The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Games are escapism, right? So why can't you escape when you're in a game? Let me give you an example: The Star Wars series of games - Bounty Hunter was meant to be a game where you can be stealthy, but the developers put too much emphasis on being Jango Fett. The Clone Wars lets you control teams of clones and fly ships and stuff, but it's very limited in how you go about it. I just ordered "Dropship" off a certain website, but when I get it I'm not going to be part of a peacekeeping corp. - I'm gonna be Mace Windu, Kit Fisto, Yoda, or whoever the hell I want to be!
And this leads me nicely into the point of this topic. When you play a game, what do you see? Do you emerse yourself to the point where you believe that you are the character, or do you you just think that it's all a load of code, x does this and y does that according to design? The answer is both. When our eyes see the action on the screen, messages are sent to our brains that trigger parts of the body to act and feel certain ways. If a game is done well (good cut-scenes, good gameplay etc...) it can feel like you're part of the action and our bodies will be stimulated by this.
But then on the other hand, it's a load of code written by someone else for your entertainment. Games can't think for themselves, they're all pre-programmed to act certain ways depending on changes around them. What you see is a picture rendered by someone in a small room in Hackney, or something. It's not real, but your body reacts to it like it is. The very notion that you can sit down and be transported to another place and be someone, or something else seems far fetched, but that's exactly what's happening.
Metaphorically speaking, it all depends on which buttons need to be pushed. Have you ever wondered why you're no good at running, but still enjoy the rush of beating your mates at International Track & Field? Or why blasting aliens is so much fun, even though you've never shot anyone before? Different people's brains respond to different actions and stimuli in different ways. The job of the programmer is to trigger these feelings and emotions to help you be part of the game. Did you ever see that Whiskas advert that was meant to be for cats? Lots of flashing lights and contrasting colours that apparently cats could interpret, but we couldn't. It wasn't 100% true though. Different cats would react in different ways, some weren't even bothered at all.
How many times have you picked a game based on your favourite film or TV series and thought it was going to be amazing, only to be let down by poor coding or design work? This happens frequently, as the transition from one medium to another can lose any empathy that may have been felt for certain aspects of it. Games developers nowadays concentrate a lot more on catching the 'feel' of a film or TV series for games, sometimes even incorporating new areas of plots that were never shown originally. Fans will see this and be able to become part of their favourite shows.
But wouldn't this make computer games the perfect medium? If you walk up the street you can see, hear and interact with objects, the same as you would in a game. With the introduction of broadband gaming you'll soon be able to interact with real, live people in all manner of activities. Games let you do anything you can do in real life and much, much more that you'd never be able to do. But there's still a marked difference to how we react to 'real' objects and those within a game. As soon as developers work out how to trigger our senses in the same way as real-life does, the line between gaming and reality will become more and more blurred.
And this leads me nicely into the point of this topic. When you play a game, what do you see? Do you emerse yourself to the point where you believe that you are the character, or do you you just think that it's all a load of code, x does this and y does that according to design? The answer is both. When our eyes see the action on the screen, messages are sent to our brains that trigger parts of the body to act and feel certain ways. If a game is done well (good cut-scenes, good gameplay etc...) it can feel like you're part of the action and our bodies will be stimulated by this.
But then on the other hand, it's a load of code written by someone else for your entertainment. Games can't think for themselves, they're all pre-programmed to act certain ways depending on changes around them. What you see is a picture rendered by someone in a small room in Hackney, or something. It's not real, but your body reacts to it like it is. The very notion that you can sit down and be transported to another place and be someone, or something else seems far fetched, but that's exactly what's happening.
Metaphorically speaking, it all depends on which buttons need to be pushed. Have you ever wondered why you're no good at running, but still enjoy the rush of beating your mates at International Track & Field? Or why blasting aliens is so much fun, even though you've never shot anyone before? Different people's brains respond to different actions and stimuli in different ways. The job of the programmer is to trigger these feelings and emotions to help you be part of the game. Did you ever see that Whiskas advert that was meant to be for cats? Lots of flashing lights and contrasting colours that apparently cats could interpret, but we couldn't. It wasn't 100% true though. Different cats would react in different ways, some weren't even bothered at all.
How many times have you picked a game based on your favourite film or TV series and thought it was going to be amazing, only to be let down by poor coding or design work? This happens frequently, as the transition from one medium to another can lose any empathy that may have been felt for certain aspects of it. Games developers nowadays concentrate a lot more on catching the 'feel' of a film or TV series for games, sometimes even incorporating new areas of plots that were never shown originally. Fans will see this and be able to become part of their favourite shows.
But wouldn't this make computer games the perfect medium? If you walk up the street you can see, hear and interact with objects, the same as you would in a game. With the introduction of broadband gaming you'll soon be able to interact with real, live people in all manner of activities. Games let you do anything you can do in real life and much, much more that you'd never be able to do. But there's still a marked difference to how we react to 'real' objects and those within a game. As soon as developers work out how to trigger our senses in the same way as real-life does, the line between gaming and reality will become more and more blurred.
Page:
I see them with my feet!
I see them as a superior form of entertainment that can be either casually enjoyed or wholely appreciated.
slik ~_~
slik ~_~
I see them as fun!
monkey_man wrote:
> How do you see computer games?
With my eyes. Har har!
> How do you see computer games?
With my eyes. Har har!
Don't tell him they can beat us at chess.
My brother is obsessed with the fact artificial intelligence is going to kill him and take over the world. He says this based on the fact that his TiVo records programs for him without asking.
Best not tell him about any real super computers :)
Best not tell him about any real super computers :)
Good response Dr Gonzo. What I'm trying to say is that the pinnacle of gaming will be where it can't be distinguished from real-life - although that sounds more like science fiction! I haven't got any alliegance to any console brand, in fact most of the games I own were bought purely on the premise that they would offer something different. What you've said about the mulitplayer aspect of gaming is spot on - it adds a totally different dimension to single player gaming, taking situations that are repeated over and over and adding the 'human touch', where computer generated randomness is replaced by human thinking.
No computer has so far been able to match up to this. People say that Deep Blue and other supercomputers will take over the Earth, but take a look at what they've done: they beat people at chess. Whoop-dee-doo. Chess is defined by Maths - of course it was going to win, it can predict every single movement you could possibly make in the blink of an eye and produce counter-offences. Humans aren't made of maths and they can be random, irrational - a whole plethora of attributes that a computer would never be.
This is straying far too close into AI territory for my liking. Stray back, stray back!
No computer has so far been able to match up to this. People say that Deep Blue and other supercomputers will take over the Earth, but take a look at what they've done: they beat people at chess. Whoop-dee-doo. Chess is defined by Maths - of course it was going to win, it can predict every single movement you could possibly make in the blink of an eye and produce counter-offences. Humans aren't made of maths and they can be random, irrational - a whole plethora of attributes that a computer would never be.
This is straying far too close into AI territory for my liking. Stray back, stray back!
Job of the coder has nothing to do with triggering senses. His job is to create a world where the game can take place. As I by product of that you will naturally feel emotions when you play games, but it isn't because of any trigger laid into the game.
You sound a little like you've bought too much of the Sony propaganda machine and their laughable "emotion engine" tosh. People generally only have competitive reactions to games. Very basic things like excitement because you are outperforming your competitor. This has very little to do with any technical aspects of the game - I felt excited when I beat my brother at Night Drive 18 years ago.
You rarely empathise with your main character as he is replicable so therefore there is no loss when he is killed/injured as you know he'll pop up again two seconds later. You may feel a little disappointed at his loss, though that a competitive feeling again - you're sad you've lost a life, not that the character is suffering.
Fact is computer games can't create a world where you suspend you're disbeliefs enough to really invest any emotion. You're too interactive; you know your actions rule over this world and that to you have total control over the outcome. In a book or film you can't do either - you are reacting to what happens rather than being proactively involved like you are in a game. Therefore when something sad happens you feel sad for the character rather than being cross that you're loosing.
There is the more modern aspect of things being taken out of your hands and done in a cut scene, but that’s not really gaming.
You sound a little like you've bought too much of the Sony propaganda machine and their laughable "emotion engine" tosh. People generally only have competitive reactions to games. Very basic things like excitement because you are outperforming your competitor. This has very little to do with any technical aspects of the game - I felt excited when I beat my brother at Night Drive 18 years ago.
You rarely empathise with your main character as he is replicable so therefore there is no loss when he is killed/injured as you know he'll pop up again two seconds later. You may feel a little disappointed at his loss, though that a competitive feeling again - you're sad you've lost a life, not that the character is suffering.
Fact is computer games can't create a world where you suspend you're disbeliefs enough to really invest any emotion. You're too interactive; you know your actions rule over this world and that to you have total control over the outcome. In a book or film you can't do either - you are reacting to what happens rather than being proactively involved like you are in a game. Therefore when something sad happens you feel sad for the character rather than being cross that you're loosing.
There is the more modern aspect of things being taken out of your hands and done in a cut scene, but that’s not really gaming.
Games are escapism, right? So why can't you escape when you're in a game? Let me give you an example: The Star Wars series of games - Bounty Hunter was meant to be a game where you can be stealthy, but the developers put too much emphasis on being Jango Fett. The Clone Wars lets you control teams of clones and fly ships and stuff, but it's very limited in how you go about it. I just ordered "Dropship" off a certain website, but when I get it I'm not going to be part of a peacekeeping corp. - I'm gonna be Mace Windu, Kit Fisto, Yoda, or whoever the hell I want to be!
And this leads me nicely into the point of this topic. When you play a game, what do you see? Do you emerse yourself to the point where you believe that you are the character, or do you you just think that it's all a load of code, x does this and y does that according to design? The answer is both. When our eyes see the action on the screen, messages are sent to our brains that trigger parts of the body to act and feel certain ways. If a game is done well (good cut-scenes, good gameplay etc...) it can feel like you're part of the action and our bodies will be stimulated by this.
But then on the other hand, it's a load of code written by someone else for your entertainment. Games can't think for themselves, they're all pre-programmed to act certain ways depending on changes around them. What you see is a picture rendered by someone in a small room in Hackney, or something. It's not real, but your body reacts to it like it is. The very notion that you can sit down and be transported to another place and be someone, or something else seems far fetched, but that's exactly what's happening.
Metaphorically speaking, it all depends on which buttons need to be pushed. Have you ever wondered why you're no good at running, but still enjoy the rush of beating your mates at International Track & Field? Or why blasting aliens is so much fun, even though you've never shot anyone before? Different people's brains respond to different actions and stimuli in different ways. The job of the programmer is to trigger these feelings and emotions to help you be part of the game. Did you ever see that Whiskas advert that was meant to be for cats? Lots of flashing lights and contrasting colours that apparently cats could interpret, but we couldn't. It wasn't 100% true though. Different cats would react in different ways, some weren't even bothered at all.
How many times have you picked a game based on your favourite film or TV series and thought it was going to be amazing, only to be let down by poor coding or design work? This happens frequently, as the transition from one medium to another can lose any empathy that may have been felt for certain aspects of it. Games developers nowadays concentrate a lot more on catching the 'feel' of a film or TV series for games, sometimes even incorporating new areas of plots that were never shown originally. Fans will see this and be able to become part of their favourite shows.
But wouldn't this make computer games the perfect medium? If you walk up the street you can see, hear and interact with objects, the same as you would in a game. With the introduction of broadband gaming you'll soon be able to interact with real, live people in all manner of activities. Games let you do anything you can do in real life and much, much more that you'd never be able to do. But there's still a marked difference to how we react to 'real' objects and those within a game. As soon as developers work out how to trigger our senses in the same way as real-life does, the line between gaming and reality will become more and more blurred.
And this leads me nicely into the point of this topic. When you play a game, what do you see? Do you emerse yourself to the point where you believe that you are the character, or do you you just think that it's all a load of code, x does this and y does that according to design? The answer is both. When our eyes see the action on the screen, messages are sent to our brains that trigger parts of the body to act and feel certain ways. If a game is done well (good cut-scenes, good gameplay etc...) it can feel like you're part of the action and our bodies will be stimulated by this.
But then on the other hand, it's a load of code written by someone else for your entertainment. Games can't think for themselves, they're all pre-programmed to act certain ways depending on changes around them. What you see is a picture rendered by someone in a small room in Hackney, or something. It's not real, but your body reacts to it like it is. The very notion that you can sit down and be transported to another place and be someone, or something else seems far fetched, but that's exactly what's happening.
Metaphorically speaking, it all depends on which buttons need to be pushed. Have you ever wondered why you're no good at running, but still enjoy the rush of beating your mates at International Track & Field? Or why blasting aliens is so much fun, even though you've never shot anyone before? Different people's brains respond to different actions and stimuli in different ways. The job of the programmer is to trigger these feelings and emotions to help you be part of the game. Did you ever see that Whiskas advert that was meant to be for cats? Lots of flashing lights and contrasting colours that apparently cats could interpret, but we couldn't. It wasn't 100% true though. Different cats would react in different ways, some weren't even bothered at all.
How many times have you picked a game based on your favourite film or TV series and thought it was going to be amazing, only to be let down by poor coding or design work? This happens frequently, as the transition from one medium to another can lose any empathy that may have been felt for certain aspects of it. Games developers nowadays concentrate a lot more on catching the 'feel' of a film or TV series for games, sometimes even incorporating new areas of plots that were never shown originally. Fans will see this and be able to become part of their favourite shows.
But wouldn't this make computer games the perfect medium? If you walk up the street you can see, hear and interact with objects, the same as you would in a game. With the introduction of broadband gaming you'll soon be able to interact with real, live people in all manner of activities. Games let you do anything you can do in real life and much, much more that you'd never be able to do. But there's still a marked difference to how we react to 'real' objects and those within a game. As soon as developers work out how to trigger our senses in the same way as real-life does, the line between gaming and reality will become more and more blurred.
Page: