My wife and I got back from Puerto Rico a few days ago. It was a fun trip, very relaxing, and much needed. Basically the only thing I did while in the Caribbean was sit by the pool and read (with some eating, drinking, and snorkeling thrown in).

In my pre-trip search for a book to read, I stumbled on an old copy of The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand that I got from my father several years ago. It’s hard to say what drew me to it, not knowing much about Rand or her books, except that I had never read it, and everybody says it’s a classic. I’ll forego a full review, but I will say that it started out really well, with interesting, complex, and often surprising characters. Unfortunately the story quickly took a back seat to a lot of preaching about the eternal struggle between society and the individual.

Any Ayn Rand critics who happen to be reading this, don’t worry. I haven’t turned into a raging Objectivist. Nevertheless, Rand’s perspective (it’s not hard to make a connection between the author’s ideas and those of Howard Roark, the protagonist) did strike a chord with me. The notion of the self as humankind’s quintessential trait and most valuable asset is hard to refute — self-awareness being what separates us from the the animals, etc. But more than that, her portrayal of mass media and its influence on unthinking hordes of people was eerily reminiscent of today’s reality TV culture.

The Banner (a newspaper in the book) used sex, violence, and gossip the same way CSI uses the shiny object effect (”it’s…so…pretty”) to draw millions of viewers, and ridiculous editorials in the book’s fictional newspaper affected public opinion like today’s 24-hour news stations, both of which spew nonsense because they know people just want to be told what to think. There’s even a character who bears a healthy resemblance to Jerry Bruckheimer or Rupert Murdoch — a media mogul who made his fortune by appealing to the lowest common denominator.

So what does any of this have to do with game development? Directly, nothing. But it’s easy to make the same arguments about the money-grubbing and lack of originality in the video game industry as Rand made about architecture in The Fountainhead. Ultimately, I wonder if there’s anything truly original to be gained from big studios whose collective goal is to rehash past success as quickly as possible. Rand places all her hope in lone, single-minded, and frequently outcast geniuses (Copernicus, Galileo, DaVinci) to move the human race toward a greater future.

Will some indie game developer take the industry in a whole new direction? With the ballooning budgets and shrinking quality of most games today (and art in general), it seems the indie scene is the only place left to look.

Not much on the game development front to report today. I’ve been doing some modeling in preparation for my next project (or at least a pilot test of some concepts). Progress is slow so far. Even with a decent shortcut for character modeling, there’s still a lot to learn. The hardest part has been keeping the model simple and clean so it doesn’t have too many polygons and will deform properly once it gets into the game. Character design is quite tricky.

Regarding the title of this post, I saw an article this morning about a new television technology that can simulate 3D video without goggles. It basically sends two signals to the screen for every frame — one contains the image itself, and the other contains a grayscale version of the image, which conveys the depth information. The grayscale image is used by a thin layer of…something…laid over the screen that tricks the eye into seeing depth where there isn’t any. That’s right, no 3D headgear required (except the round ones you’ve already got).

In addition to sounding quite cool, it struck me that this technology is reminiscent of bump mapping in games, which uses a similar grayscale image to trick your eye into thinking there’s more detail on an object than there really is.

I think there’s some amazing stuff coming in the next few years in computer interaction (multi-touch technology) and entertainment technology. It’s hard to imagine the kinds of games we’ll be playing in another five years, or on what kind of screen.

Clearly I’ve been a bit absent from the blog lately. I’ve got two excuses. One is that I wanted to let the SPUDZOOKA announcement percolate a little. The other is that I’ve been playing Grand Theft Auto IV in every spare moment. It’s amazing that I managed to get SPUDZOOKA out the door at all considering the fact that I bought GTA a couple days before I finished it.

So here are a few thoughts about GTA based on my experience so far. The reasons I play? Entertaining gameplay and world-class writing.

Gameplay
Grand Theft Auto games have been known in the past for having some spotty gameplay. Driving has always been fun, but the weapon targeting system seems to get a complete overhaul with every release. As expected with GTA IV, the driving system and car physics are top notch. It’s still amazingly fun just to cruise around town. Now that I’ve made may way to the second area of the game, there are finally some straight roads to fly down at top speed. I’m still getting used to the hand brake in this one, since it’s so easy to skid, but I like the fact that you have to learn how to use the brakes if you’re going to get around quickly.

The targeting system again has been revamped, and this time it’s pretty good. After a little while getting used to it, I realized that it basically operates like a modified shooter control with a lock-on system added to it. You can walk around with your free target mode engaged and the system will automatically lock onto any enemies that come into view. It works pretty well.

They’ve also added a cover system, which lets you hide behind obstacles during a firefight. I’ve found this quite fun so far, since it gives me a way to take out targets systematically rather than just running in shooting like a madman, which I did a lot of in previous GTA titles.

Writing
Lots of people probably argue that gameplay is what makes GTA shine. It’s just a fun world to interact with. This is certainly true, but I think the real difference between GTA and a lot of other games is its writing. The characters are bigger-than-life and well developed. Niko, being a typical GTA hero, basically just does what people ask him to, but he seems to have a nicely layered back story that’s coming out bit by bit. Plus, a big reason I can drive around for hours is that the radio stations crack me up. This is comedy writing at its finest and a brilliant commentary on American culture.

It’s not just the radio stations, though. GTA IV finally seems to have latched onto something that others in the series have flirted with but never explored fully: the American Dream. Sure, all the GTA titles have dealt with the idea of one man pulling his own way up through whatever means necessary. But III and Vice City were simple mob stories. There wasn’t much to make you relate to the hero (in III he never spoke at all). He was just a criminal trying to get rich. San Andreas developed Carl’s character a bit more and toyed with the idea that he was a product of his circumstances and was somehow trying to rise above all the violence in his life.

But Niko Bellic is different to me. He’s a man ruined by his past, and he has come to the U.S. both to escape something and to find something (or someone). He finds Liberty City a very different place than he expected, complicated and damaged. It’s this interaction between Niko and Liberty City, his search for inner peace in a complex and chaotic place, that gives GTA IV something special. Niko in effect personifies the city, which in turn is a powerful American symbol, full of as much repressed anger and fear, but full of life as well. I can see him slowly forming a connection to the city and its inhabitants, just like I am as the player, and it’s a beautiful thing.

Gamasutra posted an article a few days ago about the 20 essential Japanese RPGs. It’s pretty long but worth a skim. I’ve spent most of my gaming life (until recently) fairly insulated from reviews and online chatter about the quality of games I played. As a result, I knew what I liked, but I didn’t know if anyone else agreed. It was fun to read someone else’s take on those games.

Turns out I have played quite a few of the ones listed, including:

• Final Fantasy IV
• Final Fantasy VI
• Final Fantasy VII
• Final Fantasy VIII
• Final Fantasy X
• Final Fantasy XII
• Chrono Trigger
• Chrono Cross

Lots of Square games on that list, obviously, but they were only one of two or three outfits creating US-bound RPGs in the 80s and 90s. Plus, I liked all their games, so I tended to go out and buy them.

I’ve never played Xenogears, but I did play the first installment of Xenosaga, and I definitely agree with this article’s take on that game:

Still, once again, the plot [of Xenosaga] was simply far too ambitious for its own good, and the number of planned installments was cut down from six to three, compressing the plot even more. It didn’t help that the first two games were saddled with terrible pacing issues, plodding cutscenes, and boring battle systems.

Japanese vs. “Western” RPGs
This article also intrigued me because I’m still working on Oblivion (which will no doubt be a looong process), and I’ve only just begun to understand the differences between Japanese and Western-style RPGs. This is yet another way in which I’m a little slow, but I have never really spent much time with any Western RPGs before Oblivion.

I tend to like story-based games with interesting characters, and Western RPGs have leaned away from story and more toward gameplay, with their open-ended worlds and emphasis on first-person role-playing.

To avoid launching into a rant about the state of stories in games (which you can find here at Blog of War, and also here and here), I’ll just say that so far I still prefer the Japanese model. Most definitions of narrative require an some act of telling (by an author and/or narrator). It’s this author who interprets events and helps shape their meaning.

Japanese-style RPGs tend to acknowledge the existence of an author/narrator and adopt a more cinematic style — they tell a story. Western RPGs tend to drop you in a world and let you, in a sense, create your own story. The trouble with this model is two-fold for me:

1. Most of us aren’t good story tellers. The things we do in these spaces probably isn’t very interesting. If I choose to spend my time in Oblivion on alchemy, I’ll just run around collecting seeds and roots all the time. Nothing riveting there. Sure, I could play the thief or the wizened wizard, but these are just types; they’re not characters with flaws and emotions. I want characters.
2. There’s no one to tell the story to. If a story needs a teller, it also, out of necessity, needs an audience. If a man tells a story in a forest and no one is there to listen, is it still a story? Sorry… The point is that I can certainly entertain myself in a sandbox-type game — where I’m the story-teller with no audience — but I find it far more compelling to be an active audience member, using the available gameplay to move a story along.

That’s my two cents. What’s your preference?