Sunday, December 29, 2013
Revolutionizing The Game World: What Makes The Best Games For IPAD?
By Mishu Hull
One of the first media of widespread popular computer use was the playing of games. Think Pong and Pac-man. Today a top thriving trend is the touch screen, familiar on smart phones and tablets such as iPad. The juxtaposition of these two trends has raised doubt in many people's mind how compatible they can be.
Certainly, the immediate evidence would suggest such a concern is much ado about nothing. Games have been developed for touch screens: I've compiled my list of the best games for iPad elsewhere. The fact of such games though has not been without its detractors and critics.
At the risk of caricaturing the complaint, it does often come down to a fairly crude objection. The gist of the complaint is that the player's fingers get in the way of seeing the screen.
That I suspect has more to do with bad design than touch screen gaming per se. And it seems that such a protest misses a more central insight in all of this. Complaining that a tactile interaction with the screen is problematic is really not seeing the forest for the trees. What is going on here is, I suspect, the revolutionizing of gaming. In fact, it may be a portent of the future of human-computer interfacing.
Before fully making my case, let's reflect on a helpful bit of context. When was the last time you watched someone finger paint? Much, I think, can be learned from such observation. Commenting that real painters use paint brushes is true enough.
Yet, we all know the joys of sticking our fingers into the paint; of using the tips of our fingers to smear, spread and shape the paint. Finger painting in a sense is almost a kind of sculpture. Kids of course notoriously love it, but even adults, given the rare occasion, if not worried about getting paint on their new dress or suit, will often be compelled to spontaneously stick in their fingers.
Compare that other childhood picture producing technology, the Etch-n-Sketch. I'm not claiming there's not fun in it. It is though a very particular kind of fun: detail-driven and fixated in a vaguely obsessive compulsive way. It's a world away from the uninhibited joy of finger painting. I propose that this sheer joyousness is directly related to the immersion in, not only the finger painting experience, but also into the product of the experience; the very tactile immersion into the medium.
The person finger painting, in a very real sense, is actually "in" the picture that she is painting. The painting is literally an extension of the painter and the painter an extension of the painting. If we can wrap our head about this dynamic we will understand why touch screen gaming is not only the future of gaming, but of human-computer interface. The touch screen game has the same affect of immersing the player in the game as finger painting does of immersing the painter into the painting.
Complaints over the touch screen's lack of buttons and joysticks, mice and keyboards, express nothing more than the entirely predictable resistance to change always experienced by people left behind by technological change. Such people are understandably resentful. They have invested great amounts of time, energy and sometimes their personal wealth, into learning skills that are rendered obsolete.
History's full of these kinds of self-serving skill-protecting complaints masquerading as principled aesthetic objections. From photographers complaining about digital cameras, old ink-stained newspaper men complaining about the internet, motion picture moguls complaining about television, big band musicians complaining about the phonograph, and horse-and-carriage jockeys complaining about the automobile, this is an old story. And the outcome is usually the same, despite the best efforts of those with heavy investments in the past technologies. Though painful for the individuals involved, unless we are content to live in the past, this is ultimately for the good.
The claim of course is not merely about superior technological function, though that shouldn't be underestimated. It though is really about immediacy and accessibility of experience. Try to imagine that first person, whoever or wherever he was, that had the idea (there had to be a first, somewhere, no?) to hook up speakers to his TV set so as to experience what we'd today call surround sound. Without ever being aware of it, he was taking an essential step down that path which will result in the day when we all experience our favorite television programs as immersive virtual reality experiences. Imagine being able to wander around Jerry's apartment, while he and Elaine are discussing which percentage of the population is dateable. Or imagine being Jerry or Elaine having that conversation. All this is not as far away as you might think.
It's almost a cliche to say that we like to "lose ourselves" in our entertainment, to get "wrapped up in it." We want for a little while to leave the worries of the world behind. This deep human desire for the brief refuge of an escape into fantasy and wonder, I suspect explains why we have always pushed our entertainment technology toward the experience of immersion.
The recent explosion in popularity of Wii is a case in point. It illustrates the desire to bathe ourselves in a tactically immersive gaming experience. The immersive experience of the touch screen approaches such immersion in a manner no control console or keyboard ever will. It links the child-like joy of finger painting and the intense pleasures promised by full virtual reality engagement. It links our personal past with our social future
In Sci-Fi shows we see space age technology in which lights come on when given a verbal command. How much more impressive would it be though if our lights came on when we needed them, or raised their intensity when our eyes were growing tired of a task. Leading edge AI technology raises this very possibility. Immersion is the natural inclination of human-computer interface.
These touch screen games, modest as they appear today, are but a way-station into our future. The kind of games that designers create for touch screen devices like the iPad reveals much about their own capacity to contribute to the future. When you meet a game that is dependent upon "buttons" on the screen, you've encountered a designer who, sadly, is much like film makers and record producers of the past. Only able to conceive of the new technology as means to record live performances, they set up their camera and microphone in static processes which were oblivious to the rich potential that would soon be unlocked those creative souls who ventured into the world of the yet to be created disciplines of cinematography and splice-editing.
Only when game designers have fully immersed themselves in the creative possibilities of designing games organic to the touch screen, will they truly broach the potential for optimizing the best games for iPad, and other touch screen devices. The choice is whether they will be stragglers of the past or pioneers of the future.
Certainly, the immediate evidence would suggest such a concern is much ado about nothing. Games have been developed for touch screens: I've compiled my list of the best games for iPad elsewhere. The fact of such games though has not been without its detractors and critics.
At the risk of caricaturing the complaint, it does often come down to a fairly crude objection. The gist of the complaint is that the player's fingers get in the way of seeing the screen.
That I suspect has more to do with bad design than touch screen gaming per se. And it seems that such a protest misses a more central insight in all of this. Complaining that a tactile interaction with the screen is problematic is really not seeing the forest for the trees. What is going on here is, I suspect, the revolutionizing of gaming. In fact, it may be a portent of the future of human-computer interfacing.
Before fully making my case, let's reflect on a helpful bit of context. When was the last time you watched someone finger paint? Much, I think, can be learned from such observation. Commenting that real painters use paint brushes is true enough.
Yet, we all know the joys of sticking our fingers into the paint; of using the tips of our fingers to smear, spread and shape the paint. Finger painting in a sense is almost a kind of sculpture. Kids of course notoriously love it, but even adults, given the rare occasion, if not worried about getting paint on their new dress or suit, will often be compelled to spontaneously stick in their fingers.
Compare that other childhood picture producing technology, the Etch-n-Sketch. I'm not claiming there's not fun in it. It is though a very particular kind of fun: detail-driven and fixated in a vaguely obsessive compulsive way. It's a world away from the uninhibited joy of finger painting. I propose that this sheer joyousness is directly related to the immersion in, not only the finger painting experience, but also into the product of the experience; the very tactile immersion into the medium.
The person finger painting, in a very real sense, is actually "in" the picture that she is painting. The painting is literally an extension of the painter and the painter an extension of the painting. If we can wrap our head about this dynamic we will understand why touch screen gaming is not only the future of gaming, but of human-computer interface. The touch screen game has the same affect of immersing the player in the game as finger painting does of immersing the painter into the painting.
Complaints over the touch screen's lack of buttons and joysticks, mice and keyboards, express nothing more than the entirely predictable resistance to change always experienced by people left behind by technological change. Such people are understandably resentful. They have invested great amounts of time, energy and sometimes their personal wealth, into learning skills that are rendered obsolete.
History's full of these kinds of self-serving skill-protecting complaints masquerading as principled aesthetic objections. From photographers complaining about digital cameras, old ink-stained newspaper men complaining about the internet, motion picture moguls complaining about television, big band musicians complaining about the phonograph, and horse-and-carriage jockeys complaining about the automobile, this is an old story. And the outcome is usually the same, despite the best efforts of those with heavy investments in the past technologies. Though painful for the individuals involved, unless we are content to live in the past, this is ultimately for the good.
The claim of course is not merely about superior technological function, though that shouldn't be underestimated. It though is really about immediacy and accessibility of experience. Try to imagine that first person, whoever or wherever he was, that had the idea (there had to be a first, somewhere, no?) to hook up speakers to his TV set so as to experience what we'd today call surround sound. Without ever being aware of it, he was taking an essential step down that path which will result in the day when we all experience our favorite television programs as immersive virtual reality experiences. Imagine being able to wander around Jerry's apartment, while he and Elaine are discussing which percentage of the population is dateable. Or imagine being Jerry or Elaine having that conversation. All this is not as far away as you might think.
It's almost a cliche to say that we like to "lose ourselves" in our entertainment, to get "wrapped up in it." We want for a little while to leave the worries of the world behind. This deep human desire for the brief refuge of an escape into fantasy and wonder, I suspect explains why we have always pushed our entertainment technology toward the experience of immersion.
The recent explosion in popularity of Wii is a case in point. It illustrates the desire to bathe ourselves in a tactically immersive gaming experience. The immersive experience of the touch screen approaches such immersion in a manner no control console or keyboard ever will. It links the child-like joy of finger painting and the intense pleasures promised by full virtual reality engagement. It links our personal past with our social future
In Sci-Fi shows we see space age technology in which lights come on when given a verbal command. How much more impressive would it be though if our lights came on when we needed them, or raised their intensity when our eyes were growing tired of a task. Leading edge AI technology raises this very possibility. Immersion is the natural inclination of human-computer interface.
These touch screen games, modest as they appear today, are but a way-station into our future. The kind of games that designers create for touch screen devices like the iPad reveals much about their own capacity to contribute to the future. When you meet a game that is dependent upon "buttons" on the screen, you've encountered a designer who, sadly, is much like film makers and record producers of the past. Only able to conceive of the new technology as means to record live performances, they set up their camera and microphone in static processes which were oblivious to the rich potential that would soon be unlocked those creative souls who ventured into the world of the yet to be created disciplines of cinematography and splice-editing.
Only when game designers have fully immersed themselves in the creative possibilities of designing games organic to the touch screen, will they truly broach the potential for optimizing the best games for iPad, and other touch screen devices. The choice is whether they will be stragglers of the past or pioneers of the future.
About the Author:
To keep up on the latest goings-on in the universe of touch screen games, check out Mishu Hull's regular articles at the Best Games for iPad site. He writes on a variety of technology issues. His recent slam of the newest version of Kindle Fire, " Kindle Fire Tries it Again, But... ," is required reading.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 Responses to “Revolutionizing The Game World: What Makes The Best Games For IPAD?”
Post a Comment