The game industry is one of, if not, the oldest experience of computers for the general public. Pong and Pac-man blazed the way. While gaming remains a major component of the modern personal computer world, another development in that world has raised skepticism about the ability to marry the two. This second dimension of the computer world is the touch screen, characteristic of smart phones and tablets such as iPad. How much of a conflict is there really here?
If the proof is in the pudding, there may be some justification in dismissing these concerns. No such incompatibility has prevented the development of games specifically for touch screens: see my list of the best games for iPad posted elsewhere. This practical evidence, though, has not convinced the nay-sayers.
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.
Well, maybe, but perhaps a more central insight is being missed here. The very idea that a tactile interface with the screen is an obstacle may in fact be an increasingly outdated abstraction. Those who play the touch screen are quite possibly the cutting edge not only of a new world of gaming, but in fact of an entirely new human-computer interface.
What do I mean, you ask? Well, before launching fully into explaining that, let's consider some context. There's an old joke that technology is anything invented after you were born. In fact, everything a human uses as a medium for some purpose is a technology. Paint for instance is a technology. Think for a moment about the visceral pleasures of finger painting. Of course, great, important and serious painters use artisanal paint brushes, right?
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.
Contrast these pleasures to another childhood picture making medium, the Etch-n-Sketch. Of course, I'm not denying it provides fun and satisfaction, too. Perhaps you'll concede though it is a rather different style of pleasure: detailed in an almost obsessive-compulsive sort of fixated way. This you might agree is a world away from the raw and sensual pleasures of anyone of any age experiencing finger painting. The difference between these two experiences is immediately related to the quality of immersion. Not merely immersion in an experience, but in the medium itself.
The finger painter is literally "in" the picture that he is painting. This is not a metaphor, but a precise description: the painting is an extension of the painter and vice versa. It is necessary to fully grasp this distinguishing quality to appreciate why touch screen gaming is not only the future of gaming, but of human-computer interface. Like the finger painting, touch screen gaming immerses players right into the game.
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.
It's really no different from photographers complaining about digital cameras, old ink-stained newspaper journalists complaining about the internet, motion picture studios complaining about television, big band musicians complaining about the phonograph, and horse-and-carriage operators complaining about the automobile. Progress marches on and those with investments in the past get passed over. Unless we want to live in some permanent past, though, surely this is a good thing.
It's not just though about improved functionality, but also about a more immediate experience and a more accessible one. The first person who had the idea to hook up speakers to their TV to create a surround sound effect were leading the way along the path to the day when we all will experience our favorite shows as virtual reality experiences. And that day isn't as far off 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 hugely popularity of Wii illustrates the point: this sudden and mass embrace of a tactically immersive gaming experience. The immersive gaming experience of the touch screen situates the player into the game in a way reminiscent of the childhood pleasures of finger painting. Indeed, we might say that it is an essential link between those childhood pleasures of the past and the promises of our virtual reality future.
Even that though is just a shadow of the technological immersion we can expect. Science fiction TV programs such as Star Trek or Babylon 5 depict technology that allows lights to be switched on through voice command. That though only scratches the surface of what is coming. The pioneering of cutting edge of strong AI opens the possibility of an environment in which the lights come on when we think about needing them, or they increases intensity when registering eye fatigue. This is the direction in which the future is moving and it is the logic of our endless thirst for the fully immersive 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.
Likewise, until they can wrap their heads around the possibilities of organic designs, realizing the optimum potential for the best games for iPad, and other touch screen devices, such designers will be the last of the past, rather than pioneers of the future.
If the proof is in the pudding, there may be some justification in dismissing these concerns. No such incompatibility has prevented the development of games specifically for touch screens: see my list of the best games for iPad posted elsewhere. This practical evidence, though, has not convinced the nay-sayers.
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.
Well, maybe, but perhaps a more central insight is being missed here. The very idea that a tactile interface with the screen is an obstacle may in fact be an increasingly outdated abstraction. Those who play the touch screen are quite possibly the cutting edge not only of a new world of gaming, but in fact of an entirely new human-computer interface.
What do I mean, you ask? Well, before launching fully into explaining that, let's consider some context. There's an old joke that technology is anything invented after you were born. In fact, everything a human uses as a medium for some purpose is a technology. Paint for instance is a technology. Think for a moment about the visceral pleasures of finger painting. Of course, great, important and serious painters use artisanal paint brushes, right?
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.
Contrast these pleasures to another childhood picture making medium, the Etch-n-Sketch. Of course, I'm not denying it provides fun and satisfaction, too. Perhaps you'll concede though it is a rather different style of pleasure: detailed in an almost obsessive-compulsive sort of fixated way. This you might agree is a world away from the raw and sensual pleasures of anyone of any age experiencing finger painting. The difference between these two experiences is immediately related to the quality of immersion. Not merely immersion in an experience, but in the medium itself.
The finger painter is literally "in" the picture that he is painting. This is not a metaphor, but a precise description: the painting is an extension of the painter and vice versa. It is necessary to fully grasp this distinguishing quality to appreciate why touch screen gaming is not only the future of gaming, but of human-computer interface. Like the finger painting, touch screen gaming immerses players right into the game.
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.
It's really no different from photographers complaining about digital cameras, old ink-stained newspaper journalists complaining about the internet, motion picture studios complaining about television, big band musicians complaining about the phonograph, and horse-and-carriage operators complaining about the automobile. Progress marches on and those with investments in the past get passed over. Unless we want to live in some permanent past, though, surely this is a good thing.
It's not just though about improved functionality, but also about a more immediate experience and a more accessible one. The first person who had the idea to hook up speakers to their TV to create a surround sound effect were leading the way along the path to the day when we all will experience our favorite shows as virtual reality experiences. And that day isn't as far off 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 hugely popularity of Wii illustrates the point: this sudden and mass embrace of a tactically immersive gaming experience. The immersive gaming experience of the touch screen situates the player into the game in a way reminiscent of the childhood pleasures of finger painting. Indeed, we might say that it is an essential link between those childhood pleasures of the past and the promises of our virtual reality future.
Even that though is just a shadow of the technological immersion we can expect. Science fiction TV programs such as Star Trek or Babylon 5 depict technology that allows lights to be switched on through voice command. That though only scratches the surface of what is coming. The pioneering of cutting edge of strong AI opens the possibility of an environment in which the lights come on when we think about needing them, or they increases intensity when registering eye fatigue. This is the direction in which the future is moving and it is the logic of our endless thirst for the fully immersive 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.
Likewise, until they can wrap their heads around the possibilities of organic designs, realizing the optimum potential for the best games for iPad, and other touch screen devices, such designers will be the last of the past, rather than pioneers of the future.
About the Author:
To check out the latest goings-on in the world of touch screen games, check out Mishu Hull's regular posts at the Best Games for iPad blog. 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