Chris Suellentrop for the NYT;

“That is definitely the million-dollar question,” said Levi Miller, an engineer at Valve, a game developer and distributor, when I asked him what experiences would work best in virtual reality. Mark Zuckerberg might say it’s more like a $2 billion question.

“The truth is, we still don’t know what the best applications are going to be,” John Carmack, the chief technology officer of Oculus, said during a speech at the conference.

Virtual Reality’s Potential Displayed at Game Developers Conference

Uh huh. Video games and interactive entertainment are a just avenues to refine the technology, but they are not the future of VR. Console ‘hard core’ gaming is a niche. Interactive fiction is a niche. VR is unlikely to replace television or movie theatres.

I can understand that Mr Carmack is probably not in a position to discuss why Facebook bought Oculus, but the very fact that Facebook bought a VR company should tell everyone what they need to know; VR is the ultimate social networking technology.

That’s the ‘killer app’.

Tags: VIrtual Reality, Media, Games

Frank Lantz;

Everywhere *we* look we see pretend worlds and childish make-believe, imaginary dragons, badly written dialogue and unskippable cutscenes in which angry mannequins gesture awkwardly at each other.

More Thoughts on Formalism

The above quote more or less sums up my thoughts on most video games and why I don’t play very many.

I used to work at EA. At the time, the first HD consoles were about 9 months away. It was a very interesting time to be there. I’m a “Formalist” and proudly so. I like to know how and why things work. That’s what I consider Formalism; the study of the basic mechanics of a medium. No one I met at EA was at all interested in exploring game mechanics, they were just interested in rendering.

I’ve found this to be true in the film and television industry as well. No one is very interested in trying to understand the mechanics of how the mediums function. Which is a shame, because I’ve seen a lot of great ideas wasted.

The comments to the blog post are interesting too.

Sam Stephens;

The problem I have with a term like formalism is the implication that those who have an interest in "mechanics and systems" (i.e. gameplay) believe these elements are the most important element of an artistic medium and that they are denying the importance or value of other elements of that medium.

I’d say this is not a problem with the term “Formalism” but with the writer of the comment. The term Formalism does not implicate anything other than what the term means. The definition IS open to debate, but regardless, just because it is not inclusive does not make it a ‘problem’; that’s what makes it useful.

There are people who believe the mechanics of a medium are more important than the content. There are people who believe the content is more important than the medium. Giving these positions names makes debate easier and more productive. (Even if that debate is over the meaning of the terms.)

Stephens comments further;

It's difficult to argue BioShock and Grand Theft Auto don't present themes, messages, aesthetics and world views. It's just that the art of these products is irrelevant to the gameplay.

This is false. The themes, messages etc of both of the example games are deeply tied to the game play and design choices made by their creators.

James Margaris comments;

That's the elephant in the room in most of critical discourse: it's for other critics and a specific, narrow type of developer interested in philosophical and semantic arguments, not for game developers as a whole. People arguing about what formalism is or is not, what sorts of games formalists are interested in, whether people are too or not enough interested in ludo-whatever or who would win in a fight, ludozealots or narratologists - almost totally irrelevant to the actual act of creating video games.

This is essentially a version of “Those who can Do. Those who can’t Teach” A lot of people in creative industries think this way.

It’s bull shit.

It is a very narrow minded and arrogant view point. Critical thinking, theory creation and discussion can add a great deal to creation. It’s a great tool to use. Critical thinking and theory is creative. It can be used as inspiration just like any other cultural artifact.

He does go onto add something I agree with;

Which matters "most" is irrelevant - they all matter. Good video games, and even good board games, have good rules and good presentation / theming that supports the rules and adds to the experience.

And then, the foot attempts to go in the mouth again, but misses and create comedy gold;

There aren't that many specialized words in film criticism - most of them are invented by practitioners, not critics, and describe something specific that comes up in day-to-day work, like a "two shot" or an "insert." But you can read film criticism without coming across a single invented-by-critics word.

He obviously isn’t up to date on film criticism.

Even though I think he’s wrong, Luis Guimaraes makes a very well stated comment.

Games are not Form, games are Function, so "games formalism" would actually mean the opposite of what it's used to say (again, just "scientism" by other name), as "formalist" implies a focus on "form" over function.

Games are Form AND they are Function. They are both. “Formalist” does not ‘imply’ a focus on form over function. It is the study of how form allows or creates function.

Lastly, Joe McGinn’s comment is spot on;

even narrative has formal aspects, related to game systems, especially if one is innovating in the area as in 80 Days or The Walking Dead.And it's like anything. If you break the "rules" without understanding them, results will be more random. So I teach my students formal game design elements, in part so that they can break the mold on purpose rather than by accident!

Intention is everything. If you do not understand your tools, you will never master your trade. It’s as simple as that.

Tags: Media, Storytelling, Theory, Games