Video Games vs. Everything Else
Aug 29, 2006 21:34:57 GMT -5
Post by jameseightbitstar on Aug 29, 2006 21:34:57 GMT -5
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.
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.
