The modern myth called “creativity” says that rules and barriers to the developer’s imagination is “bad”. Indeed, “creativity” says that the less ‘rules’ and ‘walls’ to the developer’s imagination, the greater potential “creativity” has to make “art”.
The entire latter 20th century has shown this to be false. Where are all the “art” that this “creativity” has bestowed on us? Where is the fruit of the modern definition of “creativity”?
I believe that you will know the tree by its fruit. When we look at great works, we will see that they grew under a plant that is very different from modern “creativity”. Instead of very loose or no ‘rules’, we find that there were very strict and very tight frames the artist had to work in. Think of the Sistine Chapel. Think of Hamlet.
Let me tell you the story of one writer. She wrote for the local newspaper, did odds and ends for other articles, but one day she broke her ankle. Her husband gave her historical novels from the library as she recovered. When she read all of them, he replied, “If you want another book,why don’t you make your own?”
So she wrote for her amusement. She wrote the last chapter first, then she skipped around with chapter to chapter. She would hide the manuscript from her friends by hiding it in towels, in closets, or under her bed. Then she recovered, and she stopped writing
Five years later, a Macmillion editor visitin the South to scout out new writers. This woman agreed to escort the editor around. When the guy was leaving, he asked if she had ever written a book. If she ever did, he would like to see it. Her friend, overhearing this, laughed how silly it was of the idea of her writing a book. She didn’t like this comment, and went home to grab her old crumbling pages of the disjointed manuscript and gave them to the editor as he was about to leave. She quickly realized what she had done and soon demanded that he send the manuscript back. But he had read too much of it, and he proposed a business deal with her. Remember, the manuscript was so disjointed that the first chapter wasn’t even written yet.
This manuscript became “Gone with the Wind”. Reviews from the establishment rejected the book and called it mediocre. Before World War 2, 24 countries had published translations of the book. The book just kept getting more and more popular. Critics compared the book to Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” in which the author, Mitchell, replied, “I’ve read review after review saying the same thing and have realized with a sense of growing horror that eventually I’m going to have to read War and Peace.” She would also later say that “Despite its length and many details it is basically just a simple yarn of fairly simple people. There’s no fine writing, there’s no philosophizing, there is a minimum of description, there are no grandiose thoughts, there are no hidden meanings, no symbolism, nothing sensational.”
One person describes the book this way:
Margaret Mitchell loved her native Georgia and the South in general. Her father, a prominent attorney, was president of the Atlanta Historical Society and from childhood she was immersed in the history of the region, especially the Confederacy and what became known as the Civil War and its aftermath.
…
Ms. Mitchell became concerned about the number of recollections of the Confederacy that were disappearing from library shelves and being discontinued by publishing companies. To friends she confided the uncanny foresight that posterity would take a one-sided, unfavorable view of the Old South. So she decided to write about that period and she selected the novel format.
Here is the point I want to make. Gone with the Wind was an absolute mess of a manuscript. The author wrote chapters out of order. But while the author was breaking all the typical ‘novelist rules’ for how to write a novel, she was staying very close to the history. She had actual tales from Civil War veterans. She heard the accounts of people who lived around her. She was a newspaper woman who, as journalists once had to do, live in reality. Journalists, at least once not too long ago, did not have the liberty to be “creative” or make things up. They were caged by rules such as sources and facts.
These stern rules are what makes Gone with the Wind’s characters and the world it portrays so resonating and so rich. If the author had gone “creative”, it would have created a mediocre work.
Even in speculative fiction, such as fantasy and science fiction, required a strong cage. Unfortunately today, writers use the sci-fi/fantasy as a launching pad to put out anything ridiculous. Science fiction used to be based on science. Fantasy, which was really established by Tolkien, was based on very real myths and legends.
The integrity of a fictional world is very important. When the creator breaks the fictional rules of the universe at his will, no one respects the fictional world anymore. It becomes a joke. It becomes like the last episode of Battlestar Galactica where ‘angels’ come and save the day.
What makes a better entertainment product? Is it less rules or more rules? The answer is more rules. Is it more “creativity” or is it less? It is less. Incredibly, the people who made ‘great art’ never felt they created anything. Shakespeare himself described that all he was doing was holding a mirror up to Nature. He, himself, did not see himself as ‘creating’ anything.
It is pretty easy to see fictional video game worlds as a sort of cage. Mushroom Kingdom, which is the video game equivalent of Alice’s Wonderland, could not have gritty urban environments in it. It would destroy the game world and make the franchise a joke. Metroid, which is very alien and very sci-fi, could not have a pastoral setting of cows and farms. Zelda, which is a type of celtic wonderland with swords, magic, and monsters, could not have automobiles or cell phones or laser guns.
Or could Zelda have these things?
In an e-mailed response, Aonuma said: “Technology actually was not a major concern for us when we decided to use the train. In The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass, the boat was the key mode of transportation. Now that Spirit Tracks takes place on land, we needed a new way for players to get around, and felt that the train offered the best sense of exploration and discovery. We don’t think it feels out of place in the game world. Trains are also a popular mode of transportation in Japan. My children and I still feel a great sense of adventure when we ride trains in Japan.”
How in the world can trains explore when they are on pre-determined tracks? The second bold is more ominous.
Remember Sid Meir’s “dinosaur” game? His son liked dinosaurs so he thought he should make a dinosaur game. Fortunately, that dinosaur game got scrapped.
Aonuma is, unfortunately, using what his children do as the basis of how to design Zelda. When I first saw Spirit Tracks, I immediately thought of Thomas the Train games that my nephews play. Aonuma, when he suggested flight in Zelda Wii, said he was inspired to do it because of his kid. This is all very troubling because Zelda is not being designed by the rules of nature or by what works in entertainment but by the eccentricities of Aonuma’s offspring.
“Regarding use of other forms in technology in the future, as long it adds to the overall game experience and is something we feel the player would enjoy, we wouldn’t be afraid to implement it. As a matter of fact, we have used the Hook Shot in several previous games, which would be considered a very modern type of technology, even by today’s standards. “
The issue is not technology but about the content of the game universe. Guys like Aonuma cannot even define what Zelda is. If you cannot define what Zelda is, how in the hell can you define what the consumer experience of Zelda is?
The Zelda series is being run into the ground. Zelda fans will be unhappy with this post. But Zelda fans, remember that if what I say is true, that if the Zelda series is being run into the ground, the people who will detect it last will be the core Zelda fans. There are some who hold Aonuma as the ‘true genius’ behind Zelda and that Miyamoto should get out of the way. But ever since Aonuma came on board, the Zelda series keeps sinking both in sales and in reputation. The gold cartridge game is now tarnished. It is no longer ‘special’.
A bad writer changes the content of the story to suit the writing rather than the other way around. In the same way, a bad game designer changes the content of the game to suit the gameplay rather than the other way around. And by content, I do not mean an item or a monster. I mean the game world.
Totilo mentions Final Fantasy and Warcraft with “future technology”. But the game world of Warcraft, which was once revered, is now considered a joke. World of Warcraft has destroyed the game world of Warcraft. I remember when Burning Crusade came out and people complaining that they want to go back to the gnolls and forests where Blizzard was instead doing strange space things.
Final Fantasy is a series in decline. That would be the last series to list as support, Totilo.
The only way a company, such as Nintendo, could ever possibly entertain the notion of User Generated Content is to believe, as a philosophical premise, that content is not important to the consumer experience since User Generated Content means amateur content.
This philosophical premise that content is not important to the game experience is the source of these ugly heads rising in Nintendo’s games. Content is being written around the gameplay elements instead of the other way around. Usually, it is best to have both of them meet in the middle. The notion that content should be the slave to the gameplay is ridiculous. It is like saying the story should be the slave to the writing style or that the movie’s story should be the slave to the directing. What we end up with are bad books and bad movies.
There have been many who keep trying to paint those who object to the trains in Zelda as being Cranky Kongs, and detail previous ‘technology’ in prior Zeldas. These people are proving the objectors correct.
There is clearly a line in which something in inserted in Zelda where Zelda no longer becomes Zelda. If space aliens were in Zelda, it would destroy the game world. If nuclear bombs were in Zelda, it would destroy the game world. But it is not about technology as it is about why people like going to the game world in the first place. If Zelda had dinosaurs, would it still be Zelda?
The objectors, when said they “ignored” previous examples of technology, end up being cleared of the charge that they are stiff people who throw an outrage because of change. Zelda is a video game. There will be things in the game that are ‘video game like’. People excuse things that do not closely relate to the celtic wonderland that is Zelda. But there is a line when gamers will throw up their hands and say, “This is no longer Zelda! I do not want to visit this game world!” Ever since Aonuma came on board, the Zelda games keep increasingly inch toward that line.
The trains are crossing that line for many people.
Unlike other things, the trains cannot be ignored. When playing Spirit Tracks, you cannot ignore the fact that it is a world with trains. For the objectors, the ever-present trains do not allow any immersive game world to form. It would be like playing Mega Man with bows and arrows. Once immersion becomes impossible, the consumer experience can be nothing but poor.
I have been curious as to why people defend the trains and/or greater incursions of the Zelda frame. I partly think these people’s “line” is further down. While trains may not break the game world for them, machine guns would. And for those where machine guns do not break the game world, a smaller minority would have space ships break the game world.
But I believe a big part of it is that these people believe in the myth that is “creativity”. They believe that any ‘frame’ or ‘rule’ on the game world will limit the ‘genius’ of the developer. Why, the developer should be able to do anything he wants! After all, the developer creates the game world!
But that is not true. It is the customer that creates the game world. Software comes with graphical displays with music and sound cues all to help the customer get into that game world. It is the customer who creates the game world in their heads. However, the customer doesn’t make the rules of the game. The developers do. A game of Monopoly would have trouble if a Chance card suddenly began espousing the rules of Candy Land instead of the business world that Monopoly resides in.
The content and the gameplay meet in the middle. Professor Layton resembles Sherlock Holmes in a way. But if the developers decided to get “creative” and put in space monsters, Professor Layton would not be Professor Layton anymore. People who are attracted to Professor Layton in the first place would end up being repelled. This is what is going on with Aonuma putting these crazy things into Zelda. This is the heart of why people are crying foul about trains. It isn’t about technology or trains. It is about Zelda and why people play it.
I wonder if this is the subject of which Aonuma and Miyamoto have had their recent disagreements.