In the next life -
September 16, 2001 - Nich Maragos
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed
within this column are those of the participants and the
moderator, and do not necessarily reflect those of the
GIA. There is coarse language and potentially offensive
material afoot.
Sorry, JP.
Don't say we didn't warn you.
The number of diverse opinions on yesterday's topic surprised me. I figured there weren't more than two or three ways to approach the issue, but you proved me wrong. However, one thing nobody mentioned that I figured I'd throw into the ring here is the possibility of a mobile-phone vs. console line.
This is a difficult idea to support for a couple reasons. First, the Japanese are big on fads. While the mobile phone game market is pretty strong right now, with a large consumer base and a growing developer pool, it could wane quickly. Second, the quality of the games is pretty sketchy right now, and most of them are more suited for passing the time on a crowded commuter bus or train than having fun with.
But the very first console games weren't much better, and technology can only improve. Furthermore, DoCoMo is partnering with American telecoms in the near future to bring iMode technology to the States, so there's a chance (however small) that it could catch on here. It's worth considering, at least.
| No, that's incorrect |
| Greetings, Nich.
I was reading yesterday's DA When I noticed that there is a feeling
that the Silent Hill franchise is in essence better than the RE franchise
due to it's better atmosphere.
Sorry, but that's not going to work. There is a simple reason why the RE
series is moving away from atmosphere and moving towards action,
fear is fundemental to two things: immediate danger and the unknown.
The fact that we all know about umbrella dims this factor down, but since it
is a profitable franchise...
Silent hill was incredible since from the very start you did not know what
was going on or what you where dealing with, hence the fear of the unknown.
No matter how much the graphics and sound have been improved, the edge is
gone. Silent hill2 will be a poor sequel, and I think you know how my
predictions usualy turn out ):-)
In other words, expect Silent hill to walk the path of RE in the near
future.
-Nick-V, Not a registered trademark.
|
Boy, if I had a nickel for every time you begged the question here ...
In the first place, Resident Evil isn't moving away from atmosphere and toward action. Dino Crisis very noticeably is doing that, but Resident Evil hasn't yet made the jump. It's still very much a "survival" horror game, where the focus is on managing resources and grappling with the controls, not on blasting everything in sight.
Second, in point of fact I don't know how your predictions usually turn out. Very poorly, if this letter is anything to go by. Since the adversaries in Silent Hill 2 aren't the same as they were in 1, I'd venture to say that "the unknown" is still a big factor in SH2. Especially since, by all accounts, the jump to PS2 has inspired the creators to turn the mood up a notch, rather than take it down. The "edge" is far, far from gone, judging by the E3 trailer and various interviews with the crew. I'd invite you to take the matter up again with Brooke once you'd dug up some support for an argument here and there, but I have the feeling she'd have even less patience for this than I do.
| The drudgery of reality |
| Nich,
I think the next gaming schism will be something like realistic games
vs. "conventional" games--that is, games which work within certain
accepted conventions instead of trying to mirror real life. Let's start
with an example--Shenmue vs. Zelda 64. This has little to do with
technical achievements, mind you, so I don't think it would be fair to
point out the time gap between the two games (no more so than comparing
FF6 to FF7 in the 2D vs. 3D schism).
Shenmue is what I would call a fairly realistic game. Not to say that it
didn't have some uncommon or unlikely elements, but it made a real
attempt to accurately portray life and the real-world, and placed those
fantastic elements inside it. Zelda 64, on the other hand, had all of
the crazy conventions of past times--hearts to indicate life, a hero who
can carry around two dozen different tools, weapons, and articles of
clothing without any appreciable effort or effect. In the PC realm, we
can compare Half-Life to Serious Sam--the former made an attempt to be
realistic within its story of an alien invasion, whereas the latter
loads you up with accepted standard FPS conventions and just let you
have fun blowing the hell out of bad guy.
I've actually seen examples of this growing schism. I've heard and read
people argue that greater realism makes for a more immersive and
believable experience, whereas people on the other side of the fence
argue that by bogging the player down with "realism," you're removing
many of the the escapist or simply fun aspects of gaming. Mario 64 is a
game which tosses out the realism in favor of fun. Silent Hill is a game
heavy on realism (despite the supernatural motif), and is less "fun" in
the traditional sense.
At the moment, I see games shifting steadily toward realism, and I have
the feeling that this might, in time, spark an argument as great as the
legendary 2D/3D clash. Only time will tell, though.
-Matt Blackie
|
The most interesting part of a "realistic" vs. "iconic" or "conventional" game is the sentiment you only hinted at in your letter: the perception that more realistic games are by their nature less enjoyable. You just don't associate all-out fun with games like Metal Gear Solid, Shenmue, and Silent Hill 2 the way you do with Smash Brothers Melee, Gradius, or Klonoa. (To choose a few examples entirely at random.) This could be because in real life, very few activities are loaded with high-energy fun, with a few notable exceptions that could never make it past the ESRB. Whether it's true or not is open to debate, but it does seem to underlie a lot of the anti-"realistic" sentiments.
| Online another weltschmerz |
| I'm sure the next schism in gaming will be "online"-ism versus non-online playing. Certain games cannot be played online while keeping their basic strengths - RPG's for example. RPG's are better played mostly alone - now that FF has gone online, at least with XI, there's going to be a constant question on all new games: "Are there online components?" Frankly, I think some games, like FF, are better left mostly offline, with online stuff being kept to FAQ and game save postings, possibly with downloadable goodies. Other games, like Doom or Quake, thrive in an online environment. However, the public is split much more deeply than that: look at the popularity of Phantasy Star Online, and then look at the disgust of FFXI when fans saw the screenshots.
-Gunstar Heroes
|
This is what I was expecting pretty much everything to say, since it's the advance in technology that has the most real implications for videogaming. Although I don't think it's been as unwelcome a direction as you seem to, since most Phantasy Star fans had a similar reaction to PSO at first, but they got over it. Even I don't dislike Final Fantasy XI for its online aspect--what really turns me off is the visual style, which seems closer to a bland Evergrace-style world than the nicely realized look of Final Fantasy X. So I think there's potential, but the technology might need another generation before we really get to the good stuff.
| Holocube is win |
| Top of the Evening to you.
Now, obviously gameplay vs cienma is always going to be a factor. I never see that issue drying up. And as for the foreseeable future, I think the same issues will stay true. But in the next 20 years, im sure someone will either come up with a viable Virtual Reality or Hologram system, and I think that will be when the next schism. Youve seen those PS2 commercials featuring the Playstation 9 (or some number), well thats pretty much what I see eventually happening.
-Kandrin onboard.
|
I, uh ... actually haven't seen the infamous PS9 commercial. (Don't have a TV; one wouldn't fit in my dorm room.) But it sounds interesting, although the hologram-based games I remember seeing here and there in arcades were so atrocious that I'd be genuinely surprised if any company decides it would be a good move to pursue that avenue again.
| An old debate in new clothes |
| I think it will be between player controlled storyline and game controlled storyline.
In one, the player is responsible for the storyline. Granted, this is a more difficult set up, but a few games do this to some extent now. Tactics Ogre, Ogre Battle (1 and 64), Baldur's Gate (to an extent). In the other, the story is locked in stone, and the player travels along it, like a book. Examples are Final Fantasy (for the most part, 1 and 3j were exceptions), just about every other game, really...
Player Controlled Story was an impossible goal, for the most part, on older consoles. There wasn't enough memory or processor power to handle controlling an entire world. But now that advanced hardware is available at the console level, I think that many more games are going to be made with the idea that the player controls the thrust of the storyline. That the player can make decisions that will alter the ending to their benefit or detriment.
And I think that there will be a bitter rivalry between fans of the two sides.
-skye
|
Just a minor quibble on your terminology: what you're calling "player controlled" and "game controlled" have traditionally been known as "nonlinear" and "linear" storylines, respectively. And the debate between linear and nonlinear storylines isn't very new, having been rehashed in this very column at least a dozen times over the three years or so that the site's been around. I don't think the discussion has ever come up on my watch though, and since this is my last chance, I'll give it a go.
At this stage, I don't think what's holding games back from nonlinearity is technology so much as it is the amount of effort involved to create a truly nonlinear game. When you think about it, it would take the attention and work as three or more linear games to accomodate all the possibilities that one fully realized nonlinear game would contain. And while I've always been one to demand more from companies, this is about where I draw the line. Since nonlinearity isn't necessary to make a fun or good game, I'd rather have three good games that don't feature it than one good game that does. However, there's a pretty good middle ground as far as games like Shin Megami Tensei that don't offer true nonlinearity, but provide the player with meaningful choices and options which do affect the endgame. So all isn't lost for fans of games that don't go on rails.
| Next ... |
| Ever notice how many times, the mini-games are more fun that the main quest?
Take for example the snowboarding in FF7, or the "Iron Chef" game in
Suikoden 2. Hopefully the designers will take note of this and take things
to the next logical step. How awesome would it be to have an entire game
made out of Iron Chef style cook-offs?
Follow the true path of the chef...
-Nate
|
Hmm ... a game composed entirely of minigames, you say? A cooking game? Keep going, my boy, and you could set the world on fire with such brilliantly original concepts.
| Who the hell wants to hear game characters talk? |
| Brain-jack vs. non-brain-jack. Most companies will switch to brain-jack
technology for the increased flexibility and storytelling options it
offers, but a lot of gamers will be suspicious of the new technology, and
many will find it invasive, while still others complain of the effect it
has on games' difficulty.
Honestly, I'm thinking voice acting vs. not, since we're getting to the
point where EVERYTHING is voice acted, and we in the West are faced
squarely with the short end of that particular stick. Really, though, it's
all the SAME gaming schism. I remember people arguing about whether games
should have plots or actual endings once. Gamers like to argue.
-AJ
|
I know it seems like something as insignificant as voice acting couldn't result in a very deep schism, but it's something I've been thinking about on my own. If "garage gaming" ever takes off as a concept (possibly based on programs like Microsoft's Independent Developer Initiative), then voice actors will be one of the luxuries major companies can afford which minor ones can't.
Notes toward a class war in videogames ...
| Bulls-eye |
| Nich,
there won't be a "next" paradigm to divide players into xxx-sluts and
yyy-whores or zzz-schoolers. The buzzwords are completely interchangeable,
the only thing that ever remains constant is ego.
Ever since people began to define themselves by what games they play and
what systems they own, there has been the same argument over and over again.
"xxx is better than yyy, because...".
When you buy games and systems based on how well they fit your personality
(and most people do, see the "kiddie" Nintendo fans and the "cool" PS2
bunch), you aren't praising the games' / systems' virtues, but ultimately
your own. It all boils down to "I am better and cooler than you, because I
play / have xxx / yyy / zzz".
-Mirko
|
Letters like these are my very favorite. I love it when people get to the very heart of an argument so succinctly and effectively; bravo Mirko. Now I just have to remember to take your words to heart and kick myself every time I catch myself uttering the words "Xbox is just for PC hardcore players," or "GameCube is for the 10-and-under set." Good thing I won't be around to publicly make an ass of myself that way in the future.
| Blah blah blah |
| How about a topic on the Double Agent that gives regard to the female
element in gaming. In a medium almost exclusively run and conceived by men.
Bringing light to the social standing of women who play games and perhaps
more importantly the motivation behind it. In my own experience females who
have an inclination towards video games and anime run much in the same vein
as women who read and take to education. Unattractive, low self worth, and
poor social skills. As if they somehow are trying to vindicate their
existence through alternative lifestyles with the rationale that they are
"smarter" and "different" than other women, an obvious compensation of self
worth. Generally speaking attractive women do not play video games as they
are usually taken by the more generic standards of female behavior such as
shopping, dating, talking on the phone simply because men pay more attention
to them. What does it say about a female who spends their leisure time in
front of a TV identifying with fictional Japanese characters? A derision to
natural biological development? Perhaps it would be far easier to respect
the nature of a woman who plays video games if there were more respectable,
intelligent, creative, and strong willed women in the video game industry,
unfortunately this in not the case and the exceptions are few and far
between. Yoko Kanno is a shining example of a vindicated woman with extreme
talent who has purveyed the anime medium, but that is 1 example amongst many
far more prominent examples of men who have done the same. Women demand
equality and equal respect when biologically and emotionally they are
fundamentally not the same as men? This is as apparent in the field of video
games as it is in any other. You yourself show this to be true in the way
you run the columns for The GIA as opposed to Nich and the others. I know
this is a heady topic for an irrational little girl like you whose sole
sense of living is what she has seen and heard on the TV but I think it is
interesting and would be fun for at least a day. What do you think? And for
god sakes let's keep sex out of this, we don't need to hear from little boys
with poor social skills who take the side of women simply to "score points"
with the female populace. It seems like few can think or rationalize with a
mind unclouded with libido.
-Neorune
|
If you can get through such a dense, unbroken paragraph, mosey on down to the Closing Comments for your topic.
Closing Comments:
Neorune reminds me a bit of Dave Sim, with the notable difference that he's not an (in)famous creator with a cult following, just some sad sack ranting to an Internet letters column. What I want you consider is not so much Neorune's words, which are mostly rubbish, but his mindset. Is there something about videogames that either attracts this sort of thinking, or--even worse--is it possible that there's something in the games that produces it? What could games do to foster a different sort of audience?
Oh, and it turns out today's my last column. Next week is Drew back again--try to keep the cheering down until I've closed the door behind me. Thanks.
-Nich Maragos, working undercover for the Man
|
