| And blurred lines like you illustrate above are a good argument why we can't say video games should be primarily considered performance art pieces in the realm of interaction design, as well as why we can't say video games should be primarily considered story delivery mechanisms. The video game is both interactive and passively consumed. Machinima exists because of how enjoyable experiencing a story through a video game environment can be. Spectating video games is a Billion Dollar Industry (TM), with Twitch and international professional gaming leagues getting ESPN coverage. There's value in the mechanics and human interaction as story, on one level, and the fiction in the game itself as a story. As well there's value in how the interactions make us a part of the game and a part of the story. Sure I know I'm not the lovable Italian plumber, but after a while my brain stops making that distinction, at least a little bit. I know I'm not a Guardian defending the remnants of earth from big brutish aliens, but after a while I stop consciously identifying that barrier, letting it become translucent. The closer and closer we get to immersive 3D gaming, the blurrier that line becomes. So there too ^^, the story is incredibly important as a driving motivation to play and enjoy video games. And really... the closer we get to putting the human inside the game, the more important that story is going to become. The interaction mechanics are important because when they're done right, when they're executed beautifully, we stop thinking about the game and form a more consciously transparent symbiosis with the technology. The COD games were fantastic because the FPS controls Just Worked. What happens when we continue progress and get to neural interfaces, where the designer builds a realistic-enough-feeling environment that you can engage with the characters and elements in it? Story, I guess. So... to summarize too many words for a simple counter-point: it's all a part of the whole, and inappropriate to say games are just a subset of interaction design. |
But what you're describing is what I want. I want more immersion, I want the focus to be on the what the gamer experiences and giving them something meaningful to do.
But when you plug your brain into the NeuralCube4000 two decades from now, what are you going to get?
What I want: You're in a tilled field at the edge of a forest. Beyond the forest, you see the peak of a mountain escaping from the trees. You look to your left and see a farmhouse, and the farmer is starting his day at work. A fawn leaps across the field and birds take flight as the deer breaks the treeline.
At this point, you're going to want to do something. Chase the deer, climb the mountain, beat up the farmer and take his gold, whatever it is you want to do, the game should encourage and reward your action with feedback.
What the games industry is likely to give me:
You're dropped into a dark room. A disembodied voice speaks: "You are Reginald Brisbane, a young farmer from Bastogne in the 14th century. Your father perished at the hands of brigands when you were seven and you were sent to live on your uncle's farm, but you've never stopped nursing the need to avenge your father's death, and you're now ready to seek it." Then, you're in a tilled field at the edge of a forest...
Now, clearly both of these scenarios were written by me, but one was written to encourage interaction, and the other was written to tell a story.
Which one do you want games to be? I think I've made my desires clear.