The Ego in Games
polycounter lvl 18
I'm gonna edit this sucker a bit, because i was a bit scatter brained when i wrote it. thanks killingpeople.
I've been thinking a lot lately about the popular trend in our industry to make games that alow the player to do what ever it is that they want. this seems like a bad idea in my personal taste, and i wanted to discuss that.
it would seem to me, that a game designer creating a world in which i can run amuck in is basically just creating a little bubble for me to be narcissistic -- "fuck story! fuck the game designer! i just want to do what i want to do! get out of my way!!"
isn't a piece of art about communication? are there any folks out there like me who don't give a fuck about leveling up their character, and just want to experience a story that someone created? when i pick up a game, movie, what ever, i want the creator to tell me something about the world. i want meaning man!
to me, MMORPGS, (although yes, they can be played appreciated on a few levels i'm sure) seem like ego trips basically. i mean, the main motivation is about getting better gear, and leveling up. can you really play w.o.w if you dont care about that? i tried like 4 times. it bored me to TEARS. i cried.
I've been thinking a lot lately about the popular trend in our industry to make games that alow the player to do what ever it is that they want. this seems like a bad idea in my personal taste, and i wanted to discuss that.
it would seem to me, that a game designer creating a world in which i can run amuck in is basically just creating a little bubble for me to be narcissistic -- "fuck story! fuck the game designer! i just want to do what i want to do! get out of my way!!"
isn't a piece of art about communication? are there any folks out there like me who don't give a fuck about leveling up their character, and just want to experience a story that someone created? when i pick up a game, movie, what ever, i want the creator to tell me something about the world. i want meaning man!
to me, MMORPGS, (although yes, they can be played appreciated on a few levels i'm sure) seem like ego trips basically. i mean, the main motivation is about getting better gear, and leveling up. can you really play w.o.w if you dont care about that? i tried like 4 times. it bored me to TEARS. i cried.
Replies
I don't think it's (entirely) through narcissism but more through the fact that I feel both more willing to do things in the game if I can relate to the character and I can feel that the actions taken in the game are ones that I would take in the same situation and by extention of that, I'm much more able to sink myself into a game's universe.
Although, if the story is good and I can relate to the characters in the same way as I would had I made my own choices, I'm more than happy to run through a linear story (Half-Life games, Max Payne series, The Longest Journey series, etc... with the exception BioShock).
Ultimately, though, isn't it just about being cool? The game lets you feel cool because you get to do all this stuff. A book or film lets you feel cool because you can see or imagine what it would be like to do all this stuff. I'm not sure it matters that you have input or not, so long as you can build a strong relationship to the character in question.
This "design philosophy" you mention: "Players should be free to do what they want." If I'm understanding you correctly, you are associating freedom in a video game with the freedom in real life, leaving you unimpressed, saying things like, "I can be successful in real life, this game has nothing to offer me."
You also state that you feel this is "important" but, it is also "a mistake"? Emphasizing your point further, I think you define why it is a mistake. You say this design philosophy makes a game "faceless" and requires a designer's voice to not only be unheard, but unspoken.
You express anger towards players that enjoy this type of play, calling them Narcissistic. You imply they should be "making contact", or understanding with someone else, through their creation, as a form of communication and open-mindedness, by engrossing yourself in their story and character.
You also mention you're unable to enjoy this type of play because you have a "problem" being selfless, compulsively. I will roll my eyes if that's what you're saying. I think we all operate on our "ego desires", or are selfishly seeking happiness in all we do - Just, some desires are more unreasonable than others.
You associate the act of aiming to be the best in WoW, by having the best, and to do so, you cannot help other players without conflicting this aim, which conflicts the way you'd like to play, and even might have to go as far as hinder other players to achieve the game's goal, which is the polar opposite of what you'd like to do. Because this is the "point of the game", you cannot enjoy it. At the same time, you hate being able to do whatever you want. But, you're working on becoming less selfless.
I don't think I'm understanding where you are coming from.
I'm in the same boat with WoW right now, it interests me but I don't want to do fetch quests for an emotionless character. I would rather have him bitchin' the whole way about why the hell he has to do this fetch quest.
... go for it
For subscription based MMOs I think it makes economic sense. Players make up their own story or campaigns. If they want to PK...go ahead. Play somebody else's mod or to just gold farm...etc.
Designer's are still able to apply and inject more "conventional" design via official campaigns and expansion packs. This way the game world is dynamic.
In between expansions, people are kept busy earning experience points or making alliances.
All kinds of people play games for different reasons. To generalize like that and say that everyone's self esteem gauge is on empty and the only way they can do anything about it is to fluff themselves up and that's the only reason they play those types games kind of points out that you really don't have it all figured out... Wait no... it really is all about the lewts.
What about the people who play just to hang out with friends and family where that isn't geographically possible? What about people who like the story lines? What about people who like to step outside of themselves for a few hours without doing something dangerous?
You want to talk about ego, how about the game designer setting his/her aside and letting the players decide whats fun for them? Why does the designers ego and their idea of fun need to be superimposed on everyone that makes the mistake of picking up that particular game?
It's kind of funny you started the discussion with "What about the ego of the game designer, doesn't that matter!? How selfish are players that they won't bend their idea of fun around that one persons ideal good time!" Personally designers have enough ego and impose their will enough, I don't think we need to hook them up the helium tank and break the valve open.
Wait hold on, sandbox games are dumb and only stupid people play them, lets gather up all the games and gamers and lite them on fire!
So to answer your question, yes there are people out there like you.
Oh and theres more to WoW than just ego, as with most other multiplayer games, it involves teamwork and playing with friends. And of course like vig said theres the exploration aspect.
Try playing WoW on one of their RP servers? I've never been game enough to try them...
Grindfest...err...WoW has story up the ass if you care to look for it and read all those little dialog windows. Or you can just blaze through it all chasing better gear.
Your initially stated concepts of meaningful achievement vs ego-inflating achievement seem way too subjective to draw a clear line between the two.
The first was put extremely well by Warren Spector (I think, I forget if it was him forsure, and I'm paraphrasing). Basically he said that whereas most media is based around the artist/director/author/whatever telling a story, games give the ability for the game developers to have a conversation with the audience. And, without the ability for both parties to have input there is no conversation. Personally I feel that there is a lot to be got from conversation, often more than from being told. Even if the conversation has a set end, the ability for the audience to poke and prod the problem can lead to a better understanding.
Also, you say "I'm a bit of personal development perv."
Seems to me that if that is true games which give the user choice should be wank material for you. Self awareness and exploration are needed for personal development, and seriously, what better way to trigger self exploration than through presenting a person with a difficult choice. Or by giving them a safe environment to explore different aspects of themselves. (Which is what MMOs can provide, giving a person a safe social outlet to explore in.)
maybe i'm in a fog today. anyway i just re-wrote my first post, i hope it makes a bit more sense.
VIG -, personal development for me is about understanding that i've been stupid in ways and trying to fix them.
Killing people is right, i'm a bit scatter brained, cuz i'm just putting this issue together -- and it came out of my personal development, so i led with that. i used to not understand these games at all. i probably didn't need to bring up personal development.
by the way. don't like heirarchies? google "performative contradiction"
ANYWAY. lots of good reponces. if i respond to everyone this post will be huge, so i wont.
Talon, i'd love to know why you didn't like bioshock.
KillingPeople - you've got me wrong, but you're right, that post was poorly writen, so i won't respond. i just re-wrote the fucking post.
mitch- that's a huuggee topic.. and i'd largely argue. you get a higher perspective from listening to someone who has one, not inflating your personal desires. there is something to be said for being honest with what you want however.
When you choose to play a game that doesn't offer the experience you want, it's the game designer's fault for wasting your time?
I'll definitely agree that narcissism and ego are the cause of this problem. While you're off self-improving, might I suggest serious meditations on the subtle nature of irony...
Right... I tried playing left 4 dead the other day and I was expecting a historical-themed RTS. I didnt give a fuck about killing zombies or having teammates, I dont even like FPS. I kept trying to play it but I just couldnt see the RTS side of it. Needless to say it bored me to tears too.
But seriously, to answer the question, yes you can play wow if you dont care about level or gear. Check out the Role-Play servers.
This has nothing to do with me just not liking some game. you people are free to make what ever games you want and enjoy what ever games you want. i'm just trying to start a discussion about making games that playcate to people's egos. you can do what ever you want. i'm not going to stop you. if you disagree with my point of view, then fucking argue it, don't just throw mud.
why is the internet so fucking hostile? do you realize that you're attacking me here about the ego, making your post just as ironic, if not more so, as anything i could have said?
Yozora - hey man cheers i'll look into that.
as for the first thing you said, that's not my point.
this isn't me bitching about my personal tastes, i'm just trying to start a discussion about a certain TYPE of genre, and i'm bringing up questions about it's value, and it being morally sound.
I'm saying "hey guys, i don't like this specific genre for x y and z reasons. i think it's narcissistic. can we have a civilized discussion about it?
i guess not. like, you couldn't tell me YOUR opinion on the genre... surely.
If you don't like how things have gone...
I think you're right to a point for a certain percentage of players, but I think its kind of a lame duck to label all players as such. Even if 100% of those players where narcissistic pricks whats wrong with making games that cater to their needs? Obviously there's some money to be made.
Or are you trying for some kind of massive forced social change by trying to encourage people that certain types of games are below them and should not be made?
I'm not really sure what you're driving at? So pricks play a certain type of game so designers shouldn't waste their time? Why does every game need to be a profound statement?
But its even more fun when you're doing it with friends, because even if someone does suck it ends up being funny instead of stressful.
I play them to explore and complete it in every way you can, whether its by completing all the quests or gaining exalted reputation with each faction in WoW, and including collecting all the sets of gear. Do I do it to boast about it? Nope. I do it because I like completing things, in every game I play I like to complete them in every way, get all the achievements, find all the secrets, defeat all the enemies. Its just how I play games and I get a feel of accomplishment for "beating" the game my way.
I play them because I find PVP fun, both 1v1 duels and team fights. Do I like to PVP just to boast about me beating someone? Nope, I do it for fun. Do I like the fact that I get points that can be spent on upgrading my gear? Of course, I like to collect gear remember.
I play them because its constantly expanding in size, new areas, patches, fixes, new things. I like exploring new things, its fun until they get old
So... those reasons I play them pretty much sum up my opinion of the genre. A type of game that connects many people with the same interests that encourages team work, conversation, competition, exploration and most importantly fun for all.
We obviously play games for different reasons, I want fun and you want to find a deeper meaning. You can call me narcissistic if you want, I don't care, I'm still having fun and I like it.
I don't know why or how you bring morality to the discussion. People enjoy playing a certain type of game for whatever reasons, I see it as a form of entertainment that is there just for people to enjoy. If people don't enjoy them then they have the option to not play them. I don't question the morality of a game genre and I find it really strange to do so.
First off, games aren't made to placate egos. They're made to entertain. And just as we don't all like the same flavor of ice cream, we don't all like the same form of entertainment. I enjoy the crap out of games like WoW or Fable or Fallout just because I like to explore. I don't care about the bragging rights or the levels, but rather the freedom of a new world. One of my favorite gaming memories was my first trip through the Barrens during the WoW beta - just an epic sense of adventure. That some people invest themselves so wholly in those games doesn't strike me as any more or less weird than people who construct their lives around comic books or movies or other entertainment options with a crafted narrative. Diff'rent strokes and all.
The thing that tweaks me about your post is that you're so judgmental. What do you care if a segment of the population enjoys broccoli-flavored ice cream? The company making that isn't out to waste your time, they're making it for a different crowd. That you look at games like WoW and decide they're deliberately made to stroke gamers' egos... that's one jaded perspective, stretching things to match your own particularly negative perception. I doubt we have to beat the bushes to find a WoW gamer who finds something like BioShock or MGS4 to be a violent, cliche-filled twitch game that's masquerading as high art just because they have "stories." That perception's not any more valid than declaring MMORPG players to be inherently narcissistic.
Secondly, I don't much object if I come across as egotistical. Shit, it's the internets - the fact that I regularly apply the rules of grammar makes me look like an elitist twat, so I don't sweat it much. But that's not the issue. You're making a point about how you're into self-improvement, which I assume will lead you on a path of understanding and enlightened thinking. Good. But you immediately follow that up with a really shitty judgment of people who play a kind of game you don't like. Rather than understand (or at least accept) that we all like different things, you assert that YOUR preference ("I want meaning, man!") is superior and that others' preference (leveling up for phat lewts rawks!!1) is inferior.
Basically, you start ranting that you think a certain type of game is made to appeal to egotistical narcissists, and then you declare that your preference for gaming is better than theirs (as playing their game is "wasting your time.")
If you're going about declaring your personal preference to be the superior game genre and others' preferences to be inferior, you're being at least as egotistical and narcissistic as you claim them to be. Normally I wouldn't have even replied to this, but your comments all came after this comment about your quest for self-improvement. Your judgmental attitude about others' egos is so blindly hypocritical, I felt compelled to reply.
Me, I'm not on a quest for self-improvement. I figure if improvement wants me, it knows where to find me. So, I at least have an excuse for being a judgmental cock-gobbler.
Vig--
hmmm well not every game does need to be a profound statement. I just wanted to bring up this issue and hear what people had to say about it. if you enjoy world of warcraft, go for it.
i responded to you in my post that i edited. sorry, i should have kept that bit.
I never called everyone who plays those games "nacissistic pricks" that's a big distortion on your part. i called a certain type of gameplay narcissitic, and asked if some people are so narcissistic that they have to do what they fucking want and don't care about a story. I should add that I am playing those games recently. that's another reason that i brought in personal development.
sigh, this thread has turned into me digging myself out of a hole that i feel like i was pushed into.
Vig, i realize that all people who play MMOS aren't narcissistic egomaniacs. I never made that claim.. and i think you kinda jumped to conclusions on me. the truth is, i have some good friends who play MMOs, and i realize that there's a lore component and all sorts of stuff.
If I had to make a note every time i made a generilization, or deleted some information, or distorted some of it, my posts would be the size of a book. i can't do that.
when i talk, i need you guys to at least play with the idea that i'm not an asshole. if i have been an asshole, i'll apologize.
I very much enjoy heated debate, and i never mean it to be personal (almost never) so sorry if my first post seemed like a personal attack. i just love waving my finger and making lound points. it works if other people speak that language. if not, it doesn't , and i should be more careful
Verm- that's actually a huge topic and something i've been thinking about for a very long time, so i'll try and keep it brief. Yes, some of what i said is judgmental. i dont mind making some judgments, but i dont mean to be hateful.. ah fuck i guess i gotta get into that.
here's the trick, the way i see it. yes, values are relative, right? different strokes for different folks. people like different things, but (and please give me a sec with this) not all values are equal. i submit that as a culture, we need to make a few decisions to do what we all think is right.. and of course each person is trying to figgure out what that is, and i was just trying to offer my opinion. i mean, look. this is an extreme example but:
if i come to you and say "people who circumcise women are scumbags and they shouldn't do that" you could technically play the relitivism card and say "well, they're doing what they think is right based on where they live in the world and what they've been through" but at a certain point, that doesn't hold up. at some point you need to make a JUDGEMENT call about how you're going to live your life.. and i dont mean to be HATEFUL here, i'm trying to make a judgement.
You're right about the ego thing.. i'm egoic, you're egoic.. fuck. good point. i should have brought that up at first, but im still figguring out what i'm bitching about. hah! here's the thing -- i like talking like this because it makes me feel smart.. but i've decided that that works. the more i stroke myself the smarter i get. what i'm talking about here is simple:
the ego is a TOOL. you can decide what's in it, and if you accept the previous idea that people go through development, then it becomes important to strive for better stuff in there. you and i might disagree what that stuff is, but basically in my first post, when i got up and started pounding on the pulpit, that's what i was trying to do.
Yorza - thanks a lot man. that is very interesting actually, and does actually change my opinion. I guess wanting better gear.. if someone did want that.. would be a window into experiencing the games.. that's why i didn't get world of warcraft in the first place... i kinda.. wasn't looking through that window.
hey shit, what about this idea -- if you wanted to give meaning, or cause personal change in those types of games, you could give someone an object to take pride in, and the more they looked at that object and studied it, the more the personal change information is in there..
hmm hadn't thought about that before. (and yes, i know, affecting personal change is just my value, but that thought does put value for me in this more.. what i was calling "egoic" style of game.)
thanks guys. actually changes my opinion a lot.
rent more films.
give us games back.
How many polycounters stopped doing personal works due to mmorpgs? :poly124:
As far as i know, too many, and not only polycounters.. they arrive home.. and their free time for the rest of the day, is only for the fucking mmorpg. The unique friends they can have are in the fucking mmorpg. It's very sad, but true.
Too many friends don't know other games, they only play a mmorpg we all know, and the sad thing is that they won't be doing it because they are absorbed with this mmorpg. A few ones said me: "i have responsabilities in my guild, and i HAVE to stay all the afternoon".
I have played several mmorpgs, and all are the same, a world bad builded in most cases, ugly, builded with hurry, with a few polygons textured badly and mobs placed and repeated to the infinite in all the map. It's all kill kill kill and more kill, and of course the typical quests to kill more mobs. funny? maybe for a collective, but not for me. Imho, these games are stupid games, nice when you start because you see the part of the "art" created for the world, you explore, you see your character with different gear, etc., but later... boring as hell. I usually download free mmos to "see", no like... game deleted in a sigh lol.
Most players i've known were egomaniacs, arrogant as hell because they have "level" and they feel themselves as important, they didn't play to "explore" or to have fun with friends. Guilds more of the same, there's always someone selfish, with they main and unique interest to get the top level and be the best. And i understand it because is the first purpose of these games.
I perfectly understand your point John
In all these games you will find this kind of people, but there are others playing the game for a short time, like me
Well, all this i commented i what i see, someone could not understand it, but when you are getting older, you see, or better said.. you understand that your time is very important as to be lost in a game that "requires" too much time.
I really recommend to ignore mmorpgs designed for "trapped players".
Essentially BioShock's grand moral question is what makes us human? And Rapture shows how much people would sacrifice that humanity by altering themselves in order to better themselves in selfish ways.
Very early on in the game, I realised that the big daddies, ironically the most monstrous of all the inhabitants of Rapture, are infact the most humane. They will only attack when seriously threatened, they protect those who cannot protect themselves - hulking beasts or not they're the ones that had risen above the rest of Rapture. And as we find out later in the game, they sacrifice the most human parts of their appearance in order to become more human (the direct opposite to all the other Rapture inhabitants).
So, I decided I wouldn't kill any big daddies in the game. At all. I'd only kill that which tried to kill me. I played right through to the point where it demands you get 4 big daddy suit components. You get two of them off corpses in that level and I remembered passing 2 corpses ages ago. I backtracked the entire game to search the corpses and they were empty. Basically the game forced me to kill the big daddies in order to progress... this went against both the moral choice the game banged on about and my own decision to leave the noble big daddies alone that I almost quit the game there and then to not go back to it.
I'm glad to see you've attempted to clarify some of your points.
Ego has always been a tricky thing for me to grasp. I interpret being "egoic", or being egotistical, as the behaviors resulting from the thoughts aimed to raise a personal view of self value. This isn't a bad thing to me. You should have an honest understanding of your abilities and talent. I think that raising this value artificially is where one's Ego can become problematic for many situations that rely on the removal of such an importance. Thoughts will influence behavior.
I think that this inflation of self-worth causes people to act: pretentious, close-minded, dishonest, deceitful, etc. with themselves and consequently to those people and situations they interact with. The resulting actions become a means to an end: Justifying your inflated self-image.
"Allowing the player to do whatever they want", to me alone makes me wonder, "What do you mean specifically by 'everything'?" I could better agree or disagree that this were a popular trend.
You had mentioned WoW, Fable, and Fallout and I haven't played either 3 of them extensively. I had played WoW for 10 days. The freedoms in WoW are many. Just thinking of the character aspects alone, you have a lot of freedoms: name, look, abilities, skills, armor, actions. Even to a point where your freedoms can affect another player's experience.
In Fable you can kill just about anyone in the world. Choose to be good or bad, and those actions influence the world. You are free to do whatever you want and ideally write the story of your adventure.
Same as Fallout. You can Nuke an entire city. Kill whomever you want to.
These games enable a player to act out these actions and gives them the freedom or happenstance to encounter such interactions. I see value in all of this and so do the designers actively cooking up systems for these immersive scenarios. So do the players that buy these games. They aren't being brainwashed to like it. The genuinely like it.
I don't believe narcissism can come from an open ended game design unless it's restricting the player to only those paths. The narcissism, as I understand comes from the player. In design cases like this, the player is the one acting on their freedom. Unloading their ammo into the face of a dead corpse is the maliciousness of the player. Than again I haven't played these games very long. If there was a quest for "Convince yourself and those around you, you are most awesome, in a free open-ended manner" Then I'd be forced to agree with you.
I'd agree that giving the player control removes possibility for a story to be told. I actually prefer games like this. I love the interactive aspect of a video game, the play of movement specifically. There is no need for story for the type of play I enjoy. There are games without story entirely, take Tetris for example. Therefore, story isn't a game designer's job. Their job is to make a game.
Take the story from a video game, what do you have? I'd say, a video game.
Take the interactivity out of a video game, what do you have? I'd say, either nothing or a movie.
There are aspects of video games that are Art, but video games are not Art entirely. They are made up of many things outside of Artistic communication and the message associated with it. The combination of these elements, defines what it is.
Yes, there are.
Yozora enjoys the social aspect of MMO's and enjoys accomplishment the many tasks. It's not as one-sided as you are trying to make it appear.
And we've ran out of time.
I was wondering if we might get more games that create a narrative environment but still offer a large degree of freedom. So the environment art and the sounds all around the player are constantly hinting at a story but the player is never forced to read information about a quest or listen to narrative or check menus or quests...its all just there around the player for them to take part in.
There would obviously have to be some control over some of the players freedoms for example they couldnt go completely against the story and expect the story to progress. But Im sure game designers could come up with many entertaining solutions.
I imagine something like city 17 with all its obvious propaganda and hubbub going on but with the freedom of GTA. Then the player just explores and has fun but the player also gets to see the world needs saving through their own eyes and exploration rather than through some strictly linear story. Its not hugely different from what we have now in games like fallout but I just imagine less HUD, less enforced narrative, less linear gameplay, less quest menus, item menus etc. The environment wouldnt just help set the scene, it would actually be the only way you know whats going on and what needs to be done next. This would put exploration and interaction with the environment at the core of the gameplay
I 'love' Oblivion because it allows me to get lost exploring the world Bethesda created, but I don't expect to be able to "do what I want" because doing so may not make sense within the 'real' world of Cyrodiil.
On the other hand I 'hate' Guild Wars because it doesn't allow that, it prevents you doing things you naturally expect to be able to do - restricting explorable areas so they remain relative to designed game-play.
So you have to define "what I want to do" actually is... if you play an MMO and find you can't 'explore' is that a fault of the game design restricting you, or your mind-set for expecting too much? - games aren't simulators. You could apply that rule of thumb to anything I guess, is it a problem with the game, or you?
It's just as easy for the latter to be taken too far though - Dead Rising puts the player in something that feels like a sandbox environment, with loads of exciting stuff to play with, spread across the world in interesting and fuilly realised locations. It then punishes you for acting on your natural instinct just to dick around with stuff and enjoy yourself at your leisure. One of the many reasons i firmly believe it's one of the worst games of all time.
perhaps they were looking for something that they could n't always get in real life.
Perhaps the acquiring of stuff is just an important game mechanic rather than a statement of
how greedy you are:)
I like games that balance skill, imagination and escapism in equal measure.
I don't really want to be lead through an interactive story, in fact the plot to me is just a
background thing that I can largely ignore.
The gameplay itself should stimulate my imagination not the plot 'masterpiece' that someone
has spent ten minutes coming up with.
And if you're just Joe Average who realises there are a million people that are as capable and important as yourself, what better game than one that says that you're special? In a cold and unfriendly world, games like World of Warcraft reward you for things that are as stupid as killing ten raccoons. From poor worker or student to mighty hero facing the odds and overcoming them; it's not hard to see that some people would prefer the latter. "Thank you, hero, for putting in 50 hours. You're so special. We love you so much that we'll give you a piece of shiny gear". If you accept the game's premise that the gear is actually worth something - which it isn't, but you always believe what happens in books, TV and games when it's happening - you'll actually feel rewarded.
But plenty of other games work in a similar way. Team Fortress 2 is great because no matter how awful you are at it, you'll always do something that makes the game say "You're so great!", whether it be an improvement over your previous self, getting a revenge kill, an achievement or just killing that top guy once every 20 minutes. I'm a terrible player, I'm happy with a 1:1 Kill-Death ratio, but the game still applauded and shiny-iconed me the other day and said I was such a good Pyro that I'd get an Axtinguisher. "Damn, I'm a good Pyro," I thought, but I'm not.
Same with story oriented games. They just don't reward you with gear, like WoW, or flashy achievements and statistics, like TF2, but with bits of story. "You're so awesome," the game says, "that I think you're allowed to learn the mystical secrets of the ancient prophecy that forms the back story." You value story, it's given to you as you play; it's a reward like anything else, and few things keep you coming back like being rewarded. Are cutscenes a form of telling a story or are they just a reward for playing the game? There are games aplenty - Command and Conquer is notorious here - that could do without story and just intersects a movie to keep you happy.
So I'd argue that you're as egotistical as the others, since all games are designed around rewarding people for sinking time into them. It's just that you prefer the "Once upon a time..." reward over the "Lvl71 Glittering Breast Plate of Vengeful Malice" reward. But they're both a form of interaction with the game.
I dont know comradeJ I think these things might be subjective to the individual. Maybe the majority do fit into that way of playing but I dont find myself purposefully trying to be the opposite to real life, I enjoy trying to do what I think is right and good so like if I play fable Im usually a pretty good character or mass effect etc.
I might be in the minority but I dont feel much of a hero playing an mmo where there are 4 million other heros out there better than me.
I do think that rewards in games and the emotional response you get from them is one driving factor to continue playing the games but I dont think that makes the person playing egotistical.
Just one thing: You seem to discount the game designers wants, despite putting them in the forefront. The designer makes it a freeroam game, not the consumer, and as such, it is HIS design. Having a design doesn't take away a games ability of being roamed around in, it just leaves a few options.
actually your point is fucking awesome, cuz here's the thing. it's true that the designer's intent is right there in the game... which is to provide an open-ended experience for everyone-- but if that's not what everyone wants, so it's fundamentally a contradiction -- some people want more of a consciously stated theme. after all, not having a theme is still having one -- freedom.
yes, some people like making those games.. yes, lots of folks like playing them. it's valid. i just think it's incomplete. there's something better out there. maybe something that includes all philosphies.. an open ended game with a strongly stated story for those who want it.. i dont know.
Blaizer - that was great to hear. thanks for saying so. of course i agree with everything. a single voice in agreement goes a long way
killingpeople -- interesting.
it doesn't matter to me in what detail you can do things in a game -- the point is that the motivation of the gameplay centers around "doing what you want". if you enter such a game and say "what am i supposed to do" you'll be pretty much lost. they dont give you a well formed motivation or goal. that's considered to be the designer getting in the way.
the narcissism i'm talking about isn't large and overt, it's a matter of not being interested in taking outside input for what is valuable. a lot these freedom games aren't designed with the game designer tugging on your heart strings and making you want to be motivated towards a certain end-- it's all about the player, and what HE wants. the holy grail in this sort of game design, as i see it, is to give the player the freedom to do literally anything.. bomb a city, save people, get married, what ever.
they're calling my generation (and the generation of many of you, i assume) generation DUMB. this is because of how we waltz into the world inside our own little personal bubbles, created by ipods, usually, with our personal world reflected back at us.
quite frankly, ComradeJ, what you've writen about games is pretty much a beautiful exaggeration of what i'm talking about.
everyone wants to ignore all outside input and just do what they want to do. we've been raised in these settings, some of us, where the culture wanted to support us for all the different stuff we wanted to do. each one of us is a beaaaaauuuutttiiffulll snowflake and what ever it is that you want to do -- GOOD JOB!! good boy!
this creates this inflated sense that somehow, your desires are universally important..
and they ARE important, that's where the greyscale of this topic comes in, but NOT to the point of deleting outside input. I'm just saying that it would be nice if the designer had more of a hand in TELLING ME WHAT TO DO so i can actually get OUTSIDE myself and experience what HE wants and what HE thinks.
so i have a desire to get outside myself and experience what someone else wants. YES. that's egoic, as it is my desire, but it can hardly be called narcissistic.
to propose that that desire is as bastardly as every other is to flatland morality into a complete relativistic fractal, which is fortunately not the way the world works. why not just stab a guy in the face? getting outside yourself and learning to value other people, as i see it, is a great way to find limitations in your own behavior.
what if... just.. what if.. we SHOULDN'T sometimes be doing what we wanted? what if we should be trying to get over that to do whats right? it's not like we're not in a global environmental crisis or something..
I guess you don't want to play a game made by a female designer?
I think the thread title should be rewritten to "The Ego in John Warner"
B
John, you've got a bad way of presenting your ideas in an incredibly condescending tone, subtly [or not so] insulting those who's position you don't agree with. I think if you can get over that, you'd have a much better time communicating your thoughts.
I don't feel like typing a book, so I'll simply say I disagree with much of what you've said. I tend to think that Art is about interpretation by the individual viewer, not the creator force-feeding everyone his view. You create something and release it into the world, to be enjoyed or reviled.
also, if what you're really into is unadulterated stories minus the grind, books are a great alternative!
wow, an artist with an ego. thats news to you?
all artists at some point in their career are egoistic biles of putrid slime that spew out slander of how great they are, and how everyone else sucks so much more than they do.
get over it, and get used to the sting of ego in your ears as you talk to artists.
it just can't be helped when everyone continously lick your butt and tell you how awesome and great you are.
ahaha oh the irony !!!
yes. i think i'm right. time and time again however, i always come back and try and be reasonable and see things from you guy's points of view.
i keep saying that i'm not trying to stop anyone from doing their thing, i'm just trying to make a decision for myself about what has value, and share that for discussion. yes, that is my personal choice, yes, that's my ego. i decided what to put in it, and yes, i'm very fucking confident about what's in it.
In order to call something good, something else has to be not good in comparison.
Deja, I'm not going to get upset for you calling me a egoistic bile of putrid slime, but i would like to point out something for you, and Sec, (although sec, thanks for being nice)
i think (and please correct me here) you guys are taking my desire to suggest a perspective as being higher as a pretentious, offensive thing. what you don't realize is that your judgment deeming it so is just as hierarchical as my point of view.
in other words, you're taking my value judgment and substituting one of your own. you're saying "you are being pretentious, trying to put your values over someone else's" but you're doing the same thing to me -- that i should take this relativistic perspective. whats the alternative? i've been down that road. you float out into a loving, relativistic soup where everyone is equal and everyone does what they want and everyone is heard and respected and that's lovely... but nobody is REALLY respected, because as soon as someone stands up and says "HEY! i think THIS!" everyone grabs him back down and says "SHHHH!! equality.. equality!"
narcissism is a huge danger of that mentality. it's also very difficult to make any progress in terms of whats better in life, because everything gets flat-landed back into meaningless equality. philosophers have called this worldview a swamp.
anyway, if everything is equal, then so is my judgment that everything isn't, in which case you're ideologically bound to accept what i say on your own argument, as i'm perceiving it (i coudl be wrong though??).
or we CAN have an argument, which is 2 egos colliding, and not worry about who's a shithead or who's not, because honestly deja, you're the same as me. so lets just fight! why not? there's going to be value conflict.
the ego isn't a bad thing, it's getting lost in it that's the problem. self-reflecting ego desire with no attempt to get outside of it.
do it less smugly?
i'm quite lost as to how you're complaining about people trying to assert equality, when that's all you do when someone has a pop at you. However, i'm sure you can desperately shoe-horn in some lecture notes to explain it.
It's interesting to note that while tragedy is a form of story that has been around for ages, it has never, to my knowledge, been applied to games. Even such tragic heroes as Max Payne come out victorious and with their mission fulfilled - that's quite a way from Oedipus stabbing out his eyes and banishing himself from the city or Charles Foster Kane dying a lonely death. Is tragedy possible in games or is it too gloomy to encourage people to go on? Has it, perhaps, even been made impossible by the endless tradition of being a glorious victor in games?
There's a mission in Empire Earth in the German campaign that left an impression on me. The beginning missions of the campaign all have objectives like 'destroy the French forts', which was okay by me, because the French were mighty and downright annoying in game. Then comes the World War 2 part of the campaign, where you're tasked with building up a modern army and invading Poland. The Poles only have some archaic planes and some cavalry and, quite frankly, can't stand up to the Blitzkrieg. This mission, surprisingly, actually disturbed me, because I was playing someone whom I didn't want to be. And that's just Empire Earth, not exactly a game renowned for its storytelling or morality.
You're always playing a successful and righteous character. Even Grand Theft Auto felt that if it were to become more realistic, it also had to make the main character more morally justified in GTA IV. And while you play a criminal, the final bad guys are always way bigger scumbags with even someone like Carl Johnson portrayed like the voice of reason and righteousness.
Fallout 3 got me thinking about this trend, how you're always either a good guy or clich
I dont work in the industry I play games, lots of them and the only ones that stick are the open ended ones, or sandbox games. games like X3 series, recently Fallout 3 which I think is pretty awesome (even though its on a PS3)
and I have an example within a game series on the PC that went from more open ended play to more "structured" play. And I mean Ghost Recon.. it went from open terrain missions that you could complete in anyway you wished, to Ghost Recon 2 a COD style spray and pray point A to B type of deal.
It was awful.. restricting peoples imagination and creativity within a game environment for me is a big nono.. its not about ego at all, its nice to be able to try things your own way in a game, and why not ?
Besides, most games are trying to tell a story, the caveat being that they are trying to by interactive when in truth they are glorified choose your own adventure books that you watch and play and not hold and read. Open world games are just limited reality simulators that let the player test their limits with minor repercussions. It doesnt mean that a good story cant be had in such mediums; it just means that it is more difficult to convey a good story when more variables are allowed into the formula. The game concept has to be a page turner, something that rewards with more than story and game play because it just comes together well. And this is where things go awry. Developers try to make the game different and exciting with a great story and new interesting game play, and making a game to stroke peoples egos would be a bad path to take. Ego stroking isnt a goal; its an incentive thats reached by accomplishing something worthwhile. To say that is a willful intent is just silly.
Maybe you need to qualify that statement.
Because there are tons of sim games out there: flight sims, historicallly based war sims, sports games where a.i. is based off stats and mocaps of actual athletes (so, it's you vs. simulated star athletes), "America's Army" game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Army), etc.
I think "hand holding" should be under the hood but easily accessible. At least include a tutorial at the beginning or a journal or mission checklist. Of course, for fighting games (tekken, soul calibur, etc.), just leave the full combo list for the game guides.
ahahaha, whats the irony, i called everyone including myself a bile of putrid slime?
yes very ironic indeed.
yes, what i'm saying, (and what is coming out so very wrong....), is that artists can't help but sound pretentious,
and you and everyone else that posts on this board(including me) shouldn't be afraid of sounding pretentious,
because thats what we're gonna sound like anyways.
its a good intention hidden under a lot of being an asshole.
oh and another problem i think a lot of us have, is that we're trying to convey pictures and feelings into words. and that never comes out right. which is why we're artists, and not politicians. we talk better in images.