Our society is heavily influenced by language, simple fact. I get the impression that the title game is a derrogatory term and is largely one of the reasons video games are looked upon as frivolous time wasting. Although sports are truly just games, they carry very significant importance in our society. Which word carries a more positive connotation in your mind, sport, or game? Here is the dictionary definition for sport: 2. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively. Although it doesn''t exist, here''s a definition for video game that sounds about right as far as my experience goes. 1. An activity involving intellectual exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively. Movies are also not thought of as a waste of time because they have created their own set of terminology that has been used to cast the concept in a better light. I believe in making games a serious, widespread artform and pasttime the title game is going to have to be discarded because of the negative implications inherent in the word. So here''s what I propose, lets generate a more respectable set of terminology and start putting it into circulation. There''s no way what we''ve got can ever be taken a valid part of this culture when it is tied to such a negative term. Anyone have any ideas or comments? |)0Y: l337 5p34|< 4n0ny|\/|0u5

I like a lot of what Chris Crawford had to say in _The Art of Computer Game Design_. His overarching belief is that games arose in primitive animals as the most primal method of learning life's necessary skills. Your definition isn't bad either.

But to his and your definition, I would only add that a game must be enjoyable or fun. For if playing a game immediately and intensely recreated the senstation of being kicked in the nuts, I doubt I would continue doing so. And I suspect the sensation of fun arose as a primitive reward for playing games in order to encourage one to learn those skills.

I'll end with the appropriate Crawford quote:

"It is not games but schools that are the newfangled notion, the untested fad, the violator of tradition. Game-playing is a vital educational function for any creature capable of learning."



Edited by - varelse on January 28, 2002 6:01:59 PM

Game is a better word for what are now called video games than sport is, IMO.

There's no physical exertion in video games...just some hand-eye coordination.

I don't think 'game' is seen as a universally derrogatory term. Chess is called a game, but it is one that is not ridiculed by a large portion of the population (though they may ridicule the 'chess geek's' social skills).

I also disagree with your last statement. I think video games are already considered a valid part of our culture, at least as much as something so new can be. This didn't used to be the case, but with the popularity of fairly modern consoles (primarily the PlayStation to begin with), gaming has become a lot more mainstream than some people realize.

It took a long time for movies to be considered art instead of mindless entertainment, as it will with games...and even now many people don't give movies the same due as other, older art forms...that's just the way it is with 'art'.

Coming up with new terminology won't change any of this, it will just confuse people.


Edited by - gmcbay on January 28, 2002 6:35:07 PM

Doy, I agree with you, and this is a question I''ve pondered of late. In fact, aside from coming up with a pseudo-marketingesque jargon term ''intertainment'' (get it...interactive entertainment?? HA!), I couldn''t really come up with a single-word definition. I say single-word because it would help to make it more widely used. Interactive entertainment sounds dirty, for some reason.

But I think people detect a qualitative difference between ''film'' and ''movie'', and maybe we need some kind of subtle distinction for what games have become. But, I don''t think it has to be a term that makes video games sound like they''re ''better'' than other games. I mean, chess is a pretty classic game and nobody looks down their nose at chess champions. If anything, chess masters are considered great intellectuals.

R.

Well, my point being that games have the potential to be more than just games. They have the possibility of being not only intellectually challenging, but also philosophically engaging.

What I'm saying is the umbrella term "game" seems to limit the possibility of the genre in societies eye as never being able to achieve more than the status of a simple pasttime.

Like movies, thematic elements of games can range from pure entertainment to intense meaning (think Rush Hour 2(Tomb Raider) juxtaposed with Fight Club(Deus Ex))

Game implies that this field can never reach the point where people might simply undertake one because they feel not only will it be entertaining, but it will be an enlightening experience. This is a hard point to argue because this field is still in its cradle, but it seems to me that games have the possibility to achieve all of the meaning and insight that we commonly associate with many films and novels. In both films and novels the audience is forced to be an outsider -- a simple bystander. The author/director hands ideas to you, and hopes you take them.

Interactivity can blow this convention out of the water by presenting the audience with controversial situations in which they get to both form and affirm ideas and philosophies themselves. Learning about yourself, your ideas, and the ideas of those around you no longer has to be a passive activity (and hopefully you can have hella fun doing it) Games have already shown that they have the power to be emotionally profound (FF7) Also, I haven't met a person that has played through Silent Hill and considered it the most disturbing and frightening experience of his life (alone and at night, naturally). In fact, as far as fear goes, the only thing that has come close was the Blair Witch Project, and that cheated itself into being a game. I am convinced that the reason that show was so frightening was because it was filmed 1st person style, making everyone in the audience a pseudo-participant in the tale.

In short, games can become as profound as any great piece of literature, only be more effective in communicating ideas and entertaining because the audience is now part of the cast.
I personally don't want to tag anything with that much possibility a game anymore than I would want to call reading Plato's Great Dialogues a game.

Then again, perhaps I'm just a hopeless visionary.
Again, comments?


|)0Y: l337 5p34|< 4n0ny|\/|0u5

Edited by - Doy on January 28, 2002 7:16:07 PM

Edited by - Doy on January 28, 2002 7:17:46 PM

I think that it''s more important to change opinions through actions - through content that forces everyone to reevaluate their positions - rather than through attempts at "lobby"-like nomenclature issues. If you want video games to take on a broader social significance, create a true drama game where the story and interaction are seamless and convincing, and the user is left pondering something truly deep, dark, mysterious or beautiful.

Deus Ex, great as it is said to be (sorry, I don''t play FPSes), is still a shooter. It''s still linear. It''s still very limited. Until the cutting edge of your discipline can appeal to a very wide range of people (in the same way that Hollywood blockbusters can appeal to grandmothers), you won''t be taken seriously.

Cha-Ching!

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet Search Tool | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM [MSDN] | SGI STL Docs | Google! ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

True enough I suppose. However, I must disagree with you on Deus Ex, if you haven't played it you should. The game has many points at which the story can take many complicated turns (whether you save your brother or not, at which point you join the resistance, etc.) The most profound point in the game was the ending, in which it asked the player to truly evaluate and choose a future for the world (reverting to medieval times and closer family ties, remaining a capitalist society, or allowing a benevolent computer to take control of the human race) It asked you to ponder what you value most, close knit societal ties, a stable and free-flowing exchange of ideas and trade, or an easy life under guidance.

The last issue addressed was particularly profound because it asked an analysis of whether you value happiness or your basic human rights as more important.

The ending cinematics left much to be desired, but the game on the whole I found was a cut above the rest.

|)0Y: l337 5p34|< 4n0ny|\/|0u5

Edited by - Doy on January 28, 2002 8:07:23 PM

For what it''s worth, I would prefer to differentiate between video game, simulator, game, and something else like computer game.

To me, video game is what you play in the arcades, on your gameboy, and most consoles. I did that stuff years ago. I have little interest in those types of games anymore. I think as most people get older, they like them less. Sometimes a really good one will come along, and get my attention.

In the arcades, you might also find a very high end racing game with motion seats, big screen, or even an actual car that you sit in. This is closer to a simulator, and has its appeal.

Other games, such as card games like hearts, variants of rummy, poker, or board games like backgammon, chess, scrabble, and so forth are timeless, and appeal to all ages.

Computer games have potential, if we could get some very sophisticated AI which is able to provide truly dynamic and consistent plotting with realistic agents, super sampled high resolution graphics, and so on.

At the moment, I don''t see "video games" getting a whole lot more respect than they get right now. They don''t really have mine.

___________________________________

quote:

---

Original post by Doy
Well, my point being that games have the potential to be more than just games. They have the possibility of being not only intellectually challenging, but also philosophically engaging.

What I''m saying is the umbrella term "game" seems to limit the possibility of the genre in societies eye as never being able to achieve more than the status of a simple pasttime.

---

I don''t think you''re a hopeless visionary. What you want to see games become is the same as many people in these forums, myself included. But, I do think you''re putting the cart before the horse. Changing the name won''t change the game. We have to make games that are worthy of smashing this societal tag...otherwise it just becomes another buzzword with no meaning.

As much as you apparently liked Deus Ex (and I agree, it was an excellent game) it still fell short in a lot of areas, and despite small fits in that direction, it didn''t provide the multi-linearity it promised. Saving your brother or not saving him had little impact on the end result, just as an example.

It made good steps in the right direction, but it has a long way to go.

quote:

---

Original post by Tacit
Changing the name won''t change the game. We have to make games that are worthy of smashing this societal tag...otherwise it just becomes another buzzword with no meaning.

---

Good point.

How about, instead of giving it a new word, give it a new definition. Change what comes to people''s minds when they think of video games.