quote: Original post by Andru
They should however, be "entertaining". That is, after all, the whole point of any game, computer or otherwise, to entertain.

I think when people start considering games an "artform" is when games will start getting too pretentious, and forget that games are made to entertain, not impress.

Do you want to be flamed? 'Cuz if you do you couldn't have asked in a nicer way.
Isn't the purpose of films as well to entertain? Has that been hampered or helped by the fact that movie making is now considered an artform. How do you explain that some of the most 'entertaining' films are those with sad endings!?
This is the kind of vapid philosophy that prevents games from being taken serious as an entertainment medium!

Even in movies there is a group of people who cannot watch a film that doesn't have an all smiles ending, where all the bad guys renounce thier evil, decide 'crime doesn't pay' and join the protagonists to sing Kumbaya to the setting sun.
But I Thank God that movie makers did not allow these people to define thier medium.
And i hope opinions like those you've stated will be treated with just as much value as all that other crap they used to say about films!

[edited by - thelurch on October 27, 2002 2:50:34 AM]

thelurch:

as mentioned previously by other people, the fact is there is a major difference between cinema and games. the point of playing a game is to PLAY it, not to passively sit and watch a story unfold (emotional or not). whereas cinema is about the story.

it''s too simplistic to say "well films sometimes have depressing endings, let''s slap a "your best friends die" ending on our game and bam, the player will feel upset".

a movie concentrates on a narrative, develops the characters, and if the characters are developed well then the audience will care what happens to them. i find games do not develop characters well enough to care whether they live and die (to the same extent as films), and so they shouldn''t.

i find games like final fantasy poor attempts at film-game hybrids... they do a shoddy job on gameplay combined with a cliche tired storyline... i''d rather play games with interesting GAMEPLAY (god bless the gamecube) and then go read a book or watch a movie. games shouldn''t be guiding your character to the next plot development trigger.

quote:
i find games like final fantasy poor attempts at film-game hybrids... they do a shoddy job on gameplay combined with a cliche tired storyline... i''d rather play games with interesting GAMEPLAY (god bless the gamecube) and then go read a book or watch a movie

I personally find FF games to have a very deep impact on me (particularly 7 and 10). As an artform, games can be used to generate the same kind of atmosphere as with a movie or a novel. However, the interactivity with the game thouroughly makes it a much more enjoyable experience. There is a lot more to gain from a story driven game, such as FF, than from sitting back and watching a movie. As was said before, you are much more attached, and this gets your emotions running.

Aside from FF, yes, i love games with great gameplay as well, and i can''t sit their and only play story driven games my whole life. There is a market for all types of games. Everyone has their own opinion of what they wish to get out of a game. As long as people start to consider games as an artform, we are sure to get some magnificent games for all types of gamers. Everyone can have something they enjoy. There is no one given format that applies to everyone (although currently thats how the developers seem to think). Hopefully people will continue to see this as time goes by.

I think the problem with comparing films to games is that we make them so complex. First, you have to define waht a film is, then what a game is. Then you must argue over the properties of the game and the film, and then define those properties. As a second last step, you compare definitions and finally realize that this does not matter at all, because every single game is unique and every single moview is unique.

¬_¬

But all games have things in common and all movies have things in common...

Personally I think they''re very different and you can''t really make a game without a satisfying ending without expecting to annoy your players. As stated previously, with a game you make a personal investment that you don''t make for a film, and you correlate success in the game with good decisions on your part. Similarly, feeling helpless to affect the outcome is normal in a film but woefully annoying in a game. If you disregard these points and wilfully harm the player''s character despite the flawless actions of the player, you''re just going to frustrate and annoy them. Sure, a small minority won''t mind, but the vast majority of people know the difference between film and games and pick the appropriate genre depending on how they wish to be entertained, and blurring the choices simply makes it harder for consumers to get the type of enjoyment that they want.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff ]

quote: Original post by Fuzztrek
...every single game is unique and every single moview is unique...

that''s debatable

-eldee
;another space monkey;
[ Forced Evolution Studios ]

Do NOT let Dr. Mario touch your genitals. He is not a real doctor!

"Satisfying" being the operative word. While I do disagree with having a completly horrible ending, you can''t make it too predictable. And you need some sort of storyline to hold the whole game together. I think too many movies and games these days are either:

A) Too predictable
B) Too lame, with little storyline.
C) Have no storyline.

I think this is where "entertainment value" comes into play. Entertainment does not mean being scared, or laughing. Entertainment is not just the blood/gore/killing aspect of the game, and it is not the "click-fest" aspect of the game. Some people feel that it is, and I really don''t know how anyone could come to that conclusion.

Perhaps the real point is that people do not like to be disapointed. As a collective, people do not like being disapointed. As unique beings, each person likes something different.. being scared.. laughing.. etc. But no one likes to be disapointed.

As long as the user is satisfied, the game is good. From this ratings can be developed.

Was the user satisfied with the graphics?
Was the user satisfied with the gameplay?
Was the user satisfied with the storyline?

If these questions are answered "yes" on an initial game play period of say.. 15 minutes, I believe you are on the right track to accessing the players emotions. If the player does not like one of these things, say the graphics, it will be much harder to access his/her emotions.

Fuzztrek

¬_¬

Kylotan-

Why limit games to such pre-conceived notions though? Comic books started out as kids entertainment, a way for adolescents to fantasize about being powerful or just relishing in the fantasy of having such amazing beings exist. But as time wore on, writers realized that comics could be more than mere adolescent entertainment and they strove to wrote stories with some pretty powerful messages and meaning.

Creating games and limiting them to what people perceive they are merely restricts game designers to small possibilities. I think computer games can and should be better than that. Indeed, I wince at the word "game" and instead think "interactive experience". And besides, how will we know what people truly want unless we try? Indeed the most succesful games are ones that many "gamers" would balk at (Myst, any "Hunter" game, any "Barbie" game, etc etc.)

The important thing to realize is that the player must gain something positive out of the game. Not necessarily a happy ending, but something that the player can personally take in and make him feel better about himself in some way....though not necessarily entertainment. If we limit games to "entertainment", then we strangle the medium without ever giving it a chance to grow. I don''t know if you read comics, but imagine if there had never been a "The Watchmen", or a "Dark Knight Returns". Imagine if the American populace was never given a chance to see Akira, or Ghost in the Shell because people assumed animation was for children.

Emotional experiences can and should be encouraged in games, and not necessarily just happy ones. The only requirement is that the player should feel that he has gained something....be it wisdom, more knowledge, sympathy or whatever. What will make the player "enjoy" the game is that he gained something out of it. If fun is all that game designers ever want to create, then that''s the same thinking as people who believe comics or animation should only be for children. Just because people have certain notions about what a movie is or what a game is doesn''t mean that we should not explore and push the boundaries of what can be done. To discourage exploration of new paradigms for games seems much too limiting to me.

Woo hoo! My very favorite topic!

Seriously, I agree with Dauntless 100%. But I think its funny when people argue over whether or not Games should be considered an artform lol, they already are! It doesn''t matter what you CALL them, the fact is that practically every game released these days is a work of art as well as entertainment, easily as well as any film. As for whether games should be compared to films, I take a somewhat different approach -- I think of games as "What Film Should Be." Don''t bother posting it here, but please admit to yourself how many times in your life you''ve been watching a movie and thought "Don''t do it! Don''t you [go back to her/go in there/pull the trigger]!" or even "Man, if I were writing this film I would have taken it a totally different direction." Film is to games as photography is to film -- its one more step along the evolution of the story-telling medium, but each will always have its place. It could be argued that "moving pictures" allow viewers to become more attached to the characters because they can follow them through time, not just view a tiny slice of the character''s life.

I could go on about the film/games thing but I want to move on to what really matters to me. I don''t care that some people don''t like the idea of story-driven games or emotional games, I''m going to work off of the knowledge that SOME PEOPLE DO want games like that. Including me. So the real issue to me is, how do we get them?

I want to be a game designer/developer some day, but sadly I''m not. I know there are a lot of people like me who feel that games can be something more than they are, that they can immerse and involve players more than ever before. But I don''t want to wait until I''m 40 to get them. I am tired of people saying it "Can''t Be Done/Shouldn''t Be Done." I''m an action-oriented individual; I want to prove to the world that it CAN be done and that it SHOULD be done. I can do it, but so could someone else, given the resources.

In other words, I need to take an active stance and make sure that SOMEONE DOES IT. But how can we show the world that this is needed, unless those of us who feel strongly about it work together to DO it?

Who''s with me?


Brian Lacy
Smoking Monkey Studios

Comments? Questions? Curious?
brian@smoking-monkey.org

"I create. Therefore I am."

games as art:
This is always going to be arguable, but you don''t sit down and think "I''m gonna make a work of art now" anyway. You make the best game that you can and if people see it as art then so much the better, but if not then at least you have a fun game.

emotion:
I know that this has already been said, but getting the player emotionally attached to a character is the key. Grim Fandango really did this to me.

endings:
Happy, sad, whatever. As long as it is something the player will be glad he experienced.

(I tried to be brief with this, since I really need to get back to work making my game...)