[Koji]

But it was a remarkably well articulated post, Broco.

I agree that the medium is far from what it could be, yet, as Toups and yourself said, you focus too much on the side of the story and in comparisons with the film industry. But the core of what you said is still true. I don't know if there's going to ever be a truly 'messianic' game, but I think that there have been several games in the history of gaming that have been bold departures from the ordinary conventions and archetypes, with a different approach each. You focused on videogames that deliver a film-like experience, but there are much simpler games like the bit Generations, which are much more focused and more designed than most overly complex games that are released nowadays, which are diluted in all the content that's shoved into a preexisting frame: a game genre.

There are simply too few people that actually think critically about games in terms that are more complex than 'sound,' 'graphics' and 'gameplay,' which exhibits the reductionist mind of the industry. The audience is still too condensed; I believe that in a decade we'll start to see more divergent games coming out, simply because the audience will have expanded, and there will be a better chance of making a game not catered to the mainstream, and still sell enough. This will hopefully eliminate most of the preconceptions about what a game should consist of, and only then will the industry have matured enough. Possibly, in the future we'll see actual crossovers between the videogame and the film industries that will give birth to majestic pieces of interactive narrative.

[Koji]

I only have one observation to what you're saying, leroyhacker, and it's that narrative is very tightly linked to videogames, in that videogames cannot be without narrative, as time and progression is an essential characteristic of the very medium. Yet you're right in that it's not necessarily the ultimate aspect by which a videogame should be designed around. But don't mistake narrative with story, as even a very abstract game can have a very emotional narrative. Katamari Damacy is not the most abstract game ever, but the progression that's built as your katamari gets bigger is (or was for me) very powerful, with a stupendous climax. This is a very linear kind of narrative, though, and, certainly, non-linear kinds would explore the medium much better, but more abstract ways of achieving narrative can be very stimulating, like abstract forms of visual art are in comparison with figurative art.

[Koji]

To make myself absolutely clear, I used the term narrative in the broadest possible sense: a series of successive happenings linked in time. These can be intentional or not, can be subjective or not, and can be linear or freeform. They can involve images, sounds, emotions, ideas, intellectual reasonings or whatever.

[Koji]

Well guys, I've been following this thread to the best of my ability, and I can say that many of you are offering 'solutions' or views on matters that are way too constricted to very few aspects of videogames, i.e., you're not looking at the big picture. Thinking about it a bit, while reading the last few posts, has made me realize exactly what's keeping this industry from flourishing, and it has little to do with artistic integrity or complexity of the narrative or whatever (for now at least.)

Other big media, such as films, novels or music, offer a very low (for our society) entry barrier. You'd either need to know how to operate a CD player, or how to read, or how to use a TV, which are all common and non-specific tasks/abilities, except for the case of the CD player, but that one is already well inserted into our global culture. So, the interface, the means by which we enjoy the medium itself, is a step that's easily overcome, so all we have left is the content itself. For gaming, the entry barrier is enormous for someone not familiar with technology: you need specialized equipment (a videogames console) or a computer (which in itself is a very complex machine to operate for the huge majority of the populace.) Now, if operating a games controller or a keyboard and a mouse wasn't complex enough, the user needs to understand the interface of the game itself which (even worse!) is different for each of them.

Now if this is not the biggest deterrent for anyone to even give a whole medium a shot, I don't know what is. Movies et al. need not worry about interface, because they're passive media in which the spectator or reader needs to do nothing but to pay attention, so all that's left is the accesibility of the content itself, but the breadth is so large that it's evidently not a problem. Games started with an elite audience, the few people that had access to computers, and moved to the mainstream thanks to arcades, but still, these were places that only the young would frequent. They evolved following this trend of elitism: the people that grew with the medium continued to be the core audience for the industry, so the interface began to slowly but surely get more complex and inaccessible. At first all you needed to do was know how to turn a crank for Pong, but then came the stick, and buttons, and more buttons, and the cross-shaped control pad, and more buttons, and shoulder buttons, and analog sticks, and... You all know how it goes; we are familiar with these complex interfaces that have grown more abstract over time because we grew with them, but people who didn't will decidedly find them to be alien and not intuitive in the slightest. We are 'in the know' of a strict series of rules, abstractions and terminology that have evolved for us but not people outside.

I'm pretty certain that Nintendo realized that this is what has happened, and designed the Wii remote accordingly. I mentioned the TV as a simple interface for movies, and well, mimicking the TV remote is an attempt to reduce the entry barrier for people that are not familiar with game controllers, but most likely already operate TVs (which you'll need for using the Wii anyway.) Under this light it's clear that Nintendo's move was a smart one.

But still, the next barrier to break is the game interface. ICO is a game I've not played, but I remember some comments from the author claiming that he wanted to make a game by cutting off everything that was not essential to the experience of the game. Though I doubt the game nails the needed intuitiveness to capture a new audience, I think that this is more or less the way to go: take the interface to the basics, reexamine it under the assumption that the player hasn't been playing games for ever, and propose a new interface that approaches intuitivity. This interface should be different depending on the target audience, just like the cultural codes used in movies are not the same across the whole spectrum: maybe we want to target very old people, so in this game there could be voice instructions on simple and broad gestures that you have to repeat with your Wii remote, for instance (not a very good idea.)

The point of this whole post is that the entry barrier is the essence of what's keeping the medium from blossoming as an universal medium for art and communication. If the audience continues to be us, because no one else will want to dedicate the amount of time needed to learn the codes, the games will continue to cater to us--or, well, the teenagers that read IGN, or don't and just buy games that look kool and awesome. The rest is a problem related to content, which is, for now, out of reach.

[Koji]

I'm pretty certain that about an 80% of the people who play WoW are 20 years old or younger.

And that interface looks amazing, though the iPhone's is similar. Still, have you played around the Wii menus? I haven't, really, but the videos I've seen have me terribly excited. It's just as nice as that video you showed me. Of course, I have an interest in intuitive interfaces for more than just games, but the Wii already has the tools to make gaming something accessible, with the remote. Wii Sports is a first approach.