…or at least disappoint me. I know that some game makers are wonderfully intelligent and talented people, yet the medium seems to be happy with leaving things as they are. We can see the potential for narrative expression that games have, but seem to be teased with mere glimpses of it (Bioshock?). Perhaps one problem is the ‘games’ moniker. The argument has been made before, but it doesn’t hurt to bring it up. I constantly hear developers saying things like ‘if it isn’t fun, we take it out,’ and we all think ‘of course!’.
But why? If a screenwriter decides to take all the quiet bits out of a movie, you get Transformers 2. What power do games have if they refuse to acknowledge any emotions beyond those that go along with fun (Joy, victory, etc.)? Perhaps a better rule to follow would be, ‘if it isn’t interesting, take it out.’ Mature player’s don’t need to shoot someone every 30 seconds to stave off boredom. If we’re exploring interesting worlds or interactions we won’t be bored.
Obviously a big issue is the risk of investing in a market that wants guns, wands or swords and not much else. But we’re never going to expand it by only selling toys for teenage boys. We see examples of reaching out with games like Red Dead Redemption (of which I shall write more once I’ve actually finished it). In RDR, much of the pleasure comes from the exploration of such a vast, hostile landscape and time period. Obviously it can be played as a shooter, but by spending a bit of time with the world, we start to pick up on the intended themes of the narrative, without being told in a cutscene.
Basically, game makers aren’t idiots, so stop treating me like one!
I applaud your words. games have been going in the wrong direction for quite some time now. perhaps the people that understand literature and film better will eventually be the people creating games. By the way have you herd about dear esther?
I agree 100%