Do Gamers Want Simpler Games?

[Zeb]

Medium: a means or instrumentality for storing or communicating information.

The more of a story a game is presenting the more it is a medium, no matter how much of your interaction changes the story. You just become part of the process of being the medium. Much like being an actor in a movie.

Person A plays a game. Person B watches the results of Person A playing a game. There is no difference between Person B doing that and watching a movie. The game along with Person A are communicating information in the form of a story. Person A is also receiving the information.

*Edit* The more of your interaction is involved in the game would probably decrease the amount of information being received and make it less of a medium to you. IE, playing a sandbox game like Infamous, Prototype or Just Cause 2, where you're just putzing around town blowing shit up is not much of a medium, but while you're undertaking a mission, it is more of a medium.

See also; Choose your own adventure books.

[BRP]

Ok, I see what you're saying much better now, but I still disagree with it.

Then you were better off not replying, really.

Likewise, traditionally games were, like you said, a (or many) player(s) and a ruleset. Then, the technology came along to make digital representations of these games, i.e. video games. Then they used the technology to do something that traditional games couldn't do as easily, tell a story.

First off for clarity's sake: videogames are still a set of rules and they are nothing but those rules. This is even more obvious for videogames as you can see the programming. (You can't see the "code" for games played outside computers.)

I know you are not saying this, but to anyone who thinks otherwise: board games could tell a story. As could wargames and card games, but with board games it is easiest to see. Many board games have extremely simplistic stories comparable to the very early videogames. Themes have existed in non-videogame games(e.g. Clue) and even non-tabletop games(e.g. Cowboys and Indians). The only reasons videogame atmosphere themes(including stories) grew in complexity is because it was better suited(as you noted) and the audience didn't mind it. (Meanwhile if you were to include something like cutscenes(done by video/DVD, as I've seen) in Monopoly, fans would call it a gimmick and feel it slowed down the game.)

Now what exactly is so important about the fact videogames tell a more complicated story than other games? And it goes back to the original statement. Even though videogames are shown to be better at it than other type of games, you still play them thus they are not as good(lets be blunt: not even nearly as good) as it as movies, books, and so on.

The more of a story a game is presenting the more it is a medium, no matter how much of your interaction changes the story. You just become part of the process of being the medium. Much like being an actor in a movie.

Yes, just like how football players and chess players and sex partners and animals and lightning bolts which cause fires etc etc are all like actors. Though you make the mistake of thinking cutscenes, characters, or any sort of written narrative you would find in a videogame is any sort of requirement. Now let us get back to people who are actually playing the game.

(Didn't I just say why a game can never be media? It doesn't matter how much representation it contains.)

See also; Choose your own adventure books.

Choose your own adventure books are basically role-playing games(a game where players can change the narrative) with the complexity of flipping a coin and guessing the answer(or more depending on far they go with it). (Funny you say this because this about as far videogames have gone in terms of Role-playing.)


Also "storing information" is certainly a different definition from the one I explained above. In that case we would be talking about discs, cassettes, papers, tablets, and the like... not languages, movies, literature, and the like. Games and the latter can be contained in the former.

[Khamsin]

explain why basketball or chess isn't media while videogames are?

All this game/media talk is really kind of missing the point.

The simple answer to this is that you were right, games (as a general, broad category) are not media. Being a game doesn't make something a medium.

What makes something a medium, in this case, is it's capacity to convey a story or idea. An RPG is not a medium because it is a game, it's a medium because it is a conduit between the author and the audience. This is why basketball and chess are not media, but "video games" (in the context of this thread) are. It's not about what it is, it's about how it can be used.

[BRP]

What you mean to say is that the cutscenes in that game are media.

Not the game.

[Charismatic]

Video = Medium
Video Games = Not a medium

We clear?

[BRP]

Pretty much.

But I just know that can easily be warped into something stupid in the wrong hands. Something like "the "video" makes it different from other games, thus is a medium!".

EDIT: Next up videogames are now music albums.

[Zeb]

While it makes most sense to say language is media, you can still say the same with anything, like... trash. If you walk into a house and there is trash fucking everywhere you "read" it as "This place is dirty" or "The people who live here are slobs". You can "read" flying trees and terrible winds and rains as "there is a tornado outside". For what we are talking about we want to include things like literature, but not trees lol. Simple enough right?

Except no one is intentionally trying to convey information to you in your argument. "This book is 1500 pages, is the author trying to tell me he's a long winded asshole?" That's not the information the author is trying to convey to you through the book, but the book is still a form of medium.

Choose your own adventure books are basically role-playing games(a game where players can change the narrative) with the complexity of flipping a coin and guessing the answer(or more depending on far they go with it). (Funny you say this because this about as far video games have gone in terms of Role-playing.)

You should stop thinking in black and white. It's not an either or thing. Cars are not just a form of transportation. They can be used as storage, shelter, money, weapon and so on. I'm not saying every video game is a form of medium. But the more of a story it has versus the amount of control a player has over what happens in it, the more it is a medium.

Once again, in case you missed it. Person A plays a game. Person B watches the results of Person A playing a game. The game, along with Person A is communicating information in the form of a story. From Person B's perspective, how is that not a medium? There is no difference between that and watching a movie or play.

[Charismatic]

The video and audio are the media, sir.
Not the 'game'.

That's why Person A and Person B are both able to receive the same information. If a game were a medium, only the person playing would have the information communicated to him.

[TheDirtyHobo]

What you mean to say is that the cutscenes in that game are media.

Not the game.

And what about games where there are no cutscenes and you remain in complete control of your character, but still tell a cohesive story? Say, Portal.

The biggest difference, in my mind at least, between story-telling video games and story-telling traditional games (generally RP) it that video games are generally more extensively defined by a series of actions (rules) you CAN do, whereas the ruleset in most games is generally a list of what you can't do, then the rest (even the story, generally) is left up to your creativity.

Basically, video games make a tradeoff of adding linear story-telling media to its repertoire in exchange for losing a somewhat large chunk of its freedom of creativity on the player side.

I'd still argue a dirt and stick can be a medium. As long as the person who creates it is trying to express something to others, the physical device is irrelevant. Even though a sticks original purpose that it was created for has absolutely nothing to do with expression.

[gowce]

Uhh no! I hate this trend to make casual games. I'am worried about the game developers wich are explaining that this simplegames are the future of the games market. I hope that did not happen! :/

[Zeb]

The video and audio are the media, sir.
Not the 'game'.

That's why Person A and Person B are both able to receive the same information. If a game were a medium, only the person playing would have the information communicated to him.

You're seperating the game out of the video game to make your argument. You have to take it as a whole. The game mechanics in a video game are not the whole part of the video game. A video game can be a game that is also form of medium.

See also; Interactive art.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lXh2n0aPyw
Stairs = not media
Sounds = not media (in this instance)
People moving = not media

Add them all up. The people behind the expirement have now conveyed to the participants that using the stairs can be fun; when it's a different experience than it normally is.

[Charismatic]

wat

[BRP]

Except no one is intentionally trying to convey information to you in your argument.

So what?

But the more of a story it has versus the amount of control a player has over what happens in it, the more it is a medium.

And I keep repeating myself: There is no "versus" here.

Once again, in case you missed it. Person A plays a game. Person B watches the results of Person A playing a game. The game, along with Person A is communicating information in the form of a story. From Person B's perspective, how is that not a medium? There is no difference between that and watching a movie or play.

And if you missed it: This is a very, very silly thing to say! You can apply to it to all phenomena. I even gave you a list of random shit! We don't need to call watching or vision a medium!(or running, kicking, moving chess pieces, and so on) And note if the guy was doing this on Youtube or via video screen then he would watching media. (I already mentioned in the example given in the definition of media.)

Games are defined by interactivity! If you are not playing a game then you are not really experiencing it. You can still appreciate the things like visuals and sound, but that doesn't change what it is. What the person is doing is viewing the media of videogames.

And what about games where there are no cutscenes and you remain in complete control of your character, but still tell a cohesive story? Say, Portal.

It is not so different. In Portal the story is told by GlaDOS(or whatever) speaking to you and scripted events around the levels. The graphics and sound are media too! Again: You are not pointing out anything spectacular by saying videogames can hold stories.

story-telling traditional games (generally RP)

Ugh! Was it this thread or the FFXIII rate it thread where I tore this up? Doesn't matter I guess since I won't repeat myself on it.

it that video games are generally more extensively defined by a series of actions (rules) you CAN do, whereas the ruleset in most games is generally a list of what you can't do,

A sensible observation I can see(I can see why too), but you never use it for anything.

then the rest (even the story, generally) is left up to your creativity.

Basically, video games make a tradeoff of adding linear story-telling media to its repertoire in exchange for losing a somewhat large chunk of its freedom of creativity on the player side.

Are you saying that players have the freedom to make their own "story" with the actions available to them in the game? This is somewhat true(as it is for all games including sports). However what you are talking about is narrative and only in RPGs is there any freedom to mess with that.

I'd still argue a dirt and stick can be a medium. As long as the person who creates it is trying to express something to others, the physical device is irrelevant. Even though a sticks original purpose that it was created for has absolutely nothing to do with expression.

Yes, you see, that is a big problem! I've gotten the impression you are either not reading or not comprehending what I am saying. Not that it matters so much because you are not good a good job in arguing anything against me, so let us put an end to this.

You're seperating the game out of the video game to make your argument. You have to take it as a whole. The game mechanics in a video game are not the whole part of the video game.

It is YOU who is separating things. I am talking about the whole of a game. You can never call them a medium if you look at the whole.

(People play/interact with games, but you don't interact with sounds or images! You interact with game mechanics. That is why they are the main part of videogames.)

See also; Interactive art.

Fucking LOL. I don't even want to get into "art".

Add them all up. The people behind the expirement have now conveyed to the participants that using the stairs can be fun; when it's a different experience than it normally is.

Didn't watch your video. I don't need to. Could have been a man taking a giant, messy shit for all it would matter. (In that case he would be conveying to any one around(like people watching a video on youtube) he ate at taco bell.)

[Beckwin]

video games typically are presented as scenarios, and should be considered media. just because they are interactive doesn't all of the sudden mean they can't be media.

there are very few videogames (anymore) where you can consider it to be "just" a game. that pretty much requires having zero context and the game begins and ends strictly within a (usually simple) set of rules. but that distinction is generally pretty useless these days.

there's no reason that gameplay can't be discussed in terms of the kind of experience it creates, along similar lines to other media. especially when non-strictly-game elements shape so much of that experience.

take pretty much any critically-acclaimed game of the past decade and completely dress it down- all sound removed (gameplay essential sounds replaced with simple beeps), all graphics down to simple geometric shapes, all story removed, etc. you'd have much less entertainment. all of those non-game elements- stories, characters, visuals, music, sound effects, etc- make affective appeals to the player and strongly impact the overall experience.

[BRP]

I never argued that the aesthetics don't have an effect on the player. They serve an important role as atmosphere. (An understandably less important one than the game's systems/mechanics.)

As for the other stuff, I broke this down already. In a sentence: games are more than representation(media) and can never be "lowered" to that without removing everything that makes it a game(or taking a piece of the game's atmosphere and separating it from the game).

[TheDirtyHobo]

It is not so different. In Portal the story is told by GlaDOS(or whatever) speaking to you and scripted events around the levels. The graphics and sound are media too! Again: You are not pointing out anything spectacular by saying videogames can hold stories.

there will never be a story-game or something

So videogames can hold stories, but can never be stories? Next are we going to argue that books can contain stories, but since by definition a book is just pages bound together, it doesn't necessarily have to have something in it, and therefore is not a medium? And even then, the pages don't matter, it's only the shape of the ink stains that matter, right?

You're trying far too hard to seperate things that are linked together because they don't HAVE to be linked together. Even if all the dialogue that occurs in Portal is scripted, just listening to the audio of the game would be rather boring and probably not make any sense. Your own interactions within the game universe (i.e. the programmer's ruleset) add tremendously to the overall experience of the story, even if you can't interact directly with the 'storyteller' for the majority of the game. It's a sum package.

Yes, you see, that is a big problem! I've gotten the impression you are either not reading or not comprehending what I am saying. Not that it matters so much because you are not good a good job in arguing anything against me, so let us put an end to this.

I'm disappointed, defaulting to petty insults like that, and the obligatory "let's stop now" comment tacked on so that when I post a response you can act like you're on the defensive. Very nice baiting. Let's take a look back at the definition that you chose to use, even after being given the opportunity to pick something new.

medium:
6. an intervening agency, means, or instrument by which something is conveyed or accomplished: Words are a medium of expression.

An 'instrument by which something is conveyed'. Now, how exactly is using a stick and dirt to write out a basic message (let's say, a general explaining his strategy for an upcoming battle) to someone else NOT an instrument by which something is conveyed? If someone chooses to tell a story through videogames, then videogames are the instrument by which the story is conveyed. No fancy metaphors, it's the definition of medium.

[Beckwin]

I never argued that the aesthetics don't have an effect on the player. They serve an important role as atmosphere. (An understandably less important one than the game's systems/mechanics.)

As for the other stuff, I broke this down already. In a sentence: games are more than representation(media) and can never be "lowered" to that without removing everything that makes it a game(or taking a piece of the game's atmosphere and separating it from the game).

media is not just representation

and I'd be careful to say "understandably less important" when talking about atmosphere/context, because if you pared down almost any well-received game of the last decade to beeps and simple, entirely abstract geometric graphics, you'd have some incredibly shitty, uninteresting, boring games.