Gamers Anonymous

I have made a very foolish mistake, which threatens to consume my life. I re-installed steam for the first time in two years.

To fill you in, I am one of those people who lost three years of their life to Counter Strike. I love the thrill of the game, the tactics involved, but mostly on a good day I could be sickeningly good at cutting down the opposing team. There was never a win though, that was why I kept playing and keep playing. As if one more match will end it.

I had a two month period without internet connection and I lost interest. Now I have re-installed steam a world of addiction has opened itself once again.

Counter Strike is obviously pointless, but so are all computer games and most of life if rationalised down to core needs. At least a story driven game is part of a long tradition of films and books, in the multiplayer though there are few of the revelation or progression that make a game intellectually rewarding.

Multiplayer games are a simulation, to varying degrees, of the human perception of life*. We view our day-to-day existence as a series of objectives to accomplish, an unending series which are often as repetitive and futile as the multiplayers. I dislike this repackaging of the real world, and the cashing in on my instinctive enjoyment of it.

If it is the experience of fighting in a world you will never visit, within a squad of human companions, against another squad of human players, I don't buy it. Although a games theme and setting often bring rise to interesting scenarios, I have never found that it is the source of my core enjoyment. The bliss of achievement and the frustration of failure are what drive me.

In my opinion the finality of a story or experience often define it. If a film were to never end you would inevitably become uninterested in it at some point and leave it for the next unending film. If it goes out in a blaze of glory you will remember that moment, reflect on the experience that brought you there and hopefully wish it hadn't ended**. The single player (or cooperative game) are a far more valuable creation.

I cant damn multiplayers too much though, after all they may be the purest form of a game***. In a balanced life they should be played in moderation, but as a developer I have to face the idea that I could (if I were to be successful) create something that some people would find addictive.

So anyway back to development news. Node is making progress, I'm currently making the networking elements. Ironic huh.

My very simple justification is that I don't have time to write a capable enough AI in the next three and a bit months. I'll be working on AI, and hope the final version will have challenging enough AI. The first version though, the alpha, the one I submit to my course, that will have poor puny AI.

Blog silence is bad, but dull posts are dull. I conclude to post as often as interesting things occur to my drink hampered cranium.


* In the long term life is more like a multi-directional single-player/co-op story, with an ending.
** To note, I don't believe that any film or game should have a sequel outside of its original story arc. That is to say a story intentionally divided in two is good, a complete story with some more story added later is bad. The wishing-for-a-little-more reasoning for a sequel seems a bad idea as you will almost certainly not do the previous installment justice.
*** Maybe what I aspire to play are not games, but interactive experiences?

Edit: My stats of steam shame are here. I dont currently play CS, I lose all my time to other games though...

Internals

The last post was described to me as being very arty. I guess thats what happens when I write late at night.

My style of writing (and thinking) often swings between my two dominant states of mind. Firstly there is the Artist, wishing to express emotions and meanings. The part that pushes me on to make my mark, on people and the world. The second is the Rationalist, wishing to silence the Artist, and just fit in!*

So when the artist is in control I write poetically**, fueled on deep thoughts. I mostly re-write the artists work.

Anyway, back to Node***. This internal conflict rears it's head (my head?) often in development. Having recently finished my prototype, I've been showing it round to gage interest. One of the most interesting conversations I had was with the nice people at boredomresearch. They approached it from a far more artistic point of view than had really been discussed in earlier development. Though I have been looking at making an art game, I still largely felt it would be part of the game scene. What BR saw was the possibility for art, like gallery art.

Like a spanner in the works, the whole idea of gallery art made me start looking at Node again. I feel as if I am on a tipping point right now; on once side I could carry on making an art-game, or I could make art. The whole notion of displaying something in a public place changes the interaction of the piece, and so the approach I should take in development. The pc-game has much higher demands to wow the user and entice them in with the promise of entertainment. The gallery-game has a far more accepting user; they are there to explore, not get they're next kick. The pc-game is indy, the gallery-game is professional.

What I do? Where do I go?

A line can be drawn down the middle though. Games can be art, Art can be a game. This is the conflict of Artist and Rationalist. In the gallery, the Artist is king. In the industry, the Rationalist will win.

Maybe to become a true art-game developer, you have to be the Artist and the Rationalist. Not as separate waring factions, but a united front of practical idealism.

I don't know yet. I'll tell you in six months time.


* ... is that just the conflict between the left and right side or my brain?
** ie. badly
*** since I am far from knowledgeable about either writing or the inter works of the human psyche, I'll shut up about them

Looking and Seeing

originally from naccarato flickr
Coding has a strange disconnection from its goal.

When any other artist creates it is a gradual process, the picture forms before they eyes. They can move and adapt to the ebb and flow of success and failure, always aware of what they have and what they aspire to.

This seems not to be the case with coding. You have a dream, you plan, and then you drive blind towards your final destination distracted by implementation. Whether or not the piece is what you had technically wanted, it will undoubtedly have changed. Your perception of what it is and what it should be.

Maybe this is a particular phenomenon of building a game from scratch*. It has struck be repeatedly never the less. As the first version arrives, I can view all it's flaws and potential, a time of reflection follows.

The artist steps back and for the first time sees the picture. It's all wrong, but almost right.

Sadly I find that my prototype has done the unsurprising, and posed many more questions than it has answered. If I weren't running by ever decreasing project time constraints, I would dive right back in and make prototype v2. The playable version. Sadly the warm ups are over, and the race must begin.


* ... and working in an environment where few around me are as interested or as active.

Ideas

To take the next step would be to talk about the development of the game. This isn't an interesting step to many, if any, so it is reasonable to gloss over it. I've been writing lots of C++ code*. Instead I thought I'd look at what has been running though my head before I started writing code.

When I started considering this project I had an interest in games, an interest in progressive uses for the medium, and ideas of a grand future of games. The mindset that I started looking at my project was drastically different. Building the game was to me the logical conclusion to over a year of learning C++ and OpenGL. In an attempt to break away from a standard approach I sat down and thought really hard.

I started seeing ideas all around me. They played upon each other, changing, multiplying, and generally developing into something different and interesting.

I would have liked to have developed my idea on a concept, as piece of art exploring reality. In a way it may have. The exploration of breaking from mainstream games and understanding why people play games (and why I want to make them).

* here's the slightly less short version for those who really care: For the first few weeks I played with ideas of building a standard program framework from which I could spring new ideas into life with a matter of days. I haven't previously, and am on this occasion using a games library to help build my game. That got so far, but since I have neither the time, nor inclination to rewrite large sections of my code to be more flexible , it has been put to rest. It wasn't waisted time though, all the code I have written will be used in one way or another. Ideas change, scale scope mostly.

So let me begin

The final year of my education is getting into full swing, and I want change. The world of games needs to change. It needs to grow up. In what little way I can, I want to do my part.

Earlier this year I started following several highly informative blogs, almost all of which I discovered through IndyGamer (found on Google). They opened up a world of games that I had always expected to exist, but never found. Games trying to say something.

The Marriage (by Ron Humble) is a prime example of this idea and maybe a failure to achieve it. The game was built as an experiment, as a work of art. It's intention, like modern art, is not to necessarily to please but instead to promote thought and discussion. Go play the game a few times, think about it. As I said it isn't a perfect piece of art (read Tale of Tale's criticism)

What I took from the game? Games can be Art.

Then some months later I read the Realtime Art Manifesto, which felt like a kick in the back-side. After reading throught it, and then looking at what I'm doing, I started to feel that all my intentions and ideas had been built upon the concept of building a game. This foundation was inevitably cutting off paths and ideas. Something with almost no element of a game, and yet created a deep interactive environment. Why make a game? Are they just devices to keep the player hooked? Is it wrong, immoral to get a player hooked?

And then there is the idea of non-linear storytelling, and the forced mechanics of a linear plot. What if you existed in a story, and chose your own path?

This isn't the end of all that has been of what we call Games. It is more an attempt to understand the pure realtime interactive art, and what it can be. There's no reason to throw away your (digital) copy of Half-Life 2 for it's linear storytelling sins, but it's time to see what can really be achieved.

The Game will live on. There is a place for puzzles, but there are many more seats to be filled...

So that's where I am. Where now?

There are a lot of very good blogs looking deeper into games, the genres strengths and weaknesses*. I instead hope to build on these sources, and putting what I can into practice. Make games realtime interactive art.

* see: Artful Gamer, Arthouse Games, Only a Game, The Brainy Gamer