One of the first media of widespread popular computer use was the playing of games. Think Pong and Pac-man. Today a top thriving trend is the touch screen, familiar on smart phones and tablets such as iPad. The juxtaposition of these two trends has raised doubt in many people's mind how compatible they can be.
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.
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 The very idea that a tactile interface with the screen is an obstacle may in fact be an increasingly outdated abstraction.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.
Before completely unpacking this claim, some context will be helpful. Consider the visceral pleasures of finger painting. I know many will object that serious painters use paint brushes. Fine.
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.
On the other hand, there's the Etch-n-Sketch. Now, don't get me wrong. It can be fun, too. In a sort of detail oriented and slightly fixated way. But have you ever seen anyone, of any age, using an Etch-n-Sketch beam out the sheer joy that is ubiquitous and contagious in finger painting? I want to put it to you that the joy of the latter has to do with the immersion in, not only the experience, but also into the product of the experience.
For, if you think about it, the finger painter is not merely painting the picture, but doing so from within the picture. The painter is literally, physically in the picture he is producing. The painting is an extension of the painter. And no less is the painter an extension of the painting. The kind of sublime joy generated by this profoundly immersive experience goes a long way in helping us understand why touch screen gaming is the future of gaming. And not only that, but is a harbinger of the future of human-computer interfacing. With the touch screen game we discover a simulation of the immersive, joyous experience of finger painting.
Complaints over the touch screen's lack of buttons and joysticks, mice and keyboards, express nothing more than the entirely predictable resistance to change always experienced by people left behind by technological change. Such people are understandably resentful. They have invested great amounts of time, energy and sometimes their personal wealth, into learning skills that are rendered obsolete.
History's full of these kinds of self-serving skill-protecting complaints masquerading as principled aesthetic objections. From photographers complaining about digital cameras, old 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 jockeys complaining about the automobile, this is an old story. And the outcome is usually the same, despite the best efforts of those with heavy investments in the past technologies. Though painful for the individuals involved, unless we are content to live in the past, this is ultimately for the good.
The claim of course is not merely about superior technological function, though that shouldn't be underestimated. It though is really about immediacy and accessibility of experience. Try to imagine that first person, whoever or wherever he was, that had the idea (there had to be a first, somewhere, no?) to hook up speakers to his TV set so as to experience what we'd today call surround sound. Without ever being aware of it, he was taking an essential step down that path which will result in the day when we all experience our favorite television programs as immersive virtual reality experiences. Imagine being able to wander around Jerry's apartment, while he and Elaine are discussing which percentage of the population is dateable. Or imagine being Jerry or Elaine having that conversation. All this is not as far away 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.
In Sci-Fi shows we see space age technology in which lights come on when given a verbal command. How much more impressive would it be though if our lights came on when we needed them, or raised their intensity when our eyes were growing tired of a task. Leading edge AI technology raises this very possibility. Immersion is the natural inclination of 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.
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.
Before completely unpacking this claim, some context will be helpful. Consider the visceral pleasures of finger painting. I know many will object that serious painters use paint brushes. Fine.
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.
On the other hand, there's the Etch-n-Sketch. Now, don't get me wrong. It can be fun, too. In a sort of detail oriented and slightly fixated way. But have you ever seen anyone, of any age, using an Etch-n-Sketch beam out the sheer joy that is ubiquitous and contagious in finger painting? I want to put it to you that the joy of the latter has to do with the immersion in, not only the experience, but also into the product of the experience.
For, if you think about it, the finger painter is not merely painting the picture, but doing so from within the picture. The painter is literally, physically in the picture he is producing. The painting is an extension of the painter. And no less is the painter an extension of the painting. The kind of sublime joy generated by this profoundly immersive experience goes a long way in helping us understand why touch screen gaming is the future of gaming. And not only that, but is a harbinger of the future of human-computer interfacing. With the touch screen game we discover a simulation of the immersive, joyous experience of finger painting.
Complaints over the touch screen's lack of buttons and joysticks, mice and keyboards, express nothing more than the entirely predictable resistance to change always experienced by people left behind by technological change. Such people are understandably resentful. They have invested great amounts of time, energy and sometimes their personal wealth, into learning skills that are rendered obsolete.
History's full of these kinds of self-serving skill-protecting complaints masquerading as principled aesthetic objections. From photographers complaining about digital cameras, old 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 jockeys complaining about the automobile, this is an old story. And the outcome is usually the same, despite the best efforts of those with heavy investments in the past technologies. Though painful for the individuals involved, unless we are content to live in the past, this is ultimately for the good.
The claim of course is not merely about superior technological function, though that shouldn't be underestimated. It though is really about immediacy and accessibility of experience. Try to imagine that first person, whoever or wherever he was, that had the idea (there had to be a first, somewhere, no?) to hook up speakers to his TV set so as to experience what we'd today call surround sound. Without ever being aware of it, he was taking an essential step down that path which will result in the day when we all experience our favorite television programs as immersive virtual reality experiences. Imagine being able to wander around Jerry's apartment, while he and Elaine are discussing which percentage of the population is dateable. Or imagine being Jerry or Elaine having that conversation. All this is not as far away 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.
In Sci-Fi shows we see space age technology in which lights come on when given a verbal command. How much more impressive would it be though if our lights came on when we needed them, or raised their intensity when our eyes were growing tired of a task. Leading edge AI technology raises this very possibility. Immersion is the natural inclination of 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 check out the latest news in the universe of touch screen games, check out Mishu Hull's regular articles at the Best Games for iPad site. 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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment