AP: I think you have it. Those kinds of step in the direction of depth in our entertainment is what we need. And, those kinds of elements would not alienate the current fan-base of the series. Kids can pay attention to things with complexities in them, even if they don''t understand them, as long as there are other, simpler, layers for them to focus on. And, it exposes them to the more complex issues and ideals, educating them both on the issues at hand, and on the ability to grasp those such issues. Many people today don''t care about the big issues, partially because they don''t know how to properly grasp the scope of such things. They were raised on small ideas and localized issues.
If you saw no artwork but stamps your entire life, how would you react to a murel? Even if you know its great, could you really grasp it?
I don't enjoy watching my favorite movie
quote:Original post by ironfroggy
AP: I think you have it. Those kinds of step in the direction of depth in our entertainment is what we need.
And how about having RPGs that subvert the genre expectations occasionaly, such as having a quest that has a slightly negative outcome even though you were acting for a good cause. Kind of like starttrek''s no-interference thing. But likewise featuring situations where you decide not to get involved but it shows that you could have helped out and made things better.
Personally I think that these kinds of things are better when they show both sides to an argument and depict shades of grey. Ie. dealing with a war, and showing that the people are in many ways better off without being run by a dictator.. but that the war in itself is just the starting point for peace. There are no ends, only beginnings.
Or using allegorical situations, ie. having evil aliens that people want to kill, (where really they stand for the most evil humans in society). These aliens have the potential to be better than they are, and do they deserve to be rehabilitated into society, can they even be rehabilitated? Can only a few percent of them be rehabilitated? I think that some games have done that before.. ?
On the other hand, I don''t think that making a game about being a heroin etc. addict would work very well, since I don''t think that games would be a good medium to present the negative sides of drug addiction (or the internal feelings and struggle).. and would probably present it in a simplistic way. Ie. A game where you steal to feed your expensive addiction. It would probably just make it seem fun like GTA3. Maybe an allegorical thing would be a better way of examining such an issue. And it would probably be better not to have any control over such a character, but feature them as a background plot line.
Ketchaval, ever played Deus Ex or Deus Ex: Invisible War? Quite simply, they''re exactly what you describe (Invisible War moreso than the original, story-wise). The original premise was that a James Bond-type character, who sees the world in black and white, is dropped in to a world where everything is shades of grey.
Both games emphasize the shades-of-grey motif. While there are three main factions (in Invisible War) to align with, none of them are clearly better - they all have their good and bad sides. It''s merely a choice of which is the lesser of three evils.
Throw in a helping of modern political hot-topics such as bioengineering and the roles of science and religion, and mix with some fun conspiracy theories, and it creates a very interesting game, and a blast to play.
Both games emphasize the shades-of-grey motif. While there are three main factions (in Invisible War) to align with, none of them are clearly better - they all have their good and bad sides. It''s merely a choice of which is the lesser of three evils.
Throw in a helping of modern political hot-topics such as bioengineering and the roles of science and religion, and mix with some fun conspiracy theories, and it creates a very interesting game, and a blast to play.
to extend what was said about a story just being a story ...
I see three types of experience / game / story ...
those in which the author has a point, and makes it - forcing on the audience their insights or views (like fables), note just because I say they are forcing their view or thought onto the audience doesn''t mean it is always bad.
those in which the author has a deep connection to the characters and situations involved, and exposes those raw and clear to the audience, but the audience is left to draw whatever connections they can from the material (this is most like much of life).
those in which there really is no meaning to draw, and instead just an experience to be had. Think of the joy of a child being swung around in their parents arms, or thrill of riding a bike.
All forms of entertainment can be and of the above ... movies can be obvious moral lessons, tales of human situations, or simple a viseral experience to watch. Even poetry comes in all of these flavors, with many thought out and pointed poems trying to convince us, with other true to heart stories sharing with us, and still other poems simple a delight in the words, meter, or rhyme ...
So too are games ... When I play real-time strategy or first-person shooter games, I play the 3rd type of game, sure the authors made a story mode, but I don''t play it, I play the game where you start from the same place every time, even with your enemies, in a competition ... more like a game of tennis, than a story. When I play turn-based strategy games, I plot and analysize, I figure and act ... more like solving math problems than watching a movie (except that results come back more like gambler''s winnings, than math grades
...
not everything should have a point, nor even a story ... but there are many good games that do ...
Also, I agree with the OP that a game experience need not be "fun" to be "good" (read good in this case as VALUABLE) ... I am sitting here this moment writing on this forum, as I often do ... and I am not having "fun" but I am satisfying a human need ... I am rewarded by this experience.
I see three types of experience / game / story ...
those in which the author has a point, and makes it - forcing on the audience their insights or views (like fables), note just because I say they are forcing their view or thought onto the audience doesn''t mean it is always bad.
those in which the author has a deep connection to the characters and situations involved, and exposes those raw and clear to the audience, but the audience is left to draw whatever connections they can from the material (this is most like much of life).
those in which there really is no meaning to draw, and instead just an experience to be had. Think of the joy of a child being swung around in their parents arms, or thrill of riding a bike.
All forms of entertainment can be and of the above ... movies can be obvious moral lessons, tales of human situations, or simple a viseral experience to watch. Even poetry comes in all of these flavors, with many thought out and pointed poems trying to convince us, with other true to heart stories sharing with us, and still other poems simple a delight in the words, meter, or rhyme ...
So too are games ... When I play real-time strategy or first-person shooter games, I play the 3rd type of game, sure the authors made a story mode, but I don''t play it, I play the game where you start from the same place every time, even with your enemies, in a competition ... more like a game of tennis, than a story. When I play turn-based strategy games, I plot and analysize, I figure and act ... more like solving math problems than watching a movie (except that results come back more like gambler''s winnings, than math grades
...not everything should have a point, nor even a story ... but there are many good games that do ...
Also, I agree with the OP that a game experience need not be "fun" to be "good" (read good in this case as VALUABLE) ... I am sitting here this moment writing on this forum, as I often do ... and I am not having "fun" but I am satisfying a human need ... I am rewarded by this experience.
Interactive Fiction like my old "Choose Your Own Adventure" books?
Well, I have to say I agree with the initial post here. While I don''t have anything against games as mere entertainment, I do wish that designers would look past the semantics of the word "game", and realize that programs can be interactive and entertaining on many levels. Many designers seem stuck on the notion that there is only one model, paradigm, and fundamental raison d''etre for making computer programs that involve the human emotional expression of having "fun".
How limiting.
I think that games of today are stuck in what comics were in the post 50''s Comics Code Approval era. The ironic thing is that comics in their infancy (mid 30''s to early 50''s) were actually more geared for adults...and this actually led to their downfall. In the McCarthy witch hunts for all the bad things that were seducing our mom-and-apple pie loving people of America, it was deemed that comics were warping the naive minds of the youth with racy and bawdy stories, or stories too macabre and dark for those fragile minds. So the CCA was developed in which if the comic did not have the CCA seal, it couldn''t be carried at newsvendors. So the spiral continued where comics were geared ever more towards the 10-18 crowd. As was inevitable, much of the deep meaning of stories and some of the more fertile storyline material were taken away. It was only in the mid 80''s with the coming of Dark Knight Returns, and The Watchmen, that comics returned to their roots, and many titles are geared for adults (most notably, DC''s Vertigo series).
So here we are today with computer games. Many people just want games so they can escape from the world and not have to think about work, school, lovelife, or any other myriad real-world problems. Instead, they just want to immerse themselves in the game and have fun. Ok. That''s your cup of tea.
But basically all games have been about superficial and external gratification (even if it''s a virtual external gratification). What do I mean external gratification? Most players have fun because there is some kind of reward system (i.e. winning) which is very objectively quantified, and immediately empirically observable. In other words, you know what you need to do to win, and the player can tell if he''s winning or losing. Anyone who''s taken any psychology classes though will have heard of the concepts of internalized gratification....which is something few if any games I know of do.
So what is internalized gratification? It is a means of setting your own reward system, rather than an external one, and of your own observation and judgment of whether you are meeting the standards. In other words, the player''s enjoyment comes from taking his own world view, and relating this to the virtual world. Through this comparison, he must make up in his own mind whether he is doing something worthwhile or not (and if the game is good, more players than not will find the game enjoyable or worthwhile on some level). Notice I said "worthwhile", and not "fun". Fun is not the sole goal of creating a game, and I think this in itself deserves it''s own thread. As long as a game makes a player feel that he''s somehow better for having played it, then the program has done its job. Whether it be fun, education, or a sudden enlightenment doesn''t matter...as long as one feels like it was worth his time to play the program.
So what does this have to do about meaning in a game? If a game concentrates less on rules, and more about what (and how) the player interacts with, then the game must be based on internalized gratification...i.e., it should absorb the player and make him reflect on his own standards and judgment rather than the predetermined standards of the author/designer.
Well, I have to say I agree with the initial post here. While I don''t have anything against games as mere entertainment, I do wish that designers would look past the semantics of the word "game", and realize that programs can be interactive and entertaining on many levels. Many designers seem stuck on the notion that there is only one model, paradigm, and fundamental raison d''etre for making computer programs that involve the human emotional expression of having "fun".
How limiting.
I think that games of today are stuck in what comics were in the post 50''s Comics Code Approval era. The ironic thing is that comics in their infancy (mid 30''s to early 50''s) were actually more geared for adults...and this actually led to their downfall. In the McCarthy witch hunts for all the bad things that were seducing our mom-and-apple pie loving people of America, it was deemed that comics were warping the naive minds of the youth with racy and bawdy stories, or stories too macabre and dark for those fragile minds. So the CCA was developed in which if the comic did not have the CCA seal, it couldn''t be carried at newsvendors. So the spiral continued where comics were geared ever more towards the 10-18 crowd. As was inevitable, much of the deep meaning of stories and some of the more fertile storyline material were taken away. It was only in the mid 80''s with the coming of Dark Knight Returns, and The Watchmen, that comics returned to their roots, and many titles are geared for adults (most notably, DC''s Vertigo series).
So here we are today with computer games. Many people just want games so they can escape from the world and not have to think about work, school, lovelife, or any other myriad real-world problems. Instead, they just want to immerse themselves in the game and have fun. Ok. That''s your cup of tea.
But basically all games have been about superficial and external gratification (even if it''s a virtual external gratification). What do I mean external gratification? Most players have fun because there is some kind of reward system (i.e. winning) which is very objectively quantified, and immediately empirically observable. In other words, you know what you need to do to win, and the player can tell if he''s winning or losing. Anyone who''s taken any psychology classes though will have heard of the concepts of internalized gratification....which is something few if any games I know of do.
So what is internalized gratification? It is a means of setting your own reward system, rather than an external one, and of your own observation and judgment of whether you are meeting the standards. In other words, the player''s enjoyment comes from taking his own world view, and relating this to the virtual world. Through this comparison, he must make up in his own mind whether he is doing something worthwhile or not (and if the game is good, more players than not will find the game enjoyable or worthwhile on some level). Notice I said "worthwhile", and not "fun". Fun is not the sole goal of creating a game, and I think this in itself deserves it''s own thread. As long as a game makes a player feel that he''s somehow better for having played it, then the program has done its job. Whether it be fun, education, or a sudden enlightenment doesn''t matter...as long as one feels like it was worth his time to play the program.
So what does this have to do about meaning in a game? If a game concentrates less on rules, and more about what (and how) the player interacts with, then the game must be based on internalized gratification...i.e., it should absorb the player and make him reflect on his own standards and judgment rather than the predetermined standards of the author/designer.
Movies != games. Take the Harry Potter books, for instance. I think the books are pretty good, but I have to cringe every time one of the main characters does something really stupid. You can''t get that in games.
quote:Original post by Dauntless
it should absorb the player and make him reflect on his own standards and judgment rather than the predetermined standards of the author/designer.
What like GTA3? Lots of ext. fun, but it made me question the ''worth'' of playing when the character''s (in the loosest sense) goals were so far from good. I don''t think that a game''s theme has to be interactive to present an experience that provokes thought in the player.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement