3 ms·

The author seems to believe we should adopt a literacy about games very similar to one used when evaluating literature. I think this is incredibly misguided, b

by gmu3 14y ago

The author seems to believe we should adopt a literacy about games very similar to one used when evaluating literature. I think this is incredibly misguided, because they're entirely different mediums (or at least should be). In Steven Johnson's Everything Bad is Good for You, he compares video games to word problems, and says video games like word problems should be judged by their cognitive challenges not their literary merit. If you want to evaluate games seriously by looking through a narrative lens, I don't think video games could ever surpass books in their ability to tell a story. The ability to control an avatar "normally makes a coherent interpretation of the avatar and his / her behavior in regard to the game’s story quite difficult, if not impossible. Players usually don’t enact an ideal story – at least not in the first playthrough. Take James Bond games, for example. While you learn how to be as cool, cunning and competent as James Bond, you normally act like an idiot. Not taking cover when being shot at, forgetting to reload, getting lost, driving against water hydrants and being killed – all of this is far from an ideal realization of the James Bond character (Well Played 1.0 (don't recommend))." Perhaps the argument could be made that video games give the player agency in the story in a way books don't so can excel narratively where books can't, but first of all how many games with a narrative focus really give the player any meaningful agency? And if I have meaningful agency, I'm writing my own story; I don't need to think deeply about what the author/designer is saying like this article advocates. This essay isn't short, but I think he makes a lot of good points about the history of the Zelda franchise and argues the next Zelda would be better if it had no story: http://tevisthompson.com/saving-zelda/ http://tevisthompson.com/saving-zelda/ . Video games can have value and meaning that transcends narrative structures.

JenniferFinelli 14y ago
Hmm, that's a very interesting thought! It made me think: do you think judging literary vs. cognitive challenges could depend on the genre of the game? I would be pretty sad if Portal, for example, was judged only as a puzzle game. That was the idea that turned me off originally when someone described it to me. As soon as I got the story, though, I became interested, because I like to analyze. Could it be possible that some games should be judged primarily by cognitive challenges, and others by both? Or, could it be possible that we don't need to judge games at all? o_O Sounds weird, but this is what I mean. I'm actually in the article never once talking about evaluating the merit of a game on an objective level. It's not about judging games so much as judging how we interact with them. I'm talking about on a personal level, how the game interacts with you, and whether you find value out of it. If you find value only through area MT, that's a thing, I guess. But what if we find other ways of connecting our brains to a game--since the game is affecting those other areas already? On some level, who really cares about the "literary" or "cognitive" value of the game? On some level, you and I don't really give a velociraptor's feathers either way what some arbitrary standard says about a game. We care about how the game affects us. What do you think? I dunno, you're very societally-minded here, and that takes the article beyond what I'd originally intended. Neat! I'm not sure how we should "judge games," I guess! Just interested in how it gets my brain. ^_^

by gmu3 14y ago

JenniferFinelli 14y ago

Hmm, that's a very interesting thought! It made me think: do you think judging literary vs. cognitive challenges could depend on the genre of the game? I would be pretty sad if Portal, for example, was judged only as a puzzle game. That was the idea that turned me off originally when someone described it to me. As soon as I got the story, though, I became interested, because I like to analyze. Could it be possible that some games should be judged primarily by cognitive challenges, and others by both? Or, could it be possible that we don't need to judge games at all? o_O Sounds weird, but this is what I mean. I'm actually in the article never once talking about evaluating the merit of a game on an objective level. It's not about judging games so much as judging how we interact with them. I'm talking about on a personal level, how the game interacts with you, and whether you find value out of it. If you find value only through area MT, that's a thing, I guess. But what if we find other ways of connecting our brains to a game--since the game is affecting those other areas already? On some level, who really cares about the "literary" or "cognitive" value of the game? On some level, you and I don't really give a velociraptor's feathers either way what some arbitrary standard says about a game. We care about how the game affects us. What do you think? I dunno, you're very societally-minded here, and that takes the article beyond what I'd originally intended. Neat! I'm not sure how we should "judge games," I guess! Just interested in how it gets my brain. ^_^