The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Dynamic content: good or bad?
Drez
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I'm curious what others think.
I tend to think of video games as a form of art. Like any artistic pursuit, it can be commercialized, and perhaps the video game market is highly commercial compared to other artistic markets, but I do not think it's highly commercial nature precludes it from being an artform. I open with this because that is the usual argument against it being an artform, and I disagree. You can still disagree with me, but for the sake of this discussion, let's at least assume that if the medium does not currently have artistic merit, it may some day get there, and at least some developers and designers are committed to creating artistic games.
Moving on, I'd say that there are common characteristics between most artistic mediums. Books, films, music...these things are, for the most part, unchanging; static. They exist as-is and while people may consume and process and understand and enjoy the art in different ways and to different degrees, that is largely circumstantial, based on the experience and the taste of the individual. So, one piece of art may hit two people in different ways, but that one piece of art is - in reality - the same physical thing for both people. Catcher In The Rye is always Catcher In The Rye, no matter what you get out of it.
Video games, especially today with a massive push toward global networking, differ from other artistic mediums in that they can be dynamic. In other words, the art can reshape itself depending on who is consuming it.
There are a few examples of this:
1) Auto-scaling difficulty. More games have this than you think. Apparently, Max Payne is one of them. I never really noticed, but the better you do at the game, the harder the enemies will be? Anyway, that's the crux of it. And this is really nothing new. Scaling in general is like this. Roguelikes will throw harder and harder stuff at good players. This makes the game, in effect, "different" for each player depending on their skill.
2) In-game advertisements. Now, I'm sure we could squabble over the artistic merit of advertisements, but let's say that it was something very simple: the Xbox 360 scans your gamertag to see what kind of games and movies you purchase, and then it replaces generic "posters" in the game with films or games within that genre. So you mostly play shooters? A poster for an upcoming FPS pops up while you're running down a corridor in some modern-day shooter. This would be different for others.
But I had this thought while I was playing Far Cry: Instincts Predator, and this is the one that - while I don't think it's been implemented yet - is entirely possible and the most crucial.
3) Auto-localization. In Far Cry: Instincts Predator, a lot of the enemy mercenaries are apparently from New Jersey. Why New Jersey? Beats the fuck out of me. But, I live in New York, and it occurred to me that it is entirely possible for designers to simply create additional soundbytes, or even textures, to localize things based on location. Maybe if your gamertag is registered to a Los Angeles zip code, the mercenaries might talk about how they were recruited out of Las Vegas. And if your gamertag is in Mississippi, one pack might throw in an anecdote about the Mississippi River. New Yorkers might hear something or see something about Broadway plays.
The thing is, optical media and increased bandwidth makes it very possible to cram additional soundbytes in. And localization is all about relatability.
On one hand, I think #3 sounds like a good idea. Even #1 and #2 don't sound too bad. But, considering this an artistic medium, are any of these things good? Is localization, in and of itself, destructive? And if not destructive overall, is maybe this one-step-further concept of auto-localization - something that isn't yet done, to my knowledge, but very well could be - destructive?
I'm just curious what people think. Does art need to be static, so it is the same for everyone? Or can it change shapes and still have artistic merit?
I tend to think of video games as a form of art. Like any artistic pursuit, it can be commercialized, and perhaps the video game market is highly commercial compared to other artistic markets, but I do not think it's highly commercial nature precludes it from being an artform. I open with this because that is the usual argument against it being an artform, and I disagree. You can still disagree with me, but for the sake of this discussion, let's at least assume that if the medium does not currently have artistic merit, it may some day get there, and at least some developers and designers are committed to creating artistic games.
Moving on, I'd say that there are common characteristics between most artistic mediums. Books, films, music...these things are, for the most part, unchanging; static. They exist as-is and while people may consume and process and understand and enjoy the art in different ways and to different degrees, that is largely circumstantial, based on the experience and the taste of the individual. So, one piece of art may hit two people in different ways, but that one piece of art is - in reality - the same physical thing for both people. Catcher In The Rye is always Catcher In The Rye, no matter what you get out of it.
Video games, especially today with a massive push toward global networking, differ from other artistic mediums in that they can be dynamic. In other words, the art can reshape itself depending on who is consuming it.
There are a few examples of this:
1) Auto-scaling difficulty. More games have this than you think. Apparently, Max Payne is one of them. I never really noticed, but the better you do at the game, the harder the enemies will be? Anyway, that's the crux of it. And this is really nothing new. Scaling in general is like this. Roguelikes will throw harder and harder stuff at good players. This makes the game, in effect, "different" for each player depending on their skill.
2) In-game advertisements. Now, I'm sure we could squabble over the artistic merit of advertisements, but let's say that it was something very simple: the Xbox 360 scans your gamertag to see what kind of games and movies you purchase, and then it replaces generic "posters" in the game with films or games within that genre. So you mostly play shooters? A poster for an upcoming FPS pops up while you're running down a corridor in some modern-day shooter. This would be different for others.
But I had this thought while I was playing Far Cry: Instincts Predator, and this is the one that - while I don't think it's been implemented yet - is entirely possible and the most crucial.
3) Auto-localization. In Far Cry: Instincts Predator, a lot of the enemy mercenaries are apparently from New Jersey. Why New Jersey? Beats the fuck out of me. But, I live in New York, and it occurred to me that it is entirely possible for designers to simply create additional soundbytes, or even textures, to localize things based on location. Maybe if your gamertag is registered to a Los Angeles zip code, the mercenaries might talk about how they were recruited out of Las Vegas. And if your gamertag is in Mississippi, one pack might throw in an anecdote about the Mississippi River. New Yorkers might hear something or see something about Broadway plays.
The thing is, optical media and increased bandwidth makes it very possible to cram additional soundbytes in. And localization is all about relatability.
On one hand, I think #3 sounds like a good idea. Even #1 and #2 don't sound too bad. But, considering this an artistic medium, are any of these things good? Is localization, in and of itself, destructive? And if not destructive overall, is maybe this one-step-further concept of auto-localization - something that isn't yet done, to my knowledge, but very well could be - destructive?
I'm just curious what people think. Does art need to be static, so it is the same for everyone? Or can it change shapes and still have artistic merit?
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
Drez on
0
Posts
It's also why I think we should have more questionable content in games. I've had people come up to me and say, "As a gamer, how can you reconcile all the stuff in GTA games?" To which I say, beating up hookers and taking the money back isn't a requirement to enjoy the game. If the player does it, then the player wanted to. And that should speak about the player, and not necessarily about the developer.
One of the most shocking events in my gaming career was, after killing everything in the last level of the first episode of Doom, the walls fell down and revealed an overcast sky much like the one outside my own window. That sort of customization sends chills down my spine even today, and it was just coincidence.
The potential for dynamically reconstructing a game to suit the individual tastes of someone allows a game to cater to you and I and that other guy in three different ways by actually altering the content in the game itself. That is, say you and I live in different states and it auto-localizes for each of us so there is a slightly different script, then you and I cannot have matching experiences. That is gone.
Most art caters to "the public" and the public can deal with it as they please. In my hypothetical, the audience is no longer the public but rather smaller groups or even individuals depending on how the dynamism is implemented and what kind of personal information about you is available to the program.
Does that make it better or worse, from an artistic perspective?
(EDIT: I was writing this up while you posted)
And I see what you are saying. I'm not doubting that it's more relatable that way, but what does it do to the artistic purity of the game? Like, if when you beat Doom, it melts into whatever local skyline you have near your own home?
Why would pac-man have a map in the background? That would be stupid.
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197970666737/
I think the localization idea is neat, but I don't think it has anything to do with games as art. Why did you bring that up even? There are no rules to art. There's no, "If you want your game to be artistic you have to do this, this, and this."
Certainly. Art has to consider its audience anyway. The most obvious example of this is state propaganda--it can still be considered art, and it is definitely tailored to the citizenry of the nation. It's just, in this case, developers can push that down to the individual level. Annnd do it after the fact.
I am taking a optimistic view of it, though. I imagine a future where this is less of a, "hey, look, it's raining on generic alien planet, just like outside in the real world." But much tailoring beyond that really depends on the subject material anyway. I'm glad that we're at least getting the seeds of this planted already, though.
This isn't analogous to, say, two versions of a song. Perhaps I should have used different terms, but that's not what I meant by "dynamic." Each version is static. That is, Version A of a song is the same for everyone that listens to Version A of a song, and Version B of a song is the same for everyone that listens to Version B. What I propose is that there is no Version A or B or C, but rather a dynamic version that conforms to the listener's tastes. Let's say I like dissonance, and my super deluxe experimental futuristic mp3 player knows this and dynamically adds dissonant measures into the song, because I find that more pleasant. That's fantasy, sure, but that's what I'm talking about. It's not the same thing as two versions of one song. It's infinite versions of one song, or, rather, no "pure" or "fully intact" version of one song.
Let's get away from games and music for a moment.
Mostly everyone agrees that literature is an art form, right? It probably won't happen in my lifetime, and maybe it will never happen, but let's pretend that ebooks - digital novels and texts - fully replace physical books. Let's say some new book comes out in eBook format only. And let's say the eBook reader could somehow glean what you like or do not like.
Would it dampen the artistic quality of the book if it dynamically adapted to what you found interest in? Like, if the book could somehow adapt to your manner of speaking and either dumbed down or intelligensified some of the words, or maybe it threw some localized idioms in there based on your location...doesn't that detract from the artistic merit of the thing?
When you look at the Mona Lisa, it's always the Mona Lisa. No matter who looks at it, it will always be what it is. What if someone could make a painting that would smile or frown or whatever to emulate your own mood, and everyone viewing it would see it differently? Is that art? Maybe it's BETTER? I don't know. I'm curious what y'all think. And there are rules to "art." Art is whatever you think it is, ultimately, so really you define it and you make the rules. That's why I'm not looking for an objective answer here...I'm just curious what your subjective answers are.
If there were something as idealistic as dynamic content that was relevant specifically to me, I think I would want an auto-scaling fun factor. Because, lets face it, fun follows sort of a curved path of fun vs. time. Too little fun in an hour and you feel like the game is dragging. Too much fun in an hour and you feel like it was a blur and you're left wanting more. I'd like a game to meter out the amount of fun I'm having based on my reaction to the game. Of course, now we're getting into something of a "electrode operator" type argument as to whether that would actually work.
What it boils down to is: I don't really care if video games are art. They are a commodity to me. I buy them to fulfill my need for entertainment, and that is all I really care about. If a video game art gallery opened up, I would certainly go see it, but I doubt the exhibits would help me choose between Virtual Bart or Halo.
Okay. And?
In practical terms, this isn't such a workable idea. Short of making this sort of thing DLC, there is actually a finite space on all optical media. Some games support multiple languages. Most are simply localised for the intended markets. Usually, however, the only vocalised languages are English, Japanese, French and German. There are others, of course. But it costs developers/publishers money to not only translate but record the lines. Now imagine the possible costs for doing such a thing using regional dialects or accents.
The amounts of dialog recorded can become tremendous. If you've played a sports game, the announcers will tend to repeat themselves after a few games. As interesting as that idea is, it is simply unworkable in the real world.
Do not engage the Watermelons.
It's still possible, in varying quantities. I'm not saying that it has to scale down to every zip code or dialect. It's possible that you can have different regional localizations, rather than city- or state-specific ones. Maybe everyone on east coast USA will have "New York" or "Miami" as a reference and everyone on the west coast will get "Lost Angeles" or "Seattle" as an allusion. Something as simple as that increases relatability, in some small measure, and would cost very little.
Of course, this could go in the other direction, too: If you were spanish and playing Resident Evil 4, the bad guys could all be speaking farsi. As long as it goes to enhance the feeling of being an outsider or intruder, which is most likely what they were trying to portrey when they made the game.
I'm not for or against anything, I'm just throwing ideas out there.
I'm not necessarily knocking the idea, but these are the sorts of things that are probably best left alone. These sorts of things must be tested in QA and that adds time. If it doesn't work properly, it is delayed to be fixed or cut entirely. Then there is the possibility for half-assed implementation. What if I'm in Chicago? How many regional options should there be? How long before groups of gamers demand that their area be 'recognised'?
I personally wouldn't identify with this kind of content. If I play a game that has a reference or a location that I'm familiar with, it is an added bonus. But we've all played plenty of games where this was never a factor.
I promise you, it's harder than you think to implement stuff like this. Both in effort and resources. Placeholder code and DLC is a better way to go than having it on the disc. But we're still talking about the devs/pubs taking the time and money to do this for what could be little return.
Do not engage the Watermelons.
I don't follow how that's relevant to a conversation about dynamic content, no. You are giving an opinion at all on dynamic content, you are merely pointing out that you perceive some kind of difference between dynamic content in the Mona Lisa and dynamic content in Pac-Man.
Since I haven't asked you to point out things that I already know, no, I do not follow why you think your comments here have any relevance.
Otherwise, I guess the artists don't seem this as so important.
I'm suddenly getting images of paying fifty dollars for a game and only getting a title screen; the rest downloaded from Live at 4.99 per map, weapon, armor, vehicle, and character level.
Wait. Wasn't there some bru-ha-ha like this about the next Gran Turismo game?
Listen, Goomba, if you have nothing to offer, get the fuck out of here. I offered some examples of dynamic content. If you don't like them, imagine your own examples. The specifics of each example are irrelevant. The concept of "dynamic content" - to any large or minute degree - is what I'm talking about, and the examples I gave were just meant to define the concept. I'm sure you realize this and you're just acting like a dipshit. Please stop being a dipshit. Or just go away. Either works for me.
Yeah, this is the problem with this idea of dynamic content: It's to idealistic. It's like a lightbulb that only shines on what you're trying to look at. Of course, that doesn't stop you from pondering the possibilities.
It's not that...artists often try to relate to their audience. If an artist can relate to people as individuals rather than as a general population, does that make their work stronger? I don't know. Yes, sometimes people prefer to experience things UNrelated to them. But the whole process of localization - which is a very large industry and even touches on literature (some books are modified slightly when brought from the UK to the US) - is borne from that desire to make art more relatable and thus more palatable to people in a certain region.
If a work of art can do that autonomically...well, I don't think it's as impossible as people here claim it to be. And it doesn't have to account for every possible permutation. Like I said, it could be as simple as identifying a key city near the player's home location and slightly modifying in-game dialogue to follow suit.
I guess a part of this question could also be: does relatability make for a better individual experience? I'd say that in many cases it does. Many people in this thread have expressed that when they recognize a location that they know of in the game they are playing, they feel a certain twinge.
If a game could replicate that "twinge" for people, that might be an economic venue worth pursuing. But what is its artistic value?
I think that like everything, moderation would probably be the best. Having everyone on a remote planet speaking as if they're from New York just because you live in New York is rediculous.
I would only prefer something like this if it took no resources to implement. The scope of a project is constrained by the budget it has and its time constraints. I prefer that those resources be put toward "more fun" rather than "more relatability". Of course, if you could make the game more fun by making it more relatable, then go for it.
Does it make for a better personal experience? I touched on this in my first post: Other than the initial reaction, not really. It's nice to see your home town mentioned in a game, but really it's not that important in the grand scheme of playing the game. I would have had just as much fun if there were no Redding in Fallout 2 at all.
Just made it funnier when shit got blowed up.
I don't get where the whole 'artistic' vibe you're going on about comes from. I'd have thought that dynamic localisation would dilute the whole artistic image thing. If you are equating a game as a piece of art, then who's going to do the extra voices and jokes? If it's the 'artist' then you'd need someone who understood the local slang, lingo and in-jokes for every region that they'd do (I'm guessing that it would be hard to find someone who's capable of that) or it would be some other person bought in who knows the local area (therefore diluting the original image).
Talking of localisation, I love it when racing games actually model the cities properly. Playing PGR2 and driving around Edinburgh (I don't know about the other cities, but Auld Reekie was really recognisible) was great fun. Drunk + Ladder Match + PGR2 + Edinburgh tracks == loads of laughs.
This was the core concept of the game. If the game was art at all, then this acute localisation was one of the inherent intentions of the artist. Sure the game played differently depending on what files were on your computer, but at the same time the gameplay was consistent and recognisable regardless of the contents of your harddrive.
Art is being constantly redefined. The mediums used, what is and isn't acceptable, what it's purpose is - if game designers want to call themselves artists and if they want to use automatic localisation techniques as one of their tools, then so be it.
Like we could all individually listen to a piece of music, and all take something different away from it. Maybe I listen more to the drums, or you listen more to the vocals.
The concept of art being either dynamic or static is retarded.
Man if I played that ame today there'd be waaayyy too much porn in it.