GDC 2011: Social Game Developers Rant Back « Applied Game Design

We have been through this before. For me, it begins in 1981.

“You’re ruining games, you know.”

My Dungeons & Dragons DM said this to me when I started working at Sir-tech Software on the Wizardry series of games. “Games aren’t meant to be played like that, not this game.” He had heard about Wizardry, how I could create 6 characters and take them on an Apple II adventure, without interacting with any other human beings. It wasn’t social like D&D was; it wasn’t even particularly intellectually challenging. The entire game had maybe three puzzles in it, and an absolutely endless series of button mashes – Fight, Fight, Fight, Parry, Parry, Parry. It would have been a clickfest, but we didn’t have mice on our machines back then.

I remember people writing letter after letter after letter when they found the Lesser Demons and Greater Demons that haunted the lower levels of the maze. They called us evil and said our games promoted Satanism. They didn’t, and we didn’t, but it was a reflection of the time we were in.

It was a challenging time. We stood together, you and me, because we loved games.

I remember when graphics started to replace text, and we worried that the game’s deeper meaning would be lost, and that soon, games would be nothing more than meaningless images incapable of transmitting any deep type of play, never mind the feared complete loss of story. I remember lamenting the loss of the text parser and absolutely railing against keyword conversations because, to me, they dumbed down the whole game to the level of toast. I remember when cutscenes first appeared in games and we committed the cardinal sin, taking the game out of the hands of the player, because we wanted to show something cool and wow them, even if they just sat there waiting for it to pass.

I remember these things, you remember these things, because we loved games.

I love this post, but it makes me feel... old. :(

3 responses
I've played computer games from more or less the start, and I never bought that argument (which is more or less present from the start as well). Computer games are a medium, and improvement and added variety in a medium can't be a bad thing. If a new game, or a remake of an old game, or a sequel, feels more shallow than the good old original, it is the fault of the makers, or it might be simply because it lacks the sweet layer of nostalgia. Not because it has evil evil graphics added. One of the big reasons the good old games were good is that, at the time, they represented the bleeding edge of technology.

I remember my first two computer games. They required typing in several pages of hex code, hoping you didn't make a mistake, and recording the result on a casette tape. One was a text-based adventure where you had to find a gem in a randomly generated maze filled with demons... other one was a real-time *gasp* shooter that was also text based.. sorta. You played as a +, shooting .s at *s hoping they'll drop $, dodging %s. And after that, we've upgraded graphics (which included sawing the motherboard in half and welding another chip on it) and there came the mind-blowing classics like Pong, Tetris and Snake.

Great games at the time. However, I'll keep my shallow and meaningless images, I think =)

On the other hand, I'm not playing those games anymore but I'm still playing pen and paper DnD on regular basis. Food for thought, I guess.

Oh, and I prefer "experienced" >.>
Hm, I don't think graphics are evil. I think graphics are *different*.

For me, MU*s give far more freedom than our current graphics-based games do. Just freedom of expression, one could argue. The part I'd argue against is the 'just'.

With text I can be a mcnugget, babayaga, a surgeon dog, a cheese... and a whole host of other things. The convincingness of what I am is constrained only by my skill at portraying (or being) it.

In a sense, I think text is a lot more egalitarian. Even if you haven't the skill to render an apple the juiciest tastiestestetest tastierthanbacon apple in text, you can simply say 'apple', and people who read that language will know what it is.

In graphics, you have to be able to draw or model a recognisable apple. That's a much higher bar right there. Not to 'art' or the lack thereof, but to simple comprehension.

That being said - I've never again found any virtual place as deep, as rich, as beautiful, as alive, as LegendMUD. Some of my Legend friends have moved on to Second Life, but SL bores me to tears. I *need* combat. This is why, although I still love adventure games, I can't play them for more than 20-30 minutes at a time. For some reason, I've grown to need combat. No keeling = bored nugget.

All that ranting aside, I do agree with you. It's not as if graphics are evil. No medium is inherently evil (well unless you cut up the bodies of unwilling others of your species to make said art...). Merely - different mediums are... different. They allow different kinds of expression.

Certainly, the graphical MMOs we have today have a kind of spatial awareness, responsiveness and strategy in combat that MU*s could only dream of. Yes, I have played MU*s that attempt to introduce a decent sense of spatial awareness into combat, but it's simply not the same. And that's where the difference in medium comes in. Different mediums have different strengths.

I sorta think that's what Brenda is trying to say too. Instead of yelling that different is horrible... maybe people should try to see more that different is simply... different.

Phew ramblerantnug!