The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Gaming is a radial concept, in my opinion, and starts from the centre and works outwards. There is a central concept in any game that is produced, and this central concept of underlying importance lies at the very centre of this model. Around this central concept, lies fundamental, but not crucial concepts that exerberate a game. Again, in my opinion, this 'concetric' model can be applied to any game that has ever been produced.
Let us begin by investigating this central concept. With respect to video games, this central concept has to be one of 'playability'. In fact this central concept applies to any game, be it a board game, a playground game, any game. Playability, as a concept, revolves around the idea of fun, and as a game, it should purport fun and enjoyment.
By removing this aspect of playability from any game, also removes its status as a game. Let me elaborate, using Resident Evil as an example. Resident Evil is a game, unarguably, but remove the concept of playability, and the concept of fun, and Resident Evil would no longer be a game. More specifically, it would become more like a film than a game.
So, with the concept of playability central to any game, what differentiates video games from other incarnations of games, such as board games? This becomes apparent when we move from the centre of the concetric model, and work our way out to the first shell of fundamental concepts that surround any video game.
It is these first shell concepts that underlie any video game, and brand them truly unique from any other form of game known to man. These concepts are visual portrayal, and human-machine interfacing; or more simply control.
Visuals are crucial to any video game, as I am sure we will all agree. A video game must portray its information in a visual manner, or it would not, by definition, be a video game. Visuals do not have to be three-dimensional, or full colour, to make the entity a video game, they simply have to portray the workings of the game. Pong is a bare-faced, simplistic, example of how primitive visuals can be. However, it is unarguable that what we have is a video game.
Also, an interfacing, or control scheme is utterly mandatory to a video game. Imagine sitting in front of your television, with your console on, and simply watching the software run its built in demo roll. This surely is not video gaming - by definition. However, by picking up the control pad, you in essence, unleash the central concept in the model, playability. Thus by simply interacting with the machine, we have completed the basic model for video gaming.
We have now defined the concept of video gaming, as a propose to gaming, and we have identified the fundamental concepts. In the centre of the concentric model we have playability, and around this we have concepts which are fundamental to video gaming. Thus what we have is a complete picture of what makes a video game what it is, and what separates it from other gaming entities such as playground games and board games.
However, it is true to say that few of the games on the shelves today, on the modern formats, are done justice by this simplistic, two-stage model. It would complete the overall model by adding a second shell to the structure, and this shell will encompass what I call the superficial concepts.
All video games fulfil the simple one-centre one-shell model, but to satisfy the likes of Halo and GTA3, we need to look deeper, and add a second shell. This shell of superficial concepts will allow us to classify the games we play quite accurately. The ambit provided by these superficial concepts is, in fact, impossible to define. If we consider the concepts that could come under here, the scale is undoubtedly infinite. However, I will define what I consider to be the ones of priority.
Within this second-shell of superficial concepts, we can encompass sound, graphics, control method, and game formula. None of which are crucial to a video game, but exerberate it, as such. Sound is nowadays recognised as well and truly fundamental, but can it be considered as a determinant of what we are playing is a video game? The answer has to be no, after all, what we are considering is a video game, not an audio-video game. And to add, have any of us ever played a game with the sound off and thought any less of it as a video game? Of course not! However, the concept of sound is nonetheless a concept which developers have to meet, as it is now considered standard in modern game development.
Graphics is another idea that I considered superficial to a game. Firstly it would be useful to distinguish between visual portrayal and graphics. The distinction is a slight one, in my mind, but is definitely there. Visual portrayal, or the concept of showing the game in a visual format, is crucial to a video game. However graphics are simply an entity of visual portrayal, and denote the games visual character, and encompass ideas such as three-dimensions, and true-colour. These graphical concepts are not crucial to the game's status as a video game, but utilisation of graphic technology is undoubtedly important.
Under the wide ambit of graphics lies many concepts, and technologies. In fact, this ambit grows wider and wider by the day, with new technologies coming of age which allow games to look better. Technologies such as three-dimensional graphics, cel-shading, texture mapping, fogging, and the rest, are met by developers in this era in virtually every game they produce. So, as with sound, graphics are mandatory in gaming economics, but not to the underlying concept of video gaming.
Control method is another 'superficial concept', but one that I value as being of utmost importance. In the modern era, the concept of an interface is simply not enough to do justice to the complexities of modern games. What is sought by developers is to utilise many systems in unison as a control scheme for the game.
Finally, game formula is a wide scoping concept that encompasses in-game concepts such as plot, storyline, characters, style, and so many more. The previously noted example Pong, had very little, if any, plot, characters, and the like, but still was a highly successful video game. However, in this era, the simplistic approach of Pong is simply not feasible, a game needs to purport a formula to the player.
In summary, I hope that this has allowed you to visualise video games no longer as a unit, but more as a system of concepts working together. In my opinion, the best way of portraying this information is as the 'concentric model' which I have formulated for you here. It allows you to visualise a game, as a concept, and in a radial motion, the branches of this central concept. I hope I have also portrayed the difference between a video game and a game, by offering a first shell of fundamental concepts to a video game. Finally, by developing a second shell of superficial concepts, we can easily visualise how games have evolved from this concept of a video game. Thankyou all for reading this, and I hope that it will raise some feedback, and maybe some aspects of video games that do not fit the model.
Let us begin by investigating this central concept. With respect to video games, this central concept has to be one of 'playability'. In fact this central concept applies to any game, be it a board game, a playground game, any game. Playability, as a concept, revolves around the idea of fun, and as a game, it should purport fun and enjoyment.
By removing this aspect of playability from any game, also removes its status as a game. Let me elaborate, using Resident Evil as an example. Resident Evil is a game, unarguably, but remove the concept of playability, and the concept of fun, and Resident Evil would no longer be a game. More specifically, it would become more like a film than a game.
So, with the concept of playability central to any game, what differentiates video games from other incarnations of games, such as board games? This becomes apparent when we move from the centre of the concetric model, and work our way out to the first shell of fundamental concepts that surround any video game.
It is these first shell concepts that underlie any video game, and brand them truly unique from any other form of game known to man. These concepts are visual portrayal, and human-machine interfacing; or more simply control.
Visuals are crucial to any video game, as I am sure we will all agree. A video game must portray its information in a visual manner, or it would not, by definition, be a video game. Visuals do not have to be three-dimensional, or full colour, to make the entity a video game, they simply have to portray the workings of the game. Pong is a bare-faced, simplistic, example of how primitive visuals can be. However, it is unarguable that what we have is a video game.
Also, an interfacing, or control scheme is utterly mandatory to a video game. Imagine sitting in front of your television, with your console on, and simply watching the software run its built in demo roll. This surely is not video gaming - by definition. However, by picking up the control pad, you in essence, unleash the central concept in the model, playability. Thus by simply interacting with the machine, we have completed the basic model for video gaming.
We have now defined the concept of video gaming, as a propose to gaming, and we have identified the fundamental concepts. In the centre of the concentric model we have playability, and around this we have concepts which are fundamental to video gaming. Thus what we have is a complete picture of what makes a video game what it is, and what separates it from other gaming entities such as playground games and board games.
However, it is true to say that few of the games on the shelves today, on the modern formats, are done justice by this simplistic, two-stage model. It would complete the overall model by adding a second shell to the structure, and this shell will encompass what I call the superficial concepts.
All video games fulfil the simple one-centre one-shell model, but to satisfy the likes of Halo and GTA3, we need to look deeper, and add a second shell. This shell of superficial concepts will allow us to classify the games we play quite accurately. The ambit provided by these superficial concepts is, in fact, impossible to define. If we consider the concepts that could come under here, the scale is undoubtedly infinite. However, I will define what I consider to be the ones of priority.
Within this second-shell of superficial concepts, we can encompass sound, graphics, control method, and game formula. None of which are crucial to a video game, but exerberate it, as such. Sound is nowadays recognised as well and truly fundamental, but can it be considered as a determinant of what we are playing is a video game? The answer has to be no, after all, what we are considering is a video game, not an audio-video game. And to add, have any of us ever played a game with the sound off and thought any less of it as a video game? Of course not! However, the concept of sound is nonetheless a concept which developers have to meet, as it is now considered standard in modern game development.
Graphics is another idea that I considered superficial to a game. Firstly it would be useful to distinguish between visual portrayal and graphics. The distinction is a slight one, in my mind, but is definitely there. Visual portrayal, or the concept of showing the game in a visual format, is crucial to a video game. However graphics are simply an entity of visual portrayal, and denote the games visual character, and encompass ideas such as three-dimensions, and true-colour. These graphical concepts are not crucial to the game's status as a video game, but utilisation of graphic technology is undoubtedly important.
Under the wide ambit of graphics lies many concepts, and technologies. In fact, this ambit grows wider and wider by the day, with new technologies coming of age which allow games to look better. Technologies such as three-dimensional graphics, cel-shading, texture mapping, fogging, and the rest, are met by developers in this era in virtually every game they produce. So, as with sound, graphics are mandatory in gaming economics, but not to the underlying concept of video gaming.
Control method is another 'superficial concept', but one that I value as being of utmost importance. In the modern era, the concept of an interface is simply not enough to do justice to the complexities of modern games. What is sought by developers is to utilise many systems in unison as a control scheme for the game.
Finally, game formula is a wide scoping concept that encompasses in-game concepts such as plot, storyline, characters, style, and so many more. The previously noted example Pong, had very little, if any, plot, characters, and the like, but still was a highly successful video game. However, in this era, the simplistic approach of Pong is simply not feasible, a game needs to purport a formula to the player.
In summary, I hope that this has allowed you to visualise video games no longer as a unit, but more as a system of concepts working together. In my opinion, the best way of portraying this information is as the 'concentric model' which I have formulated for you here. It allows you to visualise a game, as a concept, and in a radial motion, the branches of this central concept. I hope I have also portrayed the difference between a video game and a game, by offering a first shell of fundamental concepts to a video game. Finally, by developing a second shell of superficial concepts, we can easily visualise how games have evolved from this concept of a video game. Thankyou all for reading this, and I hope that it will raise some feedback, and maybe some aspects of video games that do not fit the model.
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
Gaming is a radial concept, in my opinion, and starts from the centre and works outwards. There is a central concept in any game that is produced, and this central concept of underlying importance lies at the very centre of this model. Around this central concept, lies fundamental, but not crucial concepts that exerberate a game. Again, in my opinion, this 'concetric' model can be applied to any game that has ever been produced.
Let us begin by investigating this central concept. With respect to video games, this central concept has to be one of 'playability'. In fact this central concept applies to any game, be it a board game, a playground game, any game. Playability, as a concept, revolves around the idea of fun, and as a game, it should purport fun and enjoyment.
By removing this aspect of playability from any game, also removes its status as a game. Let me elaborate, using Resident Evil as an example. Resident Evil is a game, unarguably, but remove the concept of playability, and the concept of fun, and Resident Evil would no longer be a game. More specifically, it would become more like a film than a game.
So, with the concept of playability central to any game, what differentiates video games from other incarnations of games, such as board games? This becomes apparent when we move from the centre of the concetric model, and work our way out to the first shell of fundamental concepts that surround any video game.
It is these first shell concepts that underlie any video game, and brand them truly unique from any other form of game known to man. These concepts are visual portrayal, and human-machine interfacing; or more simply control.
Visuals are crucial to any video game, as I am sure we will all agree. A video game must portray its information in a visual manner, or it would not, by definition, be a video game. Visuals do not have to be three-dimensional, or full colour, to make the entity a video game, they simply have to portray the workings of the game. Pong is a bare-faced, simplistic, example of how primitive visuals can be. However, it is unarguable that what we have is a video game.
Also, an interfacing, or control scheme is utterly mandatory to a video game. Imagine sitting in front of your television, with your console on, and simply watching the software run its built in demo roll. This surely is not video gaming - by definition. However, by picking up the control pad, you in essence, unleash the central concept in the model, playability. Thus by simply interacting with the machine, we have completed the basic model for video gaming.
We have now defined the concept of video gaming, as a propose to gaming, and we have identified the fundamental concepts. In the centre of the concentric model we have playability, and around this we have concepts which are fundamental to video gaming. Thus what we have is a complete picture of what makes a video game what it is, and what separates it from other gaming entities such as playground games and board games.
However, it is true to say that few of the games on the shelves today, on the modern formats, are done justice by this simplistic, two-stage model. It would complete the overall model by adding a second shell to the structure, and this shell will encompass what I call the superficial concepts.
All video games fulfil the simple one-centre one-shell model, but to satisfy the likes of Halo and GTA3, we need to look deeper, and add a second shell. This shell of superficial concepts will allow us to classify the games we play quite accurately. The ambit provided by these superficial concepts is, in fact, impossible to define. If we consider the concepts that could come under here, the scale is undoubtedly infinite. However, I will define what I consider to be the ones of priority.
Within this second-shell of superficial concepts, we can encompass sound, graphics, control method, and game formula. None of which are crucial to a video game, but exerberate it, as such. Sound is nowadays recognised as well and truly fundamental, but can it be considered as a determinant of what we are playing is a video game? The answer has to be no, after all, what we are considering is a video game, not an audio-video game. And to add, have any of us ever played a game with the sound off and thought any less of it as a video game? Of course not! However, the concept of sound is nonetheless a concept which developers have to meet, as it is now considered standard in modern game development.
Graphics is another idea that I considered superficial to a game. Firstly it would be useful to distinguish between visual portrayal and graphics. The distinction is a slight one, in my mind, but is definitely there. Visual portrayal, or the concept of showing the game in a visual format, is crucial to a video game. However graphics are simply an entity of visual portrayal, and denote the games visual character, and encompass ideas such as three-dimensions, and true-colour. These graphical concepts are not crucial to the game's status as a video game, but utilisation of graphic technology is undoubtedly important.
Under the wide ambit of graphics lies many concepts, and technologies. In fact, this ambit grows wider and wider by the day, with new technologies coming of age which allow games to look better. Technologies such as three-dimensional graphics, cel-shading, texture mapping, fogging, and the rest, are met by developers in this era in virtually every game they produce. So, as with sound, graphics are mandatory in gaming economics, but not to the underlying concept of video gaming.
Control method is another 'superficial concept', but one that I value as being of utmost importance. In the modern era, the concept of an interface is simply not enough to do justice to the complexities of modern games. What is sought by developers is to utilise many systems in unison as a control scheme for the game.
Finally, game formula is a wide scoping concept that encompasses in-game concepts such as plot, storyline, characters, style, and so many more. The previously noted example Pong, had very little, if any, plot, characters, and the like, but still was a highly successful video game. However, in this era, the simplistic approach of Pong is simply not feasible, a game needs to purport a formula to the player.
In summary, I hope that this has allowed you to visualise video games no longer as a unit, but more as a system of concepts working together. In my opinion, the best way of portraying this information is as the 'concentric model' which I have formulated for you here. It allows you to visualise a game, as a concept, and in a radial motion, the branches of this central concept. I hope I have also portrayed the difference between a video game and a game, by offering a first shell of fundamental concepts to a video game. Finally, by developing a second shell of superficial concepts, we can easily visualise how games have evolved from this concept of a video game. Thankyou all for reading this, and I hope that it will raise some feedback, and maybe some aspects of video games that do not fit the model.
Let us begin by investigating this central concept. With respect to video games, this central concept has to be one of 'playability'. In fact this central concept applies to any game, be it a board game, a playground game, any game. Playability, as a concept, revolves around the idea of fun, and as a game, it should purport fun and enjoyment.
By removing this aspect of playability from any game, also removes its status as a game. Let me elaborate, using Resident Evil as an example. Resident Evil is a game, unarguably, but remove the concept of playability, and the concept of fun, and Resident Evil would no longer be a game. More specifically, it would become more like a film than a game.
So, with the concept of playability central to any game, what differentiates video games from other incarnations of games, such as board games? This becomes apparent when we move from the centre of the concetric model, and work our way out to the first shell of fundamental concepts that surround any video game.
It is these first shell concepts that underlie any video game, and brand them truly unique from any other form of game known to man. These concepts are visual portrayal, and human-machine interfacing; or more simply control.
Visuals are crucial to any video game, as I am sure we will all agree. A video game must portray its information in a visual manner, or it would not, by definition, be a video game. Visuals do not have to be three-dimensional, or full colour, to make the entity a video game, they simply have to portray the workings of the game. Pong is a bare-faced, simplistic, example of how primitive visuals can be. However, it is unarguable that what we have is a video game.
Also, an interfacing, or control scheme is utterly mandatory to a video game. Imagine sitting in front of your television, with your console on, and simply watching the software run its built in demo roll. This surely is not video gaming - by definition. However, by picking up the control pad, you in essence, unleash the central concept in the model, playability. Thus by simply interacting with the machine, we have completed the basic model for video gaming.
We have now defined the concept of video gaming, as a propose to gaming, and we have identified the fundamental concepts. In the centre of the concentric model we have playability, and around this we have concepts which are fundamental to video gaming. Thus what we have is a complete picture of what makes a video game what it is, and what separates it from other gaming entities such as playground games and board games.
However, it is true to say that few of the games on the shelves today, on the modern formats, are done justice by this simplistic, two-stage model. It would complete the overall model by adding a second shell to the structure, and this shell will encompass what I call the superficial concepts.
All video games fulfil the simple one-centre one-shell model, but to satisfy the likes of Halo and GTA3, we need to look deeper, and add a second shell. This shell of superficial concepts will allow us to classify the games we play quite accurately. The ambit provided by these superficial concepts is, in fact, impossible to define. If we consider the concepts that could come under here, the scale is undoubtedly infinite. However, I will define what I consider to be the ones of priority.
Within this second-shell of superficial concepts, we can encompass sound, graphics, control method, and game formula. None of which are crucial to a video game, but exerberate it, as such. Sound is nowadays recognised as well and truly fundamental, but can it be considered as a determinant of what we are playing is a video game? The answer has to be no, after all, what we are considering is a video game, not an audio-video game. And to add, have any of us ever played a game with the sound off and thought any less of it as a video game? Of course not! However, the concept of sound is nonetheless a concept which developers have to meet, as it is now considered standard in modern game development.
Graphics is another idea that I considered superficial to a game. Firstly it would be useful to distinguish between visual portrayal and graphics. The distinction is a slight one, in my mind, but is definitely there. Visual portrayal, or the concept of showing the game in a visual format, is crucial to a video game. However graphics are simply an entity of visual portrayal, and denote the games visual character, and encompass ideas such as three-dimensions, and true-colour. These graphical concepts are not crucial to the game's status as a video game, but utilisation of graphic technology is undoubtedly important.
Under the wide ambit of graphics lies many concepts, and technologies. In fact, this ambit grows wider and wider by the day, with new technologies coming of age which allow games to look better. Technologies such as three-dimensional graphics, cel-shading, texture mapping, fogging, and the rest, are met by developers in this era in virtually every game they produce. So, as with sound, graphics are mandatory in gaming economics, but not to the underlying concept of video gaming.
Control method is another 'superficial concept', but one that I value as being of utmost importance. In the modern era, the concept of an interface is simply not enough to do justice to the complexities of modern games. What is sought by developers is to utilise many systems in unison as a control scheme for the game.
Finally, game formula is a wide scoping concept that encompasses in-game concepts such as plot, storyline, characters, style, and so many more. The previously noted example Pong, had very little, if any, plot, characters, and the like, but still was a highly successful video game. However, in this era, the simplistic approach of Pong is simply not feasible, a game needs to purport a formula to the player.
In summary, I hope that this has allowed you to visualise video games no longer as a unit, but more as a system of concepts working together. In my opinion, the best way of portraying this information is as the 'concentric model' which I have formulated for you here. It allows you to visualise a game, as a concept, and in a radial motion, the branches of this central concept. I hope I have also portrayed the difference between a video game and a game, by offering a first shell of fundamental concepts to a video game. Finally, by developing a second shell of superficial concepts, we can easily visualise how games have evolved from this concept of a video game. Thankyou all for reading this, and I hope that it will raise some feedback, and maybe some aspects of video games that do not fit the model.