(in which I argue for and against hubris and a focus on technical nonsense in game design)
Programmers are famously victims of hubris, arrogance and pride. Many of the symptoms are common enough as to be well worn cliches amongst programmers such as the infamous NIH (not invented here) syndrome, that drives programmers to re-create all manner of wheels ad-nauseam under the delusion that their wheel will be better than the many others available.
So naturally when I first got an ipod touch and began working with the SDK I immediately started implementing my own sprite library for 2D graphics on top of OpenGL. It was not better or faster than any number of other 2D graphics libraries implemented on top of OpenGL. Well, it did do batched draw calls, interleaved vertex data and was essentially fill-rate limited, but um, I digress.
These foibles, as well as a natural tendency to get completely sidetracked on minor technical details, are supposedly the enemies of game design. We are supposed to not be limited by technical aspects, instead thinking of interaction models, themes, and gasp, maybe even fun (don’t worry, that last one’s obviously a joke).
Historically though, games have always been closely tied to their technology. The first computer game designers were by necessity programmers (they generally did the graphics too). Simply getting primitive computers to create something compelling as a game required someone who could draw a bit of magic directly out of the machine. As machines got more powerful there was so much new ground to cover, scrolling, animation, 3D and advanced rendering techniques as each game strove to be better than the last, constant technical innovation was an integral part of each new game.
Now is really the first time in history where game design can be untangled from technology. Artists can create games using technology like flash, allowing easy development and deployment. Modern consoles are powerful enough to allow middle-ware to be used as the basis of cross-platform games, avoiding deep technical integration with the computer all-together. Large games are built by teams in the hundreds, most producing art, scripts, level design, interaction design all separate from a small engine team who deal exclusively with the technical details.
But I’m not quite convinced.
I still have the nagging feeling that the best games are built closely intertwined with their tech. I don’t know if I can quite put my finger on why but I think it may be something like this. No matter what game you’re playing the machine never completely disappears (essentially a manifestation of the law of leaky abstractions). Since you can’t pretend the machine is not there, acknowledge it, embrace it. Let its limitations and details shape the game as it has for so many before. Not to suggest that any game must be a technical tour-de-force, coded in raw binary etched by hand directly on the metal. Rather that you should allow an understanding of the technology to permeate and flavour the game, because it will, whether you intend it to or not.
Or perhaps am I simply just an incurable programmer and a victim of hubris?
What are some games that you think exemplify tech-permeated design in the best sense? (Esp. recent games where, as you say, it isn’t a necessity.)
Re the first part of your last question: yes but not in a bad way.
Well the first example that comes to mind is “shadow of the colossus”. The actual gameplay mechanics could have been implemented using a generic middle-ware platform as most scenes of the game feature only a few characters in a 3D landscape. Put some models in a scene, script them up and focus on the core gameplay, fighting colossi.
However they put a lot of work into faking high-dynamic-range lighting, fur shading and advanced shadowing beyond what the PS2 nominally supported. These effects weren’t applied strictly realistically, which would be beyond the capability of the PS2, but in a stylised manner that worked with the PS2 architecture. These contribute to a distinctive visual style, tied closely to the specific results achieved by the technology, that helps establish the atmosphere of the game.
In the end the atmosphere of the game remains one of the most affecting and fondly remembered aspects of the game.
My contention is that if “shadow of the colossus” was built now for modern graphics cards, where HDR lighting for example is closer to a tickbox (why yes, I would like some HDR lighting), it would not have led to such as distinctive style.
http://www.bruno-urbain.com/resources/making_of_sotc.pdf