StarCraft: The past, present and future
Interaction design is a craft, and gaming is the subcategory of interaction design that most often ventures into the world of art. But the thing that most constrains the artform is this "little brother" mindset. Instead of waiting for society to understand and comprehend the medium, those who craft video games work to make their medium more like film or novels or music or other "high" artforms.<p>So I get a little twitchy when a gaming website does a story about a franchise like StarCraft and features the writing as the game changing aspect of it. StarCraft is not great because it's a sci-fi game. Warcraft is not great because it has ogres. Super Mario Brothers is not great because it has a chubby Italian plumber.<p>Interaction design often requires some metaphor - some analogy to inspire your first interaction with the system. The plumber, the ogre, the Zealot. But once you push that first button, and the system responds, the analogy is no longer the inspiration for delight, for frustration, for joy or pain. The interaction itself becomes the driving factor. And the most perfectly crafted interactions can inspire the full range of emotions without relying on a coherent plot, orchestrated sound, or ten minutes of FMV.<p>And StarCraft is one of the greatest examples of this. I don't care what a Zealot's motivation is, I only care about how much ground he can cover before the Hydra destroys him. My pulse is rising because the HP of my units is falling and my army is shrinking faster than my opponent's, not because I feel bad that the Zealots didn't procure the glory their race yearns after.<p>If gaming is ever going to take its proper place in the pantheon of higher artforms, it needs to stop acting like something it's not. Video games aren't movies, and they never will be. I hope the video games industry figures this out someday.