What Games Are: Game Design, Development, Publishing, Marketing and Art

Games and Meaning

What does meaning really mean? Generally it translates as resonant, illuminating, symbolic or significant. In some cases all of the above. A meaningful song might evoke the history of a revolution for the listener, so that even though she does not know the facts she feels a connection to it. The same is true of novels, movies and art. 

Games incorporate agency and so many of the events that happen within them are of a player's making. An action causes change in the game world, and can therefore be significant, but not necessarily resonant, symbolic or illuminating. The question for games is really whether they can incorporate other kinds of meaning too. 

I think they can. 

Marketing Stories Are Not About You

It's really tough to design a game, prototype it, ship it and fix all of its bugs. It feels like that should be the end of the story and that - if you do all of the above well - rewards should be yours. Execution, not ideas, etc.

And yet in all likelihood the media and the public will react with apathy. The fault is likely not with your coding skills, production values, the quality of your music or your design. It's with your approach. You are telling a story which is all about you.

'Me Me Me', your story cries, look how cool I am. Look how quirky I am. Look how awesome I am. Now pay me. That’s a product story, but it’s not a marketing story. A marketing story is about them, not you.

What Dear Esther Is Not...

… is a game. Although there are plenty of equivocations doing the rounds to redefine the term ‘game’ in order to include it in the club, Dear Esther (much like The Stanley Parable) is not a game. It’s a virtual promenade, a gallery of ideas mediated by walking. It’s really quite interesting as a thing in its own right, and I recommend you see it much as I would recommend you go visit the Tate Modern.

But I think the folks trying to mix this and game are doing both a disservice. A game is not defined simply by the ability to walk, but to cause meaningful change within it. Virtual promenades are aiming more for the artistry of the interactive gallery or the amusement ride (depending on their flavour) where the choices are there to simply trigger scripted events.

Some will disagree, or assail the meaning of ‘game’ as a way to characterise my position as limited. With respect, if that’s your takeaway from this post then you’re probably not grasping what I mean.

Better Than Movies [Kill Hollywood]

“The Worm has turned”, Jack Nicholson once said in the otherwise-forgettable Wolf, “and it is now packing an Uzi.”

I’m minded of this quote when reading various reactions to the concerted move by the established entertainment industry to stop piracy. It’s not just SOPA and PIPA, but also ACTA in Europe and a variety of national-level legislative campaigns which propose draconian, over-reaching controls to protect content industries at the expense of all others.

The normally-placid geek industries, which prefer to make stuff rather than lobby, are nettled to such an extent that key figures are declaring that it’s time to saddle up. That it’s time to lobby and cajole on issues like relaxing copyright and patents for real rather than talk about it. That it’s time to, as Paul Graham wrote last Friday, kill Hollywood.

So do you want to take up the call?

Why Pro-Amateurs Are The Future

The fact that professional makers are feeling under threat is not news. There are calls for tax breaks for game makers and novelists, scrambling efforts to lock down (or at least shut up) the Web through legislation. There is even Rupert Murdoch, once champion of anti-establishmentarian ideals of publishing, tweeting about why a search engine and mass theft are supposedly the same thing.

They have good reason to feel threatened. The Great Recession has accelerated the process of deconstruction. Nobody wants to invest in professional art in a time when we’ve started to use the word “trillion” in everyday conversations about national debts. Add to this the chorus of devaluation that digital distribution has wrought in all creative fields, the largely hazy arguments surrounding piracy, and cultural trends toward lionizing the past (great for back catalogue sales, not so much for new artists).

To many, it looks like Doomsday. However I think not.

Tolstoy, Art, Divided Brains and Roleplaying Games

I had the pleasure of attending a talk by the founders of Bioware at BAFTA. It was about whether games are an art and if so, how. Starting with a definition from Tolstoy, they explained that the ability to create key choices and moments within games to evoke emotion is what they consider art. They then invited members of the audience to share their own emotional play experiences.

However something bothered me about the definition and its application. Both speakers and audience were equating art with player emotion, beauty and experience and that’s not really what Tolstoy meant. It can’t be denied that many players of roleplaying games feel that their play experience should be regarded as art, but is it? Or are they actually searching for validation?

This is a post about definitions of art, emotional validation, the duality of play, Iain McGilchrist and whether roleplaying really is what its proponents think it is.

All Great Marketing Stories are About the Future

Many game makers look at figures like Peter Molyneux and wonder why he gets all the press and they get none. And the answer is that Molyneux understands marketing stories and how to tell them. Most industry legends are the same. They get that the public does not just see a game as a thing, but in context.

You might think you’re just making a game, but you’re not. You’re either creating or contributing to a marketing story, whether intentionally or otherwise, and it’s increasingly important to tell the one you genuinely believe in. Especially if it’s about the future.

The Other Way [Industry Issues]

Many developers want game making to be treated as a skilled profession. They want it to be serious, have stable working hours, to acknowledge their contribution and to be paid accordingly. They want to see themselves as craftsmen bringing decades of experience to bear on projects.

This desire reminds me of a scene in The Wire where Marlo steals lollipops in plain view of a security guard, and when the guard challenges him Marlo sizes him up and says:

‘You want it be one way. But it’s the other way.’

Can Games Be Radical? [Art]

I believe that games are an art form that defines the twenty first century. However, compared to some other art forms, they are somewhat conservative. They may be loud and violent, or quiet and serene, yet the kinds of worlds and roles that they offer are often recognisable and safe. Rarely do we see games that confront society as well as being fun to play.

Instead they tend to play it straight, focusing on the authenticity of escapism, the rewards and the gameplay. Their role, it seems, is to escape existing culture rather than define it.

Can games define new culture? Are they able to be edgy? Can we foresee a day when the ideas within a game cause discussion and debate much as a controversial play might? Are games capable of radicalism?

Do You Really Care? [Marketing Stories]

I had the pleasure of meeting Ian Roberts of Red Redemption yesterday. He's at Develop with his company's environmentally themed strategy game, Fate of the World.

Ian talked at length about the game, the motivation behind it and the educational value of games. He was animated about his subject, proud of his work, and had a sense of marketing story. He clearly cared, and that's an infectious quality.