Support NeoGAF

[aeolist]

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...o-games-are-better-without-characters/387556/ by Ian Bogost

Such was the payload of SimCity: not a game about people, even though its residents, the Sims, would later get their own spin-off. Nor is it a game about particular cities, for it is difficult to recreate one with the game's brittle, indirect tools. Rather, SimCity is a game about urban societies, about the relationship between land value, pollution, industry, taxation, growth, and other factors. It's not really a simulation, despite its name, nor is it an educational game. Nobody would want a SimCity expert running their town's urban planning office. But the game got us all to think about the relationships that make a city run, succeed, and decay, and in so doing to rise above our individual interests, even if only for a moment.

This was a radical way of thinking about video games: as non-fictions about complex systems bigger than ourselves. It changed games forever—or it could have, had players and developers not later abandoned modeling systems at all scales in favor of representing embodied, human identities.

i found this article pretty interesting in the way it combined industry history with social analysis and speculation about the influence that character-focused design has had on the general audience. the overwhelming preference for human characters and stories in big published games affecting the way players see games to the point where they strongly self-identify with them is a perspective i hadn't considered before and if true would shed new light on the heightened culture conflicts of the past year. as the author puts it:

But, an unpopular question lingers, one that Maxis's closure calls to mind. Why must we have characters in games at all? Or, more gently put, why have we assumed that the only or primary path to video-game diversity and sophistication lies in its representation of individuals as opposed to systems and circumstances? In truth, we've all but abandoned the work of systems and behaviors in favor of the work of individuals and feelings. And perhaps this is a grievous mistake.

Maybe the obsession with personal identification and representation in games is why identity politics has risen so forcefully and naively in their service online, while essentially failing to build upon prior theories and practices of social justice. And perhaps it is why some gamers have become so attached to their identity that they've been willing to burn down anything to defend it.

in before people who only read the headline try to argue that bogost is advocating for doing away with all character driven interactive entertainment

 

[Haunted]

In truth, we've all but abandoned the work of systems and behaviors in favor of the work of individuals and feelings.

Is this true, though?

I think we still have plenty of system-driven games out there, particularly on the PC.

 

[FluxWaveZ]

In truth, we've all but abandoned the work of systems and behaviors in favor of the work of individuals and feelings. And perhaps this is a grievous mistake.

Right...

 

[aeolist]

Is this true, though?

I think we still have plenty of system-driven games out there, particularly on the PC.

i agree but he is mainly pointing out that this school of design is nowhere near as big or important as it was back in the 90s heyday

 

[Haly]

Systems exist as a niche, but they're a niche because the segment of the video game playing populace who genuinely enjoy fiddling with systems over everything else is minuscule.

Sure, video games would be better if more games were systems games, but it would also be a hundred times smaller.

 

[patapuf]

System driven games are alive and well on PC and arguably smartphones.

It's just that many really like controlling an avatar in a virtual world.

 

[Max Knight]

Where would fighting games sit in this philosophy? They're definitely "system-driven," but they also definitely have characters and stories.

 

[PooBone]

I personally, as a lifelong gamer, couldn't disagree more.

But it's good to have opinions and present them as fact.... I guess.

 

[nded]

Where would fighting games sit in this philosophy? They're definitely "system-driven," but they also definitely have characters and stories.

Clearly they would be better games if they just displayed the hitboxes and only hitboxes.

But seriously, I wouldn't be opposed to more video games focusing more on elements unique to video games rather than pushing for "cinematic" "character driven" "experiences".

 

[Choomp]

There's some types of games that really shouldn't try and use characters that do. Sometimes, games'll use like an extremely blank character, like Hotline Miami I thought did that awesome.

 

[Marcel]

Where would fighting games sit in this philosophy? They're definitely "system-driven," but they also definitely have characters and stories.

I imagine playing Street Fighter 1 or other old fighters in the arcade with no knowledge (less emphasis on too) of an implied "story" would give you a more pure, system-driven experience. All you'd have to go on is Ryu is the Japanese guy and Ken is the American guy and you're fighting people from other nations.

 

[Servbot24]

I personally, as a lifelong gamer, couldn't disagree more.

But it's good to have opinions and present them as fact.... I guess.

It's self-evident that it's an opinion. We don't need a giant "just my opinion please don't be offended!" disclaimer after everything ever written on the internet.

 

[tokkun]

the overwhelming preference for human characters and stories in big published games affecting the way players see games to the point where they strongly self-identify with them is a perspective i hadn't considered before and if true would shed new light on the heightened culture conflicts of the past year.

Maybe the obsession with personal identification and representation in games is why identity politics has risen so forcefully and naively in their service online, while essentially failing to build upon prior theories and practices of social justice. And perhaps it is why some gamers have become so attached to their identity that they've been willing to burn down anything to defend it.

That is honestly one of the most far-fetched and ill-considered theories I have ever read that did not include UFOs or lizard men.

It seems like even the most very basic attempt to generalize this theory falls on its face. Books are much more character-driven than games are, but you don't see the same prevalence of identity politics around books. Cell phone operating systems are entirely system-based, yet the discussion around them is brimming with identity politics. And before there were nerds fighting on the Internet, it was Ford vs Chevy.

 

[Dr. Buni]

But I like characters...

 

[Timeaisis]

There will always be room for both. The day we start pidgeonholing videogames into a particular subset of genres or mechanics is the day videogames start dying a slow, painful death.

 

[kadotsu]

Has that dude never heard of the C++ compiler. That might have just the right amount of systems and specificity for him.

 

[Marcel]

I personally, as a lifelong gamer, couldn't disagree more.

But it's good to have opinions and present them as fact.... I guess.

Why does your self-identification as a lifelong gamer matter in this instance? Preferring system-driven games and giving reasons why doesn't preclude your tastes for ones focused on character.

 

[GuardianE]

Characters are one of the primary reasons why I play games.

 

[Lunar15]

Mobile and PC markets have a lot of systems driven games. I think it's alive and well, just not on consoles.

 

[Ralemont]

One thing I agree with is that I feel "emergence" as a narrative tool is relatively untapped right now compared to "emotional nuance."

There's a lot of potential in the idea that complex systems coming together in videogames can provide compelling narratives that aren't scripted by the creator (anyone remember that thread about the strategy game that ended up in a stalemate nuclear holocaust for centuries?). Ken Levine's article on how Shadow of Mordor does this with the Nemesis system is relevant.

 

[aeolist]

There will always be room for both. The day we start pidgeonholing videogames into a particular subset of genres or mechanics is the day videogames start dying a slow, painful death.

There's another way to think about games. What if games' role in representation and identity lies not in offering familiar characters for us to embody, but in helping wrest us from the temptation of personal identification entirely? What if the real fight against monocultural bias and blinkeredness does not involve the accelerated indulgence of identification, but the abdication of our own selfish, individual desires in the interest of participating in systems larger than ourselves? What if the thing games most have to show us is the higher-order domains to which we might belong, including families, neighborhoods, cities, nations, social systems, and even formal structures and patterns? What if replacing militarized male brutes with everyone's favorite alternative identity just results in Balkanization rather than inclusion?

he's arguing that driving characters and individual stories to the exclusion of systems and abstraction is a detriment to the medium, not that character games shouldn't exist

i would also like to remind everyone that editors generally come up with the headlines

 

[FlyingSaucer]

I think he is mostly right - games should be about gameplay and systems first of all, it's what make them games. Of course, it doesn't mean exceptions shouldn't exist, and people shouldn't enjoy cinematic AAA, chara-driven beat'em all or story-heavy RPGs.

 

[collige]

Agree with him or not, video games need more writers like Ian Bogost. In this case, I think he's underestimating how much people care about systems-driven games given the popularity of fighting games, shooters, MOBAs, and esports in general are.

Where would fighting games sit in this philosophy? They're definitely "system-driven," but they also definitely have characters and stories.

The way I see it, the characters are just a vehicle for the game systems.

 

[Marcel]

Ian is a bit short-sighted in implying Balkanization hasn't already happened in the various dialogues about video games.

 

[Ralemont]

He's talking about a specific kind of systems-driven game, though, that minimalizes the individual and places the focus on a lot of smaller pieces being integrated into larger mechanisms to form a functioning "machine" or organism. Accordingly, fighting games don't really count.

 

[Cymbal Head]

My favorite part of this article is the hilariously on-the-nose headline image that completely misses the point of what the author is arguing.

 

[FluxWaveZ]

He's talking about a specific kind of systems-driven game, though, that minimalizes the individual and places the focus on a lot of smaller pieces being integrated into larger mechanisms to form a functioning "machine" or organism. Accordingly, fighting games don't really count.

By that definition, Grand Theft Auto V would count.

 

[woopWOOP]

Characters/little mascots are fun to look at tho.

I'd never tried Sim Earth if it weren't for that goofy planet Earth with a face and big red shoes.
(I'm shallow as hell)

 

[Ralemont]

By that definition, Grand Theft Auto V would count.

He might think certain aspects of it does, aside from the narrative/character aspect of it.

 

[aeolist]

By that definition, Grand Theft Auto V would count.

the systems in GTA tend to be more incidental to the missions in the game and come across as weirdly deep and extensive flavor added to make the world seem more real. the game isn't really about that.

i'm imagining an open world game which is actually centered around the complex interactions between simulated systems and it's something i think i would be really interested in. i haven't played any of the infinite number of early access multiplayer survival games on steam but they might fit the bill.

 

[Foggy]

Reads like he had a general thesis and we was going to get there by any means necessary which includes "In truth, we've all but abandoned the work of systems and behaviors in favor of the work of individuals and feelings."

It's an interesting thought, but I don't think reality reflects that.

 

[Marcel]

i'm imagining an open world game which is actually centered around the complex interactions between simulated systems and it's something i think i would be really interested in. i haven't played any of the infinite number of early access multiplayer survival games on steam but they might fit the bill.

I would make the argument that in the current environment of Early Access development, very few teams have the ability to realize their ambitions or recognize their potential in the way Bogost is talking about. Or in games like Prison Architect, you are placed in a problematic position as the player and participate in the mostly vile and neoliberalist act of prison cost-cutting. It certainly fits more of the bill but I would feel sort of disgusted playing a game like that.

 

[Cymbal Head]

There's bound to be a lot of misunderstanding of this article by people who aren't familiar with cultural criticism. For me, the heart of the argument is here:

Amidst arguments on Twitter and Reddit about whose favorite games are more valid, while we worry about the perfect distribution of bodies in our sci-fi fantasy, the big machines of global systems hulk down the roads and the waterways, indifferent. It is an extravagance to worry only about representation of our individual selves while more obvious forces threaten them with oblivion—commercialism run amok; climate change; wealth inequality; extortionate healthcare; unfunded schools; decaying infrastructure; automation and servitude. And yet, we persist, whether out of moralism or foolishness or youth, lining up for our proverbial enslavement. We’ll sign away anything, it would seem, so long as we’re still able to “express ourselves” with the makeshift tools we are rationed by the billionaires savvy enough to play the game of systems rather than the game of identities.

When Bogost says games are "better" when they focus on systems, he's not saying they are more fun, he's saying they serve us better as ways of understanding and contextualizing the world.

I picked up Democracy 3 in the last Steam sale, and playing it for just a few hours helped me understand the reality of politics and the immense difficulty of instituting change at a national level. The tremendous number of inputs and outputs, feedback loops, and knock-on consequences can be staggering. Even though it's a kind of fiction -- an abstracted and simplified version of how things really work, inevitably colored by the biases of its creators -- it sheds light on these systems in a way that other fictions (novels, movies) can't quite do by making it experiential.

 

[Timeaisis]

he's arguing that driving characters and individual stories to the exclusion of systems and abstraction is a detriment to the medium, not that character games shouldn't exist

i would also like to remind everyone that editors generally come up with the headlines

Well I don't know if I agree with that point, but I definitely disagree with the headline, as you said.

Still, I think both can exist and push the medium forward. I am overly fond of heavy system-based games. I am also fond of simple, character-driven games. I think the biggest point here, for me, is that the rise of character-centric games should not spell the doom of system-centric games. Or, I'd hope it does not.

Also, his definition of systems is weird. Every game has systems, whether complicated or not. He seems to think, unless the system reflects upon the problmes and issues in the world, it is unwarranted of criticism or praise, which is weird to me. Games do not have to reflect real life. It's part of the abstraction he is talking about, them dismisses. Many people enjoy games for that layer of abstraction they have.

 

[patapuf]

There's bound to be a lot of misunderstanding of this article by people who aren't familiar with cultural criticism. For me, the heart of the argument is here:



When Bogost says games are "better" when they focus on systems, he's not saying they are more fun, he's saying they serve us better as ways of understanding and contextualizing the world.

Understanding and recognising systems is a pretty important skill. And games are certainly an exellent medium to do that, certainly more so than movies or (entertainment) books.

 

[Marcel]

There's bound to be a lot of misunderstanding of this article by people who aren't familiar with cultural criticism. For me, the heart of the argument is here:



When Bogost says games are "better" when they focus on systems, he's not saying they are more fun, he's saying they serve us better as ways of understanding and contextualizing the world.

This is where the small-minded person would say, "Oh, well games are simply about having fun". If only.

Identity games are interesting because you're more pre-occupied with your avatar interacting with shallow spectacle than trying to reason out the systems. He's right in saying that the billionaires and oligarchs play system games: game theory, high frequency trading, corporate raiding, etc.

While representation and inclusion of minority identities are important, it is ultimately a fight that will be won when the monied find us acceptable enough to represent, which is a symptom of the late-stage capitalist environment we live in.

 

[autoduelist]

I generally agree with the author.

It's actually a fantastic article, it's a shame some are basing his argument on either the quotes in the OP or even the sensationalist title of this thread.

 

[nilbog21]

AMEN.

in general this is true but there are exceptions (MGS)

 

[Marcel]

I generally agree with the author.

It's actually a fantastic article, it's a shame some are basing his argument on either the quotes in the OP or even the sensationalist title of this thread.

Are you really surprised that some people only glanced at the title and moved onto to the usual ra-ra video game type threads?

 

[Waxwing]

I think the problem of the article (and the problem with so much criticism today) is the assumption that every piece of art or entertainment has to MEAN something. Videogames can be and are for many people a piece of escapism- especially in a world that has largely been civilized and shorn of the bare-handed adventure of ages past (for good and for ill).

EDIT: I'll also add that convincing simulation is incredibly difficult to pull off. The simulation is only as good as the developer's understanding of complex systems.

 

[DocSeuss]

It's self-evident that it's an opinion. We don't need a giant "just my opinion please don't be offended!" disclaimer after everything ever written on the internet.

This is one of the most frustrating things I've encountered on the internet, people demanding that opinions be stated as opinions because they don't want anyone to dare tread on their sensibilities.

 

[aeolist]

I think the problem of the article (and the problem with so much criticism today) is the assumption that every piece of art or entertainment has to MEAN something. Videogames can be and are for many people a piece of escapism- especially in a world that has largely been civilized and shorn of the bare-handed adventure of ages past (for good and for ill).

EDIT: I'll also add that convincing simulation is incredibly difficult to pull off. The simulation is only as good as the developer's understanding of complex systems.

literally everything means something and i don't think bogost is arguing that escapism shouldn't exist. his point is that understanding large systems and how they affect individuals is a culturally important aspect of games that other media can't replicate, and it's largely been left by the wayside in favor of identity-based experiences

 

[Marcel]

I think the problem of the article (and the problem with so much criticism today) is the assumption that every piece of art or entertainment has to MEAN something. Videogames can be and are for many people a piece of escapism- especially in a world that has largely been civilized and shorn of the bare-handed adventure of ages past (for good and for ill).

EDIT: I'll also add that convincing simulation is incredibly difficult to pull off. The simulation is only as good as the developer's understanding of complex systems.

Um, the whole crux of cultural criticism is that entertainment isn't just merely escapism or shallow "fun". There are meanings, influences and implications to be interpreted and debated, whether on a political level or otherwise.

You can certainly sit in the little kiddy pool of escapism if you want but Bogost's type of essay is not only important, it's necessary, just as Umberto Eco's work in cultural criticism is important to the study of film/fiction. Here's one I remember:

To read fiction means to play a game by which we give sense to the immensity of things that happened, are happening, or will happen in the actual world. By reading narrative, we escape the anxiety that attacks us when we try to say something true about the world. This is the consoling function of narrative — the reason people tell stories, and have told stories from the beginning of time.

 

[Ranger X]

Wow. Thanks for the share if only to read an intelligent article published in a non-videogame specific media.

 

[catbrush]

I agree with the sentiment of this article. For the medium of games to grow beyond cinema's shadow, it needs to move beyond "telling a story."

Pre-defined, scripted narrative beats should be ditched in favor of systems that let the player affect the world through their actions. Embracing complex and meaningful systems would allow each action be a meaningful choice, with cascading consequences.

 

[Marcel]

I agree with the sentiment of this article. For the medium of games to grow beyond cinema's shadow, it needs to move beyond "telling a story."

Pre-defined, scripted narrative beats should be ditched in favor of systems that let the player affect the world through their actions. Embracing complex and meaningful systems would allow each action be a meaningful choice, with cascading consequences.

Games already attempt to fool you into thinking your choices have an influence on an ultimately static world via marketing or otherwise. "Each choice has consequences! Each decision means everything!" etc.

Things like Skyrim and Bioware games are evidence of this. You have "choices" that only affect the shallow avenues of game narrative but you do not play against systems that respond with actual consequences.

 

[Cave Johnson]

Games already attempt to fool you into thinking your choices have an affect on an ultimately static world via marketing or otherwise. "Each choice has consequences! Each decision means everything!" etc.

Things like Skyrim and Bioware games are evidence of this. You have choices that affect the shallow avenues of game narrative but you do not play against systems that respond with actual consequences.

Isn't that a reason why games like Eve Online exist as the alternative?

 

[ClayKavalier]

I personally, as a lifelong gamer, couldn't disagree more.

But it's good to have opinions and present them as fact.... I guess.

Seems clearly opinion to me. Did you need "This is opinion" disclaimer throughout the text?

That is honestly one of the most far-fetched and ill-considered theories I have ever read that did not include UFOs or lizard men.

It seems like even the most very basic attempt to generalize this theory falls on its face. Books are much more character-driven than games are, but you don't see the same prevalence of identity politics around books. Cell phone operating systems are entirely system-based, yet the discussion around them is brimming with identity politics. And before there were nerds fighting on the Internet, it was Ford vs Chevy.

Don't you though? Maybe you personally don't, but isn't Tumblr infamously stuffed to the gills with people with "fandoms" of various popular book series?


I kind of agree with the article, most of my favorite games are pure gameplay. And I guess most people wouldn't want to just play an anonymous character without motivation, but when I play action/ shooting/ fighting/ other genres, a majority of the time I couldn't care less about the story and characterization.

 

[Marcel]

Isn't that a reason why games like Eve Online exist as the alternative?

Yep. It's probably difficult for newer players to play against the system though, since much of the intrigue and game-playing is inexorably tied to in-game wealth and control.

 

[hydruxo]