Slashdot Mirror
The Rhetoric Of Games Explored
Thanks to the IGDA for their 'Ivory Tower' academic-related games column discussing how games communicate information to players. The author uses Ico as an example, highlighting the "...gameplay mechanic of enabling players to save their game. Often with consoles, players access this option with the pressing of the Start/Select button... In Ico, you can only save when you find a glowing white couch... clashing with the rest of the design of game world and drawing rhetorical attention to this mechanic that enables you to save your progress." But should developers "work to create gameplay mechanics that are better incorporated within the overall game design, making them less explicitly rhetorical", as The Getaway does by getting rid of HUD information, or does there need to be an explicit and obvious way to save, regain health, check an onscreen map, and so on?
I'd love to see less games have a HUD, it's more emursive (sp?) and it prevents burning images into the tv screen (very important for owners of projection tvs).
One unnatural mechanic leads to another. If the computer/console was an appliance that saves progress constantly (or at least, often enough not to matter), then saving the game is as easy as walking away and turning off the machine.
Of course this only works in-game if your game has been designed so that Death isn't used as a "punishment". If your game design allows players to go down unreversible dead-ends, then you have to have save-game functionality to allow them to back up. One hack leads to another.
For example, see The Sims. No save game required.
Direct from the Alanis Morissette school of Irony, now comes a word that we've all been waiting for
I mean, whatever happened to the usual meaning of rhetoric as "the art of oratory"!? (Yes, Virginia, that was a rhetorical question.) How the hell can rhetoric be extended to using objects to communicate? Rhetoric has always been associated with _verbal_ communication.
Mr. Davidson tries to "loosely" define rhetoric at the beginning of his article, and in general, he failed. It almost seems like "rhetoric" is starting to become the trendy word of the month. And I despise people who try to be trendy.
Please call it what it actually is; a metaphor or a symbol. For my sanity. For everyones sanity. For the children
Wow, I can't believe how annoyed I am with this.
I agree, this should not pass as academia.
I sort of respect what they are trying to do. I'm sure the author is a video game enthusiest with a good head on his shoulders and wants to write about something he enjoys.
OTOH Its as if these guys believe that their criticism and analysis of video games will pull video games out of the cultural and intellectual gutter.
Games will evolve and gain respect on their own merit and with the talent of creative developers. Analysis by actual game designers would be more insightful. But then again, they are too busy making good games. Just like great authors don't often write about literature. Though some do, and it is often quite good.
I've often wondered when or if games will cross over into the realm of art. I'm sure there are examples of this beginning to happen. Though I suspect we'd be reaching and smudging a bit. To much game, not enough art. Too much art, not enough game.
Anyway, I think this guy is reaching a bit far.