Digital games were tightly coupled to the advancement of computers. Computers rapidly reshaped the aesthetics of digital games. Digital games became separated conceptually from traditional, physical games. But I would posit that, no matter the interface, many people just want the social framework that games provide, games like sports and chess.
It is tied to commercial production and the rapid advance of digital technology.
Generally if you want to sell a product, you have to put it in a box, put a boundary around it. So we packaged up games. Here are the rules, here is how it works, here is what it can and cannot do. Computers, boxed and sold, able to play games, rapidly improved for the last fifty odd years. Hardware advancement was iterative, driving business, and specialization within the game industry.
Taken at face value, what does this iteration look like?
We were pushed to churn, for decades. Every 5-7 years I am still pushed to upgrade.
Objects in games are acted upon. The chess piece is moved by the player, the ball is kicked. With the advance of computers, the aesthetics of games shifted. Game objects could act, independent of the player. The sprite is no longer iconic, but also operational. Alive. This shifted our conception of games. What does the object representation mean now? What’s that animation imply? What’s that sprite thinking about?
Suddenly, the player is not the only one telling the story, but the game creator is involved. With not just aesthetic improvements, but pieces having lives of their own, games became objects for storytelling as much as objects of play. We watched storytellers get better within the framework of games.
As aesthetics rapidly improved in digital games, this put storytelling center stage. This also presented a business opportunity.
It is easier to present a story than the experience of playing a game. Platforms, intentionally or not, assimilated the maturation of game stories into a framework of platform advancement. Each new console, new device, offered not only a new game, but a new story, a new protagonist, or perhaps the prior generation returned with a sequel. New, more affecting stories aided platform and game churn.
🏰 The single player campaign was as important to Blizzard RTSes as the multiplayer.
Neatly printed packages and story-forward aesthetics shifted the conception of games, particularly for those within games culture. But traditional games are not so centered on the object.
I propose that games and other objects of play, in contrast to stories, are not historically a churning space. I would suggest that a major reason the digital games industry is in tumult is that most people do not actively seek new games. Tag, poker, soccer, chess, one can engage with many games for years, or life.
A game lasts when it’s not just about the game, and its loop, but supports additional attitudes and forms of engagement. It offers a center around which we play.
Playing Go with my dad, with poker chips and a good tablecloth