The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Through the ages, we have constantly strived to find new forms of entertainment. From the simple board games to the modern motion picture, each form of entertainment has been progressively more advanced where technology is concerned. Some allow us to give our brains a work out, others tell a story. Some are just there to please the eye. Yet none have been replaced, none have been relegated. Each is unique, you don’t watch a film to tax your brain, neither do you play a game of chess in order to be told a story. But there are rumblings in the entertainment fraternity. Something new has arrived, something that is accelerating and evolving at an incredible rate, the computer game.
We have come to the stage where technology lets us blend all the aspects of entertainment, story telling, strategy, emotion induction etc. Many “academics” snub the computer game, seeing them little more as the modern equivalent of a child’s game. In some ways they are right, many games (especially Japanese games, all due respect) are clearly games, they entertain, little more e.g. Super Monkey Ball. However, there are exceptions, games that the publications relish and the “academics” ridicule out of fear of change. Games like Deus Ex. Take the latter, it gives a twisting fantastical tale, but it lets us get involved. It gives us complicated levels and objectives, and lets us work them out and complete them. It is many forms of entertainment rolled into one, uber-entertainment if you will.
My question is this; will computer games eventually replace most (if not all) forms of entertainment? Or, will they live together, each form being preferred for certain qualities to certain people? As we hurtle through the 21st century one thing is certain; technology will have a very important role to play. Sometimes I'd rather watch a film than play a film. I'd rather read a paperback novel than a computerised novel in Word. Sometimes I'd rather get out and actually entertain myself in the real world instead of pretending I am in a game. Games will have their proper place, but so will current forms of entertainment, or so I believe.
I certainly don't think things will come down to there being only one. I see the two as entirely different forms of entertainment, for instance, if I just want to chill out and be entertained I'll choose a film over a game, but if I feel like I want to play a part in a story or whatever I'll play a game (also, I prefer games to films). I really would like games to be taken as seriously as films because I consider them an art form and anyone who claims they arEn't 'academic' or whatever obviously hasn't played any games. That or they only ever played Tetris. I've often wondered if gaming is just a fad that's overstayed it's welcome, but I sincerely hope that it's here to stay. I really don't want to say to my grand children "In my day we played these things called computer games, wow they were great". The future of gaming looks very bright if technology keeps improving as much as it is just now.
Fact: Games take effort.
Films (well, the brainless ones) do not. If you're a lazy git like me, and there always will be people like that, there's many a time you'd much rather sit back and watch a good piece of entertainment than make your own entertainment, which is what games do. Until games reach the point where no physical effort is required to play a game - think shoddy 80's virutal reality films. But until then, which won't be for a long time, no. In order for games to even be on a level pegging as other forms of entertainment, they will have to be accepted as "art".
Games are a very valid form of entertainment. However just as one who only watched films for entertainment, or one who just played pool for entertainment, doing only one thing lends towards a very strange personality. Your body needs to feel a breadth of experience. In a film you are awash with all the sights and sounds, stimulating your receptors. In a book you stimulate your powers of imagination, the words on the page a guide to a journey of your mind. With sports, you are exercsing your body, and flexing those social muscles, just as you do in a conversation on the phone, or down the pub. Because sometimes just having the expierience isn't enough, you have to share it with others. All computer games can do is provide a sensory esponse based on your actions. It flexes the muscles, in much the same way as sport does, but also those of being shown a feast of sights and sounds in the same way a movie does. None of these can replace each other, because each stimulates in a different way. Some are null stimulants, they require no work on the part of the brain except to recieve, and to relax and hear a fantastic tune or see a directors masterpiece can be better to relieve the tenseness of the body than any other stimulant.
Watch. Act. If language was a piece of string those two words would be situated on the two very ends being separated by all the wisdom in the world. Because, if you think about it, watching and acting are two completely different principles that surround today's society wherever you are.
You watch to learn. You act to teach.
If computer games were the only form of entertainment, one could only act. But how can someone act if he can't learn? It's like jumping from A to Z. If that happened, entertainment would result in being a meaningless, repeatitive waste of time. Games like Deus Ex are the future for gaming industry. Games with meanings. Meanings which appy in real life. Although Deus Ex was not linear it presented you with various options and in several occasions tested your morality. Go left or right? Kill one innocent one to save 10? Can man and machine co-exist? Is there a God? So the key to a succesful, meaningful game in my opinion is being non-linear. Because that way the game teaches. You can learn stuff and apply them in real life. The only way I can think of games being the sole source of entertainment and replacing films and books, is giving you freedom but at the same time, keeping you on track. And that is what Deus Ex is.
Summing it up. It's all about learning. Movies and books are things that provide today's society with principles and messages. Replacing them with games would mean the original source of inspiration that developers used to make their games, would cease to exist. However, being taught isn't the only way to learn. In fact I find the best way to learn something is good old experience. When you learn how to play CS you don't have a trainer behind you telling you how to circle strafe or what weapon to buy. No, you have to get in there and learn from your mistakes.
Thanks for reading,
Flux
We have come to the stage where technology lets us blend all the aspects of entertainment, story telling, strategy, emotion induction etc. Many “academics” snub the computer game, seeing them little more as the modern equivalent of a child’s game. In some ways they are right, many games (especially Japanese games, all due respect) are clearly games, they entertain, little more e.g. Super Monkey Ball. However, there are exceptions, games that the publications relish and the “academics” ridicule out of fear of change. Games like Deus Ex. Take the latter, it gives a twisting fantastical tale, but it lets us get involved. It gives us complicated levels and objectives, and lets us work them out and complete them. It is many forms of entertainment rolled into one, uber-entertainment if you will.
My question is this; will computer games eventually replace most (if not all) forms of entertainment? Or, will they live together, each form being preferred for certain qualities to certain people? As we hurtle through the 21st century one thing is certain; technology will have a very important role to play. Sometimes I'd rather watch a film than play a film. I'd rather read a paperback novel than a computerised novel in Word. Sometimes I'd rather get out and actually entertain myself in the real world instead of pretending I am in a game. Games will have their proper place, but so will current forms of entertainment, or so I believe.
I certainly don't think things will come down to there being only one. I see the two as entirely different forms of entertainment, for instance, if I just want to chill out and be entertained I'll choose a film over a game, but if I feel like I want to play a part in a story or whatever I'll play a game (also, I prefer games to films). I really would like games to be taken as seriously as films because I consider them an art form and anyone who claims they arEn't 'academic' or whatever obviously hasn't played any games. That or they only ever played Tetris. I've often wondered if gaming is just a fad that's overstayed it's welcome, but I sincerely hope that it's here to stay. I really don't want to say to my grand children "In my day we played these things called computer games, wow they were great". The future of gaming looks very bright if technology keeps improving as much as it is just now.
Fact: Games take effort.
Films (well, the brainless ones) do not. If you're a lazy git like me, and there always will be people like that, there's many a time you'd much rather sit back and watch a good piece of entertainment than make your own entertainment, which is what games do. Until games reach the point where no physical effort is required to play a game - think shoddy 80's virutal reality films. But until then, which won't be for a long time, no. In order for games to even be on a level pegging as other forms of entertainment, they will have to be accepted as "art".
Games are a very valid form of entertainment. However just as one who only watched films for entertainment, or one who just played pool for entertainment, doing only one thing lends towards a very strange personality. Your body needs to feel a breadth of experience. In a film you are awash with all the sights and sounds, stimulating your receptors. In a book you stimulate your powers of imagination, the words on the page a guide to a journey of your mind. With sports, you are exercsing your body, and flexing those social muscles, just as you do in a conversation on the phone, or down the pub. Because sometimes just having the expierience isn't enough, you have to share it with others. All computer games can do is provide a sensory esponse based on your actions. It flexes the muscles, in much the same way as sport does, but also those of being shown a feast of sights and sounds in the same way a movie does. None of these can replace each other, because each stimulates in a different way. Some are null stimulants, they require no work on the part of the brain except to recieve, and to relax and hear a fantastic tune or see a directors masterpiece can be better to relieve the tenseness of the body than any other stimulant.
Watch. Act. If language was a piece of string those two words would be situated on the two very ends being separated by all the wisdom in the world. Because, if you think about it, watching and acting are two completely different principles that surround today's society wherever you are.
You watch to learn. You act to teach.
If computer games were the only form of entertainment, one could only act. But how can someone act if he can't learn? It's like jumping from A to Z. If that happened, entertainment would result in being a meaningless, repeatitive waste of time. Games like Deus Ex are the future for gaming industry. Games with meanings. Meanings which appy in real life. Although Deus Ex was not linear it presented you with various options and in several occasions tested your morality. Go left or right? Kill one innocent one to save 10? Can man and machine co-exist? Is there a God? So the key to a succesful, meaningful game in my opinion is being non-linear. Because that way the game teaches. You can learn stuff and apply them in real life. The only way I can think of games being the sole source of entertainment and replacing films and books, is giving you freedom but at the same time, keeping you on track. And that is what Deus Ex is.
Summing it up. It's all about learning. Movies and books are things that provide today's society with principles and messages. Replacing them with games would mean the original source of inspiration that developers used to make their games, would cease to exist. However, being taught isn't the only way to learn. In fact I find the best way to learn something is good old experience. When you learn how to play CS you don't have a trainer behind you telling you how to circle strafe or what weapon to buy. No, you have to get in there and learn from your mistakes.
Thanks for reading,
Flux
I agree, very good topic.
Still, I don't think games ARE snubbed anymore. The industry is growing quicker than any other, with costs for some games matching small films. In a few years, I wouldn't be surprised to see games up there as the number one entertainment form.
Still, I don't think games ARE snubbed anymore. The industry is growing quicker than any other, with costs for some games matching small films. In a few years, I wouldn't be surprised to see games up there as the number one entertainment form.
I only read this because the title was very similar to the Refused album 'The Shape of Punk to Come'. And I love Refused.
But it turned out to be an interesting post. Very interesting. Quite possibly a GAD winner. I think there is a feeling of games still being seen as a less acceptable and mature form of entertainment than films, sports and suchlike. But if films are considered art then games must be too. I mean people may well criticise the masses of almost no-brainer games that require little or no tactics, and a similar amount of thought, but it's just the same for films. Which films become the blockbusters? Generally no-brainer action movies. So how can you justify films being an art form over games. There are just as many awful films out there as there are awful games. And even so, surely when you call any form of entertainment an art form you are looking at the best examples of it anyway, not the worst examples.
Anyway, interesting post. Indeedy.
But it turned out to be an interesting post. Very interesting. Quite possibly a GAD winner. I think there is a feeling of games still being seen as a less acceptable and mature form of entertainment than films, sports and suchlike. But if films are considered art then games must be too. I mean people may well criticise the masses of almost no-brainer games that require little or no tactics, and a similar amount of thought, but it's just the same for films. Which films become the blockbusters? Generally no-brainer action movies. So how can you justify films being an art form over games. There are just as many awful films out there as there are awful games. And even so, surely when you call any form of entertainment an art form you are looking at the best examples of it anyway, not the worst examples.
Anyway, interesting post. Indeedy.
Through the ages, we have constantly strived to find new forms of entertainment. From the simple board games to the modern motion picture, each form of entertainment has been progressively more advanced where technology is concerned. Some allow us to give our brains a work out, others tell a story. Some are just there to please the eye. Yet none have been replaced, none have been relegated. Each is unique, you don’t watch a film to tax your brain, neither do you play a game of chess in order to be told a story. But there are rumblings in the entertainment fraternity. Something new has arrived, something that is accelerating and evolving at an incredible rate, the computer game.
We have come to the stage where technology lets us blend all the aspects of entertainment, story telling, strategy, emotion induction etc. Many “academics” snub the computer game, seeing them little more as the modern equivalent of a child’s game. In some ways they are right, many games (especially Japanese games, all due respect) are clearly games, they entertain, little more e.g. Super Monkey Ball. However, there are exceptions, games that the publications relish and the “academics” ridicule out of fear of change. Games like Deus Ex. Take the latter, it gives a twisting fantastical tale, but it lets us get involved. It gives us complicated levels and objectives, and lets us work them out and complete them. It is many forms of entertainment rolled into one, uber-entertainment if you will.
My question is this; will computer games eventually replace most (if not all) forms of entertainment? Or, will they live together, each form being preferred for certain qualities to certain people? As we hurtle through the 21st century one thing is certain; technology will have a very important role to play. Sometimes I'd rather watch a film than play a film. I'd rather read a paperback novel than a computerised novel in Word. Sometimes I'd rather get out and actually entertain myself in the real world instead of pretending I am in a game. Games will have their proper place, but so will current forms of entertainment, or so I believe.
I certainly don't think things will come down to there being only one. I see the two as entirely different forms of entertainment, for instance, if I just want to chill out and be entertained I'll choose a film over a game, but if I feel like I want to play a part in a story or whatever I'll play a game (also, I prefer games to films). I really would like games to be taken as seriously as films because I consider them an art form and anyone who claims they arEn't 'academic' or whatever obviously hasn't played any games. That or they only ever played Tetris. I've often wondered if gaming is just a fad that's overstayed it's welcome, but I sincerely hope that it's here to stay. I really don't want to say to my grand children "In my day we played these things called computer games, wow they were great". The future of gaming looks very bright if technology keeps improving as much as it is just now.
Fact: Games take effort.
Films (well, the brainless ones) do not. If you're a lazy git like me, and there always will be people like that, there's many a time you'd much rather sit back and watch a good piece of entertainment than make your own entertainment, which is what games do. Until games reach the point where no physical effort is required to play a game - think shoddy 80's virutal reality films. But until then, which won't be for a long time, no. In order for games to even be on a level pegging as other forms of entertainment, they will have to be accepted as "art".
Games are a very valid form of entertainment. However just as one who only watched films for entertainment, or one who just played pool for entertainment, doing only one thing lends towards a very strange personality. Your body needs to feel a breadth of experience. In a film you are awash with all the sights and sounds, stimulating your receptors. In a book you stimulate your powers of imagination, the words on the page a guide to a journey of your mind. With sports, you are exercsing your body, and flexing those social muscles, just as you do in a conversation on the phone, or down the pub. Because sometimes just having the expierience isn't enough, you have to share it with others. All computer games can do is provide a sensory esponse based on your actions. It flexes the muscles, in much the same way as sport does, but also those of being shown a feast of sights and sounds in the same way a movie does. None of these can replace each other, because each stimulates in a different way. Some are null stimulants, they require no work on the part of the brain except to recieve, and to relax and hear a fantastic tune or see a directors masterpiece can be better to relieve the tenseness of the body than any other stimulant.
Watch. Act. If language was a piece of string those two words would be situated on the two very ends being separated by all the wisdom in the world. Because, if you think about it, watching and acting are two completely different principles that surround today's society wherever you are.
You watch to learn. You act to teach.
If computer games were the only form of entertainment, one could only act. But how can someone act if he can't learn? It's like jumping from A to Z. If that happened, entertainment would result in being a meaningless, repeatitive waste of time. Games like Deus Ex are the future for gaming industry. Games with meanings. Meanings which appy in real life. Although Deus Ex was not linear it presented you with various options and in several occasions tested your morality. Go left or right? Kill one innocent one to save 10? Can man and machine co-exist? Is there a God? So the key to a succesful, meaningful game in my opinion is being non-linear. Because that way the game teaches. You can learn stuff and apply them in real life. The only way I can think of games being the sole source of entertainment and replacing films and books, is giving you freedom but at the same time, keeping you on track. And that is what Deus Ex is.
Summing it up. It's all about learning. Movies and books are things that provide today's society with principles and messages. Replacing them with games would mean the original source of inspiration that developers used to make their games, would cease to exist. However, being taught isn't the only way to learn. In fact I find the best way to learn something is good old experience. When you learn how to play CS you don't have a trainer behind you telling you how to circle strafe or what weapon to buy. No, you have to get in there and learn from your mistakes.
Thanks for reading,
Flux
We have come to the stage where technology lets us blend all the aspects of entertainment, story telling, strategy, emotion induction etc. Many “academics” snub the computer game, seeing them little more as the modern equivalent of a child’s game. In some ways they are right, many games (especially Japanese games, all due respect) are clearly games, they entertain, little more e.g. Super Monkey Ball. However, there are exceptions, games that the publications relish and the “academics” ridicule out of fear of change. Games like Deus Ex. Take the latter, it gives a twisting fantastical tale, but it lets us get involved. It gives us complicated levels and objectives, and lets us work them out and complete them. It is many forms of entertainment rolled into one, uber-entertainment if you will.
My question is this; will computer games eventually replace most (if not all) forms of entertainment? Or, will they live together, each form being preferred for certain qualities to certain people? As we hurtle through the 21st century one thing is certain; technology will have a very important role to play. Sometimes I'd rather watch a film than play a film. I'd rather read a paperback novel than a computerised novel in Word. Sometimes I'd rather get out and actually entertain myself in the real world instead of pretending I am in a game. Games will have their proper place, but so will current forms of entertainment, or so I believe.
I certainly don't think things will come down to there being only one. I see the two as entirely different forms of entertainment, for instance, if I just want to chill out and be entertained I'll choose a film over a game, but if I feel like I want to play a part in a story or whatever I'll play a game (also, I prefer games to films). I really would like games to be taken as seriously as films because I consider them an art form and anyone who claims they arEn't 'academic' or whatever obviously hasn't played any games. That or they only ever played Tetris. I've often wondered if gaming is just a fad that's overstayed it's welcome, but I sincerely hope that it's here to stay. I really don't want to say to my grand children "In my day we played these things called computer games, wow they were great". The future of gaming looks very bright if technology keeps improving as much as it is just now.
Fact: Games take effort.
Films (well, the brainless ones) do not. If you're a lazy git like me, and there always will be people like that, there's many a time you'd much rather sit back and watch a good piece of entertainment than make your own entertainment, which is what games do. Until games reach the point where no physical effort is required to play a game - think shoddy 80's virutal reality films. But until then, which won't be for a long time, no. In order for games to even be on a level pegging as other forms of entertainment, they will have to be accepted as "art".
Games are a very valid form of entertainment. However just as one who only watched films for entertainment, or one who just played pool for entertainment, doing only one thing lends towards a very strange personality. Your body needs to feel a breadth of experience. In a film you are awash with all the sights and sounds, stimulating your receptors. In a book you stimulate your powers of imagination, the words on the page a guide to a journey of your mind. With sports, you are exercsing your body, and flexing those social muscles, just as you do in a conversation on the phone, or down the pub. Because sometimes just having the expierience isn't enough, you have to share it with others. All computer games can do is provide a sensory esponse based on your actions. It flexes the muscles, in much the same way as sport does, but also those of being shown a feast of sights and sounds in the same way a movie does. None of these can replace each other, because each stimulates in a different way. Some are null stimulants, they require no work on the part of the brain except to recieve, and to relax and hear a fantastic tune or see a directors masterpiece can be better to relieve the tenseness of the body than any other stimulant.
Watch. Act. If language was a piece of string those two words would be situated on the two very ends being separated by all the wisdom in the world. Because, if you think about it, watching and acting are two completely different principles that surround today's society wherever you are.
You watch to learn. You act to teach.
If computer games were the only form of entertainment, one could only act. But how can someone act if he can't learn? It's like jumping from A to Z. If that happened, entertainment would result in being a meaningless, repeatitive waste of time. Games like Deus Ex are the future for gaming industry. Games with meanings. Meanings which appy in real life. Although Deus Ex was not linear it presented you with various options and in several occasions tested your morality. Go left or right? Kill one innocent one to save 10? Can man and machine co-exist? Is there a God? So the key to a succesful, meaningful game in my opinion is being non-linear. Because that way the game teaches. You can learn stuff and apply them in real life. The only way I can think of games being the sole source of entertainment and replacing films and books, is giving you freedom but at the same time, keeping you on track. And that is what Deus Ex is.
Summing it up. It's all about learning. Movies and books are things that provide today's society with principles and messages. Replacing them with games would mean the original source of inspiration that developers used to make their games, would cease to exist. However, being taught isn't the only way to learn. In fact I find the best way to learn something is good old experience. When you learn how to play CS you don't have a trainer behind you telling you how to circle strafe or what weapon to buy. No, you have to get in there and learn from your mistakes.
Thanks for reading,
Flux