09/09/2005
After experiencing the virtual spaces realized in Zork, Myst and GTA San Andreas its apparent that all the games retain vestiges of their computational origins. These traces are most evident in Zork and Myst, but scratching the surface a bit reveals them in San Andreas as well. They manifest themselves in noticeable but different ways in each of the games.
Zork makes no attempt to disguise its computer origins exclusively using text as its input and output mechanism. Through the use of text Zork feels like Borges' labyrinth of Ts'ui Pen or a pick your own adventure book. Alternatively Myst and San Andreas use striking visuals that attempt to imitate the real world. But they contrast in that Myst plays like a slide show that slides in many directions whereas San Andreas feels more like a movie with the player as the director.
In terms of the spatial instruments and concepts provided by each game Zork and Myst are surprisingly alike. Both restrict the player to what the game creators decided beforehand was worth experiencing. These experiences are presented one unit of game space at a time, the paragraph of text in Zork or a three dimensional rendering in Myst. Further, player navigation is restricted in both to adjacent spatial units accessible in Zork by typing the text equivalent of the real world activity needed to reach the area. In Myst the mouse click takes on the role of every possible player action with transition renderings providing visual cues of progress. San Andreas mirrors the real world in more aspects than the other two by flooding the player with multiple cities open to exploration. Navigation in San Andreas is also similar to reality with multiple modes of transportation available; walking, biking, driving, boating, flying. All in a photo realistic three dimensional environment with mostly realistic controls.
What is lacking in Zork and for some parts in Myst is the ability of the player to develop a concrete spatial awareness which comes naturally in San Andreas. Zork provides no instruments beyond the textual notifications that adjacent areas are accessible. Myst is similar but provides the visual notifications of adjacent areas. San Andreas continues in the vein of co-mingling the physical world with their digital space by providing maps with markings for relevant places. Players of Zork and Myst are almost expected to draw out their own maps as they play.
The objects and events the game spaces provide and the player comes to expect vary wildly. Myst is visually engaging but has throughout a quiet and desolate environment and all interaction is with inanimate objects and the puzzles they form. Zork lacking visuals still inspires a feeling of aliveness and activity especially once you begin encountering animate elements. There is also some aura Zork exudes that just about anything can happen at any time, by using text they are not limiting the experience to what can be visually represented. San Andreas has a similar feeling that most anything can happen given its advanced graphical abilities but after playing it the player comes to expect more of the same violent vehicular content with slight variations.
Each of the three games provide different virtual spaces targeting audiences with different tastes. Zork and Myst provide worlds for curious explorers, Zork with an emphasis on adventure and Myst concentrating on puzzles. San Andreas provides a world for aspiring gang leaders, hoods and other questionable types. The three games represent different ways of solving the dilemma of creating virtual worlds with a set of electronics that only switch between zeros and ones. In terms of a technological step ladder these three games progressively raised the bar, but in the end it is up to each individual player which one provides them with the most fulfilling virtual space.
Zork makes no attempt to disguise its computer origins exclusively using text as its input and output mechanism. Through the use of text Zork feels like Borges' labyrinth of Ts'ui Pen or a pick your own adventure book. Alternatively Myst and San Andreas use striking visuals that attempt to imitate the real world. But they contrast in that Myst plays like a slide show that slides in many directions whereas San Andreas feels more like a movie with the player as the director.
In terms of the spatial instruments and concepts provided by each game Zork and Myst are surprisingly alike. Both restrict the player to what the game creators decided beforehand was worth experiencing. These experiences are presented one unit of game space at a time, the paragraph of text in Zork or a three dimensional rendering in Myst. Further, player navigation is restricted in both to adjacent spatial units accessible in Zork by typing the text equivalent of the real world activity needed to reach the area. In Myst the mouse click takes on the role of every possible player action with transition renderings providing visual cues of progress. San Andreas mirrors the real world in more aspects than the other two by flooding the player with multiple cities open to exploration. Navigation in San Andreas is also similar to reality with multiple modes of transportation available; walking, biking, driving, boating, flying. All in a photo realistic three dimensional environment with mostly realistic controls.
What is lacking in Zork and for some parts in Myst is the ability of the player to develop a concrete spatial awareness which comes naturally in San Andreas. Zork provides no instruments beyond the textual notifications that adjacent areas are accessible. Myst is similar but provides the visual notifications of adjacent areas. San Andreas continues in the vein of co-mingling the physical world with their digital space by providing maps with markings for relevant places. Players of Zork and Myst are almost expected to draw out their own maps as they play.
The objects and events the game spaces provide and the player comes to expect vary wildly. Myst is visually engaging but has throughout a quiet and desolate environment and all interaction is with inanimate objects and the puzzles they form. Zork lacking visuals still inspires a feeling of aliveness and activity especially once you begin encountering animate elements. There is also some aura Zork exudes that just about anything can happen at any time, by using text they are not limiting the experience to what can be visually represented. San Andreas has a similar feeling that most anything can happen given its advanced graphical abilities but after playing it the player comes to expect more of the same violent vehicular content with slight variations.
Each of the three games provide different virtual spaces targeting audiences with different tastes. Zork and Myst provide worlds for curious explorers, Zork with an emphasis on adventure and Myst concentrating on puzzles. San Andreas provides a world for aspiring gang leaders, hoods and other questionable types. The three games represent different ways of solving the dilemma of creating virtual worlds with a set of electronics that only switch between zeros and ones. In terms of a technological step ladder these three games progressively raised the bar, but in the end it is up to each individual player which one provides them with the most fulfilling virtual space.