One Big Step Out of the Treehouse

It's official: I still have a career in video games. The Supreme Court declared video games to be an equal to film, music, literature, etc. in terms of their ability to be a communicative medium. So if the Supreme Court takes video games as seriously as they take everything written by Mark Twain, everything filmed by Hitchcock, and every stroke laid down by Michelangelo, why don't video game developers and publishers? Why is the industry so afraid to embrace the artistic qualities of video games? Why settle for making toys for kids/grandparents? And don't say the money; not everything Nintendo makes does well.


I doubt Justice Ginsburg has a lvl 85 Warlock (Scalia might) or has ever been enraptured by the narrative beauty of Bioshock, but even she can see the artistic potential of video games. David Jaffe just bumped this really old debate in his interview with CVG.

David Jaffe versus Steven Spielburg

David Jaffe is actually one of my heroes partly because I am a little racist. I grew up idolizing Kojima (who didn't?) for creating Metal Gear Solid, but let's face it: I am not Japanese, the development climates for Japan and America are completely different. I basically idolized a man I have nothing in common with, besides a passion for game design. That's like Michael Jordan idolizing the Scottish guy who invented basketball. Yes, they both really, really, really love basketball, but that's all they have in common. David Jaffe is basically my Dr. J.


It's not just his games (although growing up Twisted Metal: Black rarely left my PS2) it's how he views games.

    "I over-eat when I'm stressed. I'm not present enough in my life to just be with the stress. When it comes to someone working out of a place of ego, it's the same thing. The creative talent and their vision should be enough. The end goal of someone patting you on your head and saying: 'You're an artist now. You mean something'... I'm not trying to be an asshole. We've all fantasized about those moments because we think it means more than it really does. But in reality, it doesn't mean shit."

 I do not want games to be art so I can dust off my beret, pack my vintage oak pipe with all natural tobacco created by a small tribe of native Americans, and sit around with hipsters smelling our own farts. I want games to be viewed as an art form because it will change why people make games. As long as games are being made to be sold to retailers, to appeal to demographics, to fatten pockets, they will never grow up and game designers will be forever stuck in their treehouse. Why is Steven Spielburg able to do anything he wants to? Because he has made amazing blockbuster movies that redefined film. Sure, a few games have made HUGE steps in the right direction. Once we make games on par with Speilburg's films, we can get out of our Treehouse and start making big boy games that make big boy money, all while being respected as a medium.


I do think we are getting much closer. L.A. Noire was the first video game to be featured at the Tribeca Film Festival. Colleges around the world are or have built video game design programs. It just seems like everyone really, really wants video games to advance, but they never do due to the current antiquated development process.


Hell, even game design itself is filled with relics of the past. Health bars are leftovers from when machines could not process a 3D model reflecting real damage like broken limbs, blood, etc. The little green HP bar was a mechanical representation of all of those things. "Health packs" don't make any sense at ALL (how do you package and ingest pure 'Health'?) yet they are found in pretty much every modern FPS. RPGs are even worse, suffering from a myriad of relics from Dungeons & Dragons. Str, Int, Agi, etc. are representations of things that can now be accurately reflected in games. The whole concept of gear in general as well: how does a belt make you stronger or more intelligent? It doesn't; via stat gains the belt is a just a catalyst for character growth, because either due to a lack of computing power or the game being pen and paper, showing that your character got stronger was impossible. But now it is. My character fought some baddies and is more experienced in fighting? Great...make him larger, change his muscle tone. All of this feedback to the player should not break the fourth wall, and that's what all these numbers are doing. But I digress.


Point is: yay for video games, now let's keep up the momentum! We will see our Hamlet one day. As I have stated in a previous post about Moore's Law, it will only happen when the technology reaches a climax and a kid in his basement can create something paramount to Bioshock, by himself, much like how a couple of kids with a video camera can create some spectacular amateur films.

Terminator v. EMA - My Thoughts

Posted in my other blog for my CMC class is a post about the the Supreme Court hearing on violent video games. I liked it so much I am shamelessly copy and pasting it here. Enjoy.

The New York Times published this wonderful write up on the Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association case back in November. The results will be published in June 2011.


The hearing is about restricting the sale of "violent video games" to minors. If passed, a law will be created that heavily fines any business selling newly illegal games to those under the age of 18, essentially treating games deemed "violent" the same as pornography. The representative for the EMA says this is a violation of free speech as detailed in the First Amendment, and the other side touts a 1968 precedent that states, "extremely violent material can be obscene as to minors even without a sexual element."


I find it highly ironic that Arnold "The Freaking TERMINATOR" Schwarzenegger is leading this charge against violence. And it's not just his movies that are violent, there are many licensed gamesstarring the Governator that depict gratuitous violence. That's like if Ron Jeremy, (in)famous porn star and third Mario brother, started an abstinence campaign.


Here's a description of the first Terminator game, stolen from Wikipedia:
You take on the role of Kyle Reese and protect Sarah Connor from the cyborg sent back in time to kill her, or become the Terminator and eliminate Kyle and Sarah. Either way, the player chases his opponent through Los Angeles buying or stealing weapons and equipment while attempting to eliminate his enemy and avoid the police.


"Or you become the Terminator to chase and slaughter innocent civilians". I wonder if the EMA representative brought this up in the hearing.


Anyway, if the law is passed it is bad news for the games industry, which means it is bad news for me since I am a part of the games industry. This is not to say I don't partially agree with the idea behind the law. I do not want young kids being exposed to the horrible scenes of violence and depravity that are found in some games. I just argue that video games be treated with the same respect that movies and music are. Does Cinemark get fined an arm and a leg for allowing a 13 year old to go see Saw IV? No. Should it? I don't think so. As is always the case, the parents are to blame for their screwed up children. Either through neglect or good ol' fashioned abuse, parents are fully capable of turning their children into serial killers without the help ofGrand Theft Auto.


The shining gem of the assault is a game called Postal and Postal 2, which is about a man who has free reign over the town of Paradise, AZ. There is never a goal in the game to kill anyone, the game just really really really wants you to do so. I would like to make this one glaring point about the Postal series:


The Postal series can only be played if you are 18 or own a credit card. It has an "AO" adult rating, and is NOT sold in ANY brick and mortar retail store...except maybe like a sex shop, which minors cannot enter anyway.


It can be purchased online, but that would require the use of plastic. I do not know many 13 year olds with their own credit cards. So basically if you cannot buy porn, you cannot buy Postal. GTA is pretty depraved if you want it to be, but it is not required nor encouraged. And yes, God of War has cartoony boobies in it, but most of them are attached to monstrosities like Medusa or harpies.


To summarize, treat games the same way as other media, parents be more proactive in what your kids have access to, and I have never met anyone who has played Postal.

The End of AAA Titles?

It seems the games industry community is up in a tizzy about the future of boxed retail products. I can understand, they have been doing it for FOREVER. These just seem so bleak, if not also a little pouty:

-Gamings-Future-Looks-Uncertain-Says-Epic-Boss (also here at gamesindustry)
-The Necessity Of Making Free-to-Play Moves 
-Industry Vet to Young Devs: You Might Never Be AAA
-Edery_Nintendo_Had_Better_Watch_Out_For_Apple_Google

Talk about depressing; this is just four of them. Why is everyone so afraid of change? This is not the apocalypse everyone is making it out to be, which brings me to this blogs focus point:

This Is Not the End of AAA Titles
I will never stop playing or consuming them. My friends will never stop playing or consuming them. I doubt we are the ONLY people that feel the same. Look at it the way many developers view their fan base: if you can create a product for a very specific group of people, it actually makes it easier to develop that product because you have precedential releases that define what to do.

KOEI's Dynasty Warriors (DW) series is (in)famous for this. Those games have to be pretty cheap to make by now. There are very few new assets per release, but people buy them up (myself included). Now if our little DW community is large enough to justify new DW releases every so often, how does this NOT apply to any other title? MMOs are pretty much the prime example of this idea. They establish a community after the rush dies out, then they build for that community only. People who do not play Age of Conan do not care nor consume patches made for it: it is content created without the intention of expanding the consumer base.

So what does this mean for AAA titles? Do people REALLY think the next Call of Duty is not going to sell? Those games were large multi-bajillion dollar titles, and they sold just fine because of the precedential consumer base. Now not every game is Call of Duty (although many try to be). I think DLC is a great route for developers to squeeze out extra profits from the assets used in big AAA titles. It worked for Fallout 3, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, etc. What about treating a AAA title as a base for something that builds a ton of profit over time? It would allow them to stay competitive with F2P games.

F2P games generate very little revenue for each transaction, but they have multiple transactions over time. I have been playing League of Legends for about 7 months and have spent around 100 bucks on it. Thats a whole lot more than 60 (standard retail price), and will just grow over time. Now look at Fallout 3. It has five DLCs and one (amazing) sequel. Thats 6 new opportunities for revenue using old assets. When I say "old assets" it is not obviously true: there are many new assets in each game, but the MEANS by which those assets are created is already in place. It does not take a whole lot of people to utilize the same pipeline to create new stuff. A good modeler can poop out a mesh in a couple hours, it can be textured, rigged, animated, etc. by a small team in not that much time. The licenses are already owned, or better yet the in-house engines are already built.

So here's a list of what AAA titles of the future need to do to stay competitive. The strategy of a AAA title and developer is to spend a whole TON of money initially, but eventually reach a spot where future products that are of the same quality if not better than the old ones and can be created for the same consumer base for fractions of the cost.

• Establish a pipeline
• Build an in house engine like iD or Crytek did. Its expensive, but it cuts costs down the looooooong road. Plus you can sell the license to other devs. If not, buy an extended license. 
• Build an initial development team to build the pipeline; eventually lay off everyone for a tiny core team to produce future assets. Also, find everyone you laid off jobs because you are not a grinch.
• The goal of this part is to have something set up that will let you continue making future products on the same level as the initial release.
• Utilize intelligent game design to drive sales, not more money
• Ideas are cheap. Using various development methods to beta test ideas before financial commitment like iterative development, cheap ideas can be profitable ideas with low(er) risk.
• The industry is becoming less and less a gimmick or toy based industry. Longer console cycles, "fad-ness" of zany peripheral based games like Rock Band, and overall "meh-ness" of the Kinect means people want engaging experiences, not mere distractions. This applies to Facebook "games" as well: devs have to continually build new experiences to keep the core engaged.
• Use the establish pipeline to churn out great DLC. Its like writing a novel series: there is always the hardcore fan base that will buy everything you make. The goal is to get the fan base large enough to support every subsequent DLC release.
• Split studio into pieces.
• Schafer did this, sort of. The idea is to split your studio into separate teams that each work on different types of games. Apps are big right now, so have a steady revenue stream with your app side, while bigger more rewarding risks can be taken with a AAA side. I would argue that in the long run of a studio if you could flop 3 times on the AAA side for every Call of Duty-esque franchise to be established, thats a win.
• The goal (or point) to this is to keep able to afford the same team working together for more than one project. I have found through school that working with the same team over multiple projects leads to better results than having all new members every project.
• There is no game that can appeal to EVERYONE, but who says you cannot create a studio capable of appealing to everyone? 
• What we are seeing now in the games industry is what happened to every other media industry at some point. Specific types of games for specific types of people are emerging (not talking about Genres). There was a point when going to see a "movie" turned into going to see a "comedy" or "western" or whatever. People who play apps exclusively will generally shy away from picking up Dead Space 2, and vice versa. Most of my "hardcore" gamer friends shy away from Facebook games because they "are not games" and "are a waste of time." 
• Monetize multiplayer
• I do not mean charge for access; that will just turn away players. Monetize similarly to how Team Fortress 2 monetizes, micro-transactions. Imagine the multi-player side of a product being able to bring in more revenue than selling the box/download itself! Two streams is greater than one.
• The key is BALANCE. If any monetized aspect of the game will give one individual more power than another, it is imbalanced. World of Warcraft private servers are notorious for this. In fact, WoW private servers are great testing grounds for new monetization ideas (they're freeish).
• Great monetization balancing can be found in League of Legends, Vindictus, Team Fortress 2, and most korean F2P MMOGs.

These are just some ideas of mine, pure speculation from an observer. I do not want devs to give up hope for AAAs. There is still a large enough chunk of gamers who will pay to play them, and then some. The next billion dollar idea is to expand the consumer base for AAA titles. I have a couple that might work, but those aren't free!

Game Design: Using Rules to Build Experiences

When people ask, "What's your major/area of study?" and I reply, "Game design & Ludology", 99% of the time I get this response, "So you like...write code and stuff?" Well, yes...some (most) do, but I prefer not to (although I can). Then I launch into a dizzying array of real world comparisons and metaphors which usually leaves my glamored inquirer standing lost amidst an ever-growing storm cloud of crap pulled from my ass.

So I think it necessary to log an answer made of stone and mortar rather than smoke and paper:

What is Game Design?
In short, its just rules. That's about it. Game designers are people who make rules. Now, the games industry usually forces game designers to be masters of other fields too: art, programming, sales, management, etc. In fact it is pretty much required that as a game designer you also need a "back up" area of expertise (mine is writing and narrative construction; and maybe beatboxing).

Game designers are the ones who decide what, exactly, makes a game good v. what makes a game bad. I believe this is the most important part OF a game. Graphics, sounds, control methods (peripherals, motion sensors, etc.) are great, but the integral experience of the user is based around what they are DOING inside a game. Tetris is a great example (although timing and resulting innovation had a lot to do with its commercial success) of this.

Look at a game like....Poker. Poker is what I call a "pure mechanics" game (there is a ludological term for them somewhere). This means they are completely devoid of a narrative, and have no (intentional) higher meaning behind its construction. I would have used Chess, but I can argue that Chess has a narrative based on the names, traditional models, and mechanics of the pieces used. Poker does not intend to tell a story; however, because it is a game which is interactive, it acts a catalyst by which stories are created (everyone has a crazy poker night story). These games are arguably much more popular than most for the aforementioned reason. When a group of people gather for an impromptu game of soccer, a story is created about playing soccer.

Now the relationships between Ludology versus Narratology is to be saved for another post. However since it is in the context of this post, I will say this: rules can be used to tell stories. As seen in Conway's Game of Life (great video there) simple rules (Game of Life has four, although that video says two) can have a profound depth and meaning behind them.

I am currently reading Gonzalo Frasca's 2007 Ph. D. dissertation, Play the Message, and in the beginning he talks about a movie called Kamchatka which is about an Argentinian family holed up Anne Frank style. The father uses a Risk knock off called. T.E.G., to teach his son to never give up despite how the opponent is overwhelmingly powerful. The game itself is about warfare, strategy, etc., but the mechanics (rules in a context) can be used to drive home an idea. This is what I love about games. This is why I say there are very, very few "good" games out there, most simply do not take advantage of this. Most games use devices found in movies to further a narrative. Devices like dialogue and cinematics, both things that are hard-coded and can NOT be experienced in ANY other way because they are non-interactive (Resident Evil 4's "interactive cinematics" do not count either, although they are neat).

Game design is all about the rules. When the rules are placed in a context, they become mechanics. I am exploring this in my senior Capstone project Chains: An Exploration of Determinism and Free Will by creating systems of rules designed to dictate the actions of the universe, rather than create the universe by hand. Instead of saying, "the player goes here and does x using y", I say, "well there's gravity, the NPC's have "souls", and everyone is trying to achieve their goals in life". The game takes on a new meaning now in true non-linearity. The act of playing builds the story unique to the player.

Iterative Development

The whole concept of "Iterative Development" has been around for quite awhile. To summarize the process in step format:

1. Create initial prototype (alpha)
2. Let members of your demographic (or everyone) use it
3. Carefully record their feedback
4. Take feedback and put it into your product
5. Re-release product (beta)
6. Rinse and repeat until the money runs out

In the gaming industry, this process has become the standard since every game you ever play has internet functionality.

What I wanted to examine in this post was League of Legends by Riot Games. I am looking at LoL because it is an extremely weird adaptation of the Iterative process, despite how the game has "technically" been around for quite awhile. And by weird, I mean utterly brilliant and a herald to development processes of the FUTURE.

Defense of the Ancients: All Stars

**Disclaimer**
Now I know that DotA: All Stars did not "start it all". Aeon of Strife did. Or Tides of Blood (which I have actually played). Or...whatever did. But this is like Grand Theft Auto: every GTA before number 3 does not matter, despite how they were really good games. Moving on!

DotA created the "MOBA" genre, (Multiplayer Online Battle Arena), which I think is a horrible moniker ("Multiplayer Online Battle Arena" describes everything from Quake to Facebook games, it needs to be more specific; maybe mention RTS in there?) way back in 2003. It was built using Warcraft 3's map editor, which came with a copy of the game. Like all good games, it was built for FUN, not for profit. It garnered a HUGE following, tournaments were held all over, everyone had a great time, except noobs playing for the first time.

So the creator of DotA started a new project with Riot games called League of Legends released late 2009, which for all intents and purposes is a slower-paced, more user-friendly DotA all in a clean, neat little free client that uses the standard free-to-play business model of micro-transactions (which I might add, is phenomenally balanced; the shop gives access to things non-payers have access to as well, and it also allows people to buy non-impact things like skins for characters).
It utilizes a leveling system so noobs play with noobs, pros with pros, and once attaining level 30 (the max), you can take your game further with ranked matches. Its all very nice, and even has a narrative that I don't pay any attention to. On the other hands, there is Heroes of Newerth (HoN), which is a subscription-based client that is much less forgiving than LoL. Most (all?) of the major DotA players migrated to HoN over LoL for this very reason; its faster, harder, higher bar of entry.

My point: 
League of legends beta tested it's game inside ANOTHER GAME made by ANOTHER DEVELOPER.

DoTA was essentially the beta test for LoL. Brilliant stuff. Games like this are a balancing NIGHTMARE, requiring little tweaks and months of game play to feedback. Having the beta version so publicly available and supported, they had so much data that it could be perfected. Hell, it would have been slick enough to beta test a game in a game you've already released, but in someone else's? Ballermuch? This is the pinnacle of iterative development.

Now, obviously it wasn't intentional. The lead developer (probably) didn't even dream of his little WC mod becoming so huge and profitable. But it did, and I think the rest of the industry could learn from this. Utilize mod-heavy games with pre-established communities for your concept beta testing. Games like LittleBigPlanet, Starcraft II, Fallout 3 (gotta visit its mod nexus), etc.

Although I think it's cheating, many games say they're in beta (I'm looking at you Dead Frontier and Minecraft) although you can still give them heaps of money. It's like, "Oh, I'm in beta because I'm missing parts, I'm buggy, and generally incomplete...but I have this shop over here where you can spend money, I will be complete someday! Purchase early, save now!" And while it is cheating, its also a great idea as long as it is FUN (which both of my examples are, check them out).

Role of Interactivity

Professor Brackin (one of my two game design profs) showed us Jesse Schell's presentation at this years DICE Conference entitled "Design Outside the Box" a couple weeks ago, and I cannot stop thinking about it. If games are going to continue this pervasive trend, if they keep expanding into every little nook and cranny of our society, what the HELL will I be doing to keep my family fed and happy ten years from now? Designing interactive stairs or trashcans? I'm not even sure what work I will be doing when I graduate next May; 10 years from now is impossible to scry.

At my sister's wedding one of my ...cousins?... from the side of my family I only see/talk to/hear from at events just like a sister's wedding asked me where I think the games industry is going. I didn't really know, so I just spewed forth a cacophony of "Facebook...dwindling hardcore demographic...cheaper hardware equates to smaller development teams and stronger indie presence....Facebook.....my generation will age and we will still want our video games..." blah blah blah. Since, I've really been thinking about it...

Where the hell are games going?

I will tell you, exactly:
1.) Video games will become recognized as an art form. They will follow the path of movies; there will be a "sundance festival" for video games, you will find them in museums, people will buy them for gratuitous sums at the bewilderment of everyone outside the bleeding edge art-game community (who will all have Tier 1 beards, wear ironic shirts, and smoke imported tobacco through crazy LED rainbow, jew-hunter-guy-from-Inglorious-Bastards-sized, pipes).

Think about it.

When I am 45 years old (and retired, spending my days launching flaming pianos out of a trebuchet I built on my land) I will want to buy old games I loved playing when I was much younger. Playing through MGS 1 even NOW (at the ripe old age of 22) reminds me of simpler times, easier times. These games will be in museums; indie developers will remake them in crazy, abstract, thought-provoking ways.
Now, when I say museum, I do not mean like you will one day walk into the Louvre and see a giant Mirror's Edge cabinet (although that would rock). More realistically there will be cloud-museums on the internet that users can access which will stream all sorts of retired gems straight to their brains (which will be how we play games in the FUTURE).
The other big factor is this: movies did not become an art form until it became affordable to make decent quality movies. When technology springs up, it is reworked, and redesigned, and remade a thousand gagillion times, until eventually it is nigh-perfected. I can make games in Flash CS5 that would have blown the minds of everyone back in 1992, for basically nothing. To keep with my movie parallel, my phone can record better quality movies than the tech. they had back in 1940-whenever. Eventually there will be a point where making games of the same graphical quality of, say, Gears of War will be as affordable and easy as making a Flash game. Instead of Flash game websites like Kongregate, Casual Collective, Omgpop, etc., we will see sites hosting games on the caliber of Halo, in full 3D with beautiful textures, sounds, etc. Just look at Minecraft and Dead Frontier; both in full 3D, both high quality, both launched from your browser.

The important question to ask yourself in this future scenario is:
2.) If such high-quality content will be as accessible as Flash games are now, what "real" AAA titles will be playing? Engines will just keep getting more powerful and more accessible (Unity 3, CRYEngine 3); and over time, less expensive...and require less PC power on the user side to operate. So what will be "the next big thing?" Let's look at trends:

-Success of the Wii = Sony and Microsoft create the Move and Kinect, respectively. The biggest problem facing the games industry is how to expand the consumer base. Heavy hitters like Blizzard have to continually develop content for the same (plus or minus) base of consumers to keep their subscriptions coming in. The Wii was VERY successful in expanding the consumer base. For the first time your parents, grandparents, girlfriends, etc. are playing console games. Why is that? I will tell you: the controller. The biggest bar of entry to games in the interface by which players use to interact. It is completely unnatural to hit buttons on a pad. It takes a long process of learning to get used to it. The Wii (and subsequently the Move and Kinect) bridge this gap a little bit more; not completely, but a giant step in the right direction. Why was guitar hero so successful? Same reason, the controller. Also, the games for the Wii (and Guitar Hero) were geared for a more family audience.

3.) Everyone will play games. Games are much more prevalent in my generation, and they are only becoming more normal. It is no longer nerdy to play games, although still entirely possible (as exemplified by various 500+ day gametime WoW logs). When my wife and I are old, it will be just as normal to sit down and play games just as my parents go out and see movies (or talkies, as they call them). My kids will play games with us (until they are angsty teenagers); it will be a normal family activity, just like seeing movies together.

4.) The study of Game Design/Ludology will broaden into the Study of Interactivity Colleges across the world have already created Game Design programs due to the increase in demand from students; this is just going to grow and grow, much like it did with movies (see the parallels here?). Getting a degree based on movie production back in 1930 was considered absurd (if even possible), much like how it is absurd to get a Game Design degree now. As our world becomes more interactive, the study of interactivity will increase and become more useful (and profitable) to know. In this future "Game Designers" will be called "Interactivity Grand-Wizards" (and long purple robes will be in style), and their knowledge will be useful EVERYWHERE, not just in the games industry. Interactivity simply makes everything more engaging, makes it better.

School subjects are mastered faster when the students have to engage; I learned more about Italian city-states (and the sexual orientation of Leonardo) from Assassin's Creed 2 than I did in any of my world history classes; and had more fun doing it. I relish the day when instead of tests, we will play games. Tests ARE very game-like already, just as is the whole grading system. The difference is that they are not engaging. Knowing the exact location of Paris and it's geographical nuances is much more useful when you have to send your virtual army to conquer it versus having to display said knowledge in an essay or as an answer to question 39.

Eventually everything I have learned about what makes games GOOD versus what makes games BAD will be relevant to every aspect of  my daily life. I think this is the big point Schell was driving home here; eventually being a "game designer" will mean so much more than that, and that is the horizon I keep my focus on.

The Dream Job: Finding the How

All my life I have had one encompassing goal: to inspire others to greatness. The problem, however, has always been how.

Through public school the how was Art; people have been moving others through various classic mediums for centuries. I would then go off to college and study as the old masters did, creating revolutionary masterpieces in such a way never before seen. But "college" quickly became "community college", and "study as the old masters did" became "study as everyone else did", what with their expensive supply lists and special erasers. Maybe art is not the how I have been looking for.

Then I actually started (community) college. The how quickly became Writing; entire religions and belief systems are based off of the written word for it's unbeatable ability to hammer out the nuances of expression. I said, "Yes! Philosophy! Fiction! This, this is how I will inspire others out of the mundane and the flash frozen. This is how I will change peoples lives! I will be the next Socrates, living off of the generosity of others as I tear their wit to pieces with my all encompassing ...right-ness! And they will put up with me, and give me shelter and food because they love being told that they're wrong all of the time, about everything, but deep down they know I make them better people." Yet, that soon fell through, but I had already devoted my educational resources to this path. Soon I was saying dejectedly, "Well...I will write some books, or something."

Then I fell in love, and my life changed forever. First, and most importantly to the context of this post, it was my priorities in life that changed. My number one went from, "CHANGE THE WORLD", to "Settle down, raise beautiful children, and spend every second possible with this woman." But since "CHANGE THE WORLD" is definitely a close second, my ever fleeting how has transformed: How will I inspire others...while building a sound foundation to raise children and provide for a family? ...Crap.

So there I was, about to start at The University of Texas at Dallas to finish my degree, and I had a big problem: I had no how. So I said, "Will, what has inspired YOU to greatness?" And, I'm not joking, it was actually video games. Yes...flippin' video games.
See, in the background through all my artistic endeavors, I also played games at least 6 hours a day. I just never thought a career in games was the right how, until I had this realization that games are the highest form of art ever created; sculpture, acting, writing, drawing...all in one sweet little package that the (here's the kicker) user/reader/viewer can CHANGE at his/her own will.
Specifically it was Metal Gear Solid for the Playstation. That was the first of many games I encountered that made me think of games as something higher than a mere distraction/toy.
I enrolled in the Arts & Technology program at UTD, with a focus on game design, and have yet to look back. It is now two years later, and I have one giant year ahead of me before graduation. This is the crunch year, and I would like to document it for all the other would-be "inspiritors" out there.

My name is Will Burgess, I am a senior student game designer at UTD, and I have found my how.