Innovating everywhere except where they're looking
I was led today to a read of Bruce Sterling's talk at the GDC in 1991, remarkable for its continued relevance nearly 15 years on, amonst other things regarding its criticism of the 'filmic' narrative aspirations of modern triple-A titles:
"A good science fiction story is not a "good story" with a polite whiff of rocket fuel in it. A good science fiction story is something that knows it is science fiction and plunges through that and comes roaring out of the other side. Computer entertainment should not be more like movies, it shouldn't be more like books, it should be more like computer entertainment."
Suddenly Bruce's attack on 'the wonderful power of storytelling' reminded me of a recent blog post from Ron Gilbert, where he laments the thematic constriction of today's mainstream PC games:
"Army guy with gun, Creepy horror guy covered in blood with gun, Big Orc with gun-sword, Skinny chick with sword and combat-thong. My eyes glazed over after a few passes up and down the aisle as I waited for one of them to seduce me into a purchase, but it never happened."
If Bruce has a point, that great games are not about great stories, just as great SF writing is not about imitating Shakespeare or Euripides, then perhaps there is actually far more progress being made in today's triple-A dev studios than most are given credit for? Ok, maybe the stories are the same male teenage power fantasies, but what about the gameplay? What about the immersion? What about the delivery of the same old narrative in ever more complex real-time interactions? Maybe we're actually doing what Bruce instructed more than we realise? Maybe the graphical adventure game genre died because it wasn't?