game interfaces have appeared fairly natural to me, in part this is learned behaviour but also there is an evolution in the game play which gives opportunity to learn the interface whilst not drawing attention to your lack of interface knowledge.

Most contemporary games start out the game with an in-game tutorial which also serves as the opening act; the complexity of play is generally ramped up gradually as to keep the player engaged but not frustrated. The best sequence in recent memory that illustrates this is Fallout 3, where the game starts with your birth, and then as a toddler you are asked to walk around and pick up a ball, this is facilitated by on screen prompts saying “press W to move forward”. So the game has created a situation where you can be situationally immersed but simultaneously learning how your avatar is controlled, whilst not drawing attention to your lack of knowledge of the controls.

I think it's interesting how these changes have come about, especially the manner in which newer games drive the immersion by keeping the player engaged whilst teaching them how the game works. I do worry though whether this kind of consistent technological adaptation prevents the development of newer physical interfaces, whilst the console and handheld markets have shown huge changes in the last decade, this is yet to reach the PC market (in fact there's always the myth floating around that PC gaming is dead).

I also question whether the new interfaces (motion control, either using photodetection or a wireless device) actually offer the improvements that they claim. Many of the most interesting and radical uses of this technology are coming from hackers rather than the developers themselves, see below, adaption of Xbox Kinect to play Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim.

I may have to return to edit this as it is 1am and I have work in 4 hours. :)

Response: Video game violence

Just thought I'd throw in a quick response to some of the posts such as The Blame Game, Hannah's post and Adri's response relating to violence in video games, and how they might motivate people to commit violence in the real world. Over the weekend I've been considering the notion of freewill or in a way, agency in the gaming world and I think this might have interesting implications for how we view violence in gaming.

I'll take GTA as an example, since it's the most often cited game which is meant to turn teenage boys into murders. It is very possible to play the game and never kill any prostitutes or steal your money back. All the actions performed by the character are at the instruction of the player, in essence he is their avatar in the virtual world of Vice City (or other locales). You could very well play the game without committing any crimes in the game. You would however not be able to 'finish' the game in the conventional sense.

So I question whether all 'violent' video games are actually inherently violent in the sense that they require the player to commit violent acts or reflect only the desire of the player to use the avatar in the game to complete the tasks required to reaffirm its identity. That is, there is an expectation that Max Payne will get revenge in the game of the same name, not making it happen in the game would be like refusing to read a book because you know from the blurb that the beloved protagonist is really Jack the Ripper. I wont go as far to deny that video games may lead to a normalization of violence, and as such they should be restricted to adults who hopefully have the cognitive ability to keep gaming as fantasy.

FTVMS 328 – Another Response to Violence within Videogames…

Briefly going through the blog I keep seeing this message/similar: “Video games should not be blamed”… on the cause of death/violence/aggression. etc.

Agreed. Human beings, especially young children, learn by observing. The cause of violence and aggression is a result of a mix of situational and biological factors (i.e inherited mental illness causing mental instability). Videogames certainly can’t be blamed, however, neither can we ignore the impact that they – like any other media text- can cause. As the younger generation is exposed to the wide variety of games out there – made more easily by parents buying for them, or through peer pressure – the higher level of exposure of violent or aggressive material at a young age will undoubtly affect their cognition. Sure it sounds silly that a mere videogame can cause a shoot out… (like the GTA one – link ) but compared with a normally healthy child who has not played any violent games – who do you think would develop more violent tendencies?

For those who are interested from a psychological perspective and brief explanation, take a look at the Bandura Case study: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHHdovKHDNU&feature=related

~Adri