The moment the United States dropped the nuclear bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima marked the moment that nuclear physics took over the face of contemporary science. For the first time in history, people questioned the ethical integrity of new technology, and therefore began seeing technological advancements as an opportunity to engage people mentally in an entirely different way.
Higinbotham, the head of Brookhaven Lab's Instrumentation Division and creator of Tennis for Two, the precedent of the video game Pong, realised how static and non-interactive most science exhibits were in post-war America. Thinking to himself how developing an interactive game "would convey the message that scientific endeavours have relevance for society," he sought out to create what some consider the first video game ever.
The first video game endeavours generated an interest in both the interactive and processing capabilities of new computing devices. For instance, the Nimrod computer, which was first displayed at the Festival of Britain's Exhibition of Science, was built to play the century-old game of logic and strategy called 'Nim'. Unlike Tennis for Two, it was specifically designed to demonstrate the processing power of the new computing device.
Thus, the two main components that led to the widespread creation of video games and their establishment as a societal and technological phenomenon were speed and engagement. In other words, the two main issues that early video game developers faced were the following: how fast can a computer process your player's moves, and how well can it keep the player engaged? We can still see how these questions are relevant in today's video game culture (the latter perhaps more than the former).
Thus, what these early video games have in common with the video games today is mainly the question of amusement and entertainment. Since the multi-core processors of today greatly facilitate the gaming experience by substantially reducing the time it takes for a particular task to complete (e.g. loading a game, connecting with players around the world, etc), it is now a question of how to best engage a player.
However, this doesn't necessarily imply that we have transitioned into an age in which all games constitute higher conceptual complexity. For instance, Rocket League, one of the most prominent games in actuality, is nothing more than a "fancified" version of 'Pong': one side simply tries to score on the other. While one must understand the different game dynamics and particularities, the concept remains the same; it's simply the style in which we play which has evolved.
One way of promoting this engagement with video games was by fostering competition. In this sense, video games have also remained consistent; they began as a way to test people's skills against those of others, and we can still clearly see that in the world rankings for console video games, as well as for mini-games one could find on a phone's app store. This gives people a unique opportunity to demonstrate agility and finesse, and to thereby obtain recognition.
Thus, although video games have become more visually captivating and thereby have the ability to engage a player better, they still serve as virtual arenas on which to test the skill of a player against that of others.
Sunday 28 January 2018
Saturday 20 January 2018
Why Play Games?
What is it that drives us to compete and conquer the opponent? Whether it be games or war, the need to come out the victor is something that pervades and exist in our every day lives. For instance, university students, like me, implicitly compete with each other every day to obtain better grades, higher rankings and, consequently, better jobs; associates compete with each other to stand out and obtain the recognition of their superiors; even political parties compete with each other to attract the general populace.
The need to stand out, fare well, and gain distinction is embedded into our behaviour. Like all other animals, we are governed by the principle of the survival of the fittest, and the different socioeconomic strata of society are a testimony to the prevalence of this tendency. Winning a game, for instance, implies that you are the better player, regardless of whether you overcame the other through skill or luck. As a child, I was fascinated by this concept. Having grown up in a neighbourhood with many children, I was able to play a wide variety of games; namely, sports like soccer and kickball.
I quickly outgrew these physical games, however, as I was introduced to video games through the Nintendo 64. I would argue that this happened because video games primarily test your mental abilities, whereas sports test your physical abilities. Although I was never much of a board game player, YuGiOh was arguably one of the most interesting non-virtual games I ever played: it required math, luck and strategy. I guess I have always been interested in games that test the mind, not those that test the body.
My favourite video games growing up were all RPG (Role Playing Games): games in which you take on the roles of imaginary characters who engage in adventures. These games typically involved levelling up the character and boosting its abilities. I think the reason I liked them so much was because I really enjoyed the idea that the better I got at the game, the stronger my character became; this gave me an impression that I was growing with the character, which made the entire experience substantially more immersive. These were generally Nintendo games: The Legend of Zelda, Paper Mario, Pokemon, etc.
Entertaining video games must thus engage the player in a personal way, whether it's through the sheer will to compete and beat the high score, or the necessity to overcome challenges and grow as a character. However, games that promise progressive growth and require commitment over a long period of time, in my opinion, are much more rewarding, and therefore somewhat superior to other types of games.
In life, however, we only invest our time in things that give us comfort. Nobody voluntarily invests time in unpleasant things for no reason, which is why people must always look with objectivity at the merit of the games that other people play. If the law had originally seen the pinball machine in this way, for instance, perhaps the game would have never been prohibited.
The need to stand out, fare well, and gain distinction is embedded into our behaviour. Like all other animals, we are governed by the principle of the survival of the fittest, and the different socioeconomic strata of society are a testimony to the prevalence of this tendency. Winning a game, for instance, implies that you are the better player, regardless of whether you overcame the other through skill or luck. As a child, I was fascinated by this concept. Having grown up in a neighbourhood with many children, I was able to play a wide variety of games; namely, sports like soccer and kickball.
I quickly outgrew these physical games, however, as I was introduced to video games through the Nintendo 64. I would argue that this happened because video games primarily test your mental abilities, whereas sports test your physical abilities. Although I was never much of a board game player, YuGiOh was arguably one of the most interesting non-virtual games I ever played: it required math, luck and strategy. I guess I have always been interested in games that test the mind, not those that test the body.
My favourite video games growing up were all RPG (Role Playing Games): games in which you take on the roles of imaginary characters who engage in adventures. These games typically involved levelling up the character and boosting its abilities. I think the reason I liked them so much was because I really enjoyed the idea that the better I got at the game, the stronger my character became; this gave me an impression that I was growing with the character, which made the entire experience substantially more immersive. These were generally Nintendo games: The Legend of Zelda, Paper Mario, Pokemon, etc.
Entertaining video games must thus engage the player in a personal way, whether it's through the sheer will to compete and beat the high score, or the necessity to overcome challenges and grow as a character. However, games that promise progressive growth and require commitment over a long period of time, in my opinion, are much more rewarding, and therefore somewhat superior to other types of games.
In life, however, we only invest our time in things that give us comfort. Nobody voluntarily invests time in unpleasant things for no reason, which is why people must always look with objectivity at the merit of the games that other people play. If the law had originally seen the pinball machine in this way, for instance, perhaps the game would have never been prohibited.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)