Monday, May 18, 2009

Where's My Virtual Lightsaber?

I’m a pretty religious Penny Arcade reader, even going so far as to pepper my everyday dialogue – that is, the things I say to real people, when I’m looking at their faces – with phrases from the comic. (Yes, in real life I drop references to an internet comic focused on the gaming community. Someday I’ll show you the stick with which I fend off the hordes of ladies perpetually surrounding me. I call it “Sting.”) Today’s PA entry ties into what I feel is the most significant development within today’s gaming scene, with Gabe bemoaning – via a, um, novelty T-shirt – the increasing prevalence of physically immersive simulations. His complaint is that simulated experiences, like those presented in Rock Band and Wii exercise titles, require a very real level of coordination (and produce, on occasion, equally real sweat). I remember the predictions from the pre-Wii, pre-Internet halcyon 1980’s and 90’s concerning the future of gaming: we were going to strap on VR suits and gloves, and pick up our virtual swords, and fight some virtual zombies. Their matted hair would be tangibly repugnant; the smell of the grave would fill our nostrils. (Alternatively, we were going to strap on VR stirrups and riding crops and ride some virtual magical ponies. The rest – matted hair, smell of the grave – still stands.) I look back now on all the movies promising these developments – Hackers comes to mind, as do The Matrix and The Island – and can only mourn our failure to realize so noble a goal. I’m on the opposite side of the debate from Gabe; I yearn for more immersive experiences. I maintain that I’d be a much more efficient zombie killer, fighter pilot or Space Marine than video games today imply, if only I could utilize the respective tools of these trades as they were intended to be used – with both hands, and my feet if necessary. Something in my brain bone rebels when I press a button or push a joystick to swing a sword. It’s as though my deep, reptilian subconscious is shouting at me, “No! No! We built you arms for this very purpose! Entire arms for holding swords!” When I’m playing a game, I want to feel a sword in my hand, and move it in a way that threatens to dislocate my entire shoulder. I want to strain to stay upright while wearing full plate armor. I want, in short, to look left by moving my neck. As it stands now, using a cursed twin stick control scheme, I put a lot of stock in how well a game maps its skies. This is because I spend a good portion of my time looking directly up, or down, or off into the middle distance, unable to focus my gaze upon a given point. If a button could be utilized to slacken my character’s jaw and trigger a drool response, I imagine that I would inadvertently press it. I’ve really enjoyed games like Rock Band that challenge our assumptions on the nature of a “controller.” I may not be able to sync up the Left Bumper with my need to reload a shotgun, but I’ll be damned if I can’t understand the basic mechanics of a guitar and how one is played; my head can wrap comfortably around this process, as I’m doing with my hands exactly what I want my character to replicate with his own. So, gamers, thoughts? What’s your preference: an immersive simulation, or a contained exercise in hand-eye coordination? I know that I’ll be the first in line to buy a holodeck, so what’s the argument against physically demanding games?


7 comments:

  1. I for one am totally on board this reflective controlling. I'm pretty sure the only video games I've played in the recent past have been Rock Band or on the Wii (though, to be fair, one is definitely the Zelda game for SNES).

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think this all sounds swell and all but I guess I'll be the one to point out the obvious... If you want to swing a sword widely about, why not just go outside and fence with your friends (or complete strangers). I agree that games should be more immersive, but I've always thought that the best way to achieve this would be through story and atmosphere. In the end, FPS's racing games, action games etc, they're all just simulations. They may have gotten pretty mind-blowing but they're still just simulations. RPG's on the other hand, might have the least amount of controller activity or realism, but draw you in (a'la Matrix) more than any other genre. I suppose it gets down to your preference of games; an experience or a developed work of fiction. If you look at where the 'value' of games lies, they excel at adding a visual and aural element to a narrative. This, I believe, enhances a story. Racing, FPS's, actions games, etc, on the other had, merely imitate something that's way cooler in real life. bottom line.

    Just my 2 cents anyways.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Let's take the Zelda game for the Wii as an example. Sure, you could go out and learn fencing and swing a sword outside of the game, but when playing it seem to make more sense (to me) to actually swing your arm than to push a button.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh Tics, you make a really good point. I play a game largely for its story, so a well-made RPG can draw me in without being terribly intuitive or immersive. And yes, if I want to have a realistic fencing experience, the way to do it would be to go out and get in a sword fight.
    Preferably not with a stranger, but hey - you only live once.
    I guess I just have a problem with games whose confusing, non-immersive controls get in the way of my enjoyment of their stories. I could never get into the Metal Gear games - great games, I've been told - because I'd always, ALWAYS press the wrong button. I just wish there was an easier way to control them that felt more natural.

    ReplyDelete
  5. totally agree with the metal gear critic. It's the fixed camera that gets me. But you're missing out big time if you haven't played the first one. P.S. Oh Tics = John Paul

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think this question really stretches into all kinds of territories. While I understand your desire for a sort of virtual reality it can't be applied to all games. What kind of set up would you have for a game like Flower? (Though that game admittedly uses motion sensing.)To speak to Metal Gear, the point with that game is that you are NOT Solid Snake and never will be. Snake has had years of training, experience and genetic manipulation to make him the awesome spy/soldier he is. He has a quantifiable set of skills we don't have and those in turn must be mapped to something our puny hu-man brains can manage and that is a controller. That is a set of buttons pressed with dexterity and timing. I'm not trying to say I don't agree with you. There is something innately illogical about Square Button = Crouch. If I can hold up a shield and swing a sword with my real arms that's fantastic, but I can't cast fire or do a Limit Break in real life. Some things that are awesome in video games we can never do and a button is as close as we're going to get. Also, Penny Arcade is in fact great.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well, nuts to you - I CAN do a Limit Break in real life. Hit me enough and I'll totally show you.
    I was going to counter that argument - that is, we can't do some of the things game characters do, necessitating controllers - by saying that we COULD create a control scheme wherein related gestures trigure game behavior; the Wii already often does this. But then I envisioned LARPers swinging imaginary swords in forests, and realized the benefit to opting for sedentary simulation.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.