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.
Such a truism though blinds one to the valuable insight available. Who reading these lines has never experienced the joys of poking their fingers into the paint? Can you remember the sensual pleasure of smearing, spreading and indeed even shaping the paint with your finger tips? Really, if you examine it closely, finger painting is less like brush painting than it is akin to sculpture. Children famously revel in it. It provides great satisfaction for adults too though if they can overcome inhibitions against the indulging of child-like pleasures.
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 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.
Those who complain about the absence of buttons and joysticks, mice and keyboards, are simply expressing the annoyance of adaptation-challenge always expressed by those left behind by change. They are resentful that their refined skills, in which they have invested so much time and energy, are suddenly obsolete.
Our technological history is littered with those who tried to mask their efforts to protect their skills investment with pretensions of principle. Photographers complaining about digital cameras, 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 operators complaining about the automobile, are just a few of so many examples. The march of progress certainly does leave its causalities. Unless though we are happy to resolve ourselves to life in a permanent past, such change is finally for the good.
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 verges on being hackneyed to observe how much we like to "lose ourselves" in our entertainment. We seem to enjoy such recreational diversions most when we feel "wrapped up in it." A major part of the experience is our desire for however briefly to leave behind the concerns of the mundane world. Anthropology knows of no humans who haven't used some kind of intoxicants to alter consciousness. The desire for however brief a refuge in fantasy or wonder appears to be essentially human. It probably explains why we endlessly push 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.
These touch screen games, modest as they appear today, are but a way-station into our future. The kind of games that designers create for touch screen devices like the iPad reveals much about their own capacity to contribute to the future. When you meet a game that is dependent upon "buttons" on the screen, you've encountered a designer who, sadly, is much like film makers and record producers of the past. Only able to conceive of the new technology as means to record live performances, they set up their camera and microphone in static processes which were oblivious to the rich potential that would soon be unlocked those creative souls who ventured into the world of the yet to be created disciplines of cinematography and splice-editing.
So with game designers responding to the growing demand for games on touch screens, if they can find the organic fit with the uniquely immersive qualities of the iPad, they too can be harbingers of the future. Otherwise, they're just lingering stragglers of the past.
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.
Such a truism though blinds one to the valuable insight available. Who reading these lines has never experienced the joys of poking their fingers into the paint? Can you remember the sensual pleasure of smearing, spreading and indeed even shaping the paint with your finger tips? Really, if you examine it closely, finger painting is less like brush painting than it is akin to sculpture. Children famously revel in it. It provides great satisfaction for adults too though if they can overcome inhibitions against the indulging of child-like pleasures.
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 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.
Those who complain about the absence of buttons and joysticks, mice and keyboards, are simply expressing the annoyance of adaptation-challenge always expressed by those left behind by change. They are resentful that their refined skills, in which they have invested so much time and energy, are suddenly obsolete.
Our technological history is littered with those who tried to mask their efforts to protect their skills investment with pretensions of principle. Photographers complaining about digital cameras, 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 operators complaining about the automobile, are just a few of so many examples. The march of progress certainly does leave its causalities. Unless though we are happy to resolve ourselves to life in a permanent past, such change is finally for the good.
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 verges on being hackneyed to observe how much we like to "lose ourselves" in our entertainment. We seem to enjoy such recreational diversions most when we feel "wrapped up in it." A major part of the experience is our desire for however briefly to leave behind the concerns of the mundane world. Anthropology knows of no humans who haven't used some kind of intoxicants to alter consciousness. The desire for however brief a refuge in fantasy or wonder appears to be essentially human. It probably explains why we endlessly push 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.
These touch screen games, modest as they appear today, are but a way-station into our future. The kind of games that designers create for touch screen devices like the iPad reveals much about their own capacity to contribute to the future. When you meet a game that is dependent upon "buttons" on the screen, you've encountered a designer who, sadly, is much like film makers and record producers of the past. Only able to conceive of the new technology as means to record live performances, they set up their camera and microphone in static processes which were oblivious to the rich potential that would soon be unlocked those creative souls who ventured into the world of the yet to be created disciplines of cinematography and splice-editing.
So with game designers responding to the growing demand for games on touch screens, if they can find the organic fit with the uniquely immersive qualities of the iPad, they too can be harbingers of the future. Otherwise, they're just lingering stragglers of the past.
About the Author:
To follow the latest goings-on in the universe of touch screen games, follow Mishu Hull's regular posts at the Best Games for iPad blog. He writes on a variety of technology topics. His recent slam of the newest version of Kindle Fire, " Kindle Fire Tries it Again, But... ," is required reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment