Develop 2009: Gameplay Not Everything, Says Dyack
[Continuing GSW-xposted highlights from Gamasutra's coverage of the Develop conference in Brighton, here's a fun Simon Parkin-authored piece on what the 'tres eccentrico' Denis Dyack thinks of story and gameplay nowadays - there's already lots of discussion on Gama about it.]
"Gameplay is not everything," said Silicon Knights (Eternal Darkness) founder and president Denis Dyack. "If you look at the most popular games today, they are far more narrative-focused."
"If games are to follow the trajectory of films, then the dominance of gameplay will diminish in place of an increased focus and importance on gaming’s stories and the ways in which they are told," he added.
Dyack’s controversial message was delivered during a talk at Brighton, UK's Develop Conference calling for games to be considered as "the Eighth Art." He highlighted the writings of Ricciotto Canudo, an Italian author and one of the first theorists of film who considered cinema to be the Seventh Art.
"Canudo argued that cinema incorporated the distinctive elements of both the spatial arts (architecture painting) with the temporal arts (music and dance)," he explained.
"In a similar way video games synthesize architecture, sculpture and painting with music, dancing and painting, utilizing elements of each but adding interactivity to move art on to its eighth form."
"That video games are art is quite obvious to me," he continued. "The new synthesis is interactivity and gameplay. Instead of moving pictures, that which movies brought to art, we now have interactivity as the glue that brings together all the previous artistic elements."
Dyack drew attention to various elements of Silicon Knights’ most recent game, Too Human, to illustrate his point. He highlighted its architecture, music and poetry, and said each was as important as the next in creating a full experience for the player.
Rather than shrinking from drawing comparisons between film and video games, Dyack urged developers to pursue and embrace the connections between the media. "It’s ridiculous to claim that video games aren’t art because they speak the language of film," he said. "I would encourage us to apply filmic technique to our creations. If you can replicate these techniques extraordinarily well, the your game will resonate with people on a deep level."
"It’s an unpopular viewpoint," he said. "But I don’t believe that gameplay is the most important aspect to games. I have a theory: that engagement is greater than or equal to art plus story plus gameplay plus audio plus technology. It’s all of these things combined, and one is not more important than another."
"While I think that narrative is going to become more and more dominant, possibly superseding gameplay, narrative is not the be all and end all," he added.
"You can have 100-year-old films where narrative is very light and they are still enjoyable. However, I think we will move towards a place where games can be a success because of more than just their gameplay, because of their music, their internal architecture and so on."
When asked why we should care whether games are an art form or not, Dyack admitted that in part his argument is fueled by a desire for validation from the academic and wider critical community.
Comments
It's a funny point, but there's logic behind it. Despite what countless "nerds" (as warped as this term has become) etcetera everywhere would like to think, people aren't machines. People can't simply seperate one element like gameplay from the rest of an experience in terms of enjoyment, even if they'd like to don that disguise for kicks.
Art direction, sound design, and narrative all also factor in to how we feel about a game and how enjoyable it is. Sorry, but, nobody's a robot.
Posted by: P.F. | July 17, 2009 6:38 AM
He is just stating the obvious, really. Obviously there's more to games than gameplay, and this is not a new thing either.
A big part of my enjoyment of Ghosts'n'Goblins (to pull out a random example from yesteryear) came from the spooky atmosphere generated by the graphics and music, and the level design which made many of the places feel real (a graveyard, a dark forest, a ghost town, et.c.). Those are the things I remember today, that made an impression and made the game cool to play.
It was and still is all about the total experience. Gameplay is just one part of it. It is a vital part, sure (without gameplay, games aren't games), but it is not the only part and the sooner people get rid of the silly idea that "gameplay is everything", the better.
Posted by: fluffy bunny | July 17, 2009 3:23 PM
BTW, it really surprises me that the commenters at Gamasutra are so clueless. I really hope they're just having a bad day.
Posted by: fluffy bunny | July 17, 2009 3:30 PM
Why do people give this guy the time of day?
Posted by: Walsh | July 17, 2009 7:09 PM
People, gamers, scholars, and developers give Dyack the time of day because, despite mistakes he may have made, he's quite brilliant. It's especially mesmerizing to hear him speak in an academic setting.
Give him a chance. Listen to the man and you might grow to like him.
Posted by: Kitschy | July 17, 2009 7:43 PM
Brighton?! Damn it, I could've been there. I'm glad the dude still exists, so he can give better game structure and variety to Too Human 2, because the first game felt a little undercooked with some great gameplay.
Posted by: Moeez | July 19, 2009 4:04 AM
Dyack's view is pretty much diametrically opposed to mine. The idea that interactivity is just another ingredient in the soup really misses what's special about computers. Interactivity is the primary characteristic that differentiates our medium from other media. Talking about making games cinematic is like talking about making books cinematic. You can try and maybe you'll even make something impressive, but in the end it's a bad idea. Work with the grain of your medium, not against.
With regards to the art issue, things are becoming pretty pathetic. Clicking our heels and repeating "Games are art, games are art" will not make things better. Let's face up to the fact that the vast, overwhelming majority of games have zero redeeming cultural value. As long as games primarily focus on ridiculously muscled men shooting aliens with chainsaw guns, we'll be in the same cultural morass that we are now.
Perhaps what Dyack means is that games can potentially be art. In that case I would agree with him, but we've a long way to go yet. If you want to games to be art, then make games about meaningful things. We need to make games about the grief of losing a life-long friend. Games about discovering hope in the future or about finding courage to go to fight a war. Our games need to speak about a multitude of things that we cannot address now. When we can do this, we'll have art; waving our hands and yelling "Look! ART!" is not the way to get there.
Posted by: Alex Vostrov | July 19, 2009 3:56 PM
"People, gamers, scholars, and developers give Dyack the time of day because, despite mistakes he may have made, he's quite brilliant. It's especially mesmerizing to hear him speak in an academic setting." =
the problem is i HAVE heard him speak in more academic viewpoint leaning settings. and he never struck as that brilliant. He struck me as the stubborn old professor that insists he's got the answers despite being proven wrong by his students time and time again.
People listen to Dyack not because of his brilliance, but because there is no recognized academic authority (which is what people are looking for in such forums) when it comes to games, and Dyack is very loud and likes to put himself out there. They take the first guy that is out there, regardless of his actual authority. His "brilliance" and authority (as is much of the reputation of his supposed AAA studio, Silicon Knights) tends to be more a product of folkloric accepted truth as opposed to actual tested reality.
Posted by: Eil | July 19, 2009 4:21 PM