Interactivity: Where do we go from here?

The difference between video games and other forms of media, particularly film (which is also extremely visual), has been interactivity. In a video game, the player is part of the experience from the beginning to the end. A movie in which the viewer could choose different paths for the main character would not be the same, because the interactivity which video games offer is a constant one. The player's ability to choose if they'll maneuver down the left side of the hall or the right side of the hall seems insignificant, but it is important in that it makes the player a constant agent, not some otherworldly force that occasionally reaches down from on high to change the course of events.

There are limits, however, to what can be done, and also to what should be done. Ten years ago, the dream of many video game players had something to do with massive worlds, constructed realities where players could go to escape from normal life and instead be a hero in an entirely different realm of existence. If the difference between video games and all other media was its interactivity, than it made sense that massive, highly interact game worlds (now created, and given the title MMORPGs) would be the holy grail of gaming. Creating a world in which the player could do anything would mean a mastery of the craft of game creation, and it would lead to games (we assumed) that were deeper, more realistic, and more emotionally engaging than any before. Hell, it wouldn't just be the ultimate form of gaming – it'd be the ultimate form of art. If a work of art is something that can create emotion and activity just by having a person view it or read it, then a massive game world, in which players could both view and create at he same time, would make players masters of their escapism. Fun. Creation. Emotion. It would have it all.

It seems that things haven't gone quite as planned. MMORPGs are here, and a few of them are wildly successful. But far from offering an ultimate form of escapism, their popularity seems to stem from the ways in which the bind the player into an alternate reality. Fun, emotion, intellectual stimulation; these are not always high points of an MMORPG, although they do often exist, and in rare cases they can all exist at once. This existence, however, seems to be more an exception than a rule. The lesson that has been learned from the creation of MMORPGs is that offering players the world may not be the best idea. It was often assumed that the only thing keeping game developers from creating games in which players could do anything was technology. Now, it seems that may not be the case. Some of the constructed worlds offered are surprisingly small, and more telling, there doesn't seem to be any correlation between the technological requirements and the interactivity available in the game world.

I never expected this result. When I first started becoming interested in 'art' – films, literature, and games being my main areas of interest – the first of these worlds were beginning to form, and I was excited to see what they had to offer. I played many of them. Everquest, Ultima Online, Asheron's Call, Anarchy Online; just to name a few. What I found, however, was that they were some of the most boring, most un-engaging, least artistically stimulating gaming experiences I had ever been a part of. What was stranger, however, was that I often had a hard time keeping away from them. What I began to conclude was that the interactivity available in these games is to intense. They provide to much to do, and they blur certain useful video-game conventions to achieve their gameplay. By becoming too interactive, the games began to run into the same problems that we have to overcome in 'real' life. Money. Travel. Promotion. Meaning. Anything that I would call art, or which I would call fun, would need to provide me a reflection on these sorts of problems, not heap more difficulties onto the pile. I'm not talking about idealogical difficulties, but rather real, physical difficulties, such as “How do I get from here to where my friend is?” and “How do I accomplish this, given that I don't have the skills I really need?” and “How do I gain the acceptance of my peers?” The highly interactive worlds of MMORPGS do not comment or reflect on these problems. They merely provide more of them.

The root of the problem, I believe, is that these constructed worlds try to emulate the real world. But in any case, its clear the MMORPGs are not the end-all that some gamers might have thought. Very linear games exist to this day, and some of them are wildly successful. Whereever we're going from here, complete interactivity is not the destination.

But if not interactivity, where? Isn't the interactive nature of a video game the thing that sets it apart from any other form of entertainment and any other form of art? Well, the answer to that is still yes; however, games so far seem to have assumed that adding more things for the player to be interactive with means a better game. There are many games that give at least some nod of this which are not MMORPGs, including older ones like Deus Ex, by providing players with a game world in which they can interact with a number of trivial items. JC Denton, the nano-augmented hero from Deus Ex, can not only fight terrorists and conspiracies; he can also pick up pots and throw them on the floor. Another example would be the Elder Scrolls series, which tends to throw in countless objects that are useless to the player's main goal of adventuring and saving the world, like vases, random bones, worthless hides, and other junk that has no use either than to be throw on the ground in piles. Both of these games are very good, but the addition of this 'interactivity' adds little to them (except the comedic value of throwing pots and pans on the heads of civilians), particularly in the case of the Elder Scrolls games, which are loaded with enough swords, armors, and potions that throwing in random objects does not help the player connect to the constructed world at all.

As a counter-point, the Half-Life series has never presented itself as particularly interested in providing a world that is 'real' via the use of excessive amounts of mundane and useless items. Despite the fact that Half-Life 2 games make heavy use of a 'gravity gun' that can be used to manipulate the world, the developers do not seem to believe that making the player interact with pots and pans increases the realism, the fun, or the impact of the game. Most of what you'll find are boxes of various sorts (a long-time gaming standboys) or drawer units, or desks. The intro sequence to Half-Life two is particularly notable in this aspect. Though the player is taken through an apartment complex full of people, the only items of note are televisions. The kitchens are barren, the cup-boards bare; surely they must eat something, cook something, have at least a bowl somewhere, but the player doesn't see them and doesn't interact with them. Thats because the developers wisely know that this sort of interactivity is irrelevant. What they show you should be there for a reason, just like the words in a novel, or the scenes of a movie.

The question developers and players need to ask is what it means for a game to be interactive, and if being interactive is what games should hold as their unique trait. Is interactivity merely the act of physical acting on or being acted on by an object? Does it mean the act of interfacing with controls you use to move your character? Or is interactivity instead a state of mental engagement between the player and the game?

I believe that the later is the more useful definition. It is entirely possible to physically interact with an object and not 'interact' with it a meaningful way. We can type on keyboards without consciously acknowledging the each letter typed, we can stop at stop at red lights without staring at them, and so on. If I move a cup from one end of a table to another, is that a meaningful or interesting interaction? I would say no; the cup has only moved a short distance, and because the agent did not undertake any significant mental process, very little has changed. Certainly, the agent in the interaction will not remember the interaction for more than few seconds. However, if that person picked up a well-written article and read it, moving nothing but their eyes in the patterns necessary to pick up the words, then a memorable interaction may take place.

Essentially, I believe games should view their interactivity on a more abstract level. That they should find ways to play with the idea of interactivity itself. That they should make their first goal the stimulation of the mind, through action, through intellect; in either case, through making players use their brain to figure out a problem.

The player picking up a pan is not a useful interaction; the player saving a character they've come to care about is.

Bad Economy, Bad for Games

The collapse of Bear Sterns was unexpected. A year ago, the firm appeared one of the strongest in its industry; now a deal is under way that will result in it being either bought out for two dollar a share or, if for some reason shareholders reject the offer, result in the bank collapsing. Bear Sterns is just another in a long line of events that have been occurring since late last year, when an invisible pin-pricked popped the housing bubble and everything about the American economy began to lose its luster.

It is not clear if we are currently in a recession. A recession, technically speaking, requires negative growth of the nation's economy. However, many people seem to feel we are in one, as indicated by the polls splattered randomly across the gloom-and-doom of major news networks. The Fed appears to be freaking just a little, and it seems clear that we're going to experience a period of very, very low growth at the best. This isn't doomsday, but there will be consequences.

How the gaming industry weathers those consequences should be interesting. Gaming is an entertainment industry filled entirely with products that no one needs to live, and so it will be one of the first things cut from the budgets of people who want to save a little extra cash just in case. However, the games industry in its modern incarnation has never been through a serious economic downturn (the gaming industry of the 80s was a MUCH different business), so the results could be unpredictable.

For PC Gaming, the threat of recession couldn't come at a worse time. The major consoles have been out for some time now, which means we're starting to again see PCs competing with consoles for the wow-power of advanced graphics. More importantly, prices on very good graphic cards are now reasonable enough that more people can afford them, and I would expect that the lowering of these prices would also result in a lowering in the prices of PC gaming systems. As the consoles age, and the prices drop further, PC gaming could begin to become a viable platform again, with major games being seen in 2009. A recession at this point would steal the PC's thunder, threatening to undermine the benefits of cheaper hardware and better performance. A recession could essentially end big budget titles for the PC, if they arn't already dead.

But budget games, such as various Sims titles, and MMORPGs, like World of Warcraft, would probably remain successful.

For the 360 an the PS3, sales would likely go down, but the biggest impact would probably be on micro-transactions. To play new games on the 360 or the PS3, you essentially have to pay the 60 dollars, and the option to choose a Wii or a PC isn't more efficient. Players looking to save cash will probably cut out the optional stuff, instead, choosing not to drop five dollars for a Forza car pack or 10 dollars on a new Gears of War map pack. Even this, though, would likely only occur if he recession was very obvious, so for the most part the 360 and PS3 will see their biggest pain come in the form of console sales. This could be particularly bad for the PS3, which is only now starting to get a foot-hold in the market.

The Wii will likely do well, as it will remain the cheapest option for gaming entertainment on the market. But as a Japanese company with games and hardware developed and produced almost entirely in Asian countries, a following dollar is bad news. This is also true for the PS3, but less so for the 360.

For all platforms, it will be hardware sales that are most severely hurt, then games. Budget games will be the winners, and MMORPGs will also do very well. Game companies will probably want to engage in less risk, and some projects may end up cancelled. Unfortunately for hardcore gamers, a recession will likely mean a rise in the number of cheap, for-the-family products, and a further reduction in games with intense and difficult gameplay.

Graphics? Who cares.

As long as video games have been around, their graphics have proven to be an important point of attention. Which is to be fucking boring about it; graphics, as a word, is one of the most mundane words in the entire English language, and does not accurately describe exactly the zeal that many game critics have put into describing and parading the visual achievements of game after game. Take a quick peak at nearly any preview, even of those games that are not particularly interesting visually and which are not even trying to accomplish that goal, and you'll find that talk about the game's visuals are often a centerpiece of at least a large part of the article.

Part of this may be a journalistic reality. Lets face it. Pictures look AWESOME, and obviously video games are a very graphical media, perhaps even more so then video itself. It is, after all, the visual sense which creates an interface between the player and the game. You cannot touch or feel a video game, and while you can hear it, the idea of navigating a virtual environment from sound is not one which has much – or any – popularity or possibility, since the realistic replication of sound is difficult to achieve without very expensive headphones or a similarly expensive surround-sound system. When hearing about a game that will soon be released, we want to know what it looks like because it is what we'll be looking at throughout most of the game. This is particularly true of fast paced action games like World in Conflict or Halo 3, which focus (despite their pretensions) very little on creating a compelling story and mostly on visually driven gameplay.

We're being fooled. For games, the phrase “graphics sell” is as common as the the phrase “sex sells” in relation virtually all other forms of media. It is held as a common-sense assumption, true as the sky being blue. But it is an assumption that is completely and entirely false.

Graphics have never sold well and have never been seen by consumers as a good reason to buy a game or console, a phenomena that is actually becoming more obvious as graphics in games improve. And there is no need for a complex explanation; all one needs to do is check out the top sellers for various video games and various consoles. You'll find quickly that there is no correlation at all between top-selling games and graphics; in addition, the most consistently successful developers, like Valve and Blizzard, are successful not because of their graphical prowess but because their lack of commitment to hardware killing graphics; Starcraft, Warcraft 3, World of Warcraft, Half-Life, and Half-Life 2 are not graphically intensive titles, yet they are synonymous with success. Even more telling is the sales charts for consoles; the Wii continues to dominate, as does the Playstation 2, a fact that many want to sweep under the rug.

There are, of course, some games that do sell partly because of their graphics. The Elder Scrolls series comes to mind; Morrow-wind and Oblivion were both famously taxing games at time of their release, as was Daggerfall, though you wouldn't think of it now. Crysis is another example, and Gears of War (maybe). But while these games certainly look(ed) good, you'd be hard pressed to say they sold because they were pretty. There has never been another series of mainstream games that created the same gameplay experience you can find in the Elder Scrolls series, Gears of War popularized a cover system that will now probably become a model for many other shooters, and Crysis, like the not un-beautiful Far Cry before it, sells because of its free-form large-environment game that is not found in most action games (outside of shitty vehicle segments), a trend I wish would become more accepted, but may still be ignored due to its demands on hardware.

What we forget about is the game that are visually impressive but still sales flops. We forget about them because, more likely then not, we've never played them, or if we did, we found them to be forgettable. That is why they're flops. Any Quake game after Quake 2 can be filed in this category, as can the Unreal series (at this point, the games feel more like tech-demos for potential buyers of the latest Unreal game engine). Or what about Call of Juarez, a beautiful game, often used as a graphical benchmark, that no one will remember in two years?

So why do we still focus on graphics?

Its all about journalistic reality – as I talked about earlier.

You would be well advised to put on your tin-foils hats for this theory, but my belief is that the continued concern about visuals in games is largely the result of a journalistic 'conspiracy' that has been on-going since video games began. Conspiracy is, of course, to strong a word, because it implies that those participating came together and made plans to create a specific result. That isn't what I'm saying. What I am saying is that, planning or no, it is beneficial for corporate game journalism to insist on the importance of visuals, because their business is largely a visual one, based as much on having the latest screen-shots and exclusive game-play videos as anything else. And hell – we, as consumers of game journalism, are on on it too, because those screen shots and videos are what we respond to. It is a cycle; gaming journalism provides us with visuals because that is what we want, and its what we want because its some of the most compelling content gaming journalism provides.

I see no evidence that this cycle will be broken. So the phrase will likely exist. But here, in summary, his my suggestion; the next time the tired phrase comes up, stop and think about it. Stop and think about what it actually means. More likely then not, you'll realize that the visuals of whatever game you're excited to play are far less important than your gut may want you to believe.