Moderator: JC Denton
by icycalm » 14 Mar 2009 19:24
by icycalm » 14 Mar 2009 19:27
by Vert1 » 14 Mar 2009 23:04
PRODUCTISM - MEDIA EXTRAVAGANZA
This is by far the most widespread mode of examining games and is associated primarily with video games. In this view games are products that contain a variety of different kinds of media, such as sound effects, thematic graphics, and story sequences in text and cinematic form, with each element as valuable as every other, including the actual play of the game.
.....
The primary problem with critiquing games as media products is that it’s difficult to turn around and critique other games by the same standards. Because they must often give equal attention to the typically more glamorous elements of a game, it can be hard for practitioners of this method to appreciate a game where those elements aren’t present. For instance, it’s difficult to assess an abstract puzzle game like Tetris by the same standards you would use to examine a game with 30 minute cut-scenes like Metal Gear Solid 4.
What ends up happening is that you have one set of standards by which you judge media extravaganzas, and another which you apply to more abstract and/or traditional games. Inevitably, coherency suffers.
by ganheddo » 14 Mar 2009 23:11
Charles J Pratt wrote:It may, at some point, turn out that the things we like about our games are in fact fundamental and long-lasting. It’s far more likely though that they’re simply a reflection of our present values; values that will change with time.
A good example of this is pixel art.
Charles J Pratt wrote:In this view [productism] games are products that contain a variety of different kinds of media, such as sound effects, thematic graphics, and story sequences in text and cinematic form, with each element as valuable as every other, including the actual play of the game.
Charles J Pratt wrote:“a game needs nothing else apart from its rules to succeed as a work of art”, according to Humble. In this respect ‘Mechanism’ holds that other elements of a game, not directly affecting the play, are at best ancillary and at worst superfluous
by ganheddo » 15 Mar 2009 02:12
icycalm wrote:What I find funny is that his non-confrontational tone offends me.
Charles J Pratt wrote:The hope is that by pointing out some of the lenses through which we examine games we can get a better sense of the still developing critical community. Once we have a sense of where we stand in relation to each other, then it will be easier to refine our approaches and disagree more constructively, which in the end is the real job of critics!
by Recap » 15 Mar 2009 03:04
Vert1 wrote:The problem here is that this way of judging games is flawed. People play Tetris for the game's mechanics, not the graphics or music. It would be very amusing to hear somebody say that Tetris's graphics somehow affect their liking of the game.
by icycalm » 15 Mar 2009 03:07
by Vert1 » 15 Mar 2009 04:58
by icycalm » 15 Mar 2009 05:05
Vert1 wrote:you probably know that you deleted 2 of my posts in that thread
Vert1 wrote:That thread is locked, so let me know if you want to continue this line of discussion in another thread.
Vert1 wrote:I'd like to ask Recap to what extent does Tetris's graphics affect his game experience?
by losganados » 15 Mar 2009 06:22
by Worm » 17 Mar 2009 02:20
by Bradford » 17 Mar 2009 17:27
Worm wrote:1. FORMALISM - ABSTRACT ELEGANCE
The best games are the ones that provide the most complexity ("lots of interesting choices") with the smallest rulesets.
. . .
1) What about complexity without elegance? It has been shown several times on this site that some players enjoy learning large sets of rules. And, how is "lots of interesting choices" different from 4)? Just the addition of an explicit goal?
by Arthur'sDog » 16 Jun 2009 03:32
by bunuelo » 16 Jun 2009 07:40
Charles J. Pratt wrote:For instance, it’s difficult to assess an abstract puzzle game like Tetris by the same standards you would use to examine a game with 30 minute cut-scenes like Metal Gear Solid 4.
by icycalm » 16 Jun 2009 16:42
Arthur'sDog wrote:Not to add useless discourse, but I think this is your best article in a while. You may need opponents for motivation, but since this this piece is motivated by a discussion of constructive passion rather than scorn, it added a lightness to your "pen" without abandoning consistent principles.
Charles Pratt wrote:There was one point which I would like to clarify though: In my course your 'Arcade Culture' essay was not presented in a New Games Journalism context. My reference to NGJ in the syllabus was only concerning Tim Rogers, and in the end became a side note.
My purpose in pairing Arcade Culture with Life: Non-Warp was because I wanted to two perspectives on the idea of 'mastery'. This is a subject that I think gets too little attention in discussing video games.
by icycalm » 17 Jun 2009 00:31
by dA » 17 Jun 2009 11:24
Schopenhauer wrote:It is only the man who writes absolutely for the sake of the subject that writes anything worth writing.
by chb » 17 Jun 2009 14:12
-How would Street Fighter II become better?
More characters! More stages! More moves! Bigger and more fluidly animated sprites! Faster and with more elaborate and brutal effects! With more and better music!
-How would Dune II become better?
More units! More structures! Larger map size! More and more unpredictable, more intelligent adversaries! Better graphics! Better music! Better sound effects!
-How would Wolfenstein 3D become better?
More varied locations and scenarios! (Shooting Nazis inside a castle for hours on end eventually becomes boring.) More sprawling, realistic environments! More dynamic situations! More enemies and more friends -- human ones if possible! And of course always better graphics, better music and better sound effects!
-How would Space Invaders become better?
Bigger and more detailed enemies! More detailed and colorful graphics! And can we make the spaceship, you know, move around the screen, and travel to different planets and space environments? And can those different locations each present us with its own set of enemies and obstacles, as well as its own particular music and atmosphere?
-How would Grand Theft Auto III become better?
More and larger areas! More and more varied missions! Greater variety of moves, weapons and vehicles! More elaborate plot development and as many alternative paths through it as possible!
Et cetera, et cetera.
Now what do all these desirable features, these improvements demanded by the children, the most passionate, experienced and dedicated gamers, have in common? Therein lies Mr. Pratt's answer, and with this answer the instinctive criteria which were formerly subconscious become conscious. It is only at that point that superior criticism can begin.
by Naoshige » 17 Jun 2009 16:48
by losganados » 18 Jun 2009 01:50
I think icycalm was explaining that children demand complexity (because a more complex game is a better game).chb wrote:What all these things that icycalm mentioned have in common is that they make the game more immersive, that they make it easier for the player to forget the real world (and wanting to forget the real world for a while is why we play games in the first place). Thus, it follows that the games that are more immersive are also the superior ones because they are better at doing what games are supposed to do: providing an escape from reality.
That's what I got out of the article. I hope I'm not entirely wrong.
by Bradford » 18 Jun 2009 15:45
is false.chb wrote:(and wanting to forget the real world for a while is why we play games in the first place). Thus, it follows that the games that are more immersive are also the superior ones because they are better at doing what games are supposed to do: providing an escape from reality.
by chb » 19 Jun 2009 16:01
by Bradford » 19 Jun 2009 16:05
Naoshige wrote:What do you guys think would children answer if you asked them how to make Final Fantasy better?