|
|
Post by numbuheightbitstar on Aug 30, 2006 2:30:44 GMT
Now, I just know I'm in for a world of trouble here, so I'll set up my position with this example:
In the movie The Neverending Story, the librarian has a conversation with Bastian, asking Bastian if, when he reads books, he actually feels like he's there, actually feels like these things he reads about are happening to him. He asks Bastian if he actually feels like he is Captain Nemo or Tarzan or whoever when he reads.
Bastian seemed to think that was a good way to put it. I can't quite agree. When I read books--or watch movies, for that matter--I can't feel like I, personally, am the main character and that the things happening to the hero are actually happening to me. I always feel like a third person, someone uninvolved with the story as it happens. Sure, I can get emotionally involved, rooting for the hero or whatnot... but these characters on screen are players acting out their own little story.
Video games, however, are another matter. Unless I'm playing some piece of junk interactive movie like Final Fantasy X, or some other overly story-heavy RPG, I'm involved. After all, I'm the hero. If there's a battle to be fought, I'm the one fighting it. If there's a puzzle to solve, I have to figure it out. If the badguy wins, it's because I suck. The most help I'll ever get is some walkthru I downloaded at GameFAQs, and that's only if I want to live with the knowledge that I'm a wusspuppy who would never have conquered Evil Overlord #54539 without someone better telling me exactly what to do.
People talk about how books are such a great thing for your imagination and how reading a lot will make you smarter. In a way that's true--Books are certainly better than movies (really, what's the point of a movie anyway? How can you enjoy looking at pictures for two hours?), but video games can't be topped.
Really, who is more intelligent, a guy who sits through the Complete Works of Shakespeare, or the guy who solves the marble puzzle in Shivers completely without help? Who is more persistent, the guy who reads Lord of the Rings from beginning to end three times, or the guy who keeps fighting the Ruby Weapon in Final Fantasy VII, studying its patterns and reactions to attack, until he finally figures out what he needs to do to defeat it? And who would make a better Military Commander, a guy who has memorized protocol, or a guy who has beaten Romance of the Three Kingdoms fifteen times and in fifteen ways?
Here's a hint: The military actually uses specialized versions of Doom to train soldiers.
And the best thing about video games is that, the story is not set. The hero won't necessarily win (after all, that's why we have "game over" screens). Even if the hero does win, he may do so a different way each time. One time, the DooMguy may sneak around a corner and ambush some monsters. The next time, the DooMguy may rush them head-on. Plans that failed one time may succeed the next because video games tend to have so many random, undecided elements. There's always these slight differences between play. Maybe Mega Man is trying to jump a pit but gets knocked into it by some evil robot, but then on his second try the evil robot isn't there due to some glitch, so Mega Man goes by unhindered. And whatnot.
Really, it seems to me that Video Games could be the clearly superior entertainment medium. I say "could be" because there are, admittedly, a few things that keep them from the throne.
First of all, games are limited as a story-telling medium. Almost by design, games have to be about heroes fighting villains, unless they're games like Tetris or Pinball that don't even necessarily need a plot. You couldn't, for example, do a game based on George Orwell's 1984 unless it had two endings, because no one wants to play a game where the hero loses (unless they're playing as the villain). Serious commentary or attempts at hardcore storytelling in gaming may be met favorably by fanboys, but often causes the games themselves to suffer as they become more like interactive movies, where the player watches cutscenes and maybe gets to fight a boss. In these cases, playing a game is no better than watching an overlong movie.
Which is exactly what the second shortcoming is: Video Games of the past may have been excellent, interactive efforts, but more and more companies (particularly Squaresoft) are turning games into just the kind of interactive movies I described. However, this shortcoming is circumvented by the simple fact that gaming hobbyists continue to make games that, simply put, aren't interactive movies and, moreover, are usually free to download from the developer's website. So now not only are video games better for the intelligence and imagination, not only are they more personally involving, not only are they reusable, but now they're inexpensive as well.
Video Games have the rest of the entertainment industry beat, as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
|
Post by SAVE_US.WBTC on Aug 30, 2006 2:37:26 GMT
You do make some great points here. Unfortunately, many people are using the interactive nature, and the fact that it is easy to identify with the game characters, to limit video games' availability, and their growth as an art form.
|
|
|
|
Post by numbuheightbitstar on Aug 30, 2006 3:03:41 GMT
It may just be me, but I just shudder when I think of "games as an art form" anyway. For me the term "art" has more to do with pretention than quality. Games were at their best when they were just fun. Now they're trying to be serious, deep, meaningful, and it sucks. Sort of like what happened with comic books when The Dark Knight Returns was published, except comics have always been a little on the sucky side.
|
|
|
|
Post by cottoncandy486 on Aug 31, 2006 0:28:27 GMT
For me art means something like music or actual art.(Or almost anything manmade that is not destructive) Video games have both. I agree with you that you can't feel like you ARE the character. I think a story must also be included in a game or else I am like, "What is the whole point of this." I think that gameplay is THE most important thing in a game, but everything should be evened out. (Gameplay, graphics, story, sound) I mean look at the old NES games and stuff; horrible sound, limited controls and gameplay, and lousy graphics. Compare them to games now that are so much better. I like to know what is happening and why in a game. If it has too many cutscenes then you are right it is boring and repetitive. It needs to have the perfect mixture of all the the elements in order to make it fun and worthwhile. I mean I am not gonna lie I use gamecheats a lot because I am really impatient, shameful I know  , but I wanna see how the story ends.(I don't use them all the time though) If it is a bad story then I will just finish it to say I did. But I do understand your thoughts on the 3rd person thing because whenever I read a book or play a game or whatever I do feel like a I'm in a 3rd person point of view, not first. I do think that reading books can make someone smart because they will know a wide range of vocabulary and how to speak correctly, but so can video games. Like I hate how people put down video games and say you are lazy and stuff. They are just mad because they suck, jk  . I didn't mean to put down your ideas just express what I think. This comment is coming from a game fanatic, person who likes to read books and someone involved in fine arts (music). I guess it depends on who you are asking. It's just my opinion dosen't mean it's true. You have good points though. |
|
|
|
Post by numbuheightbitstar on Aug 31, 2006 1:03:14 GMT
I was about to tear you open for insulting the NES, but didn't ^__^.
Actually, speaking of the NES, I recently came to the realization that most of today's game systems are totally unnecessary. A point towards this: A fan actually made an NES version of Final Fantasy X. Moreover, it was the complete games--even down to the sphere system and Blitzball. The only differences were the graphics and cutscenes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Numbuh 0xFF on Aug 31, 2006 3:39:24 GMT
Now, I just know I'm in for a world of trouble here. Correct. I beg to differ. Well crafted prose can make you feel a scene with a visceral intensity unavailable to any other medium. I will offer two examples that are especially telling, though, sadly, they are drawn from my own meagre experience rather than a movie. The first is a novel by Ivo Andrić called Put Alije Đerleza I read it on a slow summer's day and it contained a remarkable scene where the 'hero', and I use the term very loosely, is waiting for an unpleasant task in the hot sun outside. The passage was crafted so well and the discomfort and thirst of the moment depicted so vividly that as the pages progressed I grew more and more agitated until I finally flung the book away. The heat my imagination was supplying was simply too much to bear. The other example is much more peaceful. When reading a rather interesting SF novel by Jack Vance, The Palace Of Love, I chanced upon several passages which described a journey of, well, pillgrims of a sort trough a large forest. The scene was drawn so vividly that, as long as I read it, I could swear I was following them. In fact, when I took a break from reading I was shocked not to find myself in a forest of towering trees so potent was the illusion. But you are still not the hero here. True, you control the movements and actions of the protagonist in a simulation of greater or lesser complexity but the travails of the heor. His/Her emotional journey is closed to you -- or at least it is as open as the game's writing allows it. Wrong. Wrong on so many levels. One is forced to ask if you indeed have any idea what you are saying. Tell me, who displays more imagination: one who constructs an elaborate picture employing all five senses from naught more than markings on a piece of paper or one who has those sensations delivered, ready-made, in 32-bit graphics and 16-bit stereo sound. Furthermore the crucial thing you are exposed to in a book is not just a feast for your imagination. Of equal, if not greater, import is the fact that books expose you to new ideas and stimulate your thoughts. The written word is the most fertile breeding ground for new ideas avaliable and until we figure out a way to beam the contents of our brains around it's going to retain that spot. As for movies, surely you have spoken without thought! Do you mean to deny the art of moviemaking? Just brush it off because, perhaps, you cannot understand it? Excuse me, sir, but what kind of damn fool arrogance does it take to do that? Take my favorite movie: 2001: A Space Odyssey. I will share what makes me thing I had an actuall artistic experience watching it. Near the end, whe HAL 'died' I was nearly in tears. HAL was obviously the antagonist here, that much is clear, but still I found his 'death' saddening and his final monolouge heart-breaking. All this emotion over a red light-bulb and a recorded voice. You must admit, only true art could acomplish so much with so little. Afterwards I thought on my emotions and learned from them. I understood that, to me, HAL was a child-figure. Innocent, and a victim of a world too mendacious for him to handle. This understanding taught me much about both myself and humanity as a whole. Tell me, do you wish to imply my experience is false? That I stared into a picture for two hours my mind vacant? One does not 'sit trough' a book. You read it. And you hopefully understand it. It is evident that the solution of certain puzzles is indicative of a high IQ. That's how IQ tests are made. But reading Shakespeare has very little to do with raw intellectual power. So this would have to be both a false analogy and a false dichotomy. I would hazard, though, that the guy who read and experienced the Complete Works Of Shakespeare is wiser.Again I have to call false analogy and false dichotomy. Persistence is persistence. It has little to do with medium. And I read LOTR eleven times. Not because I'm persistent but because I enjoy it. Because each time I read the book I find myself richer in both thought and emotion. Neither. I would have to say that the better military commander would be the person who read, yes read, of previous battles and has thought upon them deeply. There is a good reason why millitary academies world-wide include quite a few books you are supposed to read but no mandatory video-games. Video-game performance does not translate into real world performance. I hope you understand this. And what those versions of Doom teach is not battle but actually cooperation -- proper protocol of all things. First of all there is no good reason why written work wouldn't be interactive. So far it's because technology limits us. A computer is perfectly happy to churn out 3D models and model their behavior according to some simple rules. On the other hand crafting a passable page of prose in English escapes even the most advanced computers. One day, perhaps. So far we have interesting attempts. The Interactive Fiction scene, for instance, has some brilliant work. Of course, with a little more work, the common campfire story becomes a fully interactive totally nonlinear game made using nothing more than simple words. Makes you think, doesn't it? However you should realize that games don't really have full non-linearity and interactivity of story either. Certainly parts of the simulation can be varied in random ways but story-wise the outcome is pretty much the same -- either one of the pre-scripted story events or a game over screen. I fail to be convinced. Video games CAN be a medium for entertainment. They can also be a medium for art and the enoblement of spirt. But superior? Why? What limits games is their necessity to provide a coherent simulation. The 'game', if you will. This is often done at the expense of narative potential. And, frankly, I think games should try to limit story where it can be done: RPGs for instance are a good place. So are adventure games. For other cases a story should be eschewed if it is merely a burden. Instead you could try to make the game where the simulation itself creates it's own context. I think games can be art. I think some games ARE art. But I think this can only be achieve trough synergy with the ancient art of the written word not at its expense. |
|
|
|
Post by scone on Aug 31, 2006 5:12:13 GMT
Oh, Jamesy. I laugh at this really hard. You're what we call in my pedagogy courses an "undeveloped reader." It makes me sad that you've clearly never had a teacher really devoted to making you understand what literature is about. Because ignorance, while funny, is still so sad. Well said. |
|
|
|
Post by Nella (Numbuh 310) on Aug 31, 2006 5:17:34 GMT
small-minded, arrogant drivel This is me, shaking my head sadly. |
|
|
|
Post by regan on Aug 31, 2006 6:43:48 GMT
Oh.... my. I can't even add anything to this for fear of crying from Teh Ignorance.
*Just settles for applauding 0xFF instead* ^^
~Regan
|
|
|
|
Post by numbuheightbitstar on Aug 31, 2006 7:34:36 GMT
I beg to differ. Well crafted prose can make you feel a scene with a visceral intensity unavailable to any other medium. I will offer two examples that are especially telling, though, sadly, they are drawn from my own meagre experience rather than a movie. The first is a novel by Ivo Andrić called Put Alije Đerleza I read it on a slow summer's day and it contained a remarkable scene where the 'hero', and I use the term very loosely, is waiting for an unpleasant task in the hot sun outside. The passage was crafted so well and the discomfort and thirst of the moment depicted so vividly that as the pages progressed I grew more and more agitated until I finally flung the book away. The heat my imagination was supplying was simply too much to bear. The other example is much more peaceful. When reading a rather interesting SF novel by Jack Vance, The Palace Of Love, I chanced upon several passages which described a journey of, well, pillgrims of a sort trough a large forest. The scene was drawn so vividly that, as long as I read it, I could swear I was following them. In fact, when I took a break from reading I was shocked not to find myself in a forest of towering trees so potent was the illusion. I have no doubt that you've had these experiences. The thing is (and don't take offense, but this is a recurring thread in your response), personal experiences are just that: personal experiences. Someone else reading these books might not be as immersed in them. This is getting into one of the complexities of game design arguement--to borrow terms from another board I visit, it's the "storyist" versus "gamist" debate. Personally I'm firmly in the "gamist" camp. The player should be the hero, facing these challenges personally, not merely be a guiding hand helping a pre-developed hero. This is why I say games are limited as a storytelling medium, because obviously there's only so many stories you can tell when the main character is naught but an avatar for the hero. I would say neither. Obviously in the case of the video games, the image and sound are ready-made for you (but not touch, taste, and smell). On the other hand, I can't bring myself to think that a reader would honestly find their imagination invoking all five senses unless those senses were specifically mentioned within the body of the text he or she is reading. It takes no imagination to follow instructions. However, I'll say this: the person reading the book is more or less imagining things his or her own way, whereas all the gamers playing the game are seeing and hearing the same thing. And also you assume all games have top-of-the-line graphics and sound. Let's not forget freeware games, older games, or the almighty text adventures such as Zork, in which you often have to use your imagination, either because the games have no graphics or sound (again, Zork) or because it helps you better make sense of the game world. I would think it takes more imagination to get personally involved with the Light Warriors, who have no names or personality besides what you personally abscribe to them, than it does to feel attached to Cloud and Tifa who have predetermined feelings and developments (further, the latter decreases replayability). Anything can expose you to new ideas. Talking to you is exposing me to new ideas. Having this conversation is stimulating my thoughts. Heck, even my mudslinging fests with Scone can accomplish both. I can't argue whether or not Book are the "best" medium for this (I feel that's too subjective of an arguement), but certainly they're not the only thing that can. No arrogance, unless personal opinions can be arrogant. I personally have enjoyed many movies, though I never understand why. Again you're describing a subjective personal experience. There is nothing in life that says all humans must share the same personal experiences, especially experiences regarding movies. Your experiences are by no means false, but they're not universal, either. Personally, I didn't like the movie 2001--I preferred the book. And I was more taken with the unanswered questions. What is the monolith? How and why did it speed mankind's evolution? What was HAL hoping to accomplish by killing Dave and Frank? What exactly happened to Dave at the end of the book? (No, I haven't read the sequel--please don't spoil it for me if you have). Define "understanding" a book. I have heard many different explanations of the idea of "understanding" and I have so far agreed with none of them. Why? I do, however while reading history can give you insight, video games can give you a simulation of first-hand experience that, though it probably doesn't reflect reality 100%, will still give you a basic understanding of certain things. A guy named Rick at another forum I visit had an insight into this. Here is what he said: "I think games allow you to experience making important decisions better than other mediums. For example- I am very anti-America, I think that the invasion of Iraq to steal their oil is unjustified. However, in civilisation I have invaded other countries simply because they have resources that I require, peaceful nations that just wanted to get along but I goaded them into declaring war on me (just to save me the diplomatic fallout) and then invaded- It allows me to understand better why countries act the way they do, I could watch a million documentaries and films on it- but none of them would change the way I think about America as much as putting me in an environment where I have to make the same decision." Think... about what? About that there are games that don't require computers or consoles to play? I knew that--me and my friend George used to tell each other precisely these kinds of stories over the phone, and we used to enjoy it, too. I never said games were fully non-linear. Though certainly, they have more variables than a written story that is set in stone. The problem is a video game can not be particularly deep (when they try to, they threaten to become something other than a game), which is where a written and set-in-stone story shines. @scone, Nella, and Regan Attitude is no replacement for substance. If you don't have anything meaningful to add, then back off. |
|
|
|
Post by hoagiegal1970 on Aug 31, 2006 12:53:55 GMT
Don't have much to add either--but as someone who's been reading since preschool...visual mediums can't beat the thrill of reading. Ever.
So I leave the floor open to 0xFF.
|
|
|
|
Post by Numbuh 0xFF on Aug 31, 2006 12:54:45 GMT
I beg to differ. Well crafted prose can make you feel a scene with a visceral intensity unavailable to any other medium. I will offer two examples that are especially telling, though, sadly, they are drawn from my own meagre experience rather than a movie. The first is a novel by Ivo Andrić called Put Alije Đerleza I read it on a slow summer's day and it contained a remarkable scene where the 'hero', and I use the term very loosely, is waiting for an unpleasant task in the hot sun outside. The passage was crafted so well and the discomfort and thirst of the moment depicted so vividly that as the pages progressed I grew more and more agitated until I finally flung the book away. The heat my imagination was supplying was simply too much to bear. The other example is much more peaceful. When reading a rather interesting SF novel by Jack Vance, The Palace Of Love, I chanced upon several passages which described a journey of, well, pillgrims of a sort trough a large forest. The scene was drawn so vividly that, as long as I read it, I could swear I was following them. In fact, when I took a break from reading I was shocked not to find myself in a forest of towering trees so potent was the illusion. I have no doubt that you've had these experiences. The thing is (and don't take offense, but this is a recurring thread in your response), personal experiences are just that: personal experiences. Someone else reading these books might not be as immersed in them. Since we are discussing art and art is most defined by what it evokes in the observer rather than what it is (I have some issues with this position taken to its extremes, but it will serve) it is normal that I speak of personal experiences. I can quote on the experience of others if it helps, but I know my own best. Furthermore, I am not proving you must experience a deep immersion when you read. I'm just saying it's possible. But the characters power to be involved emotionally is limited. If all one does with your hero is run around and blast things it's hard to trully imagine yourself in his/her role. What the game needs is interaction with other characters -- genuine development. And the only way we can do that is trough pre-scripted story sequences which, simply, aren't enough. Some games overcome this as I will point out later. Reading is an active act. It takes practice. And someone who can read a lot can extract a whole world from just a few lines of text. The evocative power of lanugage is almost magical in its way. If you'd read the seminal cyberpunk classic True Names (And Other Dangers) by Vernor Vinge you would have sen this idea developed more fully in the context, delicious irony, of video games. I will acquiesce to your argument of investing a game with elements of story not present there beofore. It is something I myself do. But such an act is by definition reflexive. You are coming into contact with naught more than your own ideas, your own thoughts. Poorer graphics certainly makes imagination work more, but the writtent word makes it work even harder. As for IF titles, well, I don't see them as games per se. I see them as books and games in equal measure. You read them, for crying out loud. And they are very obviously art. In fact I'd say that they are art of a very high order: Take a look at Slouching Towards Bethlehem. I will not press the point here but I will mention that it is obvious that the powerful semantic aparatus of human language clearly defeats any other medium when it comes to the distribution of ideas. I will give an example: Just the other day I was reading A Devil's Chaplain (by Prof. Dawkins) and I came across numerous brilliant ideas about memes and genetics. A whole bushel of ideas. I can't recall any gaming experience that came close to delivering anything like that. Why? Because games by the necessity of providing a gaming enviroment don't deluge the player with scientific musings (which is, of course, the correct course of actions) while the games where the player creates the context himself cannot expose him/her to any new ideas. Personal opinions can be arrogant inasmuch they are born of arrogance. You look at the edifice of cinematic art and go "I can't understand this. What's wrong with it?" That is not the action of a humble man to say the least. I'll make a confession. I don't get anime. At all. It's all an incomprehensible tangle to me. However I don't diss the art-form because of it. Instead I seek to educate myself about it so that I may better understand it and by understanding it learn to appreciate it. I would recommend the same mind-set to you. I'm not saying they are universal. I'm just refuting your idea that watching a movie is staring blankly at a picture for a number of hours. The book and movie are fundamentally different. The book is written in Clarke's clear pellucid style and, as any good hard-SF book, it puts emphasis on the questions. The movie is a much subtler beast painting a dazzling array of very alien emotions. And by all means, read the sequels: 2010, 2061 and 3001. Good books the lot of them. I don't feel comfortable with making a formal definition. I lack the education to fully understand the problem. I am a humble programer/electrical engineer (in training, no less!) not an art critic. However as a working definition I could offer reading the book and spending thought on it leading to a change in your personality. Basically if the book changes who you are you got it. Because Shakespeare contains a masterly rendition of the gamut of human emotion and espouses so many ideas and so many novel ways to think that reading it sure to leave a mark. Like all poetry at times it says something that has been on your mind -- perhaps slouching about half-formed in the dim wells of the subconscious -- with such eloquence that it throws your muddled thoughts into stark relief leading you to enlightement. I can attest that this happened to me and, I assume, to many others. Games are limited in their realism by the need to provide a game. Furthermore, the accurate depiction of any real-life situation trough computer simulation is a non-trivial problem. Video games teach warfare no more than wargaming. Perhaps, just perhaps, mind, they can serve to foster a way of thought that is beneficial to a certain pursuit. But even so, their utility is not very great. I disagree. Real life doesn't have a load/save option. Furthermore decisions in real life impact actual people. All they do in video games is write numbers in memory. Big differeence. Funny I got bombed by you people and I'm not anti-America. Anti-StupidWarMongeringAmericanPoliticians, certainly. But anti-America? George W. Bush ain't America. You are. And some 300 000 000 other people. Most of which are decent types. Mr. W is America. I have no quarel with them. I am a firm believer that nations should not be blamed for the unsanctioned acts of their 'leaders'. Collective guilt is an evil outmoded concept. I will agree though that the conquest, without casus belli, of the sovereign state of Iraq was doubleplus ungood. In GalCiv2, just the other day, I played a right bastard if there ever was one. I plowed trough the galaxy spreading terror in my wake. I used planet-busters with wild abandon. Did I do this because I am an evil person? No. I just wanted to see how the game plays out when you are evil. Turns out it's rather good. I did not make real decisions. I just manipulated a very interesting simulation. Perhaps you did gather insight from playing the game but that was just the result of your own thoughts -- it all came from within the game serving only as a catalyst. Furthermore, please don't tell me you think that engaging in ruthless war for resources and/or lebensraum is any way for a country to behave? Beased on Civ? A campfire tale is not really a game in the sense that video games are. It's a collaborative writing effort. |
|
|
|
Post by regan on Aug 31, 2006 17:41:52 GMT
@scone, Nella, and Regan Attitude is no replacement for substance. If you don't have anything meaningful to add, then back off. Sorry, but from past experience with you, it's nearly impossible to combat your bizarre opinions with logic... it either goes over your head or out your ears, I'm not sure which. Furthermore, since when is it not allowed to show our support of a side? Besides, 0xFF is doing a fine enough job handing your ass to you on a silver planner. Nothing meaningful I could really add to that. ~Regan |
|
|
|
Post by numbuheightbitstar on Aug 31, 2006 18:10:25 GMT
Since we are discussing art and art is most defined by what it evokes in the observer rather than what it is (I have some issues with this position taken to its extremes, but it will serve) it is normal that I speak of personal experiences. I can quote on the experience of others if it helps, but I know my own best. Furthermore, I am not proving you must experience a deep immersion when you read. I'm just saying it's possible. It is. Might I suggest we attempt to trim this down by refraining from the more subjective parts, and sticking strictly to the parts that have some basis in provable facts? Ever played Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar? The player's character is of the "blank slate" mold, but the game is all about you, the player, facing emotional/ethical decisions and trying to do what's right. And again it works specifically because YOU are the hero, rather than you being an observer who watches/controls a pre-made hero through pre-scripted events. The story of Ultima IV (and many other games) may have made good books, but they wouldn't have had the same amount of impact that they do. It's one thing to be a hero who finds a dungeon room full of children in cages, and having to decide whether to free them out of compassion, or refrain thinking this might be a trap. It's quite another thing to simply read about someone else's decisions, and know that the result will be the same each time you read the book. I'll make a note of it. And yet, those thoughts can be augmented or altered by the game mechanics. Case in point: In Might and Magic, if you cast the "Fire" spell on monsters in melee range, your own party will be damaged from it as well as the monsters. It's not hard to fathom a million scenarios as for why this might be (the game itself doesn't show the effect, merely describes the outcome in text). I wuld imagine it's harder to create something new for something where your mind has a ready-made reference to fall back on (which it will no doubt be tempted to do) than it is to craft an imaginary vision from something where you have no such crutch. What interpreter does that use? IF Titles may be very book-like, but they are very undeniably games by definition. That you read them is a non-sequiter--game-wise they're no different from a King's Quest title, only they're entirely text-based. I would argue that music does so better--music can evoke thoughts and feelings that no human language even has a word for. I once came up with a personal work of fantasy which involved alternate realities, a planet caught in a billion-year circle, places beyond the borders of galaxies where nothing exists, past lives, small, unknown events having unexpected consequences thousands of years later, and beings greater than Gods. And I had all these ideas in a day where I hadn't even begun to read seriously. They were inspired by video games that did not involve any of the afformentioned concepts. Agreed. Perhaps we should discuss this in PMs... you explain movies to me and I explain anime to you? (Though I admit, I'm poor at explaining things). Will do. I already own all except the last one. That was Rick's post, but I don't think he was advocating that all countries should go to war whenever they feel like it, just that he could understand the decisions they make after having seen a simulation that put him in a similar position. But now, for your interpretations coming from your own thoughts, the game serving as a catalyst... I fail to see how books or movies are any different in that regard. The medium in general will only serve as the catalyst, to spark off new thoughts. They won't actually put the thoughts there. Nobody can put thoughts in your head except you. Ian Fleming can tell me why James Bond is interrogating a suspicious girl so roughly, but it's up to me to draw any ideas or conclusions from this besides what the book explicitly explains to me. Or, take for example 2001. You mentioned your interpretation of HAL. Yet, that was purely your interpretation--some viewers of that movie saw him as nothing but a computer that went bad, others found him interesting but for entirely different reasons. Still others are interested in the evolution of the character--how Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke concieved HAL and how he came to his finished form in the story itself. While 2001 as a video game would get many different interpretations, I have no doubt that many of these same thought processes would go through players heads, many of the same questions would be asked. And if the player was directly in the seat of Dave Bowman, he might have other questions movies don't make you think of. For a personal example of my own, not too long ago there was a game called Half-Life, which I think is a perfect blend of gaming and storytelling. It puts the player directly in the body of Gordon Freeman, and presents you with a simple situation--aliens have overrun your research facility and you must escape. Yet the game doesn't railroad you or check to make sure you've uncovered every last naunce of the game universe. In fact, each time I play it, there are more and more things I find I didn't catch the previous times. Like 2001, it evokes a lot of questions, some plot-related ("Who is G-Man? Why is Gordon Freeman so important to the military? How did the Government learn about Black Mesa so fast? What's a resonance cascade?"), others development-oriented ("Where did they come up with the idea for Nihilanth? What was the original idea behind Xen?"), others purely interpretive ("How would this be different if it happened in real life?") Already, a mere video game is evocing thought. Sorry, but from past experience with you, it's nearly impossible to combat your bizarre opinions with logic... You've never tried, so how would you know? |
|
|
|
Post by Numbuh 0xFF on Aug 31, 2006 19:59:07 GMT
Slouching Towards Bethlehem is a Z-code game. I used frotz to play it.
@re: the power of language
While music may be able to evoke subtle emotions that would be hard to explain in language it lacks semantic power. We can't express meaning in a clear unambiguous way. That's why language is the ultimate tool for distributing ideas.
@re: HAL
Yes, but the book/movie invested me with an idea of a rouge AI and crafted a character for it. All I did was react. With video games either conventional storytelling takes over (and we have, well, interactivity on a level of a choose-your-own-adventure books) or we are forced to create our own context -- risking solipsism as we only encounter our own ideas and the products of our mind. I can have an argument with a book -- reading, I maintain, is much more interactive than you think.
@re: IF titles
Adventure games, IF titles in particular owe much more to traditional writing that to video games. True, you are no longer passive but the bulk of the game is displayed to you using evocative writing. That is not so much different than the Dictionary of the Khazars where the author challenges you to find your own way of reading the book. From page 1 to the end is only one possible way.
The only game that escapes this is the Myst series (which I love). There the artistic experience is based on a confluence of both visual arts (many screens in those games deserved to be framed), writing (the diaries are, after all, crucial to the game) and something new. An art of game-making, still in its infancy. But I maintain: this game achieved what it did only trough synergy with writing in particular and story-telling in general.
@re: Inspiration
I never said that you cannot be inspired to creation by games. Or that you must be inspired by books. Why, I myself have been inspired by a great many things. A song. A gust of wind. A strange redolence in the air of a garden in early summer. Anything. Everything.
To be inspired by a video-game is certainly no strager than that.
What I did say is that books in general do a better job of exposing you to new and stimulating ideas because they aren't burdened by the need to create a amusing internaly consistent simulation.
|
|
, but I wanna see how the story ends.(I don't use them all the time though) If it is a bad story then I will just finish it to say I did. But I do understand your thoughts on the 3rd person thing because whenever I read a book or play a game or whatever I do feel like a I'm in a 3rd person point of view, not first. I do think that reading books can make someone smart because they will know a wide range of vocabulary and how to speak correctly, but so can video games. Like I hate how people put down video games and say you are lazy and stuff. They are just mad because they suck, jk 
. I didn't mean to put down your ideas just express what I think. This comment is coming from a game fanatic, person who likes to read books and someone involved in fine arts (music). I guess it depends on who you are asking. It's just my opinion dosen't mean it's true. You have good points though.
