but it's the only suitable one if you want to do it justice. There's no need to have separate words for games on computers and outside computers.Quote:
Originally Posted by wordreference.com
Not helping the confusion is the fact that nearly(weasel words) all computer software is used in similar way. You move mouse around and/or press some keys.
Also the very nature of narrative extends beyond media. We've been telling stories to each other for a few Millenia now and although we've evolved different ways of telling them, fundamentally the 3 part act (beginning, middle & end) still holds true. Is it possible that games can evolve a distinct narrative from that of other media? (the gaming equivalent of pulling a Pulp fiction or Rashamon) Most certainly, but only when games have developed a unique voice, and that's only going to occur by engaging with existing narrative techniques and evolving the mediums lexicon (which is scant at this point in time). Back in the early days of Television the entirety of what was broadcast was effectively talking heads. Essentially no different from the radio (the medium it threatened) save for the fact that you could see the people talking at you. Because albeit the technology existed, the unique visual voice of television hadn't evolved. Narrative in games isn't going to get anywhere unless it takes its lead from what's come before as a starting point, and it's certainly not going to get anywhere by rejecting wholesale the idea narrative in the first place.
Look at what Rockstar are doing with GTA V for instance with the 3 interchangeable character idea. Their early games are apologetically cinematic ripoffs, but they're evolving their storytelling approach to make something that's unique to the medium. Evolution > revolution.
You're obsessed with the medium only having one thing that makes it stand out, the one you chose. That's bollocks. What's is the strength of novels? What is the strength of music?
I'm sorry if the purity of your special word got taken away guys, but you're not being constructive here. If you think the distinction is important, come up with new terms, develop a new taxonomy for 'types' of games but you ain't going to turn back the clock on what people currently call 'games' - because it's used far more in that context that it is in yours.
I think, that before anything, we have define the definition of definition.
This argument is bunk from the off.
People always decry games like Mass Effect. They were doing it long before the series began. The claim is always the same; that such games "don't work".
Well, they do. Why? Because I enjoy the hell out of them, and so do many others.
This truly is gaming progress, everyone.
It's not progress, it's just a different fork in the road. They can exist side-by-side. I'm not saying one is better than the other. I have a preference, but I can also see how much fucking cool stuff is going on with emergent gameplay down the other fork too. It's a shame the people that champion those games can't afford us narrative-nancys the same respect.
No one is arguing that all games have to have a story, or even that all games are improved by adding a story, especially if the story is added in a bad way. But actually yes, Chess-with-a-story does exist, it's called Dungeons and Dragons and personally I much prefer it to the original.
Do you have any idea what you're even saying anymore Wizardry?
Are you really going to start arguing schematics on a microscopic level now? Stop. Just stop.
Look at it this way, I have a friend who used to work at Looking Glass studios, making hardcore gamey-games. He now works at Telltalegames, and helped make Walking Dead. Another of my friends went to Harmonix, and makes crazy challenge games that are all about developing skill.
I find it absolutely awesome that 'games' encompasses so many different types of game, and find it hugely exciting that this was a year that we saw something based around fantastically solid mechanics and emergent storytelling (XCOM), as well as something based around an adaptive narrative aiming for emotional punch (Walking Dead). Both wings of videogames are flourishing, and isn't it *great* that the medium has room for people who like all sorts of things, for developers who can make all sorts of things, and it's all bubbling together as a melting pot of new ideas feeding on each other?
Isn't that already the case with chess. There are a large amount of special plays you can make, which involve predetermined move sequences. I believe some of those moves even have stories behind them. And chess itself is a story - in that you are trying to kill the opposing King; each piece even has it's own little personality abstracted into the movements they are allowed to make.
But I suppose it could be funner to just throw rocks at each other for no reason.
This doesn't apply to something like Mass Effect. Ruin the plot and make the characters horrendous and you're left with a 1/10 cover shooter. People only ever talk about the plot and characters in the Mass Effect series. People never discuss their strategies to success but the story choices they made. There's a fundamental difference here.