tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750861558902561769.post1047899379144821304..comments2023-06-01T05:24:16.094-07:00Comments on H. T. Parnell's: The Morality of Cutscenes, or Vice VersaWilliamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15480452524845413806noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750861558902561769.post-4422251989931813212009-05-06T15:58:00.000-07:002009-05-06T15:58:00.000-07:00Yeah, "Serious Games" are a definite example of th...Yeah, "Serious Games" are a definite example of the communication problem in game discussion. Both the words "serious" and "games" are ambiguous enough that the combined phrase might be easily misunderstood.<br /><br />For serious games, though, it might be easiest to avoid the term game in favor of "interactive," to get rid of the connotation of fun inherent in it. Then again, that could sound a bit pretentious - maybe it could be contracted down into "interactivism" or something like that?Ikkinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750861558902561769.post-25461205873964203482009-05-05T10:42:00.000-07:002009-05-05T10:42:00.000-07:00I think it's a good point about the lack of approp...I think it's a good point about the lack of appropriate distinctions inhibiting discourse. I can't remember the number of times I've been talking to someone about "Serious Games", and they went, "Oh, you mean like Final Fantasy VII?"<br /><br />The sad part, is that even though I use the term to refer to games that are created for some purpose other than entertainment, I know in my heart that that's just kind of an incorrect definition. =PWilliamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15480452524845413806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750861558902561769.post-6106580448063153802009-05-05T00:18:00.000-07:002009-05-05T00:18:00.000-07:00I didn't mean to imply that any of the things that...I didn't mean to imply that any of the things that I mentioned were the only way that games could go - the fact that some of the immersion advocates do imply that is something that's frustrating to me.<br /><br />In fact, I think videogames might be even more varied in terms of goals than oil paintings are. They can be, as Natalie suggested, vessels for a system of rules - or, their rules might exist only in service to an immersive world. They can provide a space for multiplayer competition - or, they can provide an opportunity for a single player to take a walk in someone else's shoes.<br /><br />The lack of an agreed-upon distinction between these different portions of gaming probably hinders attempts at discourse - lumping them all into one category tends to push discussion towards the question of which goal is "right" and away from the more useful discussion of how best to meet any particular goal.<br /><br />As for tabletop RPGs, I think they share a significant amount with videogames in terms of potential beyond pure play. The problem is, they run on imagination, so it's a lot more difficult to make one into a cultural artifact - if you lack the hardware for it, you can't just go pick it up at a store. ;)Ikkinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750861558902561769.post-14966582805548244012009-05-04T15:48:00.000-07:002009-05-04T15:48:00.000-07:00I think Natalie is on to something here, but I thi...I think Natalie is on to something here, but I think it would be a little disengenuous to suggest that Oil Paints don't have, at their core, the idea of providing visual stimulation.<br /><br />Sure, this is entirely socially constructed, but I think it then just turns into a semantic discussion about the exact meaning of the word "purpose" or "goal".<br /><br />The fact of the matter, I think, is that most people think of Videogames like Oil Paints. Videogames do interactive immersion the same way that oil paints do visual stimulation.<br /><br />I agree that that's a good idea, but if you can find some OTHER use for oil paints thats intriguing, go for it.<br /><br />Also, I think it's important that we ask why just video games? I think that nobody thinks of table-top games in these terms because table-top games don't enjoy a large enough audience and budget for people to think they merit this kind of discussion, and that's kind of a shame.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15480452524845413806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750861558902561769.post-45151348189756618562009-05-04T09:31:00.000-07:002009-05-04T09:31:00.000-07:00Honestly, I don't think that's the only thing that...Honestly, I don't think that's the only thing that videogames provide that traditional games don't. They also provide computing power.<br /><br />You see this most clearly these days in the RPG context. Fallout's SPECIAL is a good example of an RPG system that <I>could</I> be run using pen and paper, but would be very cumbersome. I doubt SPECIAL would sell very well in book form; in videogame form, it's beloved. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the system was written specifically with a videogame's computing power in mind.<br /><br />RPGs are the most common these days, but I don't think they were the first genre to recognize the value of the medium for processing complex systems. That distinction, I'm pretty sure, belongs to the wargame genre. Games like the Combat Mission series are essentially board games, but the systems that run them are way too complex for practical pen-and-paper play. Even the FPS genre can be seen as an extension of the squad-level board games published in the '70s and '80s. The videogame medium provides not <I>just</I> for a different perspective (first person as opposed to the top-down third-person that most board games are limited to); it also allows the game to be run with a much more complex system than would its pen-and-paper incarnation.<br /><br />I don't disagree with lkkin's points about immersion and interactivity, but I don't think that's what the goal of a videogame <I>is</I>; i.e., has to be. Plenty of highly immersive, highly interactive videogames (think of your favorite RPG) use the medium <I>primarily</I> merely as a play aid to help you run the system behind the game. To me, that makes it clear that "videogame" is merely a medium, which in turn puts the lie to claims that videogames have interactivity as their ultimate goal. Oil paints don't have an ultimate goal - they're a medium, a tool. The ultimate goal is the artist's, not the medium's. Same for videogames.Nataliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12662787003156000207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750861558902561769.post-54263623868332164712009-05-03T22:50:00.000-07:002009-05-03T22:50:00.000-07:00The ultimate goal of games is interactivity.
The ...The ultimate goal of games <I>is</I> interactivity.<br /><br />The ultimate goal of videogames, on the other hand, is a bit more complicated. ;) Videogames provide two important things that traditional games (apart from tabletop RPGs) don't - immersion and identification.<br /><br />Immersion is the real reason why cutscenes are considered a bad thing - if what I enjoy most in a game is the feeling of existing in a new world, a cutscene in which my avatar does something I wouldn't do would break my immersion. Tabula rasa characters are created to avoid this - Gordon Freeman (or, alternatively, Crono) doesn't talk because otherwise he'd say things the player might not want him to say, and he's supposed to <I>be</I> the player.<br /><br />Choice in WRPGs follows from a similar logic - if the player himself was standing in front of an NPC with a gun, he would be physically capable of shooting it, regardless of his past morality.<br /><br />This kind of thinking, while reasonable, becomes problematic when people consider it the only one way to take advantage of the unique qualities of the medium, and therefore the only way to advance it as an artform.<br /><br />It's unfortunate, because videogaming provides some distinct advantages to empathetic identification as well - but only when cutscenes are available to use in the creation of characters worthy of empathy. Desperately forcing a dying character to keep fighting can be more powerful than watching the character do the same, but only if you're given enough reason to care about him in the first place.<br /><br />Ironically enough, I think that "lack of control" is one of those feelings that can be increased by giving the player just enough control to show him that his actions won't make a difference. Cutscenes are better used when the player can't be expected to do something that defines the character as a person, like saying specific lines of dialogue.Ikkinnoreply@blogger.com