Autistic Games

[malymin]

I think one thing that I miss from 1990's PC games is that there were many games that felt like they just had... an extremely autistic sensibility to them. Virtual life games like Aquazone (written about here by Ackart) and Creatures were not "games" at all, but virtual ecoystems where you were expected to pay attention the biochemistry of your animals' habitat. Maxis games, in general, were minutae-focused - and in the interest of increasing appeal, much of that sense of complexity has languished as EA has taken control of its most popular series.

Even the business simulators of the era had an interest in minutiae that would bore the average child - was I patient enough to reverse engineer the exhibit design logic of Zoo Tycoon (2001)? No, and yet the knowledge that there was a logic fascinated me, as I carefully colored and decorated each individual tile of a isometric map. I watched the smiley and frowny faces as I internalized words relevant to my fascination: "terrain" and "foliage" and "exhibit", "deciduous" and "coniferous", "okapi" and "caudipteryx". I read each species' educational biography, a set of paragraphs that provided no innate gameplay value but was stimulating to the child who poured over encyclopedias meant for adults. Figuring out how to create elaborate features, like moats, that were not explicitly part of the game but emergent from its terrain pathing rules. Voraciously checking the official website for free "downloads" to drop; "DLC" was not an acronym invented yet. Roller Coaster Tycoon held my interest less (I was a Dinosaur kid and not a Trucks/Trains/Construction kid, what can I say), but it too was a world of precision and minutiae; each piece of a coaster's track held meaning for its physical properties, its popularity among guests - and little did I know, even that which surrounded the track made an effect on its perceived qualities, in the eyes of the little toy people that swarmed my park like ants.

Many "PC Games" were simulations first, games second.

I feel saddened by and frustrated this article, where the author feels the need to imply that SimAnt, a game she loved as a child, specifically for its hyper-focus on ant life and focus on strategy, is a bad idea for a game, a sort of failure because it is not and could never be Mario or Sonic. I wouldn't be surprised if this was pushed by the editors; I remember Bogleech, talking about his experiences writing for Cracked, mentioning the way the editors pressured him and other writers to speak with hatred and disgust for any part of the natural world less mainstream than a kitten, no matter how the writers felt. Regardless...

It’s hard to understand the marketing pitch behind an ant colony simulation. Certainly, no one was sitting in a meeting and suggesting SimAnt could be the next Super Mario Bros. While fairly sophisticated in terms of ‘90s gaming capabilities, it sounds today like it might be more in line with an aspiring game developer’s jokey side project. But perhaps it stands as a simple relic of its time. Within Maxis’s early series of games, there was a tacit emphasis on education — a hope that people could learn something by doing it, even if it wasn’t a perfect simulation.

A "jokey side project" by an indie dev would likely not have as much care to detail and realism put into it as SimAnt, I think.

Games full of detailed systems, whether explicitly laid out or hidden so that the player must sus them out; games that reward what spiders called a "botanist's pace"; as strange experimental studios got bought up, they vanished, watered down. Why make a game for a niche, games that only interest shut-in adults and strange children, when you can make a game that "gamers" in the broader sense will like?

I don't want a "game." I want an ant farm, and aquarium, a miniature world which I watch from above like a god - but where even omnipotence meets friction, against the needs and desires of the miniatures within it. I cannot control my Petz' behavior - they will sometimes be aggressive towards each other, or they will snub me and refuse to follow my commands, or they will resent me if I treat them poorly: I prefer this to perfectly kind and pliant creatures, who never say no and never hold grudges, because it feels alive in its friction. I have seen many long time Sims players say that this is why they prefer older games in the series to newer ones; there are more disasters, more drama, more times a Sim's personality causes problems for themselves and others, while the Sims 4 feels to them like a slick and rosy dollhouse where things only happen because the player says so, not because the people or the world say so.

I think about Patricia Taxxon's video where she says that an "autistic sensibility" is a core part of what makes something "furry." I feel like there's other things that carry a core autism-ness, too. But even indie games feel unlikely to satisfy that itch, most of the time.

I don't know where I'm going with this.

Comments

[stepnix]

caudipteryx mention!!!!!!
(good insights, good post)

[malymin]

The caudipteryx!!!! A staple of any ZT1 dinosaur zoo.

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>>I think one thing that I miss from 1990's PC games is that there were many games that felt like they just had... an extremely autistic sensibility to them.<<

True.

So did a great deal of early science fiction: the "story of idea" stuff that focused on robots, aliens, or exploring strange new worlds more than characterization or even plot. I really liked some of that. Modern SF has mostly devolved to tits and ass or military gore. Now I like tits and ass as much as the next guy, but that's not all I like. I'm not surprised that some gamers feel the same way about simulations and games of idea, rather than games heavy on plot and FX.

>>Virtual life games like Aquazone (written about here by Ackart) and Creatures were not "games" at all, but virtual ecoystems where you were expected to pay attention the biochemistry of your animals' habitat.<<

Conversely, simulations are pretty popular in board games now. We love Planetarium, and Evolution is pretty good too.

>> a set of paragraphs that provided no innate gameplay value but was stimulating to the child who poured over encyclopedias meant for adults. <<

Yeah, my parents bought me the Encyclopedia Britannica when I was in junior high, and it actually lasted me the whole summer. Just. I would lie on the floor with a bunch of them spread open so I could look up the "see also" references. Linksurfing in the days when the internet was just getting started, before we had a web connection.

I'm the one person who pored over the loving descriptions of Ice Age Europe in Earth's Children and skipped the pr0n because it was boring. So when I got The Tale of Tal, I recognized a LOT of the illustrated flora and fauna, because I was paying attention.

>> (I was a Dinosaur kid <<

I hacked a goodly portion of Greek and Latin from scientific names, including a dinosaur book that I loved when I was ... four or five maybe?

>>I feel saddened by and frustrated this article, where the author feels the need to imply that SimAnt, a game she loved as a child, specifically for its hyper-focus on ant life and focus on strategy, is a bad idea for a game, a sort of failure because it is not and could never be Mario or Sonic.<<

One should not confuse a plot-based game or strategy game with a simulation or other types of software which is amusing.

>> a hope that people could learn something by doing it, even if it wasn’t a perfect simulation.<<

It doesn't have to be perfect to be good, useful, and fun. We've certainly had a ball with Planetarium and Evolution, and I probably learned things from both even though I'm already familiar with those topics. There's a tremendous amount of value in moving things around with your own hands to see what happens. Catch is, that's a kinesthetic learner's technique; it doesn't appeal to people who learn best by reading or by listening to other people, and the type of programmers has shifted over time. I'm actually much more reading-based, but with complex things, I still appreciate having manipulatives and a chance to play out scenarios. I like building ecosystems as a hobby, real or imaginary.

>> as strange experimental studios got bought up, they vanished, watered down. <<

Everything gets watered down when it's mass-produced for the widest possible audience. One size fits most ... doesn't. We can thank Hollywood for saving the cat. >_< Fuck the cat!

>>I don't want a "game." I want an ant farm, and aquarium, a miniature world which I watch from above like a god - but where even omnipotence meets friction, against the needs and desires of the miniatures within it.<<

Hence the vital difference between a good game and a good simulation. They are different programs.

>> I cannot control my Petz' behavior - they will sometimes be aggressive towards each other, or they will snub me and refuse to follow my commands, or they will resent me if I treat them poorly: I prefer this to perfectly kind and pliant creatures, who never say no and never hold grudges, because it feels alive in its friction. <<

Yep. You really are thinking like a god. :D

I always make sure to include friction in my worldbuilding. It's critical for verisimilitude. There are exceptions. There are things that don't quite fit, and hint at past disasters or present upheavals. It's meant to be that way, because worlds are messy, and that's what makes them interesting.

>> I think about Patricia Taxxon's video where she says that an "autistic sensibility" is a core part of what makes something "furry." <<

*ponder* I would say neurodiverse, rather than only autistic. Furries are all kinds of different people -- just mostly very odd kinds.

>> I feel like there's other things that carry a core autism-ness, too. <<

See above re: older SF. Some clothing and furniture is too, like hoodies and pod chairs.

>> But even indie games feel unlikely to satisfy that itch, most of the time.<<

It depends on the game, I think. A huge advantage nowadays is that the web and platforms like Kickstarter make it possible for freaks to find each other easier, whether creators or patrons or fans. Some of the games are very far-out, hitting niches that no commercial corporation would touch. I doubt that you're the only person who liked those early simulations. Somebody might decide to develop something in that genre. It's worth watching for.