What is the purpose of a game? For some it may be entertainment. For others, fun. Still others are looking for an experience unlike any other.
Every fancy new game has had its graphics, its “combat”, its whole engine built or re-built “from the ground up”.
One time I asked a software engineer a technical question about a GameCube project we had worked on together. He stopped what he was doing, looked at me blankly for a few seconds, and said, “You know, I’ve smoked so much dope between then and now, there’s no way I’d remember the answer to that.” He went on to be a lead programmer for one of video games’ biggest franchises.
Here it is, I think: the moment the world of video games definitively chunked up into discrete groups and congealed. The emulsifier we used to have, this kind of shared sense of exploring a new medium, simply isn’t working any more.
In many ways, it’s like naming a band: technically, you can do anything, but if your idea is at all clever, someone else has probably done it first. And really, the name shouldn’t be too clever, otherwise the joke gets in the way of what, ultimately, should be a desire to express the group’s ethos sincerely.
The question caught him off guard– “Are you okay?”– because he was feeling fine, even better than usual.
“You look so pale,” his aunt said.
Ubisoft’s Assassin’s Creed games have historically opened with a title card that reads, “This game was developed by a multicultural team of various faiths and beliefs.”
To be an artist (or a craftsperson) and make something about today’s wars that’s corporately antiseptic and palatable, you often have to purposely leach the commentary away; you have to dance around the fact that there’s a lot of war in your game and that you have nothing at all to say about it.
Jane. That’s– gosh, Jane is a beautiful name. I mean it really is. Jane Doe? I feel like I’ve heard that name somewhere before. You’re not in movies, are you? You could be… I mean, look at you!
By saying that Vanquish is a great game but could benefit from better story and characters, Clark implicitly proposes a mythical beast— the kind with the head of one animal and the body of another