Computer engineers and computer programmers of the latter 1970s unknowingly faced one of the most relevant questions concerning consumerism in the modern digital age: how to market technology as a commodity to the general public. More specifically, they were the first and only wave of engineers and innovators to introduce the concept of a personal computer to a generation previously unacquainted with them.
The new market thus relied on a great deal of creativity and flexibility. This is why video games had such a tremendous and profound impact on the public perception of computers; particularly when compared to the gargantuan machines of the 1960s and 1970s, personal computers offered an entirely new realm of functionality and entertainment. As John Romero, the designer of several hugely popular games such as Wolfenstein, Doom and Quake, puts it, "the fact that computers were primarily used to play games really helped to get people to accept that computers were good and helpful devices."
Personal computers thus paved the way for the production and consumption of modern-day video game consoles. By refining the controllers used to play video games, these consoles experimented with the potential ways that people could interact with technology. From the keyboard evolved the joystick, from the joystick evolved the handheld controllers, and from these evolved wireless movement sensors; we can see a clear progression in terms of how these technological advancements shaped player engagement, and from it we may derive that there has been a continued attempt to enhance the user experience.
Regardless of these improvements, many gamers have nevertheless been hesitant or skeptical to embrace the launch and widespread usage of these new consoles. This, I think, is attributable to the "nostalgia culture" that the Internet since its beginning harbors; that is, it sometimes seems as though the Internet is just a hub of embedded nostalgia. Adrienne LaFrance, a writer for The Atlantic, captures this sentiment wholesomely: "You are, at any given moment, just a few clicks and keystrokes away from local television that aired 40 years ago, from discontinued toys, and from sounds you haven't heard in forever." I think this is the primary reason for why many prefer to game on their personal computers as opposed to systems optimized and developed to deliver the most organic gaming experiences.
While I have never been an avid PC gamer (not because of lack of exposure, but rather because of a lack of continued interest), I continue to be fascinated by the gaming experiences that modern consoles can deliver. Namely, I am convinced that handheld controllers offer a higher level of immersion than a keyboard with letters. This poses, in my eyes, an inextricable advantage over personal computers that PCs will never overcome.
That is not to say that there is no game which may offer better playability on the PC: text based games, as well as point and click games, can definitely be facilitated by a keyboard and a mouse. However, I don't believe that these games have the potential to be as immersive; that is why it is important to not allow nostalgia to dictate all facets of innovation, particularly within the field of gaming.
Saturday, 10 February 2018
Sunday, 4 February 2018
The Golden Age of Video Games
What makes the prototype so valuable in comparison to its successors? That is, what gives an invention "vintage" status?; and moreover, what causes such an invention to generate interest in the continued development of its type?
Inventions become memorable in the eyes of history when they promote continued growth, promise change, and lead to innovation. Even something like war, the most destructive invention of mankind, leads to a change in the course of history; leads to innovation in the current condition of mankind (e.g. World War II saw some of the biggest advancements in medicine, technology and communication; as a matter of fact, the Internet was a direct consequence of this worldwide conflict).
In my opinion, a society deeply devoted to the creation and development of video games is one that demonstrates a relative amount of stability; in other words, one that has transcended the general need for things such as food and security, and can focus on the interaction between man and machine. When modern industry shifts its focus away from the means of production for subsistence, and instead concentrates on the development of interactive forms of entertainment, we may conjecture that focus has shifted away from fulfilling basic needs and moved towards the increased value in things that keep us occupied and engaged with one another. Perhaps, the most valuable thing about the video games of the golden age is that they introduced a new way for people to engage with technology and one another.
Now, because many of these games are remembered very fondly, we must understand the underlying reasons why. Is it simply a matter of nostalgia? Or is there something fundamental about the nature of these prototypical video games which evokes us to think deeply about their function in the history of computing?
I would certainly argue that they modified the definition of "User Experience" forever. At the start, engineers were simply problem solvers; they would design and develop new technology with the aim of simplifying a particular task, thereby making life easier and more accessible to others. However, the rise of video games introduced the idea that engineers could do much more than solve problems for others; namely, that they could creative interactive visuals which could engage others and motivate them to solve problems themselves.
The motivation of gamers to continue solving problems was directly an impact of the rise of these golden classics, and this drive to solve problems definitely generated an interest in the fundamentals of computing and programming. Given the wide demographic of video game players, the conception of these golden age games led to an induced cross-disciplinary burst of video game ideas: shooting games, adventure games, sports games, etc. Thus, it was proven that video games did not appeal to a particular group of people or strata of the general populace, but to each and all.
However, this led to more variation in video games, which has led it to become a worldwide phenomenon for all groups and ages. My dad, for instance, was not hugely interested in video games when they first started coming out; however, given his interest in sports, as the quality of sports video games progressed, he became a more frequent player of video games. Perhaps this goes to show that although the creation of video games in the golden age did not immediately captivate the entire world, they were the primordial stepping stone in understanding the way that users liked to be engaged, which aided the development of subsequent titles and consoles.
Inventions become memorable in the eyes of history when they promote continued growth, promise change, and lead to innovation. Even something like war, the most destructive invention of mankind, leads to a change in the course of history; leads to innovation in the current condition of mankind (e.g. World War II saw some of the biggest advancements in medicine, technology and communication; as a matter of fact, the Internet was a direct consequence of this worldwide conflict).
In my opinion, a society deeply devoted to the creation and development of video games is one that demonstrates a relative amount of stability; in other words, one that has transcended the general need for things such as food and security, and can focus on the interaction between man and machine. When modern industry shifts its focus away from the means of production for subsistence, and instead concentrates on the development of interactive forms of entertainment, we may conjecture that focus has shifted away from fulfilling basic needs and moved towards the increased value in things that keep us occupied and engaged with one another. Perhaps, the most valuable thing about the video games of the golden age is that they introduced a new way for people to engage with technology and one another.
Now, because many of these games are remembered very fondly, we must understand the underlying reasons why. Is it simply a matter of nostalgia? Or is there something fundamental about the nature of these prototypical video games which evokes us to think deeply about their function in the history of computing?
I would certainly argue that they modified the definition of "User Experience" forever. At the start, engineers were simply problem solvers; they would design and develop new technology with the aim of simplifying a particular task, thereby making life easier and more accessible to others. However, the rise of video games introduced the idea that engineers could do much more than solve problems for others; namely, that they could creative interactive visuals which could engage others and motivate them to solve problems themselves.
The motivation of gamers to continue solving problems was directly an impact of the rise of these golden classics, and this drive to solve problems definitely generated an interest in the fundamentals of computing and programming. Given the wide demographic of video game players, the conception of these golden age games led to an induced cross-disciplinary burst of video game ideas: shooting games, adventure games, sports games, etc. Thus, it was proven that video games did not appeal to a particular group of people or strata of the general populace, but to each and all.
However, this led to more variation in video games, which has led it to become a worldwide phenomenon for all groups and ages. My dad, for instance, was not hugely interested in video games when they first started coming out; however, given his interest in sports, as the quality of sports video games progressed, he became a more frequent player of video games. Perhaps this goes to show that although the creation of video games in the golden age did not immediately captivate the entire world, they were the primordial stepping stone in understanding the way that users liked to be engaged, which aided the development of subsequent titles and consoles.
Sunday, 28 January 2018
The Cusp of Gaming
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.
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.
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)