LOOKING FOR LEO . . . AND BEYOND

E-mail Catalyst

LOOKING FOR LEO . . .
 AND BEYOND 

September 1998

by

 Harvey Harrison

INTRODUCTION

A STORY

May I tell you a story? By 1982, I was serving as an agent for computer game designers, specifically
adventure game designers. As I reflect back to this era, it is almost impossible to recreate the vast emptiness in popular awareness of this new form of creative expression, the "computer adventure game". I was often invited or required to explain what it was I was doing in this new medium, and, since there was little shared context for explanation, I related the following. 

In the early twentieth century, it is said that an early film-maker named August Lumiere was interviewed about the future of motion pictures. Lumiere was, as were many early film-makers, a parlor magician who used film effects in his performance. His response, it is said, was, "Well, as a tool for magicians, there may be some limited use for film, but, beyond that, there is not much future in it."

Please remember that this story-telling occurred in and around 1982. I typically elicited a smile or a laugh from my listener. I continued: And, Lumiere might have been right but for the arrival of the great founding software artists in film; the artists who looked at the medium as it then it existed, and said "I know what to do with that!" These were film-makers like Chaplin, Eisenstein, Griffith, Lloyd, Keaton. A reflection of their greatness was that, after audiences saw their work, it was clear that Lumiere was wrong and that film would play an important role in human culture.

And, I declared (circa 1982) my mission as an agent was to find the Chaplin, Eisenstein, Griffith, Lloyd, or Keaton of interactive entertainment and help bring these artists’ work to the audience! This finale usually produced an enthusiastic response in my listener. I was glad to be able to convey some sense of what I was hoping to achieve.

At the same time, I was struck by the irony that my listener had almost no idea what exactly it was I was doing. I resolved that this was perfectly fine, since the listener had a pure sense of my motivation, and that, at that time (and really since as well), was the most critical message to convey.

These many years later, I can affirm my commitment to that mission as described so long ago. I would here like to adjust the story somewhat in light of the greater cultural awareness of the immense impact of digital communication upon human culture. I was and still am looking for the Charlie Chaplins of interactive entertainment. (I honored to say that I have known and worked with a few digital media artists who I believe will be recognized at the level of the great early film-makers.)

However, I find myself currently drawn with irresistable fascination to the works and life of Leonardo DaVinci. Beyond the sheer cataract of genius his work displays, he was a supreme personification of the synthesis of art and technology. As I study him, I find that he has fascinated others in the digital media, judged by the CD’s and internet work devoted to him. I believe with great conviction that, if he were working today, Leonardo DaVinci would be designing games.

In a sense though, I am not merely "Looking For Leo" in the digital media. I am hoping that we (the game community generally as well as me personally) are looking beyond Leo in the following sense. Leonardo’s works of fine art are among the greatest in human history. So, too, for his time was the depth of his insight into technology. What I have yet to find in his work is the complete synthesis of art and technology in a single work of his. If Leonardo had the technology to bring his human sketches to life in a game set in one of the puzzle-like fortress he designed, what adventures would unfold? In this sense, then, we are "Looking Beyond Leo", for visionaries who are great artists and great technologists both and in the same works.

In looking beyond Leo, I will suggest (though not condemn) that much game design is analogous to very simple and established pre-digital game elements. I will then briefly refer to several works which, to me, go forward beyond and in the direction of "Beyond Leo".

II. ANALOGIES AND BEYOND

Fifteen years is a long time to be thrilled about a subject. As I said, by 1982 I was representing computer game designers, and I have remained active in the field since then. I have remained thrilled by it. One main reason for this enduring excitement is that the artistic mysteries are far from solved.

Friends and colleagues in the digital media assemble formally and informally, with intoxicants and without, with visionary insight and wild incoherence: all to try to grasp a treasure that starts with the willing suspension of disbelief and ends in the crescendo of emotional impact. And this group of friends and colleagues feel the secret is out there, beyond the illumination of the campfire deep in the night.

I have a humble mission here. I do not presume to have the secret in hand. However, what I will attempt here is to look at where we have arrived and to describe what I see. My hope is that by describing where we now are, the reader may discern the directions we need next to travel. My entire presentation is based deliberately upon analogy. Indeed, it is based upon a view of contemporary games in the context of four categories of analogy.

The four categories of currently popular games are analogous to surprisingly old and simple games. They are as follows.

1.Pinball: In pinball games, the player enjoys the kinetic geometry of bouncing and rolling and sound and points and controls the moving ball with the limited bumper buttons. While one can control even a simple scrolling game like Sonic in far more lavish ways than in pinball, I sense a real kinship of that type of game play to the feel of pinball. As one enters the current generation of post-scrolling movers of this type, say, like Banjo Kazooie, the elegance of audio/visual presentation and motion control becomes greater, but the basic play still reminds me of moving a pin ball. 2.The shooting gallery: The analogy here requires nearly no explanation. Consider Goldeneye. Please compare this game to the carnival booth shooting gallery. Again, the splendor of state-of-the art engines and graphics can enthrall, but the basic concept is simple. 3.Toy soldiers: Here we analogize Command And Conquer and Warcraft to hand operated toy soldier combat. The analogy once again is direct and simple. 4.Scavenger hunt: When Banjo Kazooie collects feathers or musical notes or other needed items, he (it? they?) are drawing us into a scavenger hunt. As the games grow more elegant, I find that they are increasingly analogous to pinball and scavanger hunt combinations.

What I ask you to consider with me is how many contemporary successful games can be analyzed by analogy to the four categories above. When one adds driving games (including snowboarding and the like) and boxing games, we find most of the popular titles covered.

What impresses me most about this conclusion is the extent to which today’s games are so similar to the simple and primitive games to which I analogize. Perhaps the conclusion to draw is that we remain in a very primitive stage in the growth and development of the interactive arts. There are some titles that do not fall into the categories I describe above, and they are among the works I most deeply admire. I will mention three.

First always is Myst/Riven. While puzzle solving is central, the work is, at its heart, a wonderful journey of mystery, with a story that draws the player more and more deeply inside the world of the game.

Next, is Psychic Detective. You are a detective dedicated to the solution of a mystery. You bring the psychic ability to project yourself into the minds of the other characters. As described by one of the creators, it is a mystery that is "an hour long and twenty hours wide". The aesthetic experience is reiterative, as your intimacy with the characters and their perspectives, viewed from within, deepens.

Finally, there is Orly Draw-A-Story. A Jamaican girl, Orly, is a vibrant story-teller, and you are her audience. Well, not exactly; actually, you are her partner because you are engaged to draw the pictures that are animated into the stories Orly tells. "Engaged" is the key verb in the interactivity. You are engaged by Orly, her frog Lancelot, and her stories, and you are engaged by the game to draw, to participate, to immerse yourself. You feel yourself climb insid the frame of the monitor and the story by the process the game employs to enlist you as a cocreator of the artwork in the stories.

None of these three is primarily pinball, a shooting gallery, toy soldiers, or a scavenger hunt. Nor are they driving or boxing. I ask you to consider with me, then, not only how far we have come but happily how far we have yet to go. There are worlds of emotion to be explored beyond the conventional, and I remain thrilled as ever at the prospect.

© 1998 HARVEY E. HARRISON