An old standby of the computer world is the gaming industry, going all the way back to Pong and Pac-man. One of the hottest, relatively recent, developments has been the touch screen, on smart phones and tablets such as iPad. There is a legitimate question as to how this pair of computer tendencies might co-exist.
Certainly, the immediate evidence would suggest such a concern is much ado about nothing. Games have been developed for touch screens: I've compiled my list of the best games for iPad elsewhere. The fact of such games though has not been without its detractors and critics.
The usual approach is to dis such games on what seems to be the practical impracticality. To put it bluntly, they complain that touch screen games aren't effective because the player's fingers obstruct the view of the screen.
That I suspect has more to do with bad design than touch screen gaming per se. And it seems that such a protest misses a more central insight in all of this. Complaining that a tactile interaction with the screen is problematic is really not seeing the forest for the trees. What is going on here is, I suspect, the revolutionizing of gaming. In fact, it may be a portent of the future of human-computer interfacing.
Before fully making my case, let's reflect on a helpful bit of context. When was the last time you watched someone finger paint? Much, I think, can be learned from such observation. Commenting that real painters use paint brushes is true enough.
Yet, we all know the joys of sticking our fingers into the paint; of using the tips of our fingers to smear, spread and shape the paint. Finger painting in a sense is almost a kind of sculpture. Kids of course notoriously love it, but even adults, given the rare occasion, if not worried about getting paint on their new dress or suit, will often be compelled to spontaneously stick in their fingers.
On the other hand, there's the Etch-n-Sketch. Now, don't get me wrong. It can be fun, too. In a sort of detail oriented and slightly fixated way. But have you ever seen anyone, of any age, using an Etch-n-Sketch beam out the sheer joy that is ubiquitous and contagious in finger painting? I want to put it to you that the joy of the latter has to do with the immersion in, not only the experience, but also into the product of the experience.
The person finger painting, in a very real sense, is actually "in" the picture that she is painting. The painting is literally an extension of the painter and the painter an extension of the painting. If we can wrap our head about this dynamic we will understand why touch screen gaming is not only the future of gaming, but of human-computer interface. The touch screen game has the same affect of immersing the player in the game as finger painting does of immersing the painter into the painting.
The sad truth is that those who complain about the absence of buttons and joysticks, mice and keyboards, in such games make themselves just another example in a long story of those that history has left behind. They merely reveal their resentment at the sudden devaluation of the refined skills, into which they have invested so much time, energy and money, only to find their once treasured skills antiquated and obsolete.
History's full of these kinds of self-serving skill-protecting complaints masquerading as principled aesthetic objections. From photographers complaining about digital cameras, old ink-stained newspaper men complaining about the internet, motion picture moguls complaining about television, big band musicians complaining about the phonograph, and horse-and-carriage jockeys complaining about the automobile, this is an old story. And the outcome is usually the same, despite the best efforts of those with heavy investments in the past technologies. Though painful for the individuals involved, unless we are content to live in the past, this is ultimately for the good.
The claim of course is not merely about superior technological function, though that shouldn't be underestimated. It though is really about immediacy and accessibility of experience. Try to imagine that first person, whoever or wherever he was, that had the idea (there had to be a first, somewhere, no?) to hook up speakers to his TV set so as to experience what we'd today call surround sound. Without ever being aware of it, he was taking an essential step down that path which will result in the day when we all experience our favorite television programs as immersive virtual reality experiences. Imagine being able to wander around Jerry's apartment, while he and Elaine are discussing which percentage of the population is dateable. Or imagine being Jerry or Elaine having that conversation. All this is not as far away as you might think.
It's almost a cliche to say that we like to "lose ourselves" in our entertainment, to get "wrapped up in it." We want for a little while to leave the worries of the world behind. This deep human desire for the brief refuge of an escape into fantasy and wonder, I suspect explains why we have always pushed our entertainment technology toward the experience of immersion.
The emergence of the hugely popular Wii is an obvious illustration of just this phenomenon: the move toward a tactically immersive gaming experience. The touch screen, with its immersive gaming experience, putting us right in the game in a way no control console or keyboard ever can, is a kind of link between the innocent joys of childhood finger painting and virtual reality narrative and exploratory experiences that are just around the corner.
In Sci-Fi shows we see space age technology in which lights come on when given a verbal command. How much more impressive would it be though if our lights came on when we needed them, or raised their intensity when our eyes were growing tired of a task. Leading edge AI technology raises this very possibility. Immersion is the natural inclination of human-computer interface.
Seen in this context, touch screen gaming may be regarded as a transitional step into that future. Game designers who insist upon putting "consoles" on to touch screen games are being left behind by history. They are like those early film makers and recording engineers who could not see their new technologies as anything more than the means to record live performances. And being able to do that was a great accomplishment. It was of course only when the visionaries came along who could imagine cinematography and splice-editing, though, that these new technologies realized their creative and aesthetic potential.
Only when game designers have fully immersed themselves in the creative possibilities of designing games organic to the touch screen, will they truly broach the potential for optimizing the best games for iPad, and other touch screen devices. The choice is whether they will be stragglers of the past or pioneers of the future.
Certainly, the immediate evidence would suggest such a concern is much ado about nothing. Games have been developed for touch screens: I've compiled my list of the best games for iPad elsewhere. The fact of such games though has not been without its detractors and critics.
The usual approach is to dis such games on what seems to be the practical impracticality. To put it bluntly, they complain that touch screen games aren't effective because the player's fingers obstruct the view of the screen.
That I suspect has more to do with bad design than touch screen gaming per se. And it seems that such a protest misses a more central insight in all of this. Complaining that a tactile interaction with the screen is problematic is really not seeing the forest for the trees. What is going on here is, I suspect, the revolutionizing of gaming. In fact, it may be a portent of the future of human-computer interfacing.
Before fully making my case, let's reflect on a helpful bit of context. When was the last time you watched someone finger paint? Much, I think, can be learned from such observation. Commenting that real painters use paint brushes is true enough.
Yet, we all know the joys of sticking our fingers into the paint; of using the tips of our fingers to smear, spread and shape the paint. Finger painting in a sense is almost a kind of sculpture. Kids of course notoriously love it, but even adults, given the rare occasion, if not worried about getting paint on their new dress or suit, will often be compelled to spontaneously stick in their fingers.
On the other hand, there's the Etch-n-Sketch. Now, don't get me wrong. It can be fun, too. In a sort of detail oriented and slightly fixated way. But have you ever seen anyone, of any age, using an Etch-n-Sketch beam out the sheer joy that is ubiquitous and contagious in finger painting? I want to put it to you that the joy of the latter has to do with the immersion in, not only the experience, but also into the product of the experience.
The person finger painting, in a very real sense, is actually "in" the picture that she is painting. The painting is literally an extension of the painter and the painter an extension of the painting. If we can wrap our head about this dynamic we will understand why touch screen gaming is not only the future of gaming, but of human-computer interface. The touch screen game has the same affect of immersing the player in the game as finger painting does of immersing the painter into the painting.
The sad truth is that those who complain about the absence of buttons and joysticks, mice and keyboards, in such games make themselves just another example in a long story of those that history has left behind. They merely reveal their resentment at the sudden devaluation of the refined skills, into which they have invested so much time, energy and money, only to find their once treasured skills antiquated and obsolete.
History's full of these kinds of self-serving skill-protecting complaints masquerading as principled aesthetic objections. From photographers complaining about digital cameras, old ink-stained newspaper men complaining about the internet, motion picture moguls complaining about television, big band musicians complaining about the phonograph, and horse-and-carriage jockeys complaining about the automobile, this is an old story. And the outcome is usually the same, despite the best efforts of those with heavy investments in the past technologies. Though painful for the individuals involved, unless we are content to live in the past, this is ultimately for the good.
The claim of course is not merely about superior technological function, though that shouldn't be underestimated. It though is really about immediacy and accessibility of experience. Try to imagine that first person, whoever or wherever he was, that had the idea (there had to be a first, somewhere, no?) to hook up speakers to his TV set so as to experience what we'd today call surround sound. Without ever being aware of it, he was taking an essential step down that path which will result in the day when we all experience our favorite television programs as immersive virtual reality experiences. Imagine being able to wander around Jerry's apartment, while he and Elaine are discussing which percentage of the population is dateable. Or imagine being Jerry or Elaine having that conversation. All this is not as far away as you might think.
It's almost a cliche to say that we like to "lose ourselves" in our entertainment, to get "wrapped up in it." We want for a little while to leave the worries of the world behind. This deep human desire for the brief refuge of an escape into fantasy and wonder, I suspect explains why we have always pushed our entertainment technology toward the experience of immersion.
The emergence of the hugely popular Wii is an obvious illustration of just this phenomenon: the move toward a tactically immersive gaming experience. The touch screen, with its immersive gaming experience, putting us right in the game in a way no control console or keyboard ever can, is a kind of link between the innocent joys of childhood finger painting and virtual reality narrative and exploratory experiences that are just around the corner.
In Sci-Fi shows we see space age technology in which lights come on when given a verbal command. How much more impressive would it be though if our lights came on when we needed them, or raised their intensity when our eyes were growing tired of a task. Leading edge AI technology raises this very possibility. Immersion is the natural inclination of human-computer interface.
Seen in this context, touch screen gaming may be regarded as a transitional step into that future. Game designers who insist upon putting "consoles" on to touch screen games are being left behind by history. They are like those early film makers and recording engineers who could not see their new technologies as anything more than the means to record live performances. And being able to do that was a great accomplishment. It was of course only when the visionaries came along who could imagine cinematography and splice-editing, though, that these new technologies realized their creative and aesthetic potential.
Only when game designers have fully immersed themselves in the creative possibilities of designing games organic to the touch screen, will they truly broach the potential for optimizing the best games for iPad, and other touch screen devices. The choice is whether they will be stragglers of the past or pioneers of the future.
About the Author:
To keep up on the hottest news in the world of touch screen games, follow Mishu Hull's regular articles at the Best Games for iPad site. He writes on a variety of technology issues. His critical review of the newest version of Kindle Fire, " Kindle Fire Tries it Again, But... ," is a must read.
No comments:
Post a Comment