I just wanted to share my thoughts on that episode of Extra Credits.
Firstly, he begins by stating that games are unique because they are interactive. Well, my response is that all art and entertainment is interactive; life itself is interactive. it's just that compared to listening to music or looking at a painting (Both sensory and mental interactions), games rely on physical touch interactions as well as other senses. So games do have a form of interaction that sets them apart from other mediums, but we shouldn't get carried away and say that books or films are not also interactive. Games just offer an extra dimension of interaction; the physical. And this is not by any means better or worse than other mediums. Although it is potentially more engaging.
Secondly, there is such thing as game theory. A good book to read is 'Man, Play and Games' by Roger Caillois. In it he outlines all the major game types (Games of skill, chance, mimicry & vertigo), and this was written in the 60s. There's also of course, 'Homo Ludens' by Johan Huizinga; a book examing the broader concept of play. Video games are still largely influenced by traditional game design, despite being all digital and stuff.
I do agree that a video game is incomplete without the player, but so must a book be incomplete without a reader. They both require consciousness to experience and interpret them. Where you have room for arguing is the individual compositions of each particular game, book, film, installation, song, dance, etc. because the rules and imposed limits of each creative work are different.
Take dance for example. Once type of dance is a ballet that you go to, sit in the audience and just watch. Another more contemporary form of dance might be more open for audience participation, and you can go onto the stage and join in, or request the dancer to change their act a little, influencing the story in quite a direct, physical way. And what about going to a club? You are the (Possibly amateur) dancer, dancing to a kind of music you enjoy. Dancing in the club is probably the loosest form, where there isn't a barrier between performance and audience. While in ballet there's a clear division between the performers and the spectators. This example of dance is analogous to linear games that are strict compositions (Final Fantasy 13), and sandbox games that are open systems (Grand Theft Auto 3). The role of the participant is different because each system is balanced differently.
So I think that even though designers must think around the player, and they must think about it from the perspective of the player, as creators they have free choice to impose limitations. Some designers make linear games with simple interactions, while others offer many choices and paths for divergence. It is the choice of the creator to decide how they wish to limit player consciousness. Rules and limitations tell us about the story and about the situation and this provokes a reaction from the player. Open worlds are very important, as is player choice, but this shouldn't necessarily be THE way of making video games. It's up to the designer on what kind of relationship he or she wishes to create with the player - how does the designer relate to the player? Does the designer want to punish or dominate the player, or do they want to create a joyful experience? Maybe they want to leave it really open so the player can play spontaneously and trigger events that the designer didn't know existed.
Personally, I see the player simply as a kind of vagrant consciousness that visits virtual worlds and inhabits various systems and structures. By inhabiting lots of these structures we learn more about ourselves, thus evolving our mind. So rather than getting bogged down in art debates that tend to lead nowhere, I think that players should focus on the experience of play rather than the game object, or physical game commodity. And forums are a great way to share our experiences of play with others and help designers make better games.
The biggest problem in game design today, in my opinion, is too many developers relying on genre conventions, rather than thinking for themselves and creating new ways to play. Just thinking in terms of genre tends to sidline the player because the focus is on making an FPS or an RPG, or a racing game - and not examining interesting relationships between the player and the system, or creating new interactions. I think that the 'next gen' will be a complete joke if it really is just another case of more power. That's not advancement.
But to round up, I think that play is a creative act in and of itself. If there is choice in a game then the player can create something right? In addition, the inclusion of level editors and character creators enables the player to have similar creative options to the designer.
P.S: I would love a game that is made by a designer who intentionally left exploits in the world, so I could go around and discover various ways of breaking the game. ;-) that would be fun.
Firstly, he begins by stating that games are unique because they are interactive. Well, my response is that all art and entertainment is interactive; life itself is interactive. it's just that compared to listening to music or looking at a painting (Both sensory and mental interactions), games rely on physical touch interactions as well as other senses. So games do have a form of interaction that sets them apart from other mediums, but we shouldn't get carried away and say that books or films are not also interactive. Games just offer an extra dimension of interaction; the physical. And this is not by any means better or worse than other mediums. Although it is potentially more engaging.
Secondly, there is such thing as game theory. A good book to read is 'Man, Play and Games' by Roger Caillois. In it he outlines all the major game types (Games of skill, chance, mimicry & vertigo), and this was written in the 60s. There's also of course, 'Homo Ludens' by Johan Huizinga; a book examing the broader concept of play. Video games are still largely influenced by traditional game design, despite being all digital and stuff.
I do agree that a video game is incomplete without the player, but so must a book be incomplete without a reader. They both require consciousness to experience and interpret them. Where you have room for arguing is the individual compositions of each particular game, book, film, installation, song, dance, etc. because the rules and imposed limits of each creative work are different.
Take dance for example. Once type of dance is a ballet that you go to, sit in the audience and just watch. Another more contemporary form of dance might be more open for audience participation, and you can go onto the stage and join in, or request the dancer to change their act a little, influencing the story in quite a direct, physical way. And what about going to a club? You are the (Possibly amateur) dancer, dancing to a kind of music you enjoy. Dancing in the club is probably the loosest form, where there isn't a barrier between performance and audience. While in ballet there's a clear division between the performers and the spectators. This example of dance is analogous to linear games that are strict compositions (Final Fantasy 13), and sandbox games that are open systems (Grand Theft Auto 3). The role of the participant is different because each system is balanced differently.
So I think that even though designers must think around the player, and they must think about it from the perspective of the player, as creators they have free choice to impose limitations. Some designers make linear games with simple interactions, while others offer many choices and paths for divergence. It is the choice of the creator to decide how they wish to limit player consciousness. Rules and limitations tell us about the story and about the situation and this provokes a reaction from the player. Open worlds are very important, as is player choice, but this shouldn't necessarily be THE way of making video games. It's up to the designer on what kind of relationship he or she wishes to create with the player - how does the designer relate to the player? Does the designer want to punish or dominate the player, or do they want to create a joyful experience? Maybe they want to leave it really open so the player can play spontaneously and trigger events that the designer didn't know existed.
Personally, I see the player simply as a kind of vagrant consciousness that visits virtual worlds and inhabits various systems and structures. By inhabiting lots of these structures we learn more about ourselves, thus evolving our mind. So rather than getting bogged down in art debates that tend to lead nowhere, I think that players should focus on the experience of play rather than the game object, or physical game commodity. And forums are a great way to share our experiences of play with others and help designers make better games.
The biggest problem in game design today, in my opinion, is too many developers relying on genre conventions, rather than thinking for themselves and creating new ways to play. Just thinking in terms of genre tends to sidline the player because the focus is on making an FPS or an RPG, or a racing game - and not examining interesting relationships between the player and the system, or creating new interactions. I think that the 'next gen' will be a complete joke if it really is just another case of more power. That's not advancement.
But to round up, I think that play is a creative act in and of itself. If there is choice in a game then the player can create something right? In addition, the inclusion of level editors and character creators enables the player to have similar creative options to the designer.
P.S: I would love a game that is made by a designer who intentionally left exploits in the world, so I could go around and discover various ways of breaking the game. ;-) that would be fun.
