A game that impacts peoples lives
polycounter lvl 7
Let me start by saying, I love games and the game industry. I've known game development was my passion sense I was in middle-school. I started teaching myself 3D when I was 13, worked a plethora of freelance gigs and and got my first job at an AAA studio a month after graduating from high-school.
That being said, while I love my job, the reason that I adore the games industry so much is not because of the COD's, Destiny's, or Dungeon Defender 2's. Dont get me wrong, I enjoy and eagerly await the new release of each of these games for its own reason. However, what makes games so appealing to me is there potential to be more then just entertaining. I'm not hear to argue art games or to hate on the current industry, only to reach out to those that have a passion for human progression through the medium of games "which I do, by the way, view as an art-form".
No one wants to play, or make for that matter, an educational game. They suck, lets be real. On the same note, no one wants to play a game that is so desperately trying to shove philosophy and emotion down your through that it forgets how to be enjoyable to play. I desperately want to use this medium I love so much for something more then just shootin aliens though. Thus, this thread is born.
So the discussion begins here, though I dont really want to clearly define a question. for the most part, I just want to hear the community's thoughts on the concept of games that profoundly effect there players. Is it possible, possible, appealing, worth while?
have at it polycount.
NEWEST
www.snegame.com
Thoughts on the game and how to use it to be moving is totally welcome!
That being said, while I love my job, the reason that I adore the games industry so much is not because of the COD's, Destiny's, or Dungeon Defender 2's. Dont get me wrong, I enjoy and eagerly await the new release of each of these games for its own reason. However, what makes games so appealing to me is there potential to be more then just entertaining. I'm not hear to argue art games or to hate on the current industry, only to reach out to those that have a passion for human progression through the medium of games "which I do, by the way, view as an art-form".
No one wants to play, or make for that matter, an educational game. They suck, lets be real. On the same note, no one wants to play a game that is so desperately trying to shove philosophy and emotion down your through that it forgets how to be enjoyable to play. I desperately want to use this medium I love so much for something more then just shootin aliens though. Thus, this thread is born.
So the discussion begins here, though I dont really want to clearly define a question. for the most part, I just want to hear the community's thoughts on the concept of games that profoundly effect there players. Is it possible, possible, appealing, worth while?
have at it polycount.
NEWEST
Thoughts on the game and how to use it to be moving is totally welcome!
Replies
http://www.giantbomb.com/podcasts/raising-mental-illness-awareness-via-games/1600-638/
But yes, very few people want to make games that don't "suck". Hell, even companies almost require it. Some require AAA shipped titles to get a job. But what I find hilarious about it all is that educational games actually are more steady and tend to have less layoffs. The games are as labour intensive because they tend to be less complicated. It means a shorter turn around time, which in turn means they can put out more games a year. Even if they don't sell millions of copies, they dont need to to turn a profit.
Yes, most people don't want to work on educational games, but there are clearly people who do, or at least put up with it. Personally, I think if you`re truly passionate about art, you can be just as happy working on educational. However, with that said, I do think the reason most artists like the AAA stuff, besides the "glory" and pride side of it, is that most of the time, those games are the ones that push the boundaries and really push you to be a better artist. That's the only that about educational games that might throw me off. There is a higher chance that I`ll be doing the same thing over and over without really learning anything new, or having to push the boundaries.
Also, your statement about no one wants to play an educational game. I think you're missing the point of them. Most educational games are meant for toddlers or younger kids, and they still sell pretty decently because of it. No good parent wants to buy their 5 year old GTA V.
[ame="
@The_adri ` Thats exactly why I made this thread. That game effected you enough to make hours/weeks of your time away from the game different. in this case in a negative way, but WHY?! Imagine if there was a game that could do the same but in a positive way, this is the potential we have with games, what the hell are we doing with it?!
Secret of Mana still affects me to this day, almost entirely due to its music.
You should play Bastion, it's a game people often say that affects them emotionally.
@Isaiah Sherman ` The game effected you because of the music and the mood so on, thats good! But are you a better person for it? Mood is incredibly valuable, but what I feel is currently lacking and what I want to help bring to the industry is a furtherment of life. The same way that after watching Cloud Atlas or Schindlers List, the way I viewed the world and the way I wanted to live was effected. Not only was I moved through the mood they provided but my view on the world was developed. I want to see that in games!
Some movies impact people some don't.
Some books impact people some don't.
Some games impact people some don't.
And most importantly of all: Some of the same movies/books/games impact individual people in different ways to different amounts. Unless you are talking about games with a double-agenda (of which educational games fit in) then you can't ask for a medium to contribute to the furtherment of life; it can only just happen organically - you can't force it.
Everything you ask for has been asked for many times, and I always point out that it is already there and we probably just didn't notice it at first. If you're sick of shooting aliens, then there's plenty of options. In fact the only reasons why alien shooters are so pervasive is because A ) they sell. and B ) they're easy to program.
Magnitudes easier to program in fact. We can't currently program in such a range of complex social action, deep emotion, or profound intellect that one can just record by watching people.
Also as an aside: I see this desire from devs a lot more common these days. Is there anyone here who just wants to make crazy-cool fancy-shiny like me? I'm more than happy to make the latest alien shooter. Or will I too with age desire deeper things?
@bek ~ Solid example! Though one of the things that I think games have the potential to do that makes them so appealing to me is that the interactivity. Like I dont want to watch something meaningful happen in a cutscene, I would match a movie if thats what I wanted, text choice is a step in the right direction but still, I feel, not fully digging into the interactivity that games could offer. That being said I think that it is a viable option and that Planescape: Torment did a fantastic job with it, much respect. as for your closing statement, imagine if today's youth got as passionate about Aristotle or Camus as they do about the Halo universe? Like we know that its possible because we have people memorizing every bit of lore and then making there own. Imagine Halos lore, as beautiful and well written as it is, but posing big real world questions and people digging into it as much as they are now? That would change the course of human thinking and the way games are made.
It should be noted I am just playing devils advocate to see where the conversation goes and to encourage thinking. I really appreciate everything being said!
That being said, pretty much everything related to games are subjective. What might be "educational" for one person, is not "educational" for another.
Personally, I thought Papo & Yo was an absolutely incredible and important experience for me. I was abused by my father when I was a child so I can relate a lot to the main character and while the game is presented in a family friendly manner, the symbolism is more powerful than anything I've ever experienced. Even though most people will play the game and get nothing out of it, many players will play the game and will learn about what a child's life is like if they are abused by a parent or guardian.
I just finished playing Beyond:Two Souls as well, and while many people hated the game, the ending scenes really changed the way I view life. I feel as if I've been enlightened by some greater being haha.
The thing with games is that there will always be a crowd for a game, no matter how "Terrible" one views it as, and there will always be a crowd of people criticizing the same game. I was reading up on a group of fans a while back that were attempting to create a fan made sequel to "Big Rigs:Over the Road Racing" which many people view as one of the worst, if not these worst "game" of all time.
I also agree with what Snacuum said. People will play a CoD game like Black Ops 2 for example and will think of it as nothing more than a generic military FPS. Personally I played Black Ops 2 and was amazed by the story. Rather than just a game where I go from point a to b and shoot at anything that moves, I got some messages out of the game such as the fact that greed will destroy the world. Then there's the whole "work above family" and "family above work" concept experienced by characters such as Mason and Menendez.
I wouldn't say games (or any other medium) must teach some lesson or have some important message; I consider that a bonus. There's nothing wrong with wanting a simple game/movie/book to switch off to and unwind; I doubt anyone would disagree with this.
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/09/manifesto-the-21st-century-will-be-defined-by-games/
He is just one of many Game Design/Theory academics that definitely believe that games will expand and explore the concepts you are looking for.
Also like most books and film, if you are bold enough, it is possible to find higher meaning in any game through it's narrative or gameplay connotations - no matter how contrived/preposterous/far-fetched/biased it could be.
I allow that there will be and have been a handful of games that do, but not any more than are currently being released, which is maybe once every couple years.
Here's why:
Gamer culture isn't wired for it, and gamer culture by and large dictates what gets made. I think this is in part because gamer culture is so young, and in part because it simply doesn't value characters, and really gamers by and large don't seem to able to recognize it when given to them. I can't express the utter frustration of listening to people I know drone on and on about how impressed they were with the character development in the Avengers. People trying to argue that Pacific Rim was a story about internal character struggle. About the most character development it seems that most gamers/nerd culture can stand is a weak character learning and or finding it in themselves to kick the bad guys ass.
I think there are a ton of people who don't want it to be this way. I think this is just the cycle of adding a new story consumption medium into human circulation, which obviously doesn't happen very often, maybe a handful of times in human history. It takes a good long time for that medium to find its ground. It will happen for games, it's just going to take games breaking out of gamer/nerd culture for that to happen.
In short, it wont happen until the game experiences puts value on the character, instead of the game or the action. And that itself isn't going to change anytime soon as a result of gamers.
Which is the reason why an 80's movie, a cheesy metal song or even modern warfare can have impacts on peoples lives.
The human condition is not progressed though single people being 'impacted' by cheesy metal music. Emotion is the only thing that would progress the human condition, which is why my comments focused there.
To the right person.
a shit-ton of people would argue the lack of anything life-changing or exciting in areas where others find a lifetime of experiences.
The life-changing games of the future will be made by people who had their lifes changed by the mundane games from before, games without characters, games without meaning, but games that gave someone an experience.
Yes, fair, I should not have left that out.
And as far as life altering experience from the mundane - yeah, sure it happens all the time.
My understanding of this thread was that it was about how to make games which affect peoples lives. And while every single detail or corner of a game, even if it was a game about slugs crossing a road and nothing else, is a potential insight or revelation to someone, I'm not sure why I have to point out that that is hardly a strategy for making a game designed to affect people.
My first disagreement. maybe you could convince me with more explanation somehow but I do not believe that the ability for people to grow lies solely in the heart of interacting with other people, or even simile/simulacrum/simulation of people. It's a big part of it for sure since one of human's defining aspects is our interrelatable consciousness. But I don't believe it is the heart of the matter.
It may make more sense in a book or film since the only way the audience can be impacted by say a fantasy environment, or understand an experience they hav not had in reality is vicariously through empathetic characters.
However since games are already interactive and provide a varying scope for said interaction, the audience itself is the device for generating meaning.
Second disagreement. You are correct the medium is young and so it's it's audience (relativistically, not age). But they don't value characters? Actually I'm often surprised to the degree they do in game where the simple ludic experience of a fun game should be enough entertainment - and yet they lap up story and characterisation when it is offered.
Also citation needed on them "not recognising it when given", I can't image any examples.
As opposed to what? There's no scientific scale of character development, and even if there was, that movie clearly has more than 0.
Movies are about a lot of things. While clearly PR was definitely first and foremost, a giant robot movie - it's still contained such character events.
I don't think so. While I agree that change over time will indeed occur, it's not by the hand of a single group of people. In fact if you could argue that books and film have already transcended this phase then just look around - the 'high art' of books and film is still an underwhelming minority. The masses who enjoy simple stories and consider them high-value, high-impact experiences remain the majority.
The "gamers/nerds" of books are buying the Mills & Boon and buying the Transformers pop-corn flicks. Academy award winners and Pulitzer prize winners are still being craved in the same fashion as OP craves meaningful games.
Then retroactively, that slug would therefore be just as noteworthy. Unless we start evaluating people's artistic intelligence.
But who are you to dictate that?
Indeed. In fact I'd say that the interactive nature of video games greatly increases the chance of that happening.
You are 100% correct. Although I'd make one point.
Who can?
Anyone can prove me wrong here, but who actually has made a piece of media that was not a psychographic/demographic informed piece of marketing et. al. that actually had the intent of being an effective device to affect people?
I can't think of anyone. Most great stories I've encountered were simply the machinations of creators who wanted to make/communicate something well; and worked at it until they did. The same for games - it's a young industry, so there's only so much research, but regardless every good developer totally just wanted to make a good game.
They probably had no idea what kind of impact it may or may not have had on some people. However, along their efforts to create something good they more than likely used every trick-in-the-book on game design and mechanics; probably threw in some storytelling with decent characters and emotion; and sprinkled on some fancy graphics and music to please the senses.
Well this is an interesting notion, and well stated, although I think that this is still a high-minded and unrealistic representation of what games actually are/do. I would append your quote as: "The audience itself is the device for generating meaning... out of environments and situations explicitly programmed by other humans."
While I agree with you in theory that a game world offers the possibility to explore and interact, modern gaming is extremely surface level in this regard. I personally cannot think of a game world with enough depth to derive meaning, and I imagine that those who do are probably lacking real-world exploration in some horrible fashion.
And before I get jumped on for weighting experiences, I recognize that even the mundane can have an amazing effect on a persons life, but for the sake of conversation let's say that this is a discussion about creating games for the purpose of having an impact, and not necessarily creating a game and merely hoping that the player with be impacted by the mundane.
I think you are mistaking 'lapping up story and characterization when offered', with 'finding novelty in the comparative rarity of story and characterization in games'. Story and characterization are not the norm in games, and if present, are more like passing lip-service. Bigger deals are made of it when found because of its rarity, and I don't think that the hype this creates should be mistaken for actual merit. I have an extremely hard time thinking of games with characters who pass through any emotional or maturity character growth gauntlet, aside from the typical hero arc.
And that's not to say that the typical hero arc is a bad model, it's just a structure, but in games it is almost always surface level 'finding my strength to defeat the baddy' fare.
Eh, this is true only in the most pedantic of ways. There is no scientific target for the number of beans in a can of beans. You can have two beans in a can and call it a can of beans. The can still rattles when you shake it, anyone who bought it would remain hungry, so let's not get weighed down in the pedantic delineations, and admit that we know how heavy a can of beans should be, and most people know what a character-progression-less plot when we see one. Part of the problem here is that a lot of gamers really don't know how many beans should be in a can, but they'll prattle on and on about how good those two beans taste. I wont argue they don't taste good, but lets none of us pretend that its a meal.
haha that is the most ridiculous and drawn out analogy. Sorry. I think it gets the point across though.
Again, only the most pedantic person would argue this. Yes, it contained such character events. That in no way means it possesses meaningful development, because it didn't. I'll get arguments that these come down to individuals and where I found staleness, others found epiphany - that is technically true, but it's also stretching reality to absurdity.
The following is extremely messy, and could be a great avenue for discussion. The following is my imperfect opinion, and as a disclaimer I would add that constant pedantry sucks the air out of a discussion, rather than being meaningful in any way, so if you respond, make it something other than a technical correction.
The number of 'high art' books and films being written and shot might be a minority, but they have cultural mass acceptance. The experiences people take away from these movies and books are considered valid life experiences, while experiences taken away from games are not.
We could say this this is a mass culture stigma against the validity of games, but as much as I like games, I would have to say that society has been generally correct in devaluing games - games so far have extremely little to offer when compared to books and movies. Not because the format is bad for it, I think the format is better, but for whatever reason, games are rarely made that are anywhere near as impactful as movies or books. (queue "you're devaluing other peoples experiences, who are you to say what can impact a person!?!")
I do not believe that time is the cure to this, I think that games need to steadily prove that they can offer this experience before the experiences that people are having are seen as valid. Shitty, yes, particularly since it's obvious games are capable of this - just simply put, those games are not made.
This doesn't even make sense. People put judgement to other peoples experiences all the time. If a guy came up to you and told you a slug changed his life, you'd laugh or smile and back away. That's how the majority of people feel when someone says "avengers had a huge impact on me". Only inside of story-less vacuum of gaming are sentences like that taken seriously.
See above.
Really? There is vast, vast, vast quantities of media created with the intrinsic goal of presenting a viewpoint or propagating an idea. Using media to do this, using sympathetic characters who learn and change, is arguably the most persuasive method available.
I just finished Brothers: a tale of two sons. That game features, bar none, the absolute best connection between emotion, story, characters, and player. As an artist there were some things I would have changed, as a writer there were some things I would have adjusted, but as a game developer there were 4 specific moments where for the first time In my life I felt what I had always wanted to feel with games, I had to personally conduct acts that weren't hard physically but were very difficult/powerful emotionally. Unlike most games, for example, the choice presented at the end of the Far Cry 3, it wasn't about me making a "good" or "bad" choice, that truly meant very little to me, but instead it was me as the player being so connected to the characters that the action I had to do was hard for me. The issue with the moral dilemma that many modern games attempt to pose is that when I sit down to play a game I leave my morals at the doorstep. I am naturally a relatively sympathetic person, but I am also greatly drawn to power and progression. If I were to indulge my moral obligation to sympathy every time I sit down for a round of GTA I would be wasting my time. I happen to have a blast hitting hookers with my car instead and really could care less if I have to choose which poorly developed character I should or shouldn't kill. All of that to say that Brothers is a pioneer of game development, I cant explain it, just play it!
Now comment on all these comments.
@Snacuum I totally agree, and I respect that. However these games arnt designed with that intent in mind. Im speaking about games that are designed to further peoples life's. COD is entertaining, but speaking as someone with friends at Ravensoft, the question when developing is not how can we progress the players view of the world.
@ysalex A solid point, but not entirely true. I believe games have the potential to make the player the character. Breaking the third wall and actually speaking to the player and what exactly it is he or she is doing. Just a thought.
@eld
Being touched emotionally is a beautiful thing. However being touched and your life being progressed are different. Of course everything is a part of daily progression, even things that are nothing more then entertaining, but though I was touched by Dishonored and REALLY adored the game-play, I'm not a better "or worse" person for playing it.
As for the long back and forth there I think I've pretty much touched on the things I wanted to touch on with that already in this post.
Of course. However surely it is undeniably the same of other media, and that games definitely offers the largest scope for generating meaning over the others. Not only are the stories of books and film also set in stone by another being, as are the assets of most games, but games adding of interactivity create infinite permutations of these stories (if even by a small degree) and adding to that is the fact that these experiences are always personal to the player and therefore more potential for impact.
What I mean is, while it can be argued that games have not matured to the point of what you're after, simply choosing them as a vessel for communication is a step up.
I suppose that depends on how you define 'meaning'. To me it's simply 'whatever things of cognitive value that a person derives from their experience'. For you, you might need to throw some 'important' or 'profound' or other powerful adjecvtives.
Also BIAS ALERT. If you think the cause is a lack of world-experience in the audience I must warn you - I don't have that experience either. I spend the majority of my life at home playing games and related art/design tasks; in my little bubble. Just letting you know since if you're much more worldly then your bar will be set higher in this debate. Of course my point is that I don't believe being that experienced is a prerequisite for deriving impact from media.
My argument the whole time though was that this couldn't be forced. Also I never said players were impacted by the mundane, I was simply countering your idea that the mundane had no value. Most good games that provide greater meaning do not do it through the mundane but with a combination if elements that communicate complex ideas.
That's not easy, and making a good game is not easy.
Actually I was saying the exact opposite. That stories in games these days are the norm and that surprised me because many games would be fun based on abstract rules alone.
Unfortunately I can't discuss characters very well because I am incredibly submissive when experiencing media - it takes me many repeat viewings to notice poorly-written characters.
I get it fine. My only issue with the debate on audience intelligence is that there's this kind of arrogant air of "We must teach them what real art is! What real emotion is!" If you ask me? It can't be done.
I'll quote myself: I don't know how to do that. I'm not some expert at debating. You may as well give yourself a high-five since even though I feel compelled to reply to some of your opinion, you at least addressed most of the things I would have brought up. Other than that I don't know where you want this discussion to go since the only things we've been able to derive are:
>games lack impact
>yes
>I disagree
>how to fix subjective problem?
Rude. Of course people judge each other's experiences but I'm yet to see that actually do any good. I would have asked these people to explain what was so momentous about their experiences. What could a lowly slug teach us? Oh we won't know because we'll pre-judge it.
I didn't say that. Yes there is plenty that uses informed psychographic analysis; cause -> effect communication. I'm also sure people try to make impact and tear their hair out over it. But they can't make it happen.
They can instead create something from the heart, that communicates certain ideals, build it well and test it to see if it pleases its audience. That's the closest thing and even then is not guaranteed to further the human race.
---
@GabielP
Very interesting, I'll have to check that game out. You've touched on one of the things that I think matter to this discussion.
The ability for games (and other media too) to provide virtual cognizance. Whenever we sit down to read/watch/play we actively acknowledge in our brains that we are ourselves in reality, but also experiencing things in a virtual world. Our imaginations and senses help facilitate this. This is an amazing thing, as we can actively change our perspectives at will and experience and even learn from things that are not real.
Games have the most amazing potential for this ever. We can enter a new world, as different people with different perspectives (just like in books and film) but also as ourselves through action! and the media reacts to that action! The ways that this kind of activity may shape our minds in the future is almost unimaginable. There is probably no other place you can leave your morals at the door, and no other place where something not real can be affected by them.
I would argue that the concentrated experience of a book or movie has far more potential for impact than a massive game world. The problem with the game world is that you can't creative a narrative out of it on its own, so a player is going to run around for hours and hours and hours, but never encounter anything more than small scripted events - or, gasp, a story injected by the designers. Problem currently being that no decent stories have been injected into these worlds.
I think that the mundane has value, I just don't think it's a strategy for creating an impactful game, which is what this thread is about.
It's been done since the beginning of society. Good art floats to the top. It is propagated by a sense of culture, sometimes called class, by having value attached to it. Good books, good music, good films, and hopefully, eventually, good games.
I don't think there is anything wrong with judging artistic merits subjectively. There is a movement which calls this 'elitism', but actually it's just anti-intellectualists being defensive. What's wrong with a society valuing one piece of art over another? If we didn't, we wouldn't have classical anything. Classic books, classic music, it'd all just be clumped together in the category 'old', and lost.
That's not arrogant, that's important.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this; are you saying that games (currently, or in general?) don't allow for (significant?) stories?
You seem to deny games something that books or movies cannot achieve? Unless I am misunderstanding (What book/movie/whatever has a story that isn't from the designer? Wouldn't being interactive (Minecraft is a good example here) allow much more room for the subject to experience their own stories; emergent gameplay I think is the term? I remember when I was quite young and playing Oblivion, everything seemed so magical and impressive; I was easily immersed. Now that I'm older it takes more sophisticated games to impress me in the way oblivion once did.
I know you say you don't think any decent stories have been used in games; so I have to ask what games do you think currently have the 'best' stories? Is it just that the market isn't interested in 'better' stories or are their other factors holding games back? Planescape: Torment would be my main example of meaningful storytelling in games - if you've played that, any thoughts?
I mean, this is all obviously opinion based, but I would say no. Players in a massive world can run around and experience that world through a series of scripted events (scripted event being as small as knocking a pedestrian over, or buying from a merchant, etc), but no narrative can emerge from this spontaneously.
What happens is that you get a person running around experiencing extremely surface-level interactions, but there is no story that will form here unless it's a larger arc programmed into the game (story mode!).
I have allowed that there are quite a few games with great stories, but they are extremely rare exceptions, and even at that, any game with 1/2 of a decent narrative is going to be acclaimed simply for existing within that vacuum.
What I am super excited about it that these games will potentially be played by people who could never play a game before because of a disability. Most people take games for granted but to be able to bring somebody with a disability their first gaming experience is a super awesome prospect.
Well that 'elitism' is not unfounded. There have been many periods where the art world was cultivated purely by pretentious high-society artists that wanted to keep art strictly in their domain. Arguably some great and classical pieces were not just a matter of popular culture, but hegemony of some influential (and dare I say wealthy) people.
Bang on. Static storytelling is not strong in that game, but personal story has greater potential.
Then the real-world has no room for spontaneous narrative since it is scripted by the rules of physics and our own psychological trappings. I don't know what else to claim here. Unless you believe that it's possible to program a computer to exceed its own programming, then we'll never see what you want. All medias potential for storytelling is the limits of its own content. Personal meaning however could transcend that.
So if I got a film that affected me, and a game that affected me, and put them side by side - the game would simply be inferior due to its nascency?
It did feel to me like games nowdays don't quite connect to players on quite the same level as some other media.
But, then, is that really true? I didn't play Journey, since i don't yet have PS3, but did watch entire playthrough of another player, and i was amazed. The main character didn't have some special, awesome background story to it, it didn't look visually ultra realistic, it didn't have fancy facial expression...hack, he/she couldn't even talk.
Even farther, you don't have any sort of conrete interaction with other characters, no is there any sort of narrator.
And yet, tnx to the good story, atmosphere, insane music, and so on....not only do you care about your own player, you care even more about the other player. And it was the way player move, the way you interact with this other (human) character, that created experience, not some scripted events. I didn't see this in any other MMO or other games, but the way you interact with other human character, made you really feel for it, and i see many players expressed that.
I mean, there were tons of pages of players just saying sorry for doing this and that to the palyer or better, for not being able to help them. And tons of pages of expressing gratitude to those players who did.
And what's more important, it seems like people loved it, and it seems to sold well too.
So even if it's rare, i think people can appreciate those kind of games.
I mean, if you define game as everything that's in the .exe file of your Steam download, you might as well take up The Brothers Karamazov in Mass Effect's codex and be done with the discussion, but for me the defining element of a game is that you play it. Several theorists have written of story as giving meaning to play or being the reward for play (Pinchbeck, Koster, Blow...), but quite how you would play a story, I wouldn't know, if only because a story is a retelling and play is in-progress. You'll also note that the impacting moments I've mentioned above have to do with losing, which is an important part of any game. Story games tend to brush over failure; sure, you died, but we'll ignore it ever happened, for all our story is concerned, you never died.
For what it's worth, I think Mario Party, with its random events, screwover moments and varying alliances has infinitely more to say about life than does Planescape: Torment, which is about clicking the longest answer so Chris Avellone answers Chris Avellone's questions best.
I can see where you are coming from, however I think that story has a place in video games simply because it exists. Narrative in this medium is not a result of some concentrated effort brought about by a small group of individuals, but rather something that had emerged naturally over the years. As such, it is clear to me that both creators and audiences desire narratives in their games.
After all, the act of telling a story is a unique, human trait. As far as I'm aware, no other species on this planet are capable of creating complex narratives. Stories are a massive part of our society and define a large portion of our entertainment, knowledge and social interactions. In fact, some would argue that our whole identity is merely a story created by our brains.
I think the main problem with discussing this subject is that the traditional definition of a "game", does no longer apply to this medium. I see a place for games that are systems driven, story driven, or a combination of both. People do desire these experiences and I see nothing fundamentally good or bad about any of them.
I do not think that a pre-constructed narrative is necessary to affect the players in some profound way. However, even a simple story can enhance the game, or provide context to the act of play.
Look, nobody is saying that random stuff isn't impactful. I'm glad that losing monopoly impacted you, but it just one persons random anecdote, and it's a bit off-topic. This is about how to create games that impact people. If you can parlay losing into a strategy for creating a game that impacts people, by all means I think we'd all love to hear it.
Same thing with Mario Party. It's great you found some meaning of life in Mario Party, but by and large, most people are going to walk away from it without being impacted, and if they are impacted, like all of your anecdotes here, it's going to be by something extracurricular, and not the game itself seeking to have an impact.
So it wouldn't have mattered if you were losing at monopoly, or street fighter, or teenage mutant NT for the NES, you would have had that moment anyways.
And a couple great long periods where these things were not cultivated - a time, not coincidentally, referred to as the dark ages.
Maybe it has potential, but as of yet I'd say it is completely unseen. How is a player 'impacted' by running around skyrim, or San Andreas? And I don't mean in a random way, I don't mean "I saw a slug and had a revelation," I mean, how do you build that game to purposefully and predictably have an impact on peoples lives?
You can't do it without story, or more technically, a narrative. And that narrative has to come from someone, a designer, a character artist, a level builder - somebody.
Even if the narrative is wordlessly directing a player, using visuals, into discovering something, or showing them something amazing, that's still a narrative, that's still a story. It's not emergent gameplay.
Everyone's always asking for the Citizen Kane of games, but to be frank, chess is a hundred times bigger than Citizen Kane will ever be and has been for the last thousand years. It has impacted many lives. Just not in the way that texts or images do.
I'm willing to change my mind. Perhaps an example of a narrative-less game which has a predictable (i.e. someone designed it this way) impact, would really help.
We're trying to do that. What many of us are saying is that it's as difficult to set out and do that as to get up in the morning and say "I'm going to get a revelation today!" We know it happens to people sometimes but we have no idea how to trigger it, and it works for different people in different ways that we don't necessarily understand. The only way any of this works is by personal anecdotal evidence.
Indeed. Apart from a few fairy tales and fables that survived, the peasantry were able to cultivate nothing. The only surviving artistry or impactful media at the time would be historical record and books/art deliberately designed to further the agenda of the church and monarchies. Ugh, I really don't wish for games to follow that lead.
Also the classics may be classics as we call them but try see how many teenagers listen to it! Not many. Now I know, teenagers are stupid. But if I deliberately tries to make something like as impacting as the classics we know today, I have no guarantees that it will do so to the greater audience around the world.
It's surely a combination of all of them.
In Metal Gear Solid 3
Yes it is story/character motivated, and the experience is not random emergence, it's deliberate. However, what I'm focusing on is the fact that it is the player that must perform and own their actions. In any game this could occur and all that's required is that they own their actions via interactivity. There's no guarantees that MGS 3 would provide this, as you say there's no guarantees that Minecraft or Monopoly would either.
Designers can try to write in impact via story or gameplay. The individuals that feel it will prove it's there, the individuals that don't will prove it's not.
As an aside - ysalex - I'm not much of a movie goer or book reader so I don't really know what books/film/music has done so right that games are failing at right now. Could you provide any examples? It could definitely be a strategy for games to try and emulate their qualities until they hit their own stride.
Why does the goal of a game have to be to leave impact?, it's like trying to figure out what makes a fantastic game.
In the end it's the game that never had the intent that left the most impact.
No. I am absolutely not. Not even a little. I have said, explicitly, several times, that random stuff is impactful to many, many people.
What I AM saying, is that this thread is about how to purposefully and with intent, deliver an impactful experience to an audience. One of my opinions is that if your goal is to provide an impactful experience, then you need to have a plan that is more than simply hoping that the audience will find something randomly impactful in your game.
That doesn't mean that random impactful stuff doesn't happen to different people playing random games. People could find minesweeper impactful for all I know, but if your goal was to design a game for impact, minesweeper is not the game you'd make.
That's a fairly obvious thing to say. I cannot fathom how people aren't getting this.
I believe that this is because you're in the mindset of hoping that people will randomly stumble on something in your game and be randomly impacted by it.
Whereas in my first post, I stated that a very historical way of having an impact on people, probably the most predictable model for it, is setting up a character narrative, getting the player to identify with the character goals and though that character (even if the player himself is the character) experience that world, having an impact.
Usually, but people can be impacted by any of them on their own and more. I certainly have been impacted by a character design that gives a narrative. I have silently rode my horse around a mountain in Skyrim to be confronted with a massive ruin, to be impacted the narrative of that ruin, the mystery of why it's there and how it was destroyed.
Absolutely perfect example of narrative effecting the player. The player in this case happens to have to make a choice as the character, and is forced to view the consequences of what happens.
In my opinion, games generally (but not always, there are plenty of counter examples) fail to create interesting or decent characters. I can count on one hand the number of truly interesting female characters in games. Narrative is simply not valued in games.
Okay, sure. But if you read my comments, the problem I had was that the anecdotes were interchangeable for all games. His impact was caused by the act of losing, not caused by monopoly. If I failed to explain that properly, my apologies.
C'mon, are you being serious? It doesn't. Obviously.
But this thread is about creating games which ARE impactful. It's in the thread title.
No, I seriously meant that if your goal is to leave an impact with a game it's going to be difficult to design the game to be just that way, and again, it's like the formula of a good game.
There's been tons of developers trying with purpose to create a game that would leave the most impact yet they weren't any more successful than the people who were not actively trying, what does that say about our understanding of the subject?
Look back at your childhood; the way memory works is that you will remember the things that left the biggest positive or negative emotional impact, try to figure that one out, try to see if there is any common denominator there.
I see this as a sorta silly thing to say. There are are plenty of ways to predict things/story elements which will are more likely to impact someone.
If you can't guess that a story about a man bonding to a girl, the age his daughter was when she died, has more opportunity for impact than say, a psychopath with a gun takes on a lot of other psychopaths, then you should probably get checked out. Not that both don't have the same POTENTIAL for impact, but that one is MORE LIKELY to resonate with a larger demographic.
Super simple stuff.
Here, here's a short story: http://io9.com/5958919/read-ken-lius-amazing-story-that-swept-the-hugo-nebula-and-world-fantasy-awards
I predict this will impact you. It won't impact everyone, but the subject matter and tone are designed to impact you. Go for it, honestly, if you don't believe me that impact is fairly easy to predict when it comes to narrative.
Now, you could read this and be impacted (or not), or you could walk around all day WAITING to be impacted on by a slug or whatever have you. But if I were a developer, I would choose the story as the most effective method, and not hope that you just happen to find something I didn't think about in my game (we'll call this the minesweeper method).
Please, read the short story. It's a short one. Really short.
Yeah, but even if you had the decision, it could still impact you. That's not emergent gameplay, that's still narrative gameplay, just with a choice switch.