Homoludens Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 The Sims. Everquest. Grand Theft Auto. Video games are wildly popular with both children and adults. They are growing more complex…and more influential in popular culture. What are video games all about? Odyssey, my favourite radio talk show, discusses in detail the impact and growing relevance of videogames as a great emerging cultural force to be reckoned with. Among the points talked about are: -Roleplaying, morality, and responsibility -Interpreting a character vs. player designed characters -Games as an art form -Philosophical, psychological, and cultural correlations between gameworlds and the real world -Narrative constructs, perspectives, and possibilities -The conception of space and play in games vs. space and play in the physical world -Games and didacticism Click here to listen to the show (it runs roughly 45 minutes). Highly recommended and required if you consider yourself a serious and intelligent gamer, and especially if you want to get into game design as a career. Gretchen Helfrich, the excellent host of the show (I love her!), asks some very tough questions. The two guests are: James Gee Professor of Education, University of Wisconsin, Madison author, What Videogames Have To Teach Us About Learning And Literacy Henry Jenkins Media Studies scholar, Massachusetts Institute of Technology editor, Hop on Pop: The Politics and Pleasures of Popular Culture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homoludens Posted August 4, 2003 Author Share Posted August 4, 2003 BTW, for those of you who don't have broadband connection, right click the link and save into your files to listen later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragou Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 Maybe later, it doesn't sound *that* interesting to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homoludens Posted August 4, 2003 Author Share Posted August 4, 2003 ragou, please try to listen to it, it's very fascinating. Too many gamers complain how their medium is so misunderstood as being mindless, violent, or just for kiddies. And yet they themselves do nothing or very little to try to understand what significance gaming holds for them in particular and for culture in general. These guests on the show are the ones who actually have a more direct influence on how the media and the general world perceive this cultural phenomenon. They help by researching into it, discovering such things as the correlations between gaming and improved visual acuity and memory, and that games can be implemented as educational tools for children, and even as theraputic treatment for those with special needs. These are the studies can ultimately help fight off the dumbass ignoramuses, the Senator Liebermans and the soccer moms who think games are harmful and foster anti-social behaviour. It may not seem that interesting to you, but if you consider that the gaming industry makes well over $6 billion dollars a year and is increasing fast in revenue, more money than the Hollywood film industry, and that games have eclipsed television as family entertainment, and that it's competing with reading books as a favourite pasttime activity, then you can't possibly just say that it "...doesn't sound *that* interesting..." to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomStLeger Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 But... most of it IS mindless, violent, or just for kiddies... Though thats no different to any other medium. Look at TV and Movies. Infact come to think of it, we're being shortchanged! Wheres the sex!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homoludens Posted August 4, 2003 Author Share Posted August 4, 2003 Originally posted by DomStLeger Wheres the sex!? [slips Dom jaf's phone number] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curt Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 Intrepid, the word "didastic" scares me so I'll have to give the show a miss. You need to spend less time conversing with the likes of Kingzjester imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkoubyDoo Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 I'll listen to this a little later. Gaming is only going to get more innovative, more realistic, and more involving. It's been something growing up with gaming, being in awe of every major step gaming has taken since it really took off (EGA graphics, the mouse, CD-ROM, Sound Blaster, VGA graphics, 3D graphics, SVGA, directx, etc). It's almost like what my parents experienced in the 50's with television, except gaming has advanced much faster, yet still has a lot of potential. Art is a very subjective term. Gaming has always been an entertainment medium. Many famous books are considered art because they offer a fresh new idea to our world and provoke thought within our lives. Television never does this, nor does music anymore, and only very few movies do it. Gaming has a LONG way to go before it produces a real piece of art. Until interactive software taps into our brain waves and gaming feels like dreaming, we have to hope for a game that uses the advantages of interactivity to add further insight into the human condition. And no, GTA doesn't do that. Many adventure gamers would like to think adventures are the closest genre to achieving art. First of all, if you take the interactivity away from these games, the stories are mediocre at best. None of the games add something to the human condition that really matters, they're just entertainment. Furthermore, most adventure fans/designers aren't looking in the right direction for innovation. I ask if you'd prefer a third-person character driven game over a first-person player driven game, and most will pick the character driven game. If gaming is to ever distinguish itself, it has to continue to step away from traditional non-interactive quirks like reacting to someone else's emotions instead of forming your own. Gaming of the future is you, the player. You blasting monsters (check), you going to Maui with Britney Spears, you being an undercover spy in Europe, you being the president of the United States, you living life blind or deaf or handicapped, and you, the gamer, being completely entrenched in the game. In this sense, adventure gaming is behind the times, and is a main reason for its decline. When we get to that point, when we can see what it's really like to live in starvation, to be a minority, to be oppressed, to experience a different culture, to do all of this by pushing a few buttons, then and only then will gaming really contribute somthing special to society. But then again, they wouldn't be called "games" anymore, would they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marek Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 I agree that game design still has a long way to go. However, allow me to disagree with some of the other things you said. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that adventure games need to be first-person in order to be more immersive and potentially more artistic. That doesn't make sense to me. It's like saying movies should all employ a restrictive narrative, which would shut out a whole range of possibilities (most notably suspense). I'd say each perspective has different pros and cons that can be exploited by the game designer. In saying that 3rd person perspective has the player "reacting to someone else's emotions instead of forming your own", I think you're forgetting that identifying with a character on the screen leads to the same catharsis (emotional release) as witnessing the events 'first hand'. When I play a 3rd person adventure game, I feel like I'm the protagonist, not a puppet master controlling his/her every move. One can argue endlessly about the definition of art, but a work definitely doesn't have to be socially relevant or "provoke thought within our lives" to be considered artistic. A random example: Van Gogh's sunflower paintings don't let me experience another culture, nor do they reflect upon my life. They're consider art based on aesthetics and the fact that they're a product of experimentation in a time when realism was the norm. There's a handful of current games that I'd actually consider art. Rez, for example, can be described as a repetitive shooter game where you tag opponents upon which they explode. It can also be described as a breathtaking synaesthesia set in an abstract world that changes in shape and color depending on the player's progress in the game. When you look at the subtext of the game you might even say that it explores some existential themes. Part of seeing it as art is recognizing games as an art form. It took movies decades to get such recognition, and it will be interesting to see how progress will be made in the field of game design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragou Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 Originally posted by SkoubyDoo Art is a very subjective term. Gaming has always been an entertainment medium. Many famous books are considered art because they offer a fresh new idea to our world and provoke thought within our lives. Television never does this, nor does music anymore, and only very few movies do it. Gaming has a LONG way to go before it produces a real piece of art. Until interactive software taps into our brain waves and gaming feels like dreaming, we have to hope for a game that uses the advantages of interactivity to add further insight into the human condition. And no, GTA doesn't do that. Eh? I think you have your persepectives somewhat wrong here. First, art isn't about being provokative. For me, art is more of giving the viewer/watcher/listener/gamer/whatever an experience that goes above what can be immediately drawn out. Music is more than a set of notes. A movie is more than a set of pictures. A picture is more than some colours arranged in a neat way. And a game is more than some mouse and keyboard clicks. Secondly you must have a very small perception of what music, movies and books are made nowadays. There is so much more than the the mainstream things that is perceived by the majority of people. Many adventure gamers would like to think adventures are the closest genre to achieving art. Art isn't some kind of goal to "achieve". First of all, if you take the interactivity away from these games, the stories are mediocre at best. None of the games add something to the human condition that really matters, they're just entertainment. Furthermore, most adventure fans/designers aren't looking in the right direction for innovation. I ask if you'd prefer a third-person character driven game over a first-person player driven game, and most will pick the character driven game. If gaming is to ever distinguish itself, it has to continue to step away from traditional non-interactive quirks like reacting to someone else's emotions instead of forming your own. I can agree that most AG:s doesn't have much of a storyline and character development (but that doesn't necessarily make them very bad). But you confuse terminology here. You seem to have an equivalence between first-person and character and that equivalence simply doesn't exist. A character driven game is where the characters in the game are important and drives the development within the game (something which you can't say about most first person games). First person vs third person is just a perspective and you need different perspectives for different intentions. Why there should be a limit to use just first or just third person is beyond me. Gaming of the future is you, the player. You blasting monsters (check), you going to Maui with Britney Spears, you being an undercover spy in Europe, you being the president of the United States, you living life blind or deaf or handicapped, and you, the gamer, being completely entrenched in the game. In this sense, adventure gaming is behind the times, and is a main reason for its decline. When we get to that point, when we can see what it's really like to live in starvation, to be a minority, to be oppressed, to experience a different culture, to do all of this by pushing a few buttons, then and only then will gaming really contribute somthing special to society. But then again, they wouldn't be called "games" anymore, would they? But you don't see that those things you have mention already is possible (even if some of them hasn't been realized). You play the President of USA in games like Civilization. Examples can be found for most of the other things you mention too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragou Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 And now I have listened to that show you referred us to Intrepid (I was surprised you didn't call into the show). While there were some interesting views there there were not very much I didn't know before. It was more of an education for those who don't know very much about games in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkoubyDoo Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 Originally posted by ragou Eh? I think you have your persepectives somewhat wrong here. First, art isn't about being provokative. For me, art is more of giving the viewer/watcher/listener/gamer/whatever an experience that goes above what can be immediately drawn out. Music is more than a set of notes. A movie is more than a set of pictures. A picture is more than some colours arranged in a neat way. And a game is more than some mouse and keyboard clicks. Secondly you must have a very small perception of what music, movies and books are made nowadays. There is so much more than the the mainstream things that is perceived by the majority of people. Ok I should state things clearer. There are two types of art: Art that is avant-garde and art that, as a whole, forms something greater than its parts. I feel most static art like painting and music draws you in because the artist's technique forms something even greater than musical tones or brush strokes (yes TLJ talks about this). Landmark books and movies are most often innovative and influential on the society, not just an aesthetic pleasure. This is what I was talking about with games. Sure games will be produced better and better, but I believe it's their innovation and influence, through qualities exclusive to the interactive industry, that will produce interactive works of art. I don't want it to sound like I hate games, I don't. I'm just realistic in seeing what's on the market now, and what art has been in the past. (And the VAST majority of books, music and movies today have no illusions on whether they're art or entertainment, why should we?) Art isn't some kind of goal to "achieve". Yea yea, don't get all high and mighty with me Patterson! I can agree that most AG:s doesn't have much of a storyline and character development (but that doesn't necessarily make them very bad). But you confuse terminology here. You seem to have an equivalence between first-person and character and that equivalence simply doesn't exist. A character driven game is where the characters in the game are important and drives the development within the game (something which you can't say about most first person games). First person vs third person is just a perspective and you need different perspectives for different intentions. Why there should be a limit to use just first or just third person is beyond me. I was addressing a common and often aesthetic familiarity between a first person perspective (being the character) and a third person perspective (seeing the character). Although these can be switched, that character you see, even if it's supposed to be you, will never truly be you, and vice versa. I don't want to make it sound like a third person perspective can't be used to convey an artistic or influential thought or story, books have done it for centuries. And that's really the point. The interactive part of gaming is what sets it apart from any other medium. Most adventure game developers are quick to use common narrative techniques in other mediums like movies and books instead of focusing on what makes gaming unique: interactivity. But you don't see that those things you have mention already is possible (even if some of them hasn't been realized). You play the President of USA in games like Civilization. Examples can be found for most of the other things you mention too. Oh I do see these games. I was more imagining what virtual reality will be like in the future, and how it could improve the world. Kinda got a little dreamy and off the point. My main point is this: the most popular games today allow a great degree of freedom, whether it be through the story, controls, character management, playbooks, etc. Adventure games are the least interactive genre, and that is the main reason for their decline. I want to make it clear that a game's main advantage over any other media is its interactivity, and that is what will legitimize it as an accepted media, not just a niche media, in the 21st century. When developers begin to use games as a tool for artistic expression, not just as pure entertainment, then gaming will become an art form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marek Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 Originally posted by SkoubyDoo Adventure games are the least interactive genre, and that is the main reason for their decline. Well said. There are other contributing factors, but yeah... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragou Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 Originally posted by SkoubyDoo I was addressing a common and often aesthetic familiarity between a first person perspective (being the character) and a third person perspective (seeing the character). Although these can be switched, that character you see, even if it's supposed to be you, will never truly be you, and vice versa. I don't want to make it sound like a third person perspective can't be used to convey an artistic or influential thought or story, books have done it for centuries. And that's really the point. The interactive part of gaming is what sets it apart from any other medium. Most adventure game developers are quick to use common narrative techniques in other mediums like movies and books instead of focusing on what makes gaming unique: interactivity. First person view doesn't make me "be" a character. A character you don't see and don't get to know what he/she feels/thinks about is a rather blank character and completely uninteresting. And for another matter, I don't want to get a story that is about me. I have enough of that in real life. Having a third person perspective makes the character more life-like and someone you sympathize with or hate or whatever. I agree though that interactivity is the strongest part of games. AG:s have a low stock in that department. The problem here is to have a story being told and at the same time be able to have some extent of freedom (all games have limits, even life has that). Oh I do see these games. I was more imagining what virtual reality will be like in the future, and how it could improve the world. Kinda got a little dreamy and off the point. My main point is this: the most popular games today allow a great degree of freedom, whether it be through the story, controls, character management, playbooks, etc. Adventure games are the least interactive genre, and that is the main reason for their decline. I want to make it clear that a game's main advantage over any other media is its interactivity, and that is what will legitimize it as an accepted media, not just a niche media, in the 21st century. When developers begin to use games as a tool for artistic expression, not just as pure entertainment, then gaming will become an art form. This I can agree more readily to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleto4_ryan Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 i am really interested in that "article" as one of the thinks i always say is how imnportand computer gaming is (had said in the past i found it pure art and all ) problem is ...is there any word document out there with the talk? i suck at hearing and also no broadband... I really like knowing that there are "grown-ups" out there with an enought open-mind to undersatand and grow the idea... i hope someone like that was in Greece. where only the "yellow" voices are mostly listened talking off the bad of games (and internet) (and who can forget the law that banned games ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homoludens Posted August 14, 2003 Author Share Posted August 14, 2003 Originally posted by pleto4_ryan ...is there any word document out there with the talk? i suck at hearing and also no broadband... You mean a transcript? No, none that is readily available online, I'm afraid. I believe, though, that you can order a transcript, but I don't think it's that compelling enough that you can't live without reading it. But if you're really, really intent, you can download the audio file into your hard drive, which should take a few hours (so do it overnight). Just right click the link and save it in a folder to listen to later. i am really interested in that "article" as one of the thinks i always say is how imnportand computer gaming is (had said in the past i found it pure art and all ) ...I really like knowing that there are "grown-ups" out there with an enought open-mind to undersatand and grow the idea... i hope someone like that was in Greece. where only the "yellow" voices are mostly listened talking off the bad of games (and internet) You just wait, pleto. The games industry grossed $6 million this past fiscal year, is seriously competing with television and Hollywood as a viable form of entertainment, is enjoyed by everyone in every age group, and is being invested in very heavily (the next Hitman game has been reported to have a budget of $43 million). Do you honestly think that the intellectuals, academics, and media would choose to ignore this? Originally posted by ragou And now I have listened to that show you referred us to Intrepid (I was surprised you didn't call into the show). While there were some interesting views there there were not very much I didn't know before. It was more of an education for those who don't know very much about games in general. I couldn't call into the show, as I didn't catch it live. I only found out afterwards when I customarily checked into the Odyssey site. As with many other Odyssey shows, this one isn't necessarily geared towards hardcore, academic analyses and discussion, so yes, it's directed towards a more curious general public. But I would love to hear a show that delves even deeper into games and gaming as such that we've talked about here. What I did really appreciate was the fact that Odyssey was basically telling people that games are far more complex than merely being violent, and with authority explaining why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pebsmith Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 Originally posted by Homoludens You just wait, pleto. The games industry grossed $6 million this past fiscal year I'm pretty sure you meant to say $6 Billion. $6 million would be a Hollywood bomb of epic proportions. I think intellectuals, academics and especially media can't ignore it in a financial sense, but talking heads who don't understand (of which there are plenty) will always dismiss it as a fad, ignoring at least 30 years of commerical video game history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homoludens Posted August 14, 2003 Author Share Posted August 14, 2003 Originally posted by pebsmith I'm pretty sure you meant to say $6 Billion. $6 million would be a Hollywood bomb of epic proportions. Yep, it's $6 billion. Originally posted by pebsmith I think intellectuals, academics and especially media can't ignore it in a financial sense, but talking heads who don't understand (of which there are plenty) will always dismiss it as a fad, ignoring at least 30 years of commerical video game history. Well, the 'A.I.M.s' (academis, intellectuals, media - heh heh) are paying attention not just because of the financial aspects, they're digging deeper than that. Usually, hugely successful industries like games are indicative of very strong cultural undertows and influences, particularly when they generate cults, controversies, vernacular, and even new lifestyles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twifkak Posted August 18, 2003 Share Posted August 18, 2003 Woah. A radio show with James Gee *AND* Henry Jenkins. You have to be kidding. Okay, I'm going to go pee in my pants now, then finish with this board, then listen to it, then post it to another board, and then read this thread. (Consider my day made, Trep.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homoludens Posted August 18, 2003 Author Share Posted August 18, 2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twifkak Posted August 18, 2003 Share Posted August 18, 2003 Originally posted by Homoludens ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homoludens Posted August 20, 2003 Author Share Posted August 20, 2003 I'm at work right now, listening to this show again. Good the second time around. I noticed that Henry Jenkins thinks that it's the wrong place to compare videogames to other popular media, particularly books and films, in terms of narrative qualities and aesthetics. His argument is that videogames as a media is far too young at this point to have developed the subtleties, vernacular, and refinement that otherwise took literature hundreds of years, and film a century, to cultivate. It also hinges on our current perspective - we have yet to truly take videogames as a serious medium to warrant such comparisons. I strongly agree with his argument, as many of us tend to automatically and easily compare them, forgetting that there's the one main defining characteristic of videogames, absent from film and literature, that's cause for a crucial departure : interactivity. My thought is that this vital element is what sparks a particular dynamic and results in one or more ways of experiencing it - collaboration with the game's writer/designer, altering the narrative direction based on highly personalized gameplay and/or character customization, collaborative/competitive experiences with other players in real time, or deviations from the overall narrative path as per player. In this sense videogames are pretty unique as a media in that they depend in part on the active participant. The only other forms I can think of that do this are improvisational theatre and performance art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twifkak Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Those who haven't, ought to read this fairly in-depth interview with Jenkins at gamecritics.com. A good number of questions are on the St. Louis thing, as that was news, but it's still an interesting read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleto4_ryan Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 trep....i totally agree with you in the second paragraph... for years i find computer gaming a much better way of art, communication, carrier of ideas etc... I mean it IS holding the best of the others....It has (can have) the wonderful plots of literature, it can have music of a higher quality etc... In a sence computer gaming is the next step after Cinema...It uses all the previouses and ads the one think you said...interactivity.... The player/reader/audience don't stay away from the happenings. It interacts with it in a major scale that makes this kind of creation the "best" of them all.... His argument is that videogames as a media is far too young at this point to have developed the subtleties, vernacular, and refinement that otherwise took literature hundreds of years, and film a century, to cultivate. I don't agree with this....computer gaming and videogames may be only 20-30 year old but that doesn't mean they are too young..they are just "a little" young. I mean if you look at it...literature needed hunderends of years and cinema only 100.... check this (from "Waking Life" ) If you're looking at the highlights of human development, you have to look at the evolution of the organism, and then add the development of the interaction with its environment. Evolution of the organism will begin with the evolution of life, proceeding through the hominid, coming to the evolution of mankind: neanderthal, cro-magnon man. Now, interestingly, what you're looking at here are three strains: biological, anthropological (development of cities, cultures), and cultural (which is human expression). Now, what you've seen here is the evolution of populations, not so much the evolution of individuals. And in addition, if you look at the time-scale that's involved here: two billion years for life, six million years for the hominid, a hundred-thousand years for mankind as we know it, you're beginning to see the telescoping nature of the evolutionary paradigm. And then, when you get to agriculture, when you get to the scientific revolution and the industrial revolution, you're looking at ten thousand years, four hundred years, a hundred and fifty years. You're seeing a further telescoping of this evolutionary time. What that means is that as we go through the new evolution, it's going to telescope to the point that we should see it manifest itself within our lifetimes, within a generation (from :click here ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twifkak Posted August 21, 2003 Share Posted August 21, 2003 I wonder if that "telescoping" look is just an effect of our viewpoint. I mean, there was technological development in the 1800s as well. There was probably cultural development in the neanderthal days, but we have no way of knowing. Nonetheless, it's an interesting point, and thanks for the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.