If seriousness is a product of circumstances then, not just our 'feelings', how do you elevate the game to such a level where it becomes serious? I previously wrote about cinema, and how its seen as a more serious medium than video games because it currently touches on a wider variety of human dramas than games do, and to better effect through their realism. In that post I also spoke about the Pros and Cons of cinematic games, using Dark Days as an example of how converting cinematic methods into games can cheapen the original intended experience of the film itself.
These were cinematic games though, what about mechanical games that attempt to address serious human drama without emphasizing cinematic techniques? 'So Hungry' for instance. This game uses simple game mechanics (but not contextual), and a graphically minimalist simulation approach of daily homeless life in a park/city. The game is about not dying from starvation, and to do this players have to learn how to game the system and finally buy their own apartment/house in the process. Similarly, 'Passage' is about life, falling in love, losing the one you love, growing old and dying, and it too shares a minimalist graphical and controller approach. Are these games as serious as Heavy Rain, or movies like Dark Days? I don't believe they are, because they are not engaging enough (in game rules and controls) to do their respective themes justice. They are reductionist versions of Heavy Rain, whereas they should have been mechanical ones.
Real serious games have been around for a while though. In the 80's and 90's Japanese developers became well known for their amazing combination of world building, movement and A.I mechanics, which can be seen all the way from Pac-Mans swift cornering of chasing ghosts, to Mario's momentum based sliding, Arthurs double jumps, and Links Z-Targetting backflips. These elements when handled carefully can make for a serious gameplay experience, even with the limited mechanics of shooting, jumping or simple back and forth movement. Then for game worlds to start becoming serious part of it meant they had to start becoming non-linear. Pac-Land had to become Super Mario Bros., and that in turn had to become The Legend of Zelda etc etc. These more serious game worlds also brought with them more serious decisions. How do I spend my in-game currency, should I waste this item now, is it worth backtracking to the health fountain or should I try see whats at the top of that ladder? These are the kinds of mechanics I imagine that Irem was trying to explore with its Disaster Report Series, until the most recent title was cancelled due to the Earthquake in Japan. John Szczepaniak provides an interesting backstory to the game series here.
Ambitious
As an excuse to why more of these games aren't around Today many developers might say that the technology for simulating these scenarios isn't quite there yet, so anyone who attempted to make the kind of game that could teach people about high risk & reward scenarios while dealing with potential emotional trauma from the potential outcomes would have an extremely difficult road ahead of them. They might use L.A. Noire as an example. For that game just to achieve the realism of human-like facial movements it had to invent in face scanning technology that would take the game budget in upwards of $50 million. All the dialogue in the game though is conveyed through prescripted dialogue, not through actual artificial intelligence meaning the effect is mainly cosmetic. Facade on the other hand, is a game that foregoes the visual detail almost entirely and attempts to model real artificial intelligence through conversation. While ambitious, it doesn't take players long to realize the prescripted nature of the encounter as well. Relationships dynamics in games? Not quite there yet. Games have proven that they don't need these mechanics to be serious though, and even a game set in the tunnels of Dark Days wouldn't need this kind of advanced technology to work.
Developers might use another excuse, that of interactive environments. Sandbox games take immense effort they say, modelling city streets and warping/shrinking them into game worlds like Infamous (PS4) and Watchdogs takes money and time. Whats so glamorous about the tunnels of Dark Days though? You wouldn't even need to set it in a big city. Compromise a little and let players wander suburbs. Game engines could easily facilitate this, and because these people make it their lifestyle to drive, go to shopping malls, or work in a job you wouldn't need to include those features.
Last excuse they would use is marketability. Its never been done, too risky they'd say. Its this attitude that will keep the Western game industry from embracing mature gameplay mechanics and game worlds. The juvenile sandbox will not give way to the serious one until something radically different comes along. Its also ironic that, seeing the pattern for sandboxes being developed in Japan, that America chose a far less sincere and detailed take on the genre (perhaps seeing the sales of Shenmue scared Rockstar too much). Do serious games need to be realistic though, and how far can we take this abstraction before all seriousness is lost? This is something I cover in another post, Fantasy VS. Reality.
