Je ne suis pas une amateure de jeux vid�o.
Voil�, c’est dit.
Je sais qu’il y a des jeux de grande qualit� et je comprends mes amis qui adorent cet univers mais moi, je n’y peux rien, �a ne m’accroche pas. J’en ai essay� plusieurs pourtant mais c’est toujours la m�me chose: je me lasse au bout de 30 minutes, si ce n’est pas plus t�t. Trop de r�gles � apprendre, trop de boutons et manettes � manier, trop de choses qui me tombent dessus en m�me temps. Pour que je puisse prendre plaisir � un jeu je dois avoir l’impression d’y �tre « une naturelle », de pouvoir progresser sans avoir � patienter pendant trop longtemps. Voir mon petit bonhomme mourir � toutes les 5 minutes et devoir attendre que la machine (ou l’engin) red�marre le jeu pour me retrouver quelques minutes plus tard devant le m�me obstacle impossible � franchir… bof. Aucune patience pour �a. Les environnements graphiques sombres des jeux ne me s�duisent pas en g�n�ral, tout comme leurs univers guerriers, m�di�vaux ou de science fiction.
Je pensais �tre un cas d�sesp�r� jusqu’� ce que mon amie Lightspeedchick – productrice de jeux vid�o qui r�ve de s�duire le bassin de client�le que je repr�sente – vienne me rendre visite avec son EyeToy. (Mes neveux �taient en visite alors nous avions une bonne excuse). Je me suis retrouv�e debout devant l’�cran de t�l�, � bouger, sauter, danser, � donner de « vrais » coups de karat� � de petits personnages virtuels… et j’ai tout de suite eu envie de recommencer! J’ai m�me song� � acheter un EyeToy � mes neveux juste pour pouvoir y jouer de nouveau moi-m�me, mais l’appareil n’�tait pas disponible pour leur plateforme de jeux.
Lightspeedchick a remis �a dimanche dernier en me permettant d’essayer ses nouveaux bongos �lectroniques et de jouer � Donkey Konga. Je n’�tais pas tr�s bonne mais cette fois-ci �a ne me faisait rien: je m’amusais et j’avais envie de continuer. Aurais-je finalement trouv� le type de jeux qui me convient?
Wired News vient de publier un article sur le sujet intitul�: I Dance, Therefore I Am. Ce n’est pas tous les jours qu’on lit un article concernant les jeux vid�os qui cite Platon, Kafka, Nietzsche et… Brian Eno!
« One evening last week I got up from my computer — I seem to be on the damned thing all the time, using my body so little I might as well be a brain in a jar — and went to a party.
It was a birthday party at the apartment of my friends Xavier and Anne, and it turned out to be pretty fun. Actually, when I think about it, what I did all night at that party was exactly what I do at home all day: interface with a computer. But Xavier’s computer knows something my home computer doesn’t, something important: It knows I have a body.
« I dance, » I thought to myself, nudging a new high score as friends cheered me on, « therefore I am. »
J’aimerais bien essayer un jeu qui me permettrait d’entrer dans un univers narratif complexe, avec des personnages bien �toff�s, mais dans lequel je pourrais utiliser mon corps au lieu d’une manette ou d’un clavier. Tu me produis un jeu comme �a bient�t, Lightspeedchick?
L’auteur de l’article de Wired News, imomus, �labore sur le sujet sur son blogue.
It’s right around the corner…
The problem is that the harder game developers work to please markets made up of potential players like yourself (impatient, easily bored and even more easily frustrated with complex game mechanics) the more they move towards a dumbing down of gaming in general.
It’s a bit like people who say « I hate independent movies. They’re too long and boring. There’s too much dialogue and I can’t keep track of the complex storylines. » The industry then tries to please these people (in order to profit) and as a result, all quality filmmaking suffers.
Of course, when it comes to film (art, literature, fine wine etc), people who support these arts feel no shame in asking that others please educate themselves and learn to appreciate the work that has and still goes into quality filmmaking. So why is it so hard to ask the same of casual or reluctant gamers?
There’s nothing wrong with loving « Dance Dance Revolution » (the « Weekend At Bernie’s » or « Glitter » of gaming) but today there are games out there that are so exquisitely designed that there’s (as of yet) no real need to make them « more real » by including full-body control. The immersion of mind, social interaction and imagination is still far more powerful than physical immersion. (In the same way 3D effects wouldn’t necessarily improve an already excellent film.)
Hmmm… I see your point, but I think it’s a bit reductive of what I was trying to say. I wouldn’t want games to get « simpler » or « dumbed down ». In fact, I think I’d be quite happy with more complex narratives and game play. I’m also conscious that there’s a certain learning curve but I shouldn’t have to play for weeks with a game before I can figure out what I need to do or at least feel some kind of reward or pleasure.
I don’t really wish for full physical immersion – though it might be fun to try. I’ve simply noticed that I have more attraction towards games that aren’t played with a standard game controller. I’ve never tried DDR and I’m not so sure I’d be into it.
I’m pretty patient and I don’t get bored very easily. There’s just something in the game environments that I have been exposed to so far that doesn’t appeal to me (even though I can easily see why it would appeal to other people). I’ve been exposed to a lot of gamers, people I respected, and I got curious enough about their interest to look into it a bit more and try to educate myself. Still, I wasn’t compelled to play. Maybe I haven’t found the right game for me. Or maybe I don’t have the « gaming » gene, if there’s such a thing.
Martine, you’re exactly on the money when you say « I have more attraction towards games that aren’t played with a standard game controller ». The fact of the matter is that of the many barriers that keep non-gamers or casual gamers from playing games seriously, one important one is the fact that playing most games out there is an acquired skill, because the controllers are so damn intimidating. Yes, intimidating. We went from one-button joysticks in the 80s, to the Sony DualShock (aka the PlayStation controller) with 17 buttons and 2 sticks to be controlled simultaneously. It just doesn’t have to be that way for a game to be fun. Designing a game that’s simple and fun (with few rules and mechanics) is a lot more elegant and intellectually challenging than designing one that is just a hodge-podge collection of assorted mechanics and rules.
What worse, even if a non-gamer invests the time in acquiring the considerable dexterity to master the controller, what are they rewarded with? The big-guns big-tits plot of Grand Theft Auto (or even Prince of Persia, or my beloved Ratchet and Clank) is hardly something you can sink your emotional teeth into. We don’t need dumb the games down to appeal to non-gamers; we need to smarten them up. The industry boasts that over 85% of its workers are college graduates. So where is this potential going?
Finally, Martine, I strongly believe that everyone has the gaming gene. We are hardwired to play, it is essential to our learning and honing of skills, and therefore to our survival. Games like backgammon teach us about calculating probabilities, games like poker about reading the intentions of others, games like badminton and Donkey Konga, about timing and spatial coordination. All games are tasks – work – we subject ourselves to without having to. So to some extent I believe any intellectual endeavour you don’t absolutely have to engage in, but do, is a form of play.
It’s important for women to be very self-critical whenever we’re tempted to express frustration over something like complex game mechanics and controllers. The fact that the (sexist) gaming industry *expects* us to hate controllers and complex game mechanics should, in and of itself, double our resolve to conquer them fully.
The industry trend today is to hammer into devs the idea that console games are « it » and that the ideal (and by ideal I mean profitable) game is easy to understand, simple to play, cheap to produce, and delivers a feeling of instant reward and power to its players. (It’s a bit like adding a laugh track to anything a mentally challenged comedian would say on stage, and charging them for the applause.)
I can barely talk to some of my game dev friends these days. They started out as intelligent idealistic designers fresh out of college (part of that 85% you mention L), hoping to one day produce something truly special and unique. Now, instead of that, they’ve become shareholding profit-margin watchers who can’t shut up about World Of Warcraft. I don’t blame them though; I blame the profit-hungry industry atmosphere that has so efficiently absorbed them.
The problem with the « instant fun » of the « ideal » game described above, is that gaming has the potential to be a moving and even life-altering experience. That kind of experience doesn’t usually arrive 30 seconds after you start playing. It emerges, slowly… sometimes even after a measure of sacrifice. Things that are worth learning often take a long time to learn. I don’t think you want a dumber game Martine, but when anyone (especially a capable and intelligent ‘anyone’) asks for a game that is easier to play and more instantly satisfying, I can’t help but wish they would re-examine the impact of that wish.
To aim simply for ‘funsturbation’ might be profitable (or satisfying for casual gamers who don’t want to invest much time in play) but it falls short of the medium’s potential and most of all, it falls short of the player’s potential. I think that’s what bothers me most.