Theory

[icycalm]

Today has been a really good day for me in terms of insights; I worked on several articles, and scribbled quite a few little brilliant passages in my notes document while doing so, so I've decided to share with you the most brilliant one of the lot, which concerns the relationship of mechanics and aesthetics, and how this varies and develops in relation to the rising immersion factor of the increasing order of rank of videogames. Basically, the higher the immersion factor of a videogame, the more importance the aesthetics acquire over the mechanics (whereas in low-immersion games, e.g. Galaga and Pac-Man, for example, mechanics reign supreme). I realized that a long time ago, but have been toying with the idea in my head ever since then, trying to fully explain it and understand all its implications, and of course figure out a way to more effectively communicate them. And just like a few minutes ago, I hit on the perfect phrasing:

The importance of aesthetics in high-immersion games rises, because, precisely due to the mechanical changes needed to bring about the immersion increase, they've become part of the mechanics.

So it's not that aesthetics suddenly become more important than mechanics; it's just that, because a wider RANGE of aesthetics are now coming into play and can be mechanically manipulated, and to a greater degree, it appears as if aesthetic considerations matter a great deal more. In effect, the mechanics have become invisible...

This is one of the very last articles to be published in the Videogame Culture book, and it will deliver a great many more points beside this. But this will be among the most significant (except if I end up delivering it earlier, in the Aesthetics & Mechanics essay, for example, or perhaps I'll end up fusing the two and writing them as one).

Meanwhile, the rest of the internet is still stuck on the gameplay essay, lol.

[icycalm]

http://www.theastronauts.com/2012/11/wh ... ter-games/

At first I thought this was going to be a plagiarization of my gameplay article, but he's not talking about the word, he means the actual mechanics. Or maybe not the mechanics but the challenge. Or maybe something in between. In short, it's not clear what he means, and even HE isn't clear about it in his head, because he continues to use that goddamn word which doesn't have a clear definition.

ANYway. The point is that this goddamn article HAS an actual point. Setting aside that some of his examples are bad, as well as a lot of his anti-mechanics/anti-challenge bullshit the article is liberally laced with, the main point is correct. In point of fact, this and David Jaffe's article "The trouble with BEING Batman" may well be the two most profound articles on videogames you will read outside this site, with Jaffe's coming on top because it doesn't contain any anti-mechanics/anti-challenge fagotry.

See what the dude is talking about is that future videogames will not contain any PHYSICAL challenge, i.e. any BUTTON-pressing. But that doesn't mean they won't contain challenge! Or that they won't have mechanics! (what he mistakenly calls "gameplay").

So anyway. Article worth reading, and all will become clear once you've read my book. Then you can reread this article and have a bit of a laugh at how dim this nitwit's understanding of videogames is.

[icycalm]

Actually, I took another look at his examples, and the two games from his list that I have played (Bioshock and GTA3) are SPOT FUCKING ON. I don't know about the rest of them, but from reading the descriptions I'd say his judgement is good. No problem with the examples then.

[icycalm]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread. ... st44140161

jerry-seinfeld-george-costanza.jpg (22.81 KiB) Viewed 11326 times

So you have an idea for a game about nothing. They say, what's your game about. You say nothing.

Everyone's doing something. We'll do nothing.

This is from an actual Seinfeld episode. They are trying to sell a TV show to NBC or wherever, and in order to be original they want to make the show be about "nothing". George Constanza would actually be a pretty good approximation of how artfags think, if artfags were consciously dishonest and hypocritical instead of unconsciously. Anyway, Seinfeld FTW. Whoever hasn't watched the entire show should download it and start watching.

[icycalm]

Basically, the dude has a lot of trouble parsing his own experiences. Was listening to good music in the car in GTA3 fun? Hell yeah. But if the entire game had been about listening to music in a car NO ONE WOULD HAVE PLAYED IT -- NOT EVEN THE GUY. I can listen to music in my car any day I want, while driving wherever the hell I want on the entire planet -- simply simulating this experience on a computer IS NOT GOING TO CUT IT. The reason that listening to music in your car in GTA3 was so awesome, was because you were NOT some random guy listening to music in your car, BUT A GODDAMN WANTED CRIMINAL ON THE WAY TO A FUTURE FUCKING CRIME SCENE. It is the game's ENTIRE CONTEXT, the absolutely mesmerizing realization of a setting and a character, that raised the humdrum experience of driving while listening to the radio to something so awesome. In other words the mechanics AND the aesthetics, in other words the "GAEPLAY".

Apparently the guy used to work for People Can Fly, so he is a real game developer. But he has started/joined an "indie" game pseudo-developer now and has huffed down too much "indie" propaganda, which is why we get the anti-"GAEPLAY" rhetoric. The point remains, however, that if you can't understand the simple things I just explained you are utterly useless at designing games, and especially the modern, extremely complex kind of GTA-type game and the like.

[icycalm]

Take No More Heroes. What if you could switch between radio stations on your motorbike? Would this have been as much fun as listening to the very same stations in GTA3? Not by a long shot. It would still have been a boring game with linear brainless missions involving basically dumbed down button mashing mechanics, connected via a ghost city hubworld and a boring pseudo-amusing plot. In other words the very same radio-listening-while-driving setup would have been boring because everything else about the game -- the "GAEPLAY" -- sucked.

All of these kinds of anti-fun, anti-challenge, anti-mechanics articles are basically rationalizations on the part of inferior developers or pseudo-developers with the view to justifying their incapacity to compete with proper studios on the cutting edge of game development. Wherever you read anything in which "stripping-down", "simplifying", "streamlining" etc. are eulogized you can infer inferiority and incapacity, and you'll seldom go wrong. In every case, in every genre, and in every aspect -- whether mechanical or aesthetic -- complexifying is the only way forward. And that takes money, love, talent and skill -- neither of which are possessed by the advocates of dumbing down stuff -- which is why they dumb stuff down. And then they write articles to convince you that they are nevertheless doing the right thing. Or, as in the case with this guy, they write the articles beforehand to forestall your justifiably indignant reaction to them.