Support NeoGAF

[Marcel]

Here's a "didn't read the article" reply if I ever saw one.

 

[Cymbal Head]

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.

It's easier to sell "each choice has a (predetermined, scripted) consequence" than "each choice interacts dynamically with the system as a whole."

Ultimately, we're talking about the self-same reasons politicians find more success telling anecdotes than talking about statistics and why alt-med practitioners can sell so much product with testimonials and no clinical trials. We're naturally wired to find the former more compelling, but it doesn't usually serve us well in the long run.

 

[Occam]

Next someone will come and tell us that games are better without graphics. And sound.
Actually, you can experience this new type of game below:





















You are playing it right now.

 

[cutmeamango]

Most "system" games mistake scaling for depth and networking for complexity.
And it doesn't help that they generally suffer from train modelling syndrome.

They are hard to make and have low reward to the player, investing any thought in that is asking for the death of fun in games. There's a reason accountants are mocked as boring.

 

[Fried Food]

Good games writing and once again from a non games site

 

[Cave Johnson]

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.

Naturally, otherwise the game would lack its defining substance bringing it back to full circle with the Bioware/Bethrsda RPG scenarios.

 

[hydruxo]

Here's a "didn't read the article" reply if I ever saw one.

I did read the article but thanks buddy. There's room for games with characters, and there's room for ones without.

 

[Alavard]

Next someone will come and tell us that games are better without graphics. And sound.
Actually, you can experience this new type of game below:





















You are playing it right now.

Damn, I guess I just lost The Game.

 

[Max Knight]

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

I agree, but I also don't think a lot of people would play them without the characterization, even if the mechanics remained unchanged. I guess my thought was just that system-driven and character-driven gameplay are not mutually exclusive concepts, and fighting games are a good example to illustrate it.

 

[catbrush]

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.

I get what you mean. When a game's world is static, every decision means very little, because the choices simply funnel the player into one or more ultimately static world states that the designers have created. Choices affecting a dynamic and system-driven world would result in a far more dramatic experience, because these consequences could unfold organically.

If something like Shadow of Mordor's nemesis system were to be applied to more aspects of a game, the possibilities for emergence would be enormous.

 

[Waxwing]

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:

I certainly won't argue that we shouldn't be doing criticism, but I think it's ridiculous to insist that the "best" games fulfill the criteria of adding to the discourse on topic x. Games (and media) should be evaluated on how skillfully they achieve their chief goal, and if that goal is merely to entertain and they entertain superlatively, there's no reason why they should not be included in considerations of "best". What I'm chiefly objecting to, at the end of the day, is the notion that the ends of art are solely moral in content.

 

[adj_noun]

Next someone will come and tell us that games are better without graphics. And sound.

You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.

 

[Peltz]

I certainly won't argue that we shouldn't be doing criticism, but I think it's ridiculous to insist that the "best" games fulfill the criteria of adding to the discourse on topic x. Games (and media) should be evaluated on how skillfully they achieve their chief goal, and if that goal is merely to entertain and they entertain superlatively, there's no reason why they should not be included in considerations of "best". What I'm chiefly objecting to, at the end of the day, is the notion that the ends of art are solely moral in content.

I disagree. Goals in and of themselves are often worthy of criticism.

 

[firehawk12]

Systems and simulations are fine, but you have characters because you want to tell stories with a point of view. Otherwise, we live in this assumed world where the politics are defined purely by the developers, whether implicitly or explicitly.

 

[LordJim]

Such design for videogames will most likely always be a niche.
Less of a spectacle, harder to make the emergent gameplay appealing to a big playerbase.

Also, that protagonist bingo is horseshit

 

[Marcel]

Such design for videogames will most likely always be a niche.
Less of a spectacle, harder to make the emergent gameplay appealing to a big playerbase.

Also, that protagonist bingo is horseshit

In what way?

 

[Femmeworth]

Interesting article. Though the author comes across a tad dismissive of social/cultural criticism in relation to video games.

 

[Marcel]

Interesting article. Though the author comes across a tad dismissive of social critics.

I don't see it as dismissive. If you want dismissive, just read the comments of banned people in the most recent Anita thread. It's a reasoned criticism of identity politics. Because he's not wrong about the endgame (if I understand his reasoning): minority groups like myself are basically arguing for billionaires and the monied to sell our identities back to us in the form of character avatars or storylines that are meant to merely satisfy, placate us. We're ultimately playing the game they always win (capitalism) rather than trying to change the system in which the game is played.

 

[Mechazawa]

No one's arguing for diversity in system and mechanics because, uh, we've always had that pretty much down pat.

 

[Femmeworth]

I don't see it as dismissive. If you want dismissive, just read the comments of banned people in the most recent Anita thread. It's a reasoned criticism of identity politics. Because he's not wrong about the endgame (if I understand his reasoning): minority groups like myself are basically arguing for billionaires and the monied to sell our identities back to us in the form of character avatars or storylines that are meant to merely satisfy, placate us. We're ultimately playing the game they always win (capitalism) rather than trying to change the system in which the game is played.

Admittedly I hadn't read to the very end when I made that post, which I'm doing now.

The author has a very valid point about drawing attention to the bigger picture, but he comes across as very either/or. Hence why I think he is dismissive of those of us focused on smaller pictures.

 

[AstroLad]

No one's arguing for diversity in system and mechanics because, uh, we've always had that pretty much down pat.

I don't think so. Bogost himself points out many of the valid criticisms of SimCity as being very US-centric, and there have been others arguing it's downright reactionary in some respects. He's arguing from the premise that this type of game is in steep decline, and that the decline is particularly unfortunate in that games of systems have unique ability to shed light on important topics like diversity and social justice.

 

[not_so_special]

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

i have read the entire article,its one of the dumbest and far fetched artciles i have read on the last months...congrats to the writer

 

[ugly]

It's easier to identify with a human avatar. It's less of a jump. It's why watching a television program is easier than reading a book. It requires less learning from the viewer. I have similar thoughts about poor graphics like what you find on the gameboy OG being better for the imaginations of children - but the industry lives on money, and so we reach a wider audience by exploiting their laziness. The wave will be rode and the future is unknown. I suppose we will see the resurgence of these things through counter-culture, or through newly birthed mediums as we have seen with throw-back pixel art indie games or what have you. Hopefully there is a place for good things.

 

[BRocknRolla]

I like characters and stories. The video game medium is no different in this regard to any other medium. That you can likewise be a character is just another aspect of that.

Sims or systems based games are entirely fine too, but even there, characters and stories can be great ways to make what is happening more impactful. (I think about Civ, which is essentially just a board game, but you get the sense that your opponents sort of have a personality and become characters as the game progresses by their actions. A story unfolds even if none is written.)

We can have a wide variety of experiences, but characters will always be an important part of just about every medium.

Edit: I will say, after mulling this over I do think there's something to be said for what the emergent nature of systems based games can allow in this medium that other mediums cannot easily achieve. But while that's true, I don't think those are necessarily the better of the potential forms a game might take. It's just different. If we were to lose either of the forms, it would be a tragedy. That the character driven form is perhaps often narrow and stagnant is the fault of it being a hit driven industry, that doesn't embrace diversity of experience, but such is the case for most mediums.

 

[StoOgE]

Even in these games you were very often considered to be a character though.

You were the Mayor in Sim City and had advisors who spoke with you. Or the General in RTS games. Or God in God Games.

If you read a lot of stuff about the theory of play I think it's very commonly the case that you want to play as someone else and pretend to be them. part of the magic circle of a pick-up basketball game when you are kids is calling out which NBA star you are and then emulating their play.

I don't think these genres ever removed the human scale or the role play, they just changed the perspective. Now I am controlling a system in an abstracted way, but I am still a character that exists in this world.

 

[aeolist]

Even in these games you were very often considered to be a character though.

You were the Mayor in Sim City and had advisors who spoke with you. Or the General in RTS games. Or God in God Games.

If you read a lot of stuff about the theory of play I think it's very commonly the case that you want to play as someone else and pretend to be them. part of the magic circle of a pick-up basketball game when you are kids is calling out which NBA star you are and then emulating their play.

I don't think these genres ever removed the human scale or the role play, they just changed the perspective. Now I am controlling a system in an abstracted way, but I am still a character that exists in this world.

simcity was never focused on the mayor as a character or the story of his development though. it's not about total denial of characters and absolute abstraction.

 

[DeadTrees]

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.

Whoa, if you think that's crazy, wait till you read about how he proved that the Wii U will revolutionize gaming, based entirely on the evidence of his drunken hobo fever dreams.

Most of this new essay is just another highfalutin whine about how nobody takes "systems" seriously, with line-in-the-sand hyperbole like "we’ve all but abandoned the work of systems and behaviors in favor of the work of individuals and feelings", tempered with what-ifs and maybes that signify doubts that the author doesn't actually have. It makes a few noises about inclusiveness, then dismisses Sarkeesian, et al as distractions on the road to a genderless systems-driven utopia ("What if replacing militarized male brutes with everyone’s favorite alternative identity just results in Balkanization rather than inclusion?") And then this doofus goes on about how it's "an extravagance to worry only about representation of our individual selves while more obvious forces threaten them with oblivion"...in the middle of an personal essay.

And for the big finish, he implies that if you don't agree with him, you are partially responsible for destroying humanity:

...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.

Only a crackpot would claim that SimCity could have saved us, or that games inspired by the systems simulation model could have overcome the overwhelming, ongoing success of stories and images that computers merely deliver via digital channels, rather than reformulating into systems made playable in software. But then, only a fool would fail to realize that we are the Sims now meandering aimlessly in the streets of the power brokers’ real-world cities. Not people with feelings and identities at all, but just user interface elements that indicate the state of the system, recast in euphemisms like the Sharing Economy, such that its operators might adjust their strategy accordingly. No measure of positive identification can save us from the fate of precarity, of automation, of privatization, of consolidation, of attention capture, of surveillance, of any of the other “disruptions” that cultivate our culture like bulldozers click through sim cities. To pursue an alternate future, we’d have to change how the machine works, not just the faces of its operators.

Summary: SimCity didn't end racism or cure cancer, but your favorite game sucks anyway, and that's why you're just a pawn of the fascist police state while I'm using my hardcore SimCity skills to Fight the Power by making browser games.

 

[Goldenroad]

I don't know. I mean, a game having characters does not mean that the game is going for some kind of "emotional impact" or "personal identification". They are just vessels the way a residential square is in Sim City. I'm talking about a game like Super Mario Brothers...yes, it has characters, but the game would be the exact same game if Mario were a square and the goombas were triangles. The systems would not change in any way.

Like X-Com has characters, but all I like about the game is the systems. I don't know any of the characters names or back stories or even what the plot of the game is, I just know I like ordering troops around to kill aliens. Those troops could be abstracted to something like squares or numbers and I'd have just as much fun with the game.

I think this article is based upon a very shakey and untrue premise.

 

[Cymbal Head]

Clint Hocking thinks there's a middle way:

So yes, I think we already have numerous, though tentative examples of these kinds of games; games that are both about the journey of an individual, but also about the big ideas of the culture (fictional or otherwise) in which that individual exists. I will admit that along a number of axes we have mostly done a fairly poor job of achieving the goals Bogost implies. Bogost wants us to truly understand and feel the consequential interdependency of large scale, richly interconnected, sensitive systems, and it is definitely true that accessing the sliders that move those systems by using the guns or swords of our embodied characters to shoot or stab them up or down a notch is a clumsy interface at best.

But I don’t think we should bury the idea along with Maxis and throw our arms up in the air. I think there is a huge undeveloped space here for us to explore as designers, and a fruitful landscape of discovery here for players. I feel that if we make these sorts of games well, and continue to refine them, we can begin competing and innovating on the axis of ‘how my embodied character influences the sliders’.

I personally hope that we can evolve the play experience over time from one where you play the mercenary/assassin who tips the balance by killing the right people, to one where you play the spy with much finer grained control who murders rarely or not at all. Eventually, perhaps, we can play the diplomat, the senator or the lobbyist constantly challenged to overcome and manage her interactions with other players and characters in a dynamic, empathic exploration of these higher order cultural systems in a way that presents them as complicated - not because they are harder than shooting an AK-47 at a moving target through the jungle, but because humans are just really bad at them.

And maybe then, if these games are good, and we play them a lot, maybe we’ll get better at them, and maybe we’ll be empowered to confront these problems not as a bunch of sliders to be optimized, but as the messy interpersonal problems they are; mired in doubt and fear and weakness and frailty. Those sound like fucking spectacular games to me.

More at the link.

 

[Zeouterlimits]

Clint Hocking thinks there's a middle way:

More at the link.

Very late to this party, was linked to Bogost's piece and then searched for a thread to see what had been discussed.

Thanks for posting this Cymbal Head, it's a good read and I would have missed it otherwise.

 

[wildfire]

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.

Board and card games usage says you're wrong.