Read on Twitter
This is a thread in which I start with technology and end with games. It’s about disruptive innovation and how it applies not only to business and technology, but design, and game design in particular, as well.
Lately, observers have been talking about the theory of disruption in the context of the Apple Silicon Macs launch. For instance, here is a good video from ColdFusion that explains why this launch is important from the strategic standpoint:
Professor Clayton Christensen, who came up with this theory, was primarily thinking about business, industries and technology. It’s interesting, however, that disruption – albeit with major simplifications and assumptions, of course – can be applied to design in general as well.
Disruption occurs when new technology emerges on the market, which is simpler and more limited in capabilities, but since it evolves much faster than the incumbent tech, it would eventually match and surpass it. These technologies usually emerge from low-end or adjacent markets.
In these cases, “old” technologies advocates would laugh off the “new” tech, calling them “toys”, “not serious”, “limited”, etc. The “toys” would then change the markets, as they are more versatile, accessible and would broaden these markets by targeting new audiences.
There are many examples from the world of tech. In the 80s people thought that PCs were “toys”, and all serious work could only be done with mainframes. Then the same was said about laptops vs. desktops. Then the web.
Later, mobile devices were considered “toys” vs. traditional PCs. Wearables and AR are considered “toys” today. According to certain people, Apple has always been making “toys”, not versatile enough products for customers who are not well-versed in technology.
Within the context of Macs and Apple Silicon – as mentioned in the video linked above – it’s interesting to see how RISC computers (Arm architecture in particular) were considered limited and slow not too long ago. CISC (x86) advocates often looked down on it.
Today, Arm powers the entire mobile (and thus the most important) technology industry, gains share in servers, and would inevitably capture the PC market. Nobody laments now how CISC is more complex and versatile. In fact, this is now considered as a downside!
Here is where I would like to suddenly pivot this thread to... game design, and in particular, my favorite sub-genre of immersive sims. I think disruption of a sort occurred several times in immersive sims (and in pretty much every industry broadly).
First immersive sims in history are Ultima Underworld 1/2 and System Shock. These games are overstuffed with mechanics and UI elements. Underworld is a very old-school RPG with a myriad of parameters, classes, attributes and such.
System Shock has a very complex UI where you have to use dozens of keys and buttons to operate the game. More modern ports and remasters have simplified the interface and controls to a degree – it was way more complicated back in the day.
In parallel, during early 90s, FPS games were evolving – Wolfenstein 3D and Doom in particular. They had none of this systems or UI-related complexity. These games were minimalistic, streamlined, simplified and had nothing to do with simulators. Anybody could understand them.
During these years, some of the early immersive sim snob fans hated first-person shooters, calling them primitive games for stupid people. Unlike intelligent System Shock that had UI elements obscuring half of the screen!
Then in 1998, Looking Glass released Thief. Compared to Underworld and System Shock, it was a huge simplification. No stats, classes, character progression, not even inventory screen! Some Looking Glass fans were concerned it was a dumbed down game chasing mass market appeal.
It took time to realize that Thief was way more accessible and streamlined than previous immersive sims, having replaced dated mechanics with innovative systems, many of which worked without player’s input – such as AI, physics, sound, light and their role in the gameplay.
It was a game that, yes, took many elements of simplicity and clarity from first-person shooters, but blended them with complex but accessible mechanics. “A toy” won.
This new formula of immersive sims, pioneered by Thief, paved the way for System Shock 2, Deus Ex and others. Yes, these games incorporated some of the more complex mechanics, progression and stats, but fundamentally, they were still modern immersive sims for the time.
Then in early 2000s, BioShock came. Some immersive sim purists take pride in bashing BioShock still to this day. It was a simplified, “dumbed down” game for the less enlightened console audiences! A desecrated legacy of the elite System Shock! Ken Levine was a traitor!
I wouldn’t bother explaining in detail how I think these critics were wrong and how groundbreaking BioShock in fact was. Instead, I suggest you think of the immersive sims you enjoy these days. All of them are direct follow-ups to what BioShock established.
Newer Deus Ex games, Dishonored, Prey, many indie immersive sims all repeat and build upon the mechanics and controls brought to consoles (and then ported back to PC) by BioShock. These games are targeting massively more mainstream and broader console audiences, like BioShock.
Today, nobody would call these games “dumbed down” or primitive. Dishonored or Prey have a fraction of “options” System Shock 2 offers – in fact, lots of these options just cluttered the game, and it was better to let them go. Now, immersive sims are great to play with a gamepad.
Whereas a variety of narrative mechanisms, world-building and environmental storytelling techniques, let alone physics and some other systems, all pioneered or evolved in BioShock and greatly influenced immersive sims that followed. “A toy” won again.
(A side note that Ken Levine was one of the key masterminds behind both games that “disrupted” immersive sims – Thief: The Dark Project and BioShock. I’ll leave it to you to make conclusions. Ken, WHERE IS YOUR NEW GAME PLEASE!)
Let me end this thread with a simple thought. If a new technology, approach, or design emerges, that is considered by incumbents as stupid, primitive, dumbed down “toy”, but broadens the market and reaches new audiences – watch it closely, as it’s probably the future.
