The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 have been renowned for being fun and exciting. They involve gamers participate in some kind of activities and basically they help people relax and forget about their worries at least for a few hours. So it does come as a surprise that some games are not only beneficial to us in a way that they distract us and involve us in their storylines, but they also help us acquire certain knowledge on the topics touched in the game. Now people may argue that many games only give us knowledge that is only really relevant within the concerned game. All RPG's and most adventure games provide the player with heaps of information about the dark forces, magic, background stories and the like. Basically there would be no use for that information at work, in school or at home (unless you want to be a know-all and run a help desk at lunchtimes so your mates can get help on games). But there are titles that prefer to stick with factual records and events to create a more believable environment.
It is pretty straightforward to understand that there is no need for educational games on consoles for two reasons A) there is specific PC software for that and B)Its going to attract less customers than a half-rushed Army Men Game...Games are supposed to be fun; people do not want to be reminded of studying or engaging their brain in any way. They just want to switch their thinking devices off and simply stare at the silver screens for the duration of the evening. This is probably why games that try to incorporate educational methods pretty much without having any storylines or action to it, get big fat scores of 1 from magazines.
But what about the games that are originally based around a winning formula and then try to take account of certain issues that are likely to teach the gamer something without actually making them throw a game in the bin. Admittedly, this is not an easy thing to do and at times things can go horribly wrong for the developers. If they decide to go for too much information and for little gameplay, the game will become a sort of an interactive book. If it has too much action and not enough information, people will complain about a weak plot and little facts to work with. So the balance needs to be exactly spot-on in order to avoid gamers getting confused and overwhelmed with the information at hand.
Info (be it real or totally fictional) can be passed on to the gamer in a number of ways. This may be done using a narrative, which can consist of FMVs or some ways of character interaction (Codec in MGS2). This is naturally the most popular way of moving the story forward and making the gamer aware of the plot. This is basically when the player does not get a chance to shape the plot the way he would like to. He may be left guessing what is going to happen next and imagine the following scenes but he hasn’t actually got an upper hand in what is about to happen. It is like watching a film after reading the book of the film. A film only portrays the director’s view of events; you may think that the scene at hand happened in a different place in different circumstances. This is why some films may disappoint fans of books.
Another way of presenting the information is just having it there. This could be achieved by just providing the player with a brief, a location and then the player is welcome to shape the story in any way he likes. Presently, this only works well with strategy games, where players are able to choose what kind of a player they will be-will they be the all-conquering pirate type, or the friendly ambassador type? The player does not just play a chunk of a pre-set code and watches another predictable cut-scene. Developers are now trying to incorporate similar features into their games and try and relate them to real-life issues.
Now you may think I went off-topic there, but infact I was contemplating that the types of presenting the data can make for a totally different game. Lets look at the popular Civilisation series…The game provides the player with a number of options which in itself are pretty useful to look into. The games featured a short profile on every playable character that provided the gamer with useful information on their personality, tactical knowledge in the like. The player had to read the info to be more successful at the game, and at the same time memorised the interesting facts that were presented to him. In similar fashion, the game taught the player about different terrain types and ways of producing goods. Whereas it was essential info in the game itself, who says it cannot come in handy during a geography lesson in school. And the best thing about it all was, that the information never seemed to be pointless and boring. The player was quite happy to sit through tutorials or discover more relevant facts because it benefited the gameplay and didn’t take any fun out of it.
Games like this are not entirely based (meaning they have not been edited so that they look more like documentaries) around the facts of the real world. They are games that fall under certain genres and the information used to either educate or inform the players is of course optional. On the other hand we have games such as Dynasty Warriors series. They are based in environments that require certain background knowledge in order to achieve the required effect. The game is totally based around factual events and again the research done by the development team has been input into the game. Ok there are a number of cut-scenes to help the story rally along but the top-notch action manages to balance out the information on the dynasties involved in the war and numerous tactical plans.
Some games manage to do something much more important than passing on certain facts about something or another. They introduce a different culture to the players in other parts of the world. The best example of that is definitely the Madden, NHL and NBA series. Considering that neither American footie, ice hockey or basketball can exactly be considered UK’s national sports, they more or less introduce the activity to the players. In my opinion the people of the world should not be slagging games like that for “stealing” their children from them, because these games may encourage youngsters to take up new sports. Yes after playing a basketball game, there is every possibility of the child saying “Ah, that look pretty cool. I think I will have a go at that”. For all we know games may help raise Olympic champions and celebrities. Same goes for music and rhythm games. They also may introduce the culture of a country to our homes. Not only do we find out about the given country, but we get introduced to various fun and exciting things to do!
So after all games are not bad for us. Maybe some titles could corrupt young kids or scare them to death, but there games are supposed to bring fun to our homes. And if the developers also consider the needs of gamers, thinking about their education and that by making a fun game they can also pass information along that may come useful in one situation or another. Games can teach us a lot just like books and documentaries do. If adults just move away from an image of games being evil, brain-shattering, conscience-corrupting types of media, we can all live happily knowing that games are good for us in more ways that one.
It is pretty straightforward to understand that there is no need for educational games on consoles for two reasons A) there is specific PC software for that and B)Its going to attract less customers than a half-rushed Army Men Game...Games are supposed to be fun; people do not want to be reminded of studying or engaging their brain in any way. They just want to switch their thinking devices off and simply stare at the silver screens for the duration of the evening. This is probably why games that try to incorporate educational methods pretty much without having any storylines or action to it, get big fat scores of 1 from magazines.
But what about the games that are originally based around a winning formula and then try to take account of certain issues that are likely to teach the gamer something without actually making them throw a game in the bin. Admittedly, this is not an easy thing to do and at times things can go horribly wrong for the developers. If they decide to go for too much information and for little gameplay, the game will become a sort of an interactive book. If it has too much action and not enough information, people will complain about a weak plot and little facts to work with. So the balance needs to be exactly spot-on in order to avoid gamers getting confused and overwhelmed with the information at hand.
Info (be it real or totally fictional) can be passed on to the gamer in a number of ways. This may be done using a narrative, which can consist of FMVs or some ways of character interaction (Codec in MGS2). This is naturally the most popular way of moving the story forward and making the gamer aware of the plot. This is basically when the player does not get a chance to shape the plot the way he would like to. He may be left guessing what is going to happen next and imagine the following scenes but he hasn’t actually got an upper hand in what is about to happen. It is like watching a film after reading the book of the film. A film only portrays the director’s view of events; you may think that the scene at hand happened in a different place in different circumstances. This is why some films may disappoint fans of books.
Another way of presenting the information is just having it there. This could be achieved by just providing the player with a brief, a location and then the player is welcome to shape the story in any way he likes. Presently, this only works well with strategy games, where players are able to choose what kind of a player they will be-will they be the all-conquering pirate type, or the friendly ambassador type? The player does not just play a chunk of a pre-set code and watches another predictable cut-scene. Developers are now trying to incorporate similar features into their games and try and relate them to real-life issues.
Now you may think I went off-topic there, but infact I was contemplating that the types of presenting the data can make for a totally different game. Lets look at the popular Civilisation series…The game provides the player with a number of options which in itself are pretty useful to look into. The games featured a short profile on every playable character that provided the gamer with useful information on their personality, tactical knowledge in the like. The player had to read the info to be more successful at the game, and at the same time memorised the interesting facts that were presented to him. In similar fashion, the game taught the player about different terrain types and ways of producing goods. Whereas it was essential info in the game itself, who says it cannot come in handy during a geography lesson in school. And the best thing about it all was, that the information never seemed to be pointless and boring. The player was quite happy to sit through tutorials or discover more relevant facts because it benefited the gameplay and didn’t take any fun out of it.
Games like this are not entirely based (meaning they have not been edited so that they look more like documentaries) around the facts of the real world. They are games that fall under certain genres and the information used to either educate or inform the players is of course optional. On the other hand we have games such as Dynasty Warriors series. They are based in environments that require certain background knowledge in order to achieve the required effect. The game is totally based around factual events and again the research done by the development team has been input into the game. Ok there are a number of cut-scenes to help the story rally along but the top-notch action manages to balance out the information on the dynasties involved in the war and numerous tactical plans.
Some games manage to do something much more important than passing on certain facts about something or another. They introduce a different culture to the players in other parts of the world. The best example of that is definitely the Madden, NHL and NBA series. Considering that neither American footie, ice hockey or basketball can exactly be considered UK’s national sports, they more or less introduce the activity to the players. In my opinion the people of the world should not be slagging games like that for “stealing” their children from them, because these games may encourage youngsters to take up new sports. Yes after playing a basketball game, there is every possibility of the child saying “Ah, that look pretty cool. I think I will have a go at that”. For all we know games may help raise Olympic champions and celebrities. Same goes for music and rhythm games. They also may introduce the culture of a country to our homes. Not only do we find out about the given country, but we get introduced to various fun and exciting things to do!
So after all games are not bad for us. Maybe some titles could corrupt young kids or scare them to death, but there games are supposed to bring fun to our homes. And if the developers also consider the needs of gamers, thinking about their education and that by making a fun game they can also pass information along that may come useful in one situation or another. Games can teach us a lot just like books and documentaries do. If adults just move away from an image of games being evil, brain-shattering, conscience-corrupting types of media, we can all live happily knowing that games are good for us in more ways that one.
Page:
Thats exactly what I mean Pro Evo :) Very little can teach us anything to do with the business world, apart from maybe "Sim Shop", an exciting game where your entire store relies on three PCs running in a small damp room upstairs, connected to a server in anther cold room. And whats more, there would be exciting sub games like - "The assistant manager doesnt know how to start the PCs" "Hunt the missing printer cable" "what does pressing the 'do not press - system reboot override' button actually do" and other fun games.
I'm sure anyone else here who works in a shop could add to these !
I'm sure anyone else here who works in a shop could add to these !
Belldandy wrote:
> Yes, but Cannon Fodder's soldiers were not the fully modelled photo realistic
> ones seeen in Ghost Recon and othe titles were they ? Its hard to relate to them
> because they are cartoony.
Thats the thing though, as games have become more realistic as the technology improved they have been taken alot more seriously. The likes of Resident Evil and MGS have taken into account the emotions of the players, and while they dont directly teach us anything that could be taken into the buisness world they can go some way to teach us the morals of life.
> Yes, but Cannon Fodder's soldiers were not the fully modelled photo realistic
> ones seeen in Ghost Recon and othe titles were they ? Its hard to relate to them
> because they are cartoony.
Thats the thing though, as games have become more realistic as the technology improved they have been taken alot more seriously. The likes of Resident Evil and MGS have taken into account the emotions of the players, and while they dont directly teach us anything that could be taken into the buisness world they can go some way to teach us the morals of life.
Thats your valid opinion, but Im not theonly one arguing that games can teach us something, if we're willing to learn.
oh whatever - stop being so serious, games dont teach us anything! stop kidding yourself!
Yes, but Cannon Fodder's soldiers were not the fully modelled photo realistic ones seeen in Ghost Recon and othe titles were they ? Its hard to relate to them because they are cartoony. So the game was fun, I played it on SNES, but the growoing hill of gravestones was rather pointless as, quite frankly, no one gave a toss how many soldiers got killed !
True, cannon fodder taught me that:
'war has never been so much fun!'
'war has never been so much fun!'
I can see what you're getting at and I think it's right that some games can incorporate content that could be educational without making a game less fun.
For starters games, with todays increased realism through graphics and sound, can teach more than just 'boring' facts, they can give people moral lessons and make gamers think more about an issue. It may not have that affect straightaway but could be remembered later on. Last night I played the final 3 missions from Ace Combat. Level 15 began and I piloted an F117a stealth over an enemy held city alongside more fighters. I locked onto the nearest SAM site, dived in, released the bomb and....WHAM, the nearest apartment block building went up in a ball fo flame, I'd missed. Straight away I thought about the images of missed targets in Afghanistan and other wars. I may not have learned anything vital, but I can see how mistakes can happen, and until that point I'd watched it on TV and not realy given it any thought. In GTA3, a game criticised for being a bad influence, there is a clear message. You can do whatever you want, kill every old lady in sight, snipe at police, car jack, do hit and runs, drive by shootings, but all the time that wanted level is going up. Yes there are police bribes, but finding these with four police cars ramming you on wanted level 2 is hard. The police, FBI or military, always get you eventually. Now is this the same in real life ? I think not. Strategy titles can give an insight into the real life tactics seen in conflicts today, and give the player a choice of how to conduct their own little war. There has been a lack of these recently, but in Red Alert 2 and Starcraft on the Pc, and other games, the death toll of your little pixel people could be quite stagerring. I played the final starcraft terran mission once with the cheat for infinite money on the hardest level, and literally thousands of my guys died trying to gain every bit of ground against the enemy. Medal Of Honour Allied Assault has the potential to interest playes in the actual conflict, and will make people aware of that conflict who maybe would not be too sure, years from now that game will stil be around. Sudden Strike 2 will focue attention on a near forgotten part of WW2, the far eastern conflict.
On the PC, Microsoft's Close Combat series of games, whilst ageing, are highly valued and fetch high prices on Ebay, because of their realism and basis in actual fact. These games can be pretty good because it is like you are re enacting the conflicts.
The problem is that many of those claiming games are of no value, have decided this already withou ever having played them, and many seem to be into thier middle aged years - .i.e they never had consoles or games like these. They don't undesrstand them, for the most part, and kids and young adults do. With no real spokesgroup to support the industry, games are an easy target, easier than confronting the real issues behind violence and crime e.t.c.
Yes, DOA2 and Resident Evil CVX may have no value educationally, but they provide valuable entertainment, (remember that all you game haters ? Yknow, fun ?) in a wolrd thats increasingly taking itself too serously. Our education system tests most of its pupils to death and that can get stressful, especially for those trying their best. They need an outlet for escapism and fun, and I think most people would rather have kids playing games than drinking or taking drugs eh ? It can also be away of relieving stress for many, how many of us come home from a trying day at school/university/Work, laod up a gam and just have amindless blast on somethign for ten fifteen minutes ? Its a wonderful way of getting rid of the days rubbish. Games themselves can encourage beter school work because they cost money, and to afford them you're going to need job one day, this realistation can mean many gamers will try harder in education because they want to be able to afford games, consoles, DVDs, new tvs, sound systems e.t.c. I've got no illusions about why I'm at University and working part time as well when I don't really need to, I want to keep buying games, DVDs and music that I enjoy, get a degree, then a decent job so I can carry on buying !
It may not be the best attitude, but I'm never strapped for cash unlike many I know at university who arent motivated to work and struggle to produce 500 word essays in one week ! Ig my love of games and other related stuff encurages me towards wanting a good job and a good degree then whats the harm in that ? I've played games since the Atari 2600, and plenty of them, I hardly drink, have never used drugs, have never even been talked to by the Police, have done great at GCSE, A Levels and my first Uni modules, I have firends, I'm happy. I can probably say games have contributed to this !
For starters games, with todays increased realism through graphics and sound, can teach more than just 'boring' facts, they can give people moral lessons and make gamers think more about an issue. It may not have that affect straightaway but could be remembered later on. Last night I played the final 3 missions from Ace Combat. Level 15 began and I piloted an F117a stealth over an enemy held city alongside more fighters. I locked onto the nearest SAM site, dived in, released the bomb and....WHAM, the nearest apartment block building went up in a ball fo flame, I'd missed. Straight away I thought about the images of missed targets in Afghanistan and other wars. I may not have learned anything vital, but I can see how mistakes can happen, and until that point I'd watched it on TV and not realy given it any thought. In GTA3, a game criticised for being a bad influence, there is a clear message. You can do whatever you want, kill every old lady in sight, snipe at police, car jack, do hit and runs, drive by shootings, but all the time that wanted level is going up. Yes there are police bribes, but finding these with four police cars ramming you on wanted level 2 is hard. The police, FBI or military, always get you eventually. Now is this the same in real life ? I think not. Strategy titles can give an insight into the real life tactics seen in conflicts today, and give the player a choice of how to conduct their own little war. There has been a lack of these recently, but in Red Alert 2 and Starcraft on the Pc, and other games, the death toll of your little pixel people could be quite stagerring. I played the final starcraft terran mission once with the cheat for infinite money on the hardest level, and literally thousands of my guys died trying to gain every bit of ground against the enemy. Medal Of Honour Allied Assault has the potential to interest playes in the actual conflict, and will make people aware of that conflict who maybe would not be too sure, years from now that game will stil be around. Sudden Strike 2 will focue attention on a near forgotten part of WW2, the far eastern conflict.
On the PC, Microsoft's Close Combat series of games, whilst ageing, are highly valued and fetch high prices on Ebay, because of their realism and basis in actual fact. These games can be pretty good because it is like you are re enacting the conflicts.
The problem is that many of those claiming games are of no value, have decided this already withou ever having played them, and many seem to be into thier middle aged years - .i.e they never had consoles or games like these. They don't undesrstand them, for the most part, and kids and young adults do. With no real spokesgroup to support the industry, games are an easy target, easier than confronting the real issues behind violence and crime e.t.c.
Yes, DOA2 and Resident Evil CVX may have no value educationally, but they provide valuable entertainment, (remember that all you game haters ? Yknow, fun ?) in a wolrd thats increasingly taking itself too serously. Our education system tests most of its pupils to death and that can get stressful, especially for those trying their best. They need an outlet for escapism and fun, and I think most people would rather have kids playing games than drinking or taking drugs eh ? It can also be away of relieving stress for many, how many of us come home from a trying day at school/university/Work, laod up a gam and just have amindless blast on somethign for ten fifteen minutes ? Its a wonderful way of getting rid of the days rubbish. Games themselves can encourage beter school work because they cost money, and to afford them you're going to need job one day, this realistation can mean many gamers will try harder in education because they want to be able to afford games, consoles, DVDs, new tvs, sound systems e.t.c. I've got no illusions about why I'm at University and working part time as well when I don't really need to, I want to keep buying games, DVDs and music that I enjoy, get a degree, then a decent job so I can carry on buying !
It may not be the best attitude, but I'm never strapped for cash unlike many I know at university who arent motivated to work and struggle to produce 500 word essays in one week ! Ig my love of games and other related stuff encurages me towards wanting a good job and a good degree then whats the harm in that ? I've played games since the Atari 2600, and plenty of them, I hardly drink, have never used drugs, have never even been talked to by the Police, have done great at GCSE, A Levels and my first Uni modules, I have firends, I'm happy. I can probably say games have contributed to this !
oh ic
Nothing at all, just wanna see a fight....I am bored
Page: