Telling Tales

Despite the incredibly young nature of the interactive medium - indeed, perhaps as a result of that youth - there are a number of ideas which have become deeply entrenched in people's minds regarding game design and the basic philosophy of interactive entertainment.

The last few years have, however, been something of an ongoing revolution in these ideas. New platforms, new concepts and new interfaces have forced a radical rethink of the most basic elements of this industry's produce. More than we've seen at any point in the last twenty years, there is a genuine question in many areas about what, exactly, constitutes a game.

The Wii, the DS, mobile phone platforms, web browser games, digital distribution, the resurgence of the shareware concept on the PC, Xbox Live Arcade and PlayStation Store - all of these are platforms and business models which have turned on their heads many long-established truths about videogames.

Along with them have arrived software which, it could easily be argued, doesn't actually conform to many of the elements which are traditionally considered to make up a "game". Nintendo's Brain Training series, Nintendogs, Animal Crossing, Electroplankton - not to mention the likes of fl0w, Spore, Second Life and a host of other unusual experiments on other platforms - all unquestionably within the realms of Interactive Entertainment, but all tough to pigeonhole as "games".

This is not, before you roll your eyes and start skim-reading, about to turn into a lengthy argument for the dropping of the phrase "game" or "videogame" in favour of some new alternative which better describes the industry's products. Suggestions for a new, consumer-friendly name for interactive entertainment have been doing the rounds for over a decade, and they're all doomed to fail for one simple reason - everyone likes the word "game", even if it's not terribly accurate.

Besides, the accuracy doesn't matter; the word "game" is a label for interactivity, not a pigeon-hole which must be dispensed with because of its older connotations. After all, very few films are actually created using film any more, and there are a lot of novels which aren't exactly novel - the names remain, because they are intricately linked in people's minds with the class of entertainment they represent.

As such, the word "game" - and even its less useful adjunct, "videogame" - are almost certainly here to stay. The responsibility of clever and innovative developers and publishers is to redefine what that word means to people, and the last few years have demonstrated that the industry is more than up to that challenge.

However, there remains a peculiarly entrenched idea around the word "game", which harks back to its origins in sports and board games and their ilk. This idea is fairly dogmatic; it looks at videogames, ignores the vast strides they have made in terms of expanding the term game to mean a host of new things, and insists on pegging the medium back to the clear rules and victory or loss states found in more traditional, non-digital games.

There is, of course, tons of room for this kind of thinking. A racing game has clear rules, and victory or loss is decided by who moves fastest around the track. Similarly for a competitive first-person shooter, or a strategy game, and so on. Lots and lots of games are all about those rules, those victory states, and the interactions which lead to them - what the purists would describe as "pure gameplay".

However, some very fuzzy thinking persists around this concept - stemming from a kind of snooty attitude which is sometimes seen towards games which emphasise co-operation, group creation or socialising (these are "not real games", in purist terms). Worse again, there is a genuine belief among some designers, developers and players that single-player experiences are an aberration which will eventually disappear, because the traditional definition of a game is that it is a competitive experience shared with other people.

Those viewpoints are grounded in concepts of "games" which have been rendered obsolete by the progress of interactive entertainment - and yes, it would be much more simple if interactive entertainment and games could have totally different names in the public eye, but that's not the case and no amount of wishing will make it so.

The key mistake made in the definition of "games" along traditional lines is that it ignores the major strength of the interactive medium. There are three primary things which human beings do to entertain themselves. They play games; they socialise; and they enjoy fiction, this latter being a uniquely human attribute that only exists in our species due to the development of language.

The huge strength of interactive entertainment, which is not shared by any other form of entertainment, is that it can combine all three of those things together - and even combine them with a fourth pastime, education.

Look across the huge swathe of space now occupied by videogames, and you'll see all of those things being explored and combined in new ways. Many videogames, of course, use the traditional rules of games for entertainment, as we discussed previously. Others focus on socialising, with Animal Crossing, Second Life and to an extent, all MMOG titles being examples of this. Still others are powerful and evolving examples of interactive narrative, from the teen high fantasy of Final Fantasy through to the reworked ancient epics of God of War, the light-hearted comedy of Sam and Max, or the darker, more adult tale of Fahrenheit.

This is the real power of videogames as a medium. It allows for competition and self-improvement of skills; it brings people together; and it tells great stories in new and interesting ways. To focus dogmatically on the word "games" is to completely ignore the latter two aspects, which are vitally important to the evolution of a unique, distinct and powerful medium.

The real challenge here is for developers and designers - many of whom have ideas founded in the older, more traditional concept of games - to open up their thinking in this way. "But it's not really a game, is it?" is no longer an acceptable way to look at a piece of interactive entertainment; its value must be measured in terms of sociability, narrative and even education.

There are countless examples on the market of successful products which focus on those areas at the expense of their actual "gameplay", and do so very successfully. Each of these has found a niche in the rapidly expanding gaming demographic, and filled it wonderfully.

This is the gauntlet laid down to designers in our evolving medium. Interactive Entertainment isn't just about "gameplay" - it has learned new tricks, and designers must now learn how to enthral people by creating social spaces and weaving compelling narratives.