3 ms·

The Video-Game Programmer Saving Our 21st-Century Souls

7 points by pmjordan 18y ago

cgranade 18y ago
I really disagree that games lack soul. I wonder if the author has ever played any of the Metal Gear Solid series, any of the Final Fantasy series, Folklore, or even any Shin Megami Tensei games. That's just to name a few! It's a real insult to the whole industry to just declare that games are "soulless." I mean, read the following quote again: "Games suck. Game companies have spent so many years trying to make skulls explode complexly and water ripple prettily that they haven't invested any time in learning how to make games that are as emotionally dense as the best novels and films. Most games are a waste of time. Soulless. Empty." This is essentially meaningless, and is not at all specific to video games. Are not movies as obsessed with flashbang as games are accused of being? To my mind, the only people who can claim that video games are soulless are those who don't play games, play the wrong games or are just too jaded to see the labors of love sitting on store shelves today.
- pmjordan 18y ago
  Agreed. And often it's in the games from which you least expect it. One of those examples for me is BioShock. The facade of the horror shooter-rpg is only skin deep. The main emotions it played on weren't fear and confusion but a wistful sadness and regret. Of course, the history of videogames is littered with perfectly excellent games which wouldn't be considered "high art", and I suppose the fact that games don't have to be artistic to be good bothers some people. In fact there are plenty of awful artistically brilliant games, as the main metric against which games are measured is still how engaging and fun they are. You can tolerate sitting through the ~100 minutes of a movie that doesn't quite grip you, but the interactivity of games sets the bar much higher: you don't progress unless you do stuff, and if that stuff is tedious, then you'll probably give up. The artistic depth can help to make the game engaging, but I don't think it can do this on its own: the mechanics are still crucial. As a result, game designers have to watch out so much that their game is fun, that injecting deeper meaning and emotion will often burst the budget, or it's overlooked altogether. And I do commend anyone who manages to combine artistic brilliance in an engaging game.
matthew-wegner 18y ago
Passage was just released on the iPhone, too: http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=300702040&mt=8 http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftwa... Non-iTunes link: http://www.apptism.com/apps/passage http://www.apptism.com/apps/passage
pshc 18y ago
Like everything else, video games follow Sturgeon's Law. Not only does Ebert's quote only consider big-budget mainstream games, but it also lacks perspective, considering the relative youth of the video game compared to other media. Anyway, the rest of the article far from endorses him. One example of a soulful postmodern video game is Earthbound, complete with its own "auteur." Here's a very long (and chock full of spoilers) discussion of it: http://www.largeprimenumbers.com/article.php?sid=mother2 http://www.largeprimenumbers.com/article.php?sid=mother2
Radix 18y ago
I feel the same as 'cgrenade' and 'pshc'. As I was reading the Roger Ebert quote I began to wonder if Ebert could relate to what video games can be to those who grew up on Super Mario World and Zelda. Two I use because it seems Mr. Miyamoto understood early that games are meant to be fun. Something that books and movies do not relate as well to. Games can offer the competitive fun found in sports, or artificial worlds similar to those we played in as children. Games haven't all been failing to be art, sometimes they've simply been succeeding as fun. And still, the industry hasn't failed to be "emotionally dense", which must mean 'invoking emotion'. I remember playing MGS:2 SoL and being quite affected during the scene where Emma dies, even with, what i recall, poor voice acting. I also remember feeling all kinds of emotions when playing Earthbound. I remember empathizing with Ness when he was homesick. And looking back with a strange sense of accomplishment when I stopped for coffee a third of the way through. In short, games are different, and when they're meant to have some emotional impact, it happens differently than in film or literature. And unless you're used to the medium and attaching yourself to a character you might overlook what a game really is. (I can try an' be pretentious too. I'm not annoyed by the subject of the article, just the author, and Ebert. But the following has been at the heart of several games. Really, has the author never heard of Fable? It at least tried. "Mistakes you make, early on, haunt you through some game mechanic later."..."It's not going to coddle: awesome job!" )

7 points by pmjordan 18y ago

I really disagree that games lack soul. I wonder if the author has ever played any of the Metal Gear Solid series, any of the Final Fantasy series, Folklore, or even any Shin Megami Tensei games. That's just to name a few! It's a real insult to the whole industry to just declare that games are "soulless." I mean, read the following quote again: "Games suck. Game companies have spent so many years trying to make skulls explode complexly and water ripple prettily that they haven't invested any time in learning how to make games that are as emotionally dense as the best novels and films. Most games are a waste of time. Soulless. Empty." This is essentially meaningless, and is not at all specific to video games. Are not movies as obsessed with flashbang as games are accused of being? To my mind, the only people who can claim that video games are soulless are those who don't play games, play the wrong games or are just too jaded to see the labors of love sitting on store shelves today.

pmjordan 18y ago
Agreed. And often it's in the games from which you least expect it. One of those examples for me is BioShock. The facade of the horror shooter-rpg is only skin deep. The main emotions it played on weren't fear and confusion but a wistful sadness and regret. Of course, the history of videogames is littered with perfectly excellent games which wouldn't be considered "high art", and I suppose the fact that games don't have to be artistic to be good bothers some people. In fact there are plenty of awful artistically brilliant games, as the main metric against which games are measured is still how engaging and fun they are. You can tolerate sitting through the ~100 minutes of a movie that doesn't quite grip you, but the interactivity of games sets the bar much higher: you don't progress unless you do stuff, and if that stuff is tedious, then you'll probably give up. The artistic depth can help to make the game engaging, but I don't think it can do this on its own: the mechanics are still crucial. As a result, game designers have to watch out so much that their game is fun, that injecting deeper meaning and emotion will often burst the budget, or it's overlooked altogether. And I do commend anyone who manages to combine artistic brilliance in an engaging game.

matthew-wegner 18y ago

Passage was just released on the iPhone, too: http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=300702040&mt=8 http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftwa... Non-iTunes link: http://www.apptism.com/apps/passage http://www.apptism.com/apps/passage

pshc 18y ago

Like everything else, video games follow Sturgeon's Law. Not only does Ebert's quote only consider big-budget mainstream games, but it also lacks perspective, considering the relative youth of the video game compared to other media. Anyway, the rest of the article far from endorses him. One example of a soulful postmodern video game is Earthbound, complete with its own "auteur." Here's a very long (and chock full of spoilers) discussion of it: http://www.largeprimenumbers.com/article.php?sid=mother2 http://www.largeprimenumbers.com/article.php?sid=mother2

Radix 18y ago

I feel the same as 'cgrenade' and 'pshc'. As I was reading the Roger Ebert quote I began to wonder if Ebert could relate to what video games can be to those who grew up on Super Mario World and Zelda. Two I use because it seems Mr. Miyamoto understood early that games are meant to be fun. Something that books and movies do not relate as well to. Games can offer the competitive fun found in sports, or artificial worlds similar to those we played in as children. Games haven't all been failing to be art, sometimes they've simply been succeeding as fun. And still, the industry hasn't failed to be "emotionally dense", which must mean 'invoking emotion'. I remember playing MGS:2 SoL and being quite affected during the scene where Emma dies, even with, what i recall, poor voice acting. I also remember feeling all kinds of emotions when playing Earthbound. I remember empathizing with Ness when he was homesick. And looking back with a strange sense of accomplishment when I stopped for coffee a third of the way through. In short, games are different, and when they're meant to have some emotional impact, it happens differently than in film or literature. And unless you're used to the medium and attaching yourself to a character you might overlook what a game really is. (I can try an' be pretentious too. I'm not annoyed by the subject of the article, just the author, and Ebert. But the following has been at the heart of several games. Really, has the author never heard of Fable? It at least tried. "Mistakes you make, early on, haunt you through some game mechanic later."..."It's not going to coddle: awesome job!" )