The Ephemeral Notebook

Normally whenever the question “Are video games art?”  is raised, I have to force myself to avoid it, as I feel that describing my take on the subject will take far longer to type than the given blog/tweet post’s comments will be active for.  However, recently having read Damion Schubert’s take on it and having seen the subject bounce around on #gamedesign a lot, I decided I should give this a shot, so here goes.

The biggest difficulty I tend to find in discussions on this subject is that people aren’t always aware of what it is they are asking nor do they come to the discussion table with a shared set of definitions.  I am going to attempt to clean up this mess a bit with some simple logical statements and metrics, peppered with just a bit of subjective thought process.  So first off:

What is Art?

Perhaps the biggest culprit is a unclear definition of Art.  If only this were a problem limited to those discussing it as it applies to video games.  The true definition of art has been argued for quite some time (see also Aesthetics).  I’m going to try to pluck off the relevant issues.

Art can mean a reference to a field of study, a technique related to creative skill as relates to aesthetics, a product or work of art, or more colloquially ‘fine art’.  We’re going to need to pick or build a definition.  How about the first line in the Wikipedia entry – it’s gotta be the most relevant, right?

“Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions“.

Yup, games definitely do this!  We’re done!  The answer is yes!   Not so fast.

There is much debate about this subject so it can’t possibly be that simple… Let’s try another definition.  How about Britannica Online’s defintion:

“the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others.” [my italics]

Well that one seems to fit with games pretty easily.  I don’t seem to be getting very far with this, so I’m going to work on my own definition.   I’ll use existing things that we readily call art as a way of removing away that which it is NOT, leaving that which it is.  Likewise, if the definition excludes things we conventionally call art, then the definition itself will be invalidated.

Is art a physical object?  No, or else music or performance would not be art.  Is it creative skill or technique?  No.  It cannot be simply a technique.  If you go a gallery to appreciate art, this definition works (appreciating the technique), but if you then buy the art, you are not buying the technique.  So clearly it is neither the sum of its materials nor the sum of its techniques – it is neither simply artwork or artistry.  What ties the two together but is wholly neither?  Well a concept does.  Concepts can be equated to thoughts and words.  Are words alone art?  Just a series of words strung together?  No, we do not call this art.  However, words written down or spoken can be poetry, which is definitely art.  So what is the difference between the intrinsic set of concepts floating along and that which we call art?

Well, both written and spoken word have the potential to communicate the concept from one individual to another.  So if I walk up to you and say something, is this art?  The problem here is that the communication is direct.  What if I yell the same words to a crowd, indirectly?  Now this is could be either performance art or the actions of a crazy person (or both).  We are now very close to the great writer Leo Tolstoy’s definition of art:

“a use of indirect means to communicate from one person to another”.

I like to call this ‘proxy communication’.  Or in diagrammatic form:

Artist -> Medium -> Audience

Does it really need an audience?  Must a work of art be shown to one other than the original artist?  If an artist paints a work and it is left in their attic, and their house is bulldozed, did the work of art exist?  This is doubly ponderous if the artist is also a mime. Well, here we can satisfy that formula to say that perhaps the artist was also the audience.  But is this cheating?   Well, consider a person talking to themselves (casually like assurances into the mirror, not schizophrenia).  That is direct communication from yourself to yourself.  However, if that same person wrote a diary, and perhaps drew a sketch in a diary to try to express their feelings (to be later read by themselves again long after they do not recall the original feeling), then that is indirect communication and as such we can call it art.

Or at least something major.  These are all MMOs slated for release in the next year or two that are at least substantial enough to generate some amount of hopeful anxiety within my heart of hearts.  These are my current favorite unreleased MMOs of the ones that have given us anything to show for (as opposed to theoretical MMOs or just-bought-the-license MMOs).  My choices here are fueled by any of:

1. game mechanics beyond the copycat mould (“only we promise we’ll do it better!”)
2. an expansion of a player motiviation or Bartle type currently underserved (builders, explorers, etc)
3. a new gameplay genre or aesthetic genre which could move the MMO classification beyond EQ/WoW cloneage
4. a new target audience and play pattern (e.g. casual or interstitial play – ease of getting involved in a large way without lots of personal/guild planning)
5. a colorful presentation and high quality concept art and tech demos

So without further ado…

1. The Secret World

[Website | Interview | Art | Information]

What it could change:  Storytelling within MMOs, ARG possibilities, Mystery Genre

This is a highly ambitious project and one that may only appeal to a niche audience, but it may teach future MMOs a number of new tricks – and it creates some subgenre firsts (earth-based, mystery-genre) that will hopefully continue to unfurl to become the long tail of our salvation from the fantasy tolkeinesque genre.

2. Blackstar

[Website | Interview | Art | Information]

What it could change:  The space flight and exploration genre, the anime-inspired sci fi niche

Blackstar is the game I foremost wish to have sex with.  It may be a case of style over substance, but in this case the style is a lot more than a coating.  The style imperative drives Blackstar into a niche that is relatively untapped (though growing fast) – the niche filled with games like S4 League – high speed action and anime influences.  Don’t get me wrong, I love my slower more realistic games like EVE as well.

However, I often explain it in terms of mecha.  There are two major ‘forks’ in the spectrum of mecha concept and design.  There is the highly mechanical version used by things like Battletech where the mecha is very ‘vehicular’ and requires constant tuneups, has major heating issues, and is realistic in its movement and damage withstanding capabilities.  Then there is the hyper-anime version where the mecha is a large superhuman extension of the human body – it behaves more like a Demi-god in various mythologies than a machine. Naturally these points came from a middle ground – the first Gundam books put forth the idea that to make the machine more than just a machine, the human would have to be more than just a human.  The modern Gundam franchise however is fully on the immortal-demigod side.

There are a few modern properties to wedge themselves in the middle somewhat:  Armored Core for example seems to steal equally from both sides, even though its roots lie more on the Virtual-On derived robot as shiny demigod side.  However, this gradient can be defined in rather simple terms when it comes to video games.  Much like the original Newtype concept, the question I ask myself is “How much does this experience make me feel like I am performing above my own ability?“.  In reality, it is only at the ‘top’ of my ability, not beyond, but using style and rewarding the occasional random reflex move with the great results, this feeling can be achieved.

Games that evoke this feeling for me are:  Zone of Enders, Wipeout, Descent, and Pop n Music (and many rhythm games).  Zone of Enders is perhaps the best example (and Descent for the same reasons) – requiring an awareness of more than just 2 axis of movement and encounter somehow feels extra-human.  ZoE uses just the right amount of glowy flash and style to make it feel like you’re this incredible 190 Beats-per-minute badass, computing every possible trajectory, even if you’re just mashing buttons frantically.

This is what I’m hoping Blackstar embraces, and seems to be doing with the pacing of its space combat.  The future-anime aesthetic of glowy lines, light streaks left in the air,visible concussion waves, and intersections of reality and user interface with an overuse of reticles and indicators.  If they can make a game with good mechanics, a fair amount of customization, that still makes me feel like a complete badass – I will be completely sold.

Interestingly, there aren’t many (if any) scifi-anime-franchise based MMOs, which could signify a lack of a niche, or (more likely if you look at the growth of anime in the US) a huge niche possibility.  Phantasy star has a bit of this niche right now, but it’s a completely different beast.  My bet is that Blackstar lights the fire of a small niche that will grow slowly over time and then eventually take off through some other means (for example a free-to-play anime-franchise world or similar), never reaping the success it deserves but I’ll definitely be playing it.

3. LEGO Universe

[Website | Interview | Art | Information]

What it could change:  Collaborative building environment that isn’t rife with furry penises

4. All Points Bulletin

[Website | Interview | Art | Information]

What it could change:  The advent of the modern-day crime genre, new levels of character customization

Modern day crime seems to be perfectly at home with the social structures common in MMOs.  The idea of getting together a gang who associate themselves by names and colors such that there is brotherhood even with members you haven’t met, and then engaging in a resource war to stake out territory for your gang – I’d venture to say it’s the thing in real life that most closely resembles MMO PvP.  Life resembles art, etc I suppose.

As it stands, the Grand Theft Auto multiplayer has done fairly well, but lacking the persistence that makes such a world truly thrive, it becomes more like a large game of counterstrike overrun with cheaters and those who are only playing ‘for the lulz’.  Bringing a real sense of property into this seems only natural.

Most of my questions regarding APB have to do with the larger social economics – how is equilibrium maintained (if you can steal cars from npc pedestrians and sell them, this would be an open economy and as such would need considerable drains), what avenues of PvP are available (stealing? territory? police griefing?), and what degree of continuity are they attempting to provide (shards, instances, fragmented economies, etc).

One of the most impressive things about APB so far has been the character customization.  It’s so nice to start seeing current-gen MMOs start to take this seriously.  The flexibility they were showing in the tattoos and face were pretty impressive.  I hope they treat clothing the same way, as that tends to be the part of character customization most often forgotten – the part that isn’t a couple sliders during the sliver of time we call creation.

5. Free Realms

[Website | Interview | Information]

What it could change:  The quality of casual and youth targeted MMOs, achievement structures, minigames in MMO, web cross-media support,  business models

6. The Agency

[Website | Interview | Art | Information]

What it could change:  Interstitial play and true MMO integration for FPS nuts, the spy genre

I love me some Team Fortress 2.  The thought of being able to play something like that and call it an MMO feels almost like cheating.  And yet, the bridge we could architect to cross this gap is looking more and more comical each day until the point where we can instead take a deep stride and cross.  Before you tell me about Planetside however, let me just say that that game was likely ahead of its time.  Not because MMO players weren’t ready to FPS, instead it was because FPS players weren’t yet ready to MMO.

Since then, we’ve seen the Battlefield series, Call of Duty 4, CounterStrike’s experiments with global economics, and even Team Fortress 2 having persistent improvements now through achievements.  It seems that persistence in FPS games is going to, well, persist. The biggest difference to me, however is a mindset.  When I think about logging on to an MMO I think about all the things that need to be done, the time each of them takes to complete, travel time, organization time – I’m generally exasperated before I log on.  However, playing a quick round of TF2 requires no preparation.  Better yet, pickup groups in TF2 are the norm and they are often FUN!  I don’t even need my friends to be online to have a good time.

If The Agency gets these things right, then it will be a blast.  The promise that I could have a slew of missions of known lengths (7 minutes, 15 minutes, 30 minutes) and hop into the action immediately with friends or with people who are insentivised properly for doing their role is a tantalizing one.

Add to all this the spy genre possibilities (please have information warfare /espionage forms of PvP), and some of the more interesting mission mechanics I’ve seen in an MMO, and there is some serious possibility for win here.  Perhaps my single favorite design mechanic of The Agency that I have seen so far is the quality of completion for missions.  It’s a very console mentality idea that seems entirely at home in the genre even if it didn’t have the console release.  Having a gradient of completion means that you can win small and then keep improving, instead of failing to win (as is WoW’s predominant instance methodology).

Conclusion

There is no doubt in my mind that the release of these games will inspire improvement in the MMO genre – either through the flames of user exceptance of the subtle kindle of future designer inspiration.  This isn’t to say that other games won’t, but these are the ones that have caught my eye, and I believe deserve yours.

Much is often mentioned about the cultural disconnect between the Business, Design, and Programming fields within the game industry.  Different attitudes, different terms and languages, different expectations.  I’ve always felt this has been a self-perpetuating problem (when diagnosing it we canonize it by declaring that this is “just how it is” – further reinforcing the meme), and a rather large problem at that.

As one who considers all three to be a passion I may be speaking from personal bias but I see this as a problem with a relatively easy solution.  To me, Business, Design and Programming are based on the same fundamental principle:

Define the goal clearly, research the available choices, then weigh the pros and cons of each choice to arrive at the optimal solution.

[This should seem familiar if you read my previous entry]

There is little benefit to shrouding a profession in mystery and much to be gained by integrating these goals into a single representation.  The commonly occuring pattern is the separation of these goals into components.  The other parts of the original goalset show up in each component typically as a ‘restriction’, but information is lost in this process.

Let’s take a simple example:

You and a friend are looking to go out for dinner and you want something relatively cheap and relatively good.  You deliberate for a bit and realize that you know a lot of quality places, and your friends knows a lot of cheap places – so you decide to specialize and divide the problem.  You try to find the best restaurant you can under 30$ a person, and your friend meanwhile tries to find the cheapest place with at least 4 stars on Zagat.  The chances that you will arrive at the same solution is slim to none (and reduces as the population of choices increases).

This is how game development often actually works.  The game needs to be relatively fun and impressive, while being relatively stable, maintainable and scalable, while also being done relatively quickly and cheaply.  The meetings are held, restrictions are put in place (typically time via milestones), and then each team optimizes for its pet criteria.  This can occasionally cause conflict  as all of these are mutually exclusive.

This type of problem is an optimization problem, and there are a few common patterns to solving it:

1. Positive Optimize - Pick the one that matters MOST, this reduces one of the variables (e.g. we have exactly 2 years worth of funding to release this – what can we make in 2 years?)
2. Negative Optimize - Pick the one that matters LEAST, this also reduces one of the variables (e.g. it doesn’t matter how stable it is – it’s just a prototype).  In patterns containing three goal variables, this I like to call the ‘Pick Two’ method, based on the saying: “Cheap, Good, Fast – pick two” or other patterns of “X,Y,Z – pick two”.
3. Simultaneous Optimize - this can be difficult to approach but is typically going to be the most accurate.  Programmers (especially AI programmers, Collective Intelligence programmers and Data Miners) will likely recognize this one.  The idea is to assign a fitness function and then try a number of different techniques to get the best possible result (all of which are generally little more than an advanced version of a random shot in the dark).  The ‘king’ of these techniques is more often than not a genetic algorithm.

When faced with a relatively small set of choices, I have a favorite way of tackling the full on simultaneous optimization:  Using a spreadsheet, the goal components of the fitness function become columns and the available choices become rows.  You rate each cell by how well that goal is satisfied by that choice (use the SAME SCALE for all cells, something like 0-5 or 0-10).  Then you apply a weight to each goal as to how important it is to the final fitness.  The sum of each cell in the row multiplied by its corresponding  weights per column is the choice’s final fitness.  It helps to throw in a couple dummy extreme choices to help you balance the goal weights to make sure your balancing is sane.

As soon as there are more variables or interactions between the choices, it becomes clear that you need something more like a genetic algorithm.  Luckily we all have something very much like that already – intuition.  I like to define intuition as “the sum of all knowledge and experience related to the subject”.  Humans are exceedingly good at making good guesses when presented with a problem that they have a wide knowledge and experience base to draw from.  However each large missing piece of knowledge or experience will heavily skew our guesses.

A few examples:

• a game designer wants to make a modification to a feature, thinking that it should be easy to change, sneaks it into the schedule – but it turns out to be very difficult
• a programmer finds after implementation that a design concept is not at all scalable, and codes up a tweak to make it scalable that defeats the original purpose of the feature.  Not wanting to have ‘lost’ the time on the gantt, the decision is made to keep the ‘fix’ in the final version.
• an executive looks at the gantt and examines where the product will be at for magical tradeshow X – a new trade show the company wants to do that’s 3 months before magical tradeshow Y for which there is a demo planned, and requests a demo version to send with the demo team to show X.  The team crunches and gets it done, but has to make enough hacks that the demo for tradeshow Y needs to have some features cut and is now behind on the entire schedule.

What am I arguing for?  Simply this:

Open and continual communication of goals so as to bring the choices people make closer to ‘optimal’ for the company/game as a whole.

and

An attempt by all to increase the cross-departmental intuition of everyone involved.

What I am arguing against is the ’silo’ effect and hyper-compartmentalization of culture and experience that is common of large hierarchies and specialization of labor.

A few things that help towards this end:

• Agile Development or similar methods
• Prototyping
• Small Teams (preferrably multi-disciplinary)
• Task Forces
• A relatively flat heirarchy (which is related to the previous two)
• A shared company calendar or internal blog/rss
• A wiki with an interconnected glossary of terms
• More multi-disciplanary employees (designers who can code, business heads who know design, etc)
• Task transparency (via the workflow management systems)
• Decision transparency (hearing a detailed explanation of a decision works to teach others about that discipline)
• Financial transparency (many companies cannot do this, but for those who can, it often works well)

jŭmp·ing – to leap with the soul and land where the body cannot follow.

Specifically the ability to imprint harmonic encodings that represent all ones thoughts, memories and experiences on one’s ālayavijñāna, and then rebuilding this bodymind after reincarnating into a new form.  The skill of jumping means to be able to influence the form that is created (often pre-conceiving the form through observation beforehand).  There are two primary types of jumping: Near Jumping and Far Jumping.  Near is categorized as within the mindsphere (the locations that the bodymind can observe at the given moment) – generally < 100 meters, and within a few seconds either way.  Far Jumping is far more complicated as involves taking an incarnation in a location outside of the mindsphere – this cannot easily be done without assistance (umbillicum or other gear, soul link assistance, etc) – as the location must first be observed.

However, Jumping is more of an art than a science – the science long being taken care of.

An example Near Jump in story:

“Rivari smirked as the spear pierced his chest – his almond eyes drifting off into meditation behind the thick spectacles.  The Asura looked around nervously, attempting to pull his spronged spear from Rivari’s flesh – but it was too slow.  An older man in a tweed suit leaned out from the alley and chanted a short mantra.  The last thing the Asura saw were a pair of similar thick glasses on the old man – one of many traits that were reminiscient beyond circumstance -  before it was engulfed in flames”

and in play:

GM: “Rivari is stabbed by the Asura’s spear causing 8 form damage.  You have 2 coherence left and are fading fast.”

Ted (Rivari’s player): “I spend the turn preparing a jump, distance 3: in the alley behind the Asura, dukkha: 2, form: 1 – I keep the glasses and my pocketwatch, spending my remaining coherence and as much energy as required to pay for that.  And I go out with a smirk.”

GM: “You are Frank Peddleton, who was taking a shortcut through the alley on his way home – a scrawny man in his early 60s with wiry short grey hair and a college professor stubble.  You have a tweed suit, with a familiar pocketwatch and glasses with a bent rim and an index of well over 1.6.”

Ted: “I’m so through with this guy… I peek out from the alley to orient myself and spend the entire turn chanting  my Flame of the Heavens mantra – power 4 on the blue skinned bastard.  I really liked playing that Greek.”

Cross posted from a comment response on my LJ:

Character goals are largely factional – there are a few common goals however (often shared in a faction):

1) Spread of a given philosophy or worldview (believing makes it so) – to craft a specific utopia (i.e. gather of comrades, so hence group/view Coherence).

2) Gathering of coherence through adversity view (basically terrorism… the more people see/fear them, the more they are confirmed)

3) Gathering of energy/resources to achieve group or personal goals. Often energy or resources are in other planes/times – bringing it back is the trick, but artifacts of power are great ways of storing energy in something that’s easy to believe in / observe across shifts.

4) Gathering for collection purposes (either vanity or to power 1,2,or 3) – for example collecting the souls of the 100 Asura (demons) from the plane of Sumeru

5) Worldcrafting – basically you can never affect your own timeline – anything that happens in a time causes another probability fork/split in the tree (actually doesn’t cause it, just sort of strengthens the observation of it) – including these future beings shifting in. However, if one were to go back in time on a timeline, strengthen the path where something happened, then all branches of this ‘new’ tree are now strengthened, making them easier to shift to. Then go to one of the new branches, making another new branch and make something else happen. Rinse, repeat, until you have what you want (either a nice summer getaway location, or some meticulously crafted artifact or technology or world to harvest). Generally this works best with larger groups, as if a single person does it, the coherence of the new branch isn’t very strong (what if they forget/die?).

6) Pure destruction

7) Pure hedonism

8) Personal Growth through varied experience