|
|
|
|
Editorial - Science & Technology 
The Game is Not the Game. It's the Fantasy.
By John Martellaro - OSXFAQ Senior Editor - Science & Technology
November 4, 2002
"Power outage at a department store yesterday.
Twenty people were trapped on the escalators."
- Steven Wright
Once upon a time, in December 2000, I was skiing at Copper
Mountain, and I met a professor in Computer Science from the U.S.
Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. As we skied, we got to
talking about his incoming freshman and their level of
preparation for a career in computer science. I was stunned when
he told me that, in general, they knew nothing about computers. I
told him that this amazed me for several reasons. First, these
young students are the cream of the crop in a very competitive
appointment to a military academy. They will go on to become
software engineers and project managers. On top of that, anyone
who was 18 in the year 2000 has grown up with computers. In fact,
they probably could never remember a time when they weren't
exposed to computers in the home or in school.
The professor explained that, yes, they had grown up with
computers, but what they had learned to do very well was merely
point and click. They could turn on a computer, fire up an e-mail
or chat program, launch a Web browser, and definitely pull the
trigger on a joystick and do really well at first person shooter
games.
But they didn't know anything about computers, and he was going
to have to start his first year Computer Science majors from
scratch. He wasn't very happy about that, and I consider it a
very bad sign indeed.
Why am I telling you this story? It's for different reasons than
you might think.
The obvious road to travel is to explore the idea that these
young cadets had spent entirely too much time playing games and
that, moreover, these modern computer games had been, in some
fashion, bad for the them. It is an interesting theory,
but no one has been able to prove scientifically that computer
games harm the user in some identifiable way. (Other than taking
time away from other pursuits. But hey, when you're in the mood
for some fun, why not?) It might take ten more years to be able
to understand and pinpoint any adverse effects - as we have already
discovered with cigarette smoking.
There are theories, and everyone has their own pet theory. But
when it comes to proving the theory correct, we are on ground
that is just as shaky as, say, proof of extraterrestrial
visitors. Just as with Alien abductions, it's simply going along
with the crowd to assume that computer games are inherently bad.
Of course, I've heard the argument that computer games are
actually good because they push the technology level of
personal computers. This argument is similar to claiming that
going 160 kph in a 100 kph speed zone helps push the technology
of Goodyear tires. The claim is valid but irrelevant.
So I won't try to claim that those cadets wasted their time,
though some may have. And I won't try to take the next step that
since the games are bad for them, they should have been doing
something else. Instead, where I really want to go with this is
that computer games are too easy. Too easy to make and too easy
to play. And it is distracting us from what computer games ought
to achieve.
Brain Wiring
The idea that I want to propose is that action oriented computer
games focus too specifically on those skills that we, as humans,
already possess. After roughly two to four million years of
development as humans, since the time when our DNA diverged from
the chimpanzee, we have spent 99.9% of our time doing exactly
what computer games currently showcase. We run, we hide, we
shoot, we dodge, and we use our hand-eye coordination to achieve
a desirable goal. Our brains are wired for this activity already.
If we hadn't been successful at dodging large, dangerous animals,
catching and eating small ones, beating off invaders who wanted
to steal our food, and successfully mating, our species wouldn't
be here today to play primitive video games.
The fact that the games are so delightful and so entertaining is
because our minds are superbly conditioned to play those games.
In a sense, the games are (my apologies) no-brainers to most
healthy young people. There is no pain. There is only delight.
The pain comes with algebra or calculus or physics. These
disciplines involve mental skills that most people are not born
with. So in the process of forming new neural pathways along the
way towards mastery of calculus or genomics or engineering, there
is pain and frustration.
Who wants frustration?
What the Market Wants
Certainly not the game developers. Companies that write games are
well tuned into the market and their customers' wants. Games
that are exciting and fun sell well. Games that try to teach or
preach or that are sterile and cerebral fall flat.
And yet.
And yet. There are levels of skills. Some need to be learned the
hard way and others come all too easily. For example, to become
a Naval aviator, one needs to understand thermodynamics,
propulsion, aerodynamics, physiology, meteorology, and a host of
other disciplines. Even those who have spent many hours with
computer games will find that the physical stresses, knowledge
and judgment required to fly real combat jets is several orders
of magnitude higher than any current Mac or PC game can simulate
on a 40 cm. screen. Yet no Naval aviator would suggest that the
pain and difficulties in earning those gold wings is not worth
the effort. Motivation, enthusiasm, and passion are provided
in healthy doses in flight school, and this make a little pain
seem worthwhile. It is the richness of the experience that
overcomes the pain of learning, and that richness is missing from
our current software.
What I want to suggest is that we are moving into an era of
increasing technical complexity, and so our games need to reflect
that reality. After all, we now have computers in the hands of
children with gigahertz speeds, gigabyte memories, and graphics
that can move gigapixels per second. This processing power could
well be directed at a more holodeck like experience in
which the gamer interacts with the computer characters at a much
higher level. Higher than, say, simply splattering their blood on
the castle walls.
Twenty years ago, the astronomer Carl Sagan took us on a tour of
the universe in a hypothetical starship in his legendary PBS
series Cosmos. Regrettably, no one today makes software in which
a beautiful young scientist, of the visual caliber of Aki
Ross (The Final Fantasy) can take me on a tour of the universe.
It could be fun, educational, and well within the technical
capability of modern desktop computers. A visually rich
experience, filled with wonder and entertainment would take
away the pain of learning alone.
The problem is the cost of production and the cost of the game.
It takes millions of dollars to produce Cosmos or a movie like
The Final Fantasy. And yet, as William Shatner suggests in his
new book, I'm Working on That we seem to be about the business
of bringing all the technology fantasies we love from Star Trek
to reality. The holodeck, in some fashion, starting on a modern
Mac needs to be one of those fantasies made real.
But since we can't do a real holodeck, drill and practice with a
Bat'Leth will be out of the question. We'll just have to settle,
for the time being, for academic pursuits. But hey, if all we can
do is have an image of Einstein droning on, forget it. There
needs to be real fun and real interaction created by software
engineers and artists with vision and passion. Over at
Applelust.com, Dr. Dave Schultz likes to quote Steve Jobs. "I
would trade all of my technology for an afternoon with
Socrates." Imagine the best teacher you ever had spending
as much time as it takes to teach you what you need to know.
Trapped on the Escalator?
I don't know about you, but it is surely a shame that book
publishers can resurrect and present the lectures of the
physicist Dr. Richard Feynman, and yet we somehow cannot figure
out how to bring the same knowledge and learning experiences of
those books into the realm of our computer desktop. For now, in
the year 2002, books remain reserved for learning and computers
are reserved, primarily, for SPAM, sex, and first person shooter
games, killing aliens. More or less. Mostly more.
Isn't that a terrible waste of technology? I keep hoping that
someone at Pixar or Disney will have the vision and the
commitment to build truly amazing, next generation, interactive
holodeck-like experiences for fun, adventure, and learning. I
wouldn't even mind if they started with Dixon Hill or Nero Wolfe.
Learning to solve a mystery is a laudable exercise for the young
scientist. Let's just get the technology going. I don't see how
we can begin to deal with life extension, medical implants,
nanotechnology, and robots during the rest of this century if we
can't conduct this kind of personal learning.
I want an attractive, photo-realistic character like Aki to engage
me on a beautiful, sandy beach, throw up floating, colorful
displays against blue sky, and interact with me as she teaches me
XML or Java or differential geometry. I want to ask questions and
get wise, patient answers. I want her to remember what I know and how I
like to learn. I want to come away from the experience a little
more educated and a little more skilled than when I started. And
I want this for myself and every child on the planet Earth.
And I want it before we all drown in SPAM.
John Martellaro
E-mail comments to John Martellaro
|
|
