| Matt Robb |
|
I would say that a great many games simulate a portion of reality. Because of this, you don't learn (viable) lessons directly, but you can extrapolate bits of lessons back out.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Richard Dare |
|
|
Many of the things that make games a fun experience are the aspects of reality that are left out or wilfully subverted. This might mean that some aspects of life cannot easily be represented in games since they require the hard limitations that necessitate such "life lessons". Perhaps designers can find configurations of gameplay that enable these strictures, but I bet it will be difficult.
For me, games have an enormous emancipatory and rebellious aspect in that they allow us to not pay heed to the limitations of ordinary life. They are an attempt at making the experience of imagining more real and more significant by presenting it to us in the physical world. In a way, games are not so much about representing aspects of life as they are about bringing it into contrast with the ever-present freedom of the imagination. |
|
|
| Michael Joseph |
|
|
""We should not be ashamed of making entertainment, because our games are preparing… our cultures for the problems of tomorrow. Games are the medium of this century. We will matter more than the literature, than the music, than the film, than the poems for the next 100 years. Games teach us to solve the impossible… What you do, every day, as you work [creating games], is to make joy."
-- Saying it's true doesn't make it so. This is the type of grand claim that needs a truckload ton of evidence to support. I mean just consider the mainstream games out there... I don't know how someone extrapolates from that something positive. And if it's something other thain mainstream games then in my judgement, those aren't the types of games Mr. Koster is promoting. Games as medium of the century in present context strikes me as tragic. |
|
|
| Roger Haagensen |
|
|
"For example, you can retry as many times as you like in most games, and gradually improve your performance, with no ramifications."
Not true, take Star Wars The Old Republic. It gets worse and worse (grind, grind, grind). And worst of all, cough up some extra cash and you'll get more xp faster. And do one mistake and you have to live with it or delete the character (virtual suicide) and start all over again. And when it comes to single player games, not being able to roll back to an earlier save can be destructive to the enjoyment. As the player may end up with a non-satisfactory end or outcome. (nobody want to reach the end and feel like they got cheated out of their time and money) And hardly any games are that big and well made enough to make it possible to play from the start again. As almost all of them at best only let you decide a few things which barely have any change on the outcome. Or if they do change the outcome it is only the last few minutes of gameplay, leaving the other 99% identical to the first playthrough. Developers do not wish to waste their time, and neither does players. Reduced saving or no saving is suited nicely to hardcore or "insane" gameplay modes. Normal should be well balanced for the average and easy or beginner or story mode should be just for that. There are games that never get finished, out of frustration (dying at he same spot the n'th time), or because they made the wrong choice and realize that they need to re-play several days worth of gameplay to get back to the same spot so they can make the other choice. It may seem nice from a storytelling point to make the player "live" with the choice, but it's no longer fun is it. And is it really the intended effect if the player never finish the game but instead goes on youtube to watch the ending instead? They also become jaded towards the developer and publisher and their future games. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Jeremie Sinic |
|
As much as I love games, I hope people don't count on games to learn lessons about life. Whether it be Carmageddon or Bejeweled, Final Fantasy or Street Fighter, Myst or Farmville, I don't think that's ever the purpose.
"In games, we really don't care about learning from the monster in the RPG. Instead we just kill them all." That's the most interesting quote in the article I think, and another reason why The Witcher is an exceptional game (it does put players in such situations). |
|
|
| Joshua Oreskovich |
|
|
"In games, we really don't care about learning from the monster in the RPG. Instead we just kill them all."
We used to learn from the monster however, then we turned them into us, then we we dispelled their most fundamental reasoning ~ fear, now we are trying to recognize what monsters are again so we can apply them in a more productive manner. Monsters are just ideas though, and ideas are something we should consider. But I think here meaning is found through simple imaginative discovery, not forced learning, but facilitated learning. If we will not be bothered by our own imagination, isn't there a more practical and stimulating use of our time? |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Alan Barton |
|
I can't help feeling I've just been listening to an evangelical snake oil salesman. Is this a sales pitch to sell his book? ... Its the only way I can explain how he can be so far off, because there are so many points I disagree with in this article. Its hard to know where to start, as it could take hours of writing to deal with it all. So instead, I think I will pick one point...
@"Systemic thinking helps us analyze the world so much better." I can't help but say, then try reading your own article more closely!!! But before you do, first read this and then apply it to your article! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logical_fallacies Especially the logical fallacy an "Appeal to emotion", plus a few others like e.g. "Denying the antecedent". |
|
|
| Jose Striedinger |
|
|
Beautiful article!
I must admit I really agree with the last phrase. I find video games t be such an amazing medium to inspire people in the right know. I mean is all the media of self expression, combined, and made interactive...is amazing and limitless. I guess that's why I love games than are just more than mindless fun, that have some meaning into, like Braid or Limbo. Nevertheless, I have to disagree in taking games too seriously. There should be a balance. Video games can not relate 100% to real life and, most important, the player MUST know it does not relate 100% to real life. but, I admit is curious to think of game design in these issues. Like, say a game tries what you said, to be way harder as you keep losing, would that be a good game design choice? wouldn't that encourage player to quit the game? does that says that we, as game designers, are "spoiling" the game player community without even notice it??? |
|
|
More: Social/Online, Design, GDC China