The theory is that creativity and emotional richness comes from life experience; as the earliest adopters of what we hope will be the predominant entertainment medium of the 21st century, I've always felt it's on us, as audiences, to do more, demand more. Of course, if we're saying that "games are art," then that means they reflect the life experience of their "artists" -- and many game developers can be as narrow-minded as their audience is, with few creative influences to speak of other than, say, tabletop RPGs and Star Wars.
Not that there's anything wrong with tabletop RPGs or Star Wars (down, comic book fans, down!), but if game developers make games based on their own interests, and if game consumers buy games based on their own interests, it's better for everyone if those interests are diverse -- or else what we think of as gaming remains an insular niche.
You've heard this from me before, of course. Now, veteran developer and former Maxis guy Chris Hecker is adding a new dimension to the conversation with some thoughts he shared in an address at the IGDA Leadership Forum, which my colleague Chris Remo recently covered at Gamasutra.
Hecker also fears games ending up in (or remaining in?) a "cultural ghetto," and summarily suggests that generally, those who make games don't ever seem to consider it an act of self-expression:
"I had to write this book when my girlfriend dumped me," a novelist might say.
"That doesn't show up often in game development bios," Hecker pointed out. Developers rarely discuss what they were trying to convey or express with a particular game, outside the confines of the game's own entertainment value.
"Should we care about 'why'? I think the answer is yes. We should care," said Hecker.
Of course, when looking at any other entertainment medium, there exist plenty of soulless products made simply in accordance with the algorithm of the market's current tastes -- they have no higher aim but to provide basic entertainment. Well, maybe one higher aim: to sell copies.
But that paradigm is dominant in games; even our designers who qualify as deep thinkers and masters of the craft earn their stripes by interpreting ideas like accessibility, engagement and the nebulous "fun" through design. They are refining the art of hooking us players with mechanics -- they are not at all thinking about expressing themselves or telling a story, the way creators of anything else that qualifies as art would.
I actually touched on this early last year, in an Aberrant Gamer column about what makes a good actor: honest performance that draws on the individual's life experience with the goal of self-expression, as opposed to the manipulative act of simply imitating emotions with the goal of affecting audience members.
The game industry is full of brilliant designers -- when I see how Blizzard's gotten millions and millions of people around the world to spend hours and hours running around and grinding in World of Warcraft (even people who recognize that they're bored!), or when I see how Ubisoft is making necessary communication with the player an artistic part of the environment in Splinter Cell Conviction, my jaw drops. Whoever came up with that subtle red-crescent health system that dominates in first-person shooters should get some kind of award.
But in terms of expressive ability, it's still lacking, don't you think? I recommend reading Remo's whole writeup on Hecker's talk -- I think it's an important addition to a topic that always interests me.
This week, the tireless Remo is at the Montreal International Games Summit, and while we're talking about the goal of "fun," I might as well point you to his writeup of Tiger Style's Randy Smith, who says "games don't need to be fun; they need to be engaging." Randy Smith worked on System Shock 2 and Thief and now makes stuff like Spider: The Secret of Bryce Manor instead, and the perspective of folks that make leaps like that is always interesting.
