I now have a game philosophy guru.

[purpleravenhawk]

I read this interview with Jessie Schell, of Schell Games. I was impressed with his pragmatic but optimistic approach to the world of gaming. Let me throw a few of my fave quotes at you.

Talking about social games on sites like facebook - "There's a weird paradox that everyone is going to have to face up to, this collision between fantasy and reality. In a lot of ways, the idea of the single-player video game is a weird anomaly. If you look at the history of games going back thousands of years, those games are multiplayer 99% of the time. You might have solitaire, but most of the time games are about connecting with other people. Computer tech of 20 or 30 years ago didn't really permit that, so there was no choice but to have single-player games. I think the single-player thing is a bit of a blip on the history of games."

Can't say I agree or even want to believe it, but he may be right there.

Referring to a possible future in which CPUs are in everything we use and life becomes a macro video game - "Anything we can measure that people want to influence the behavior of, people are going to try to work into a game. Games are meaningful and powerful. It sounds weird, but if we can track you while you are reading a book, watching tv, what you are eating, and when you are walking, why won't people try to turn it into a game? It's going to influence behaviors. I have a name for this, for the time when game playing infiltrates every second of your life. I call it the Gamepocalypse. I started a blog about all these things that take us closer to it. Like uBoost, a system for teachers. Do you want to give out bonus points to your students for good grades or behavior? They can use the points to decorate their avatar or feed their virtual pets or trade them in for iTunes. There are so many things like that. These things are infiltrating everywhere."

Kinda scary.

On whether this would result in an Orwellian nightmare - "It's kind of like George Orwell (big brother stuff), but it's really more like Aldous Huxley and Brave New World. Orwell thought a cruel government would enslave its populace. But this isn't about the government. Huxley's premise was that we'd be enslaved by entertainment. It would be so interesting and so compelling that we wouldn't think about anything important, and it would be corporations taking advantage of us. That's the more real danger. Like 'Buy 20 cartons of Camels and unlock the Bentley in GTA' or 'Sign up for the US Army and we'll give you a battle fortress in WOW.' People are going to start to realize the power of these things to influence us. You see it now. People are figuring out better and better game structures to manipulate us. Some people have told me, 'People won't stand for that; they'll rebel.' But if you look at the examples, in 1950, 13% of TV was commercials. Now it's 36%. Did anyone rebel? Did anyone do anything? Think about google and gmail. A corporation is going to scan every email you send and form a picture of your buying patterns. But we think that's ok."

Scary stuff, eh?

On game designers being on the front lines for the battle over the way we are going to live - "If you're a game designer, you've got to pick what side you're on. I carve it up into four different areas. There are the persuaders, who are in it to just make money. We've always seen those folks in the game industry. There's a group I call the fulfillers; this is most of the game industry. These are people that are really into fulfilling people's wishes, fulfilling people's dreams and fantasies. Then there are the artists, who want to make things that are beautiful and revolutionary. They don't really care how many units it sells. And finally there are the humanitarians. Their goal is to use the incredible power that games have to make us better people-improve our minds, improve our bodies; improve our souls. You might think you're on one side, but someone else is going to be trying to manipulate you. I put out a call to say, 'You better pick what side you're on, because if you don't, someone else is going to pick for you.'

"We are battling for everyone's attention. But where an individual devotes their attention determines their character. What you give your attention to determines who you are; it determines who we are as humanity. It's a very meaningful question. It may turn out that it's a nightmare, and there's no winning this war. The government might come up with games to get you to go outside and stop smoking and be smarter; but who can win against Coca-Cola and Philip Morris? But the flip side of that is that when everything is measured all the time, people become more self-conscious. People become more aware. Maybe that will change people. Maybe they will say, 'This isn't how I want to be remembered.' Because it will be remembered - for 1,000 years or as long as your descendents choose to keep your data alive. It will be a permanent record of everything you've done. Maybe that will cause people to be better people and that will be the balancing force. But it's hard to say."

^That's my fave quote. If you read nothing else, read that. whee  

[Iakun]

"Huxley's premise was that we'd be enslaved by entertainment. It would be so interesting and so compelling that we wouldn't think about anything important, and it would be corporations taking advantage of us."

This is already happening with Hollywood. North America is obsessed with celebrities and anything even remotely related to them. We're so much happier being entertained by celebs because we live vicariously through them, trying to escape our (by comparison) boring lives.

It seems our society is perfectly happy giving up control and freedom as long as we're comfy. Of course no one would rebel. Rebelling would be an admission that conspiracies exist, and no one wants to be a crazy conspiracy nut, no one even thinks they CAN exist.

Corporations do own us. We like it. It's not gonna change, at least not anytime soon.

I know this isn't exactly related to video games but in my view these negatives are already in motion.

More related to the video games, I believe the majority of the people in the gaming industry are actually in it for the money. I believe games will be transformed into some strange beast, anything to keep us sucked in.

This kinda sounds like an extended discussion thread... lol  

[purpleravenhawk]

I think you're right. I've been noticing it for a long time. You don't hear people in the media admit it very often, tho. This is one reason I try really hard to avoid all the celebrity gossip crap that floats around.  

[xwhateverxdudex]

So what if all games became single player again.
That would be better in my opinion.

Games loose my interest very quickly if there's something that I NEED someone else for just to complete it.

Probably because I don't know anyone.

Hard to alline online scheduals if you don't know people IRL that likes the same online game.

The only way to fix that would be to stay logged in 24/7
And even I'm not willing to completely do that.  

[purpleravenhawk]

Most people have at least one person they could pick to play with them. It is interesting to realize, tho, that games as a whole have been traditionally multiplayer. WE are the anomaly. eek  

[xwhateverxdudex]

I find it funny considdering an old stereotype that said gamers were "nerds" and thus loners by nature.

(they had to be, no one wanted to hang out with them)  

[purpleravenhawk]

That stereotype didn't exist before the advent of modern computer and tabletop gaming, tho, when you think about it. You have to go back a few decades, but games really were group activities for millennia. Nerds invented single-player games, not the other way around. Then they made RPGs so they could hang out with each other, but by then, the damage was done to their reps. xd  

[Iakun]

The most fun times I ever had with video games were always when I played with other people. I LOVE rpgs and all, but even my favorite rpgs haven't filled me with as much excitement as when I used to play fighting games with one of my best friends. (or other multiplayer games really)  

[purpleravenhawk]

There you go. Words of wisdom from a fellow hermit. xd  

[xwhateverxdudex]

YAY, nerd reps!
LOL

I won't say I don't have more fun fighting people with my DBZ games. (rather then the AI)

But they have to good. And I've only ever met one person that stand his own against me, when I'm in top fighting form.

I guess I just need to know more people.
(but that's where the who hermit thing comes in) ^.^  

[Iakun]

Me and my friend were pretty much equal so when we played against each other in a fighting game it was always really hard lol  

[xwhateverxdudex]

It's always most fun when you don't know what the outcome will be like.

That's why fighting an AI gets boring.
I can always beat the AI. (eventually ^.^ LOL)  

[Iakun]

Too bad I suck at fighting games now lol

I feel so lucky to have all the new gen consoles right now, but it's such a tragedy that all the rpgs this gen have been mediocre. Yes, even FFXIII was only okay.  

[xwhateverxdudex]

Really? That suxs.
I haven't even gotten it yet, and know I'm being told that it's not that great.

I feel sad V_V  

[Iakun]

It's still worth a play. For the first time in a while it's provided some decent challenges battle-wise, and it is a beautiful game visually. The only problem is the entire story presentation is all wrong and bad and reeks of anime melodrama. Pitiful villains this time around as well. FFXII had an amazing script but lacked a lot of heart in my opinion. This time around, it seems Square over compensated by making FFXIII a bad drama with high-school level writing skills.

Square does have some incredible ideas for stories. The only problem is they REALLY REALLY need some new writers and directors because they suck at pulling off their ambitious story ideas.