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.
If the proof is in the pudding, there may be some justification in dismissing these concerns. No such incompatibility has prevented the development of games specifically for touch screens: see my list of the best games for iPad posted elsewhere. This practical evidence, though, has not convinced the nay-sayers.
Most commonly, there are those who complain about the practicality of touch screen game playing. The usual (perhaps obvious) complaint is something along the lines: my fingers get in the way of seeing 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 The very idea that a tactile interface with the screen is an obstacle may in fact be an increasingly outdated abstraction.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.
What do I mean, you ask? Well, before launching fully into explaining that, let's consider some context. There's an old joke that technology is anything invented after you were born. In fact, everything a human uses as a medium for some purpose is a technology. Paint for instance is a technology. Think for a moment about the visceral pleasures of finger painting. Of course, great, important and serious painters use artisanal paint brushes, right?
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.
The finger painter is literally "in" the picture that he is painting. This is not a metaphor, but a precise description: the painting is an extension of the painter and vice versa. It is necessary to fully grasp this distinguishing quality to appreciate why touch screen gaming is not only the future of gaming, but of human-computer interface. Like the finger painting, touch screen gaming immerses players right into the game.
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.
It's really no different from photographers complaining about digital cameras, old ink-stained newspaper journalists complaining about the internet, motion picture studios complaining about television, big band musicians complaining about the phonograph, and horse-and-carriage operators complaining about the automobile. Progress marches on and those with investments in the past get passed over. Unless we want to live in some permanent past, though, surely this is a good thing.
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 emergence of the hugely popular Wii is an obvious illustration of just this phenomenon: the move toward a tactically immersive gaming experience. The touch screen, with its immersive gaming experience, putting us right in the game in a way no control console or keyboard ever can, is a kind of link between the innocent joys of childhood finger painting and virtual reality narrative and exploratory experiences that are just around the corner.
But don't expect the appetite for technological immersion to stop there. You've no doubt seen Sci-Fi TV shows where lights are activated by voice command. Pioneering research in strong AI suggests that may be hardly scraping the surface. We may see light control systems that come on when we think about needing them. Or lights that automatically adjust to the growing fatigue of our eyes when preoccupied in a task. Immersion is the natural inclination of human-computer interface.
Seen in this context, touch screen gaming may be regarded as a transitional step into that future. Game designers who insist upon putting "consoles" on to touch screen games are being left behind by history. They are like those early film makers and recording engineers who could not see their new technologies as anything more than the means to record live performances. And being able to do that was a great accomplishment. It was of course only when the visionaries came along who could imagine cinematography and splice-editing, though, that these new technologies realized their creative and aesthetic potential.
Only when game designers have fully immersed themselves in the creative possibilities of designing games organic to the touch screen, will they truly broach the potential for optimizing the best games for iPad, and other touch screen devices. The choice is whether they will be stragglers of the past or pioneers of the future.
If the proof is in the pudding, there may be some justification in dismissing these concerns. No such incompatibility has prevented the development of games specifically for touch screens: see my list of the best games for iPad posted elsewhere. This practical evidence, though, has not convinced the nay-sayers.
Most commonly, there are those who complain about the practicality of touch screen game playing. The usual (perhaps obvious) complaint is something along the lines: my fingers get in the way of seeing 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.
What do I mean, you ask? Well, before launching fully into explaining that, let's consider some context. There's an old joke that technology is anything invented after you were born. In fact, everything a human uses as a medium for some purpose is a technology. Paint for instance is a technology. Think for a moment about the visceral pleasures of finger painting. Of course, great, important and serious painters use artisanal paint brushes, right?
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.
The finger painter is literally "in" the picture that he is painting. This is not a metaphor, but a precise description: the painting is an extension of the painter and vice versa. It is necessary to fully grasp this distinguishing quality to appreciate why touch screen gaming is not only the future of gaming, but of human-computer interface. Like the finger painting, touch screen gaming immerses players right into the game.
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.
It's really no different from photographers complaining about digital cameras, old ink-stained newspaper journalists complaining about the internet, motion picture studios complaining about television, big band musicians complaining about the phonograph, and horse-and-carriage operators complaining about the automobile. Progress marches on and those with investments in the past get passed over. Unless we want to live in some permanent past, though, surely this is a good thing.
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 emergence of the hugely popular Wii is an obvious illustration of just this phenomenon: the move toward a tactically immersive gaming experience. The touch screen, with its immersive gaming experience, putting us right in the game in a way no control console or keyboard ever can, is a kind of link between the innocent joys of childhood finger painting and virtual reality narrative and exploratory experiences that are just around the corner.
But don't expect the appetite for technological immersion to stop there. You've no doubt seen Sci-Fi TV shows where lights are activated by voice command. Pioneering research in strong AI suggests that may be hardly scraping the surface. We may see light control systems that come on when we think about needing them. Or lights that automatically adjust to the growing fatigue of our eyes when preoccupied in a task. Immersion is the natural inclination of human-computer interface.
Seen in this context, touch screen gaming may be regarded as a transitional step into that future. Game designers who insist upon putting "consoles" on to touch screen games are being left behind by history. They are like those early film makers and recording engineers who could not see their new technologies as anything more than the means to record live performances. And being able to do that was a great accomplishment. It was of course only when the visionaries came along who could imagine cinematography and splice-editing, though, that these new technologies realized their creative and aesthetic potential.
Only when game designers have fully immersed themselves in the creative possibilities of designing games organic to the touch screen, will they truly broach the potential for optimizing the best games for iPad, and other touch screen devices. The choice is whether they will be stragglers of the past or pioneers of the future.
About the Author:
To keep up on the latest news in the universe of touch screen games, follow Mishu Hull's regular articles at the Best Games for iPad blog. He writes on a variety of technology topics. His critical review of the newest version of Kindle Fire, " Kindle Fire Tries it Again, But... ," is required reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment