18th November 2004, 1:44 PM
Quote:With the video games thing your arguement is just on such shaky ground... beyond the fact that from the standpoint of the actual games your "point" is irrelevant, there is also the issue of what you are using to prove your case: dictionaries and the like. They don't exactly have the deepest and most accurate definitions of these things... for instance dictionary.com has no enterance for 'electronic game' by itsself (only a mention in the 'video game' entry) and 'computer game' only shows up as "a game played against a computer". Obviously that is wrong. So is it any surprise that the 'video game' entries are off as well? (that is, they are saying something that while it may be strictly correct it is not the way they work anymore. Like a computer game only being "a game played against a computer". I guess they missed the internet...)
Yes I know that regular dictionaries do not provide all of the answers. And no that is not all that I have. As you know I want to become a professional game designer, and in order to train for that I have been reading everything that I can, I've talked to people in the industry, as well as personal friends of mine who were able to afford going to school in such places as the University of Advancing Technology in Tempe, Arizona. My claims are not based on "shaky ground" as you put it, and they are not based on simple stubbornness and ignorance like yours are. These are things that I know for a fact, and I have indeed discussed this particular issue with people who's jobs it is to educate other people on the definitions, ideas, and theories of video games. The only shaky ground here in the one beneath your feet.
Quote:But that isn't too important.
It's not? Then why are you debating me for pages and pages?
Quote:The biggest thing is I just do not understand why you make such a big deal out of this. It makes no sense at all. All I did was support my case with a pertinent example and you fly off the handle! It's absurd! What does whether Zork is a video game or not have to do with weather it, as a game that clearly is a predecessor of current games in the genre that we have been discussing (and clearly an interactive game and not a movie or a book), was more influenced by books or by films? Yet that's your only "defence"against point. Sad.
(oh yeah, and were would you put games that make their "graphics" out of ASCII text symbols?)
I make no greater deal out of this than you do. Remember that there are two of us in this debate. I make a special note of this particular issue because your entire argument rests on it. Your entire shaky argument rests on untruths.
As for ASCII text symbols, that is not a huge stretch from a bunch of tiny pixels forming an image. If you manipulate those ascii images then it is a video game. I will not go over that again.
Quote:And the response is that Zork is closer to being a book than MGS is to being a movie (note your use of the word 'games'. To avoid your stupid video games "arguement" as the response.)
I don't care how much you want to deny it, but text-based games are not video games and therefore your argument is baseless. I will not go through this again.
Quote:No, you are not. You say "UNDERSTAND!" And when I say 'I don't quite know what you mean" you say "YOU IDIOT!!!11!" instead of defining your terms and making your arguement more understandable.
Have I ever called you that here? Seriously, show me where I did. And I've made myself as clear as I realistically can in a forum without actually giving you a a book-long lecture. Like I said below, you are unable to understand even these most simple explanations.
Quote:But if it had a more defined story, you'd probably be complaining because "it doesn't live up to what I expect from a Metroid game" (see Fusion), so for Nintendo it seems like a lose/lose proposition...
Fusion was linear, which is why it wasn't as good as I was hoping it would be. Zero Mission, however, shows that a simple story can be told while maintaining the nonlinear gameplay that Metroid is so loved for. Take the basic ideas from ZM and you'll have one awesome Metroid story.
Quote:Infocom. Okay, not straight books, but more than books, but if you really tried you could do something that complex in a book... it'd just require a really annoying tally sheet to keep track of details and, for some games, may not work at all... but it is pretty close to an interactive book in a box. And Infocom was the best at it.
As for films, there have been some games that try to be cinematic to the point of greatly limiting gameplay... I know that's a criticism of those Star Trek games 'Borg' and 'Klingon' (I think that was the other one), and could be levelled at 'Dragon's Lair' as well... so you can make arguements for both sides. But I'd say the interactive fiction is a bit closer.
Like I already said, you do not even know what the term "cinematic" means so your post is pointless. And again you've failed to understand my point. For the what, sixth time for this particular point? Amazing.
Quote:No I did not. Here's the quote. Read more carefully (though I know you never will)!
Quote:
As you say, this is something films don't do (and you have slightly different reasons, but we ended up with the same conclusion -- that no films count as being written mediums).
The point is, I agreed that films are a visual medium, and (then) stated that my position was that games are a combonation of both visual and written mediums.
Actually, that is not what you said. Let me quote you right now, in regards to movies being written mediums as well as visual mediums sometimes: "If they were thinking of them as an integral part of the film, then yes, I would say that the written medium would be a definite aspect of the project."
Your ever-changing stance and lying is making this more and more difficult for you, Brian.
Quote:Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but your position seems to be that they are a primarially visual medium (not purely visual though, right?).
Not primarily; totally.
Quote:And while visuals are definitely a big part of games, I am definitely of the opinion that there is more to it than that and that things based on visual mediums (like films) are not the only big influence on games.
However, I did state (though I don't think you got or understood this point) that games do seem to be moving somewhat towards film as time passes and graphics get better. But as I said a while back, the main mitigating factor towards this is probably that games are a more mature medium now and there is less need to copy off other media formats than there may have been before...
Influence means nothing! How many times do I have to repeat that??! I was influenced by a home appliance when I thought up the concept for my platformer, and what does that tell you? THAT ANYTHING CAN INFLUENCE ANYTHING WHICH MEANS THAT INFLUENCE HAS NO BEARING ON THE DEFINITION AND CONDITION OF A MEDIUM!. Maybe those big bolded letters will get the point across to you this time!
That's the amazing thing about the human mind, you can become inspired or influenced by something that has very little relation to whatever that influence is placed upon! Whether games have been more influenced by books, movies, or frying pans, that is completely beside the point. You CANNOT put books directly into games and expect people to accept that. You CAN, however, put movies directly into games because games and movies are both visual mediums! And before you say "but you SEE books, so they're visual too!", books are considered to be a digital medium (that just means that the letters are essentially symbols or numbers that store information).
Quote:It really depends on what you mean by linearity. If you mean "I really wish that Starcraft had a branching campaign with multiple endings", well, that might be fun but I don't have a problem with games like that having a linearly unfolding story. Really, I kind of got off track... I think that both linear and non-linear stories can work depending on the case of the game. And you are right, the less linear the story then generally the weaker it is (though this depends, if it's simply a branching tree then the story can have choices and some openness and be a tight story, but you would probably argue that that isn't the most nonlinear form of game design). The point was more supposed to be about something I was reading about in a Dreamfall (The Longest Journey 2) interview I read a few days ago. There, the game's designer was saying that they were trying to have the player be in control of the game as much as possible. Even in "cutscenes" most of the time you are in control. This is because it is an interactive game and not a film, so the player should be able to do things and not just watch events unfold. Will what you do in these cases actually change how the game unfolds? Not in every case, no. But just like in Planescape: Torment, having the FEELING of control and having something to do is what counts. It doesn't matter if the story is linear if it gives you control and some degree of effect on your environment (like the example they gave of a case where you could choose to hide from or fight some soldiers)...
So I guess that most games ever made, including Mario and Zelda, suck because you cannot control the story and are merely playing a part in it.
Your insane theories are getting worse and worse by the minute.
Quote:Oh yeah, and Deux Ex would be a good example of a game with interactivity and choices throughout, while still maintaining a strong narrative.
Deus Ex's story is terrible, absolutely terrible. If it were a movie it'd be made fun of more than a hundred Day After Tomorrows. It's just a dumb, cliche rip-off of various different stories. It's told relatively well for a game and especially for a FPS, but it's really, really lame.
Quote:It's not the exact same thing as having live actors, but it serves the same purpose (if probably with a loss of effectiveness). For expressions, games generally either have portraits or faces that show what the person's experession is (with voice acting and stuff usually) -- see Fallout for instance, or most anime-inspired games, they try to describe it in the text, or both. Fallout for instance has portraits for the major NPCs, that animate with voice for when they talk. Quest for Glory has a portrait of who you are talking to and the face animates some as they speak. Baldur's Gate? True, it does not have that. It just has the text and the on-screen graphics. This probably does make it a bit less personal and film-like, and it means that it relies more on writing... and fortunately, in my opinion at least, they came up with good enough writing to mostly make up for it. With a game that size, I can see why they wouldn't really want to do animating portraits for all of the major NPCs... but now that I think about it it might have been nice.
Before I go any further, I want you answer this question for me, and do not try to dodge it:
If you saw a movie (that used live actors) where the actors stood completely still in front of each other with a static camera angle focused on them, and the dialogue was told through subtitles scrolling on the bottom of the screen... would you consider it to be anything but the most awful movie you had ever seen before?
Seriously, just answer this simple question without your usual dodging tactics. Just straight-up answer that question.
*sigh*
I was hoping to educate you, but I see that this is futile. I'll give you one more chance to try to understand me, and after that I will stop trying to help you.