Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Games, Narratives and Simulations

It is important to judge 'games' for what they are. But if the developer fails at making up his mind about what his 'game' is supposed to be, this can be pretty difficult.

(1)
Watching that youtube video in the last post, I bought Half Life 2: Classic Deatchmatch on Steam. That's a mod that emulates Quake Deathmatch. An eternity ago I have been playing this mod a lot. More specifically: a hell of a lot. Surprisingly it actually ran without any problems at 2560x1600. That resolution would have been a dream back then.

I was a bit disappointed to see that there are only like 12 servers left - worldwide. And none of them were filled with people. Most were filled with bots, which was never fun. Eventually, however, I found a server with [Dynasty]A-A-A. I always considered these names ridiculous. Anyway, there are some things you never forget it seems; like riding a bike or playing Quake Deathmatch. I was a bit rusty, but not beyond help.

Of course, I couldn't resist and frapsed a few minutes. Quake Deathmatch is the first game in a long time that makes 30fps look insufficient. But Youtube only supports 30fps and frapsing at more would reduce the video's quality even more. Naturally, I chose a scene that makes me look good. :)



(2)
Quake Deathmatch is a game. It is not a narrative and not a simulation. In that it is completely different from products like Battlefield 3 multiplayer. These are multiplayer-simulations. They also want to be games, and they aren't always bad at it. But the main focus is the simulation. During the single player campaign, BF3 is actually supposed to be a simulation, a narrative and a game. But it turns out that it's not a game and if it is a simulation then one on rails. In the end it's just a narrative, because even bad narratives reliably make a profit.

It is important to judge 'games' for what they are. But if the developer fails at making up his mind about what his 'game' is supposed to be, this can be pretty difficult.

5 comments:

  1. The relationship just between game and dressing (the narrative that goes with it) is convoluted enough. One of my class text's author's (what a horrible sentence start, but I didn't want to no give credit where it's due) talks about this a lot. In a game from a long time ago, you were to drive around and kill pedestrians. People were horrified, but gamers didn't mind; why? To them, it was no different than Pac-Man; you have a playing field and objects to pick up.

    To add simulation in, well... I've never played any game that was a realistic simulation of the activity involved. The closest were probably flying or driving games, but even those cannot simulate g-force. I think the idea of a game trying to simulate beyond just the "dressing" level is silly. Make games that are fun and engaging. Don't worry about the rest.

    Nice post!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think the idea of a game trying to simulate beyond just the "dressing" level is silly. Make games that are fun and engaging. Don't worry about the rest.

    I don't agree. Many games in the past have been simulations for me with reasonably good gameplay. The entire Elder Scrolls series has never been a shining example of gameplay, yet the simulation made up for it. I just love exploring dangerous dungeons.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Perhaps we're differing on the meaning of simulation, because I would argue that the Elder Scrolls games no more prepared you for dungeon crawling than Pac Man teaches you to avoid ghosts.

    When I think simulation, I imagine you mean more realism. I don't remember having to eat in Elder Scroll games, nor having realistic weights on items and/or carrying capacity. I remember stealth being a bit silly at times, and of course, there's NPC interaction, which is pretty abyssmal in most games. Therefore, I wouldn't think that Oblivion (I haven't played the newest yet, so it may be much better) as much of a simulation at all.

    Are you defining simulation differently?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I talk about the simulation on purpose, because I don't want play real life. I can already do that for cheap.

    I like to play a simulation of a fantasy place. That's why fireballs are great: They are consistent with the simulation. But they are not realistic, of course. Scrap the world realism, it's useless in these debates ;)

    I also don't need a perfect simulation. I don't want to have to shit once a day or be able to anatomically correct rip apart my opponents.

    On the other hand, I would appreciate weight limits that are consistent with the simulation. I have greatly enjoyed the TES series in the past, because it allowed me to assume that I am indeed in that cave - alone. It's all about immersion.

    The immersion managed to overshadow problems with gameplay that TES has always had. All TES games e.g. allowed you to easily optimize the fun out of it. Terrible game design.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think adding immersion into the mix of narrative/game/simulation might help me understand our difference of opinion. Immersion may work like a dose of peptobismol (I haven't a clue how to spell that) in that it puts down any bile (metaphor - EXTENDED!) you feel about any particularly bad part of a game. In other words, the more immersed you are, the better you can ignore poor story (such as in many FPS games), poor gameplay (as you point out in TES), or poor simulation (like in WoW).

    You're dead on about optimizing out the fun, though. For my first toon in Oblivion I decided to do a stealth/conjurer, which proved extremely effective. So effective, in fact, that I soon got bored of the game as nothing really posed much of a challenge. Ignorance is not only bliss, it seems, but also good for enjoying games.

    ReplyDelete