Death of video games and the renaissance of “play”
Cyril has an interesting post about the “death of video-games”. IMO video games creativity is not dead. What is dead is the video game development model which suck and is so publisher-driven that it kills innovation. Garage studios are no longer viable, in-house studios are following the headquarters order and cut innovation; and even when it comes to outsourcing, there is nothing good out of it. Of course there are still some good and innovative studios (blizzard) but they’re less and less. I think Water Cooler also addresses that issue.
To me, what is interesting is that the most important innovation with regards to video games are
- not games but rather platforms, environment to do something together: I am thinking about WoW (even though has of course a RPG component) or Habbo Hotel (or even Flickr which started as a game platform).
- not classical platforms such as consoles but rather on the Web, which is the most open innovation platform for developing things.
- not game content but DYI game platforms (DYI MMORPG or at least 3D environment tools), artifacts (like game controllers as for the Nintendo Wii or the Sony augmented reality card game), machinimas or tools like Xfire (a very relevant tool to when your friends are online, what game they’re playing, and what server they’re on, join in on their games with one click and see what the friends of your friends are playing).
And this is interesting because video/computer games are now starting not only a tiny platforms but they’re is now an ecology of artifacts connected to them which eventually are targeted at engaging people in playful activities such as developing DYI games, creating or watching machinimas, playing games with tangible interactions…
Why do I blog this? I am interested in foresight issues related to this sort of activities and how games is evolving from a very precise activity to a culture with fuzzier boundaries.
May 17th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Yep, I agree with your opinion dude, the model is dead. Moreover I was more reviewing the paper than giving my opinion.
Your point about platforms and DYI for innovation is, if I get it right, a way to come back to the good old days (the one I never knew) when “anyone” could create a game in his basement. By having API’s and tools something can be done with less time (but still a lot). no one starts from scratch (that’s different from then) but with a good idea and a lot of time you can show something to the world (I guess, I never tried…)
I also wanted to say that I don’t think blizzard is innovative -at all-, Their products are very successful and acclaimed that’s true. But they never take risks, they make games everyone has already played but they make them better, really better. Warcraft 3 was far from innovative when it came out (RTS was an well-worn genre, even in 2002). Same for WoW. Maybe, they just better know what is a player-centerd design…
But I agree with you, it’s the model that’s dead ! the most amazing is that Chris Crawford’s paper is 10 years old, and it only got worse!
May 19th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Nice post and remark. I like the way you both forsee the evolution of game design. Like knowledge management and more recently e-learning, it seems that video gaming get back to reality! At least, behind video games, there’s the outmost crucial and revolutionary human activity: PLAY!!! We don’t really give a shit whether it can be done through different medias, as long as it brings us joy and excitment. The video game business-driven model is dead? Yes, and I would add that as a whole, the overall business-driven model IS DEAD ANYWAY. We need more than great platforms and people-centered interfaces, we need to make SENSE out of it and get up from our computer chair once for all! Let’s freak & play & make sense outside along with people through real & tangible interactions… Looking forward to it, I’m just fed up with the console and PC games.
May 24th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Ouh yeah it’s dead