grabbed from Guy’s site… who heard about it from Colin and Michele… who heard about it from …
(But that is the way of the web 2.0 and social networking isn’t it?? - nicking each other’s stuff - it is called ‘creative commons’) ….
well anyway here is the video that had me falling about laughing: (You HAVE to watch it)
And it reminded me of bits of Steven Johnson’s book where he talks about how people would feel about books if they were invented AFTER video games (etc.)
For example - reading books is a solitary activity; books always end in the same way, however many times you ‘interact’ with them; there is only one route through a novel (page 1 to the end); books offer you no real choices about who to be/identify with; no choices about plot; you need no strategy to get through - you can just coast along etc etc.
Unlike video games which usually require strategy planning, can be played competitively with others, they can offer you a choice of roles; the endings (and plot) can be differen every time; you have to make decisions etc etc.
Ohhh can’t resist this one! I’d start by saying that I see games as being a related artistic genre, ot the same as books. As with books, though, there are some which are formulaic and not that interesting in the long term, whilst there are others which are creative, involving and are worth lots of repeat visits.
“For example - reading books is a solitary activity.” Not all the time! I loved reading out loud with my mother and I still doing reading-out-loud as an adult, especially in bed (poems, short stories, or longer works over a period of time). “books always end in the same way, however many times you ‘interact’ with them” perhaps the “ending” is the same, but you aren’t, as so you can experience the work differently, notice new things, also perhaps remember how you were/felt the first time you read it - and books aren’t just about “endings” are they?
“there is only one route through a novel” but in practice people read them in different ways, skipping, skimming, going to the end first (my mother always does that!) “books offer you no real choices
about who to be/identify with” - but I’ve had arguments with people about what characters and their world were “like” - people using their imaginations in different ways; “no choices about plot” more agreement here (although many elements may be open ended: but them people do like stories and plots;
“you need no strategy to get through - you can just coast along etc etc.” yes, but you can coast through an RPG or whatever without actually applying much brainpower. About the competitive & role playing bit bit - that brings in the fact that the games are their own genre which may be competitive, either vs. the Computer/Dark Lord or someone else - could more compare them to different types of games (e.g. board games, from which of course quite a few sprang)
With quite a lot of games although their are alternative routes and choices, at the end of it their are only a few options as to where you end up, and a limited number of major ways of getting there.
Sheila
Comment by Sheila — March 12, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
“ot the same as books” of course I meant to say “NOT the same as books”
Sheila
Comment by Sheila — March 12, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
Thanks for fulsome comment Sheila. Really good points and I agree books are much more multilayered than Johnson’s criotique makes out.
Comment by DrJoolz — March 13, 2007 @ 10:28 pm
meant to say yesterday how much I liked the helpdesk video! excellent
Comment by Mary Plain — March 17, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
Thanks MP glad you like it!!
Comment by DrJoolz — March 17, 2007 @ 9:02 pm