I hate new technology.
Well, that’s not entirely accurate. I should probably say that I hate the way new technology gets used while it’s new. The pace of technological advancement has accelerated to such a break-neck rate in the last few decades that it seems more obvious when new technology is used for the sake of the technology and not as a service to any sort of core pursuit. With all the talk of 3D and the new Wii console announcement, I’d just like to lay my cards on the table and make sure that everyone is aware of why anything really new will undoubtedly suck.
I have a hunch that this has been the case throughout human history, but depending on the technology, and the historical record, what are arguably failures of execution with respect to new and exciting technology have been mostly forgotten in deference to more enduring fare. I am no antiquarian, but when the news hit last year that classical roman statues were originally painted in garish colors I was pretty shocked. The grouchy old man in me assumed that paints must have been new and were obviously being overused in the context of already amazing artistic achievement. That or Romans have always been drawn to garish colors and flamboyance.
The overreach of technology can be seen in video games as well and is really just a part of the learning curve that every new technology goes through. Some tech goes through it better than others, and some technology somehow beats the odds all together and skips right over it, either by sheer skill or pure, dumb luck. For the sake of brevity, I’m going to focus on a few specific examples of new technology and why they sucked, why some of them no longer suck, and why most innovation is destined to suck. I also want to make a clear distinction between technological advancement and game design advancement. While technological advancement spawns an initial wave of horrible implementation, significant game mechanic or design advancement tends to peak early and spawn wave after wave of copies, each with diminishing returns (from an engagement perspective). But enough on what works. I want to say my piece so I can get back to shooing kids out of my damn yard.
Lets start with one of the most obvious examples, colored lighting effects. When graphics processors gained the ability to render colored lights and handle the implications of colored lights on surroundings and characters in real time it seemed like a great step forward in terms of bringing photo-realism to games. In reality, what ended up happening was a blatant overuse of colored lights. Carefully designed levels were washed out in sickly tones of green, yellow, or blue light.
Later on, real time 3D water effects arose and were initially equally horrible. Farcry had the ability to generate water effects, but implementations were less than nuanced. Part of the problem is the unique challenges associated with water. Because water is a transparent, reflective, liquid it has a lot more of an effect on the surrounding space in-game. Early real time water effects failed to incorporate additional physics, lighting, and movement to the degree necessary in order to provide anything approximating realism. This left water often looking either flat and lifeless, or more like a plastic blob. Luckily another new technology came along to usurp the tech demo throne and water effects were given the freedom to grow into the subtle and moody additions to a game that they are today.
If you’re sensing a pattern here, congratulations. New technology arises, companies pass off tech demos as games, and the technology is overused or misused until the next big thing comes along. It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about the shadows in Doom 3 or the creepy Emotion Engine eyes and mouths in Final Fantasy X. Eventually things settle down and the technology gets used in a sensible way, but the unfortunately truth is that new technology just plain sucks.
Given the excellent track record of new technology, should we then just assume that 3D gaming is going to suck too? It would be a fair assumption, and I think to a large extent it probably will, at least if Peyton and JT have anything to say about it.
To be fair, though, 3D is nothing new. Stereographs have been in commercial production since the 1840s and 3D has been used in movies for decades. It might be that for once, the video game industry isn’t leading the way, but playing catch up. Entering the 3D space in a post Avatar world, where subtle 3D has become an acceptable way to leverage the technology might be the great hope for 3D games. I’d love seeing subtle 3D used to add depth to games and give the player greater immersion rather than a Jaws 3D style orgy of random crap flying off the screen.
Oh wait, this is the video game industry we’re talking about. I guess I should just be glad that it will take at least fifteen years for a 3D Duke Nukem game to come out.