EPTwhat VG theory is
Video Game theory is a system of organized thinking. We all agree on what words mean what, demonstrate where and how they exist and explain how everything works. Imagine Starcraft without build orders, timings, or an understanding of the game behind the game--that's playing video games for fun. All the elements are there, but they're not expressed or consciously recognized. Video Game theory puts the knowledge into words, gives it form and by this process expose more we wouldn't have seen before.
why should i care?
Further down I have a rough article I wrote on why some games seem to age and some don't. But before that, I want to take it back a step:
I've done a lot of thinking and research into video game theory and have a personal interest in it. Great. What is that good for? What problems could it solve?
what i think
The impression I get is that people want me to talk about their favorite games, their emotional experiences they've had--they want to partially relive them and see others share them. That can happen through the examples I choose, but that isn't video game theory. I can document these experiences and justify why they exist.
So really, before I devote a ton of time, I want to know: what problems could a website on video game theory solve? Sure, it could sate people's curiosity. But what good does it do?
What value does it add to people's lives?
In the spoiler is a new article. I want it to be
-easy to read
-easy to understand
-allow you to add it to your thinking and apply it right away
-entertaining and link to other articles you'd read
BEFORE YOU OPEN READ THIS
anything underlined is a link to another article about that concept which I haven't written (only outlined)
[anything in brackets is a TL-blog only comment]
+ Show Spoiler +
How Video Games Age & the Longevity Spectrum
[title, would be bigger but lack blog-post formatting knowledge]
Where some games age gracefully, others end up like a bloated wrinkly animal corpse you might find at the bottom of a pool. So I wondered—is there a way to determine how a game will feel in five years? Ten? Just after release? What makes a game timeless?
Before we even jump in, there’re assumptions I’m making. Nostalgia isn’t a factor, meaning your encounter with said game carries all the authenticity of a first date and not a 12th anniversary.
Second, you’re playing the game with the hardware it was created for—not emulating it or playing a later-gen port. This might seem trivial, but it’s not.
Game-Agers—Graphics, Gimmicks & Superfluousity
Graphics are related to hardware. Duh. Better hardware = better graphics. But this doesn’t mean older graphics are older graphics, if you get my drift. The more bottom-left heavy a game is, the worse it ages. A chocobo, mushroom or zealot has the same charm no matter many pixels are used to create it.
Gimmicks are like rotten easter eggs. They look pretty, but they suck. Like an inside joke which isn’t (funny/explained/pertinent) or an allusion to some passing fad (anybody remember quick time events?). A gimmick is just something that’s put there to be there and serves no other purpose than to shout “look, I’m here!”
These two are symptoms of the real cause: when pieces of the game are superfluous.
[thinking about getting rid of the entire above subsection. yay/nay?]
Virtual Anti-Aging Cream: The Concept of Concept
Playing a video game is a transaction of time, energy and decision. You trade your time and energy for increased decision-making power from which you (hopefully) derive pleasure. Implicit in this agreement is that when you spend your time and energy on a game, you’re trading for one that’s well put-together.
In every game, no matter the genre, there’s an overarching concept of the “concept” of the game. This is indicated by the genre, producers, developers, but it is something entirely separate and unique to each individual game. You can call it whatever you want, I call it the “universal core.” It’s that unconscious, agreed upon idea of a game we all share when we talk.
All the small elements of a game contribute or detract from this universal core over time depending on one balance: how concept-driven they are. As I’m about to demonstrate, this concept is exceedingly simple, subtle, and overwhelmingly numerous.
Trial by Tapestry
You’re running through a city with giant tapestries hung along sides of the street, and you see one flutter. The following are reasons it could have fluttered—some reasons will age the game and some will not.
[apologize in advance]
1) It’s windy. The game developers added this to make the game more immersive, and realistic.
2) Somebody ran by, causing it to flutter.
a. They’re a major part of the plot. (Think HIMYM Yellow Umbrella, or situations where the entire storyline is cruxed upon these developments)
b. They’re an enemy.
3) There’s a window behind it.
a. Something is happening inside the building.
b. The window leads to an alternate route.
c. A&B from 2)
4) Symbolic meaning
a. Each tapestry is woven to be a family crest. When a family’s tapestry falls, the line is dead. When it blows, there is trouble.
5) To remain competitive because another game had a similar feature.
6) To show off the computing power of the new system.
[much better formatting to this outline when i can use html]
Obviously, 5 and 6 will age the game. It could actually be considered the same as 1, they are similar, which will also age the game. If the goal of a game decision is to be realistic to increase immersiveness, the future will always do this better. The game will age.
2, 3 and 4 are all concept driven, and given five years they will still be as pertinent to the game experience as the day of the release.
There can be multiple reasons, but a concept driven one will always dominate a superfluous one.
The Longevity Spectrum
To define how well a game will age take all the decisions which take place inside the game and outside the player’s control. Assign them some value along this spectrum.
[nice photoshop graphic of this]
Concept-Driven |-----------------------------| Superfluous
Then, after a majority of the important and pervasive decisions are mapped, average them. The more concept-driven a game is, the more timeless.
So What? (Conclusion) [needs new sub-title]
If developers want to make their games timeless, they need to ask “so, what?” when making design decisions. This is usually solved by having a defined mission and strategy for the game. Immersion is a means, not an end. This mental model is a spectrum which encompasses timelessness in games. Spectrums are awesome.
[conclusion just above raw outline dump. needs spices!]
[title, would be bigger but lack blog-post formatting knowledge]
Where some games age gracefully, others end up like a bloated wrinkly animal corpse you might find at the bottom of a pool. So I wondered—is there a way to determine how a game will feel in five years? Ten? Just after release? What makes a game timeless?
Before we even jump in, there’re assumptions I’m making. Nostalgia isn’t a factor, meaning your encounter with said game carries all the authenticity of a first date and not a 12th anniversary.
Second, you’re playing the game with the hardware it was created for—not emulating it or playing a later-gen port. This might seem trivial, but it’s not.
Game-Agers—Graphics, Gimmicks & Superfluousity
Graphics are related to hardware. Duh. Better hardware = better graphics. But this doesn’t mean older graphics are older graphics, if you get my drift. The more bottom-left heavy a game is, the worse it ages. A chocobo, mushroom or zealot has the same charm no matter many pixels are used to create it.
Gimmicks are like rotten easter eggs. They look pretty, but they suck. Like an inside joke which isn’t (funny/explained/pertinent) or an allusion to some passing fad (anybody remember quick time events?). A gimmick is just something that’s put there to be there and serves no other purpose than to shout “look, I’m here!”
These two are symptoms of the real cause: when pieces of the game are superfluous.
[thinking about getting rid of the entire above subsection. yay/nay?]
Virtual Anti-Aging Cream: The Concept of Concept
Playing a video game is a transaction of time, energy and decision. You trade your time and energy for increased decision-making power from which you (hopefully) derive pleasure. Implicit in this agreement is that when you spend your time and energy on a game, you’re trading for one that’s well put-together.
In every game, no matter the genre, there’s an overarching concept of the “concept” of the game. This is indicated by the genre, producers, developers, but it is something entirely separate and unique to each individual game. You can call it whatever you want, I call it the “universal core.” It’s that unconscious, agreed upon idea of a game we all share when we talk.
All the small elements of a game contribute or detract from this universal core over time depending on one balance: how concept-driven they are. As I’m about to demonstrate, this concept is exceedingly simple, subtle, and overwhelmingly numerous.
Trial by Tapestry
You’re running through a city with giant tapestries hung along sides of the street, and you see one flutter. The following are reasons it could have fluttered—some reasons will age the game and some will not.
[apologize in advance]
1) It’s windy. The game developers added this to make the game more immersive, and realistic.
2) Somebody ran by, causing it to flutter.
a. They’re a major part of the plot. (Think HIMYM Yellow Umbrella, or situations where the entire storyline is cruxed upon these developments)
b. They’re an enemy.
3) There’s a window behind it.
a. Something is happening inside the building.
b. The window leads to an alternate route.
c. A&B from 2)
4) Symbolic meaning
a. Each tapestry is woven to be a family crest. When a family’s tapestry falls, the line is dead. When it blows, there is trouble.
5) To remain competitive because another game had a similar feature.
6) To show off the computing power of the new system.
[much better formatting to this outline when i can use html]
Obviously, 5 and 6 will age the game. It could actually be considered the same as 1, they are similar, which will also age the game. If the goal of a game decision is to be realistic to increase immersiveness, the future will always do this better. The game will age.
2, 3 and 4 are all concept driven, and given five years they will still be as pertinent to the game experience as the day of the release.
There can be multiple reasons, but a concept driven one will always dominate a superfluous one.
The Longevity Spectrum
To define how well a game will age take all the decisions which take place inside the game and outside the player’s control. Assign them some value along this spectrum.
[nice photoshop graphic of this]
Concept-Driven |-----------------------------| Superfluous
Then, after a majority of the important and pervasive decisions are mapped, average them. The more concept-driven a game is, the more timeless.
So What? (Conclusion) [needs new sub-title]
If developers want to make their games timeless, they need to ask “so, what?” when making design decisions. This is usually solved by having a defined mission and strategy for the game. Immersion is a means, not an end. This mental model is a spectrum which encompasses timelessness in games. Spectrums are awesome.
[conclusion just above raw outline dump. needs spices!]
there is a surprise inside one of these
+ Show Spoiler +
took her away for now. ill give her back later
hopefully this doesn't distract you too much
+ Show Spoiler +
what I want to know from you
Was this interesting?
did you unconsciously click on any of those outlined links?
could you see yourself citing this for a paper?
if you were sent an update about a new article like the above, would you click on it and browse it (browsing doesn't mean you'd read it, although reading means you've browsed it)
copypasta for easy response
Was this interesting?
did you unconsciously click on any of those outlined links?
could you see yourself citing this for a paper?
if you were sent an update about a new article like the above, would you click on it and browse it (browsing doesn't mean you'd read it, although reading means you've browsed it)
copypasta for easy response
[b]interesting?[/b]
[b]unconscious click?[/b]
[b]cite?[/b]
[b]browse?[/b]
