Slashdot Mirror
Gaming Without a Safety Blanket
Hugh Pickens writes "IGN has an interesting interview with Tom Bissell, author of the recently published Extra Lives: Why Video Games Matter, in which Bissell uses his experience in investigative journalism and as a war correspondent to describe his years playing games. Bissell talks about the difficulties in describing gameplay to non-gamers. 'A lot of casual games sort of submerge their storytelling to an almost subliminal level while upping the gameplay sophistication,' says Bissell. 'Writing about pure gameplay is tough. ... I say in the book that's one of the most suspect things about the form; a game with [an] incredibly dopey story but a really compelling mechanical set of resonances can still be a great game. I don't know if there's really a way to talk about that with people who aren't sold on the form.' Bissell adds that it's easier for many to find meaning in the more traditional delivery systems of entertainment and compares writing about games to the difficulty in describing rock & roll to an older generation. Bissell's background as a war correspondent, traveling to regions of conflict, has also translated into the games he likes."
There are two types of people in the world: people who think there are two types of people in the world and people who don’t. I’m among the first type and I think the world is divided into people who recognize the Jewish problem and people who don’t.
In other words, the world is divided into smart people and dumb people. If you’ve got an IQ of 80, have difficulty operating a can-opener, and recognize the Jewish problem, you’re smart. If you’ve got an IQ of 180, have already won a couple of Nobel Prizes, and don’t recognize the Jewish problem, you’re dumb.
I’ve been dumb for most of my life: it took me a long time to recognize the Jewish problem. I didn’t think for myself, I just accepted the propaganda and conformed to the consensus. Jews are good people. Only bad people criticize Jews. Jews good. Anti-Semites bad. But then, very slowly, I started to see the light.
Recognizing Jewish hypocrisy was the first big step. I was reading an article by someone called Rabbi Julia Neuberger, a prominent British liberal. I didn’t like liberals then, so I didn’t like her for that (and because her voice and manner had always grated on me), but her Jewishness wasn’t something I particularly noticed. But as I read the article I came across something that didn’t strike me as very liberal: she expressed concern about Jews marrying Gentiles, because this threatened the survival of the Jewish people.
That made me sit up and think. Hold on, I thought, I know this woman sits on all sorts of “multi-cultural” committees and is constantly being invited onto TV and radio to yap about the joys of diversity and the evils of racism. She’s all in favor of mass immigration and there’s no way she’s worried about Whites marrying non-Whites, because “Race is Just a Social Construct” and “We’re All the Same Under the Skin”. She’s a liberal and she thinks that race-mixing is good and healthy and Holy. Yet this same woman is worried about Jews marrying Gentiles. Small contradiction there, n'est ce-pas?
Well, no. Big contradiction. She obviously didn’t apply the same rules to everyone else as she applied to her own people, the Jews. She was, in short, a hypocrite. But not just that – she was a Jewish hypocrite. And that’s a big step for a brainwashed White to take: not just thinking in a negative way about a Jew, but thinking in a negative way about a Jew because of her Jewishness.
After that, I slowly started to see the world in a different way. Or to be more precise: I started to see the world. I started to see what had always been there: the massive over-representation of Jews in politics and the media. And I started to notice that a lot of those Jews – like Rabbi Julia Neuberger, in fact – gave me the creeps. There was something slimy and oily and flesh-crawling about them. And it wasn’t just me, either: other Gentiles seemed to feel it too.
Politicians often attract nicknames based on some outstanding aspect of their character or behavior. Margaret Thatcher was “The Iron Lady”. Ronald Reagan was “Teflon Ron”. Bill Clinton was “Slick Willy”. But these are Gentile politicians and their nicknames are at least half-affectionate. Jewish politicians seem to attract a different kind of nickname. In Britain, Gerald Kaufman, bald, homosexual Member of Parliament for Manchester Gorton, is nicknamed “Hannibal Lecter”. Peter Mandelson, now Britain’s Euro-Commissioner and Tony Blair’s suspected former lover, is “The Prince of Darkness”. Michael Howard (né Hecht), the leader of the British Conservative Party, is “Dracula”.
When I noticed this kind of thing, I started to ask questions. What was going on here? Why did Jews attract nicknames like that? And why had Gentiles reacted to them like that not just now, but a long way into the past? Shakesp
I've seen some visually amazing movies with terrible stories, and hear some really interesting music with stupid lyrics.
Yes. This is what is wrong with games today. This guy gets it.
This game will waste your life. Don't clicky!
Gamers don't impress me one bit.
Bissell talks about the difficulties in describing gameplay to non-gamers. 'A lot of casual games sort of submerge their storytelling to an almost subliminal level while upping the gameplay sophistication,'
My eyes glazed over and my brain went elsewhere. Kind of like when someone really excited about gaming starts to ramble on about it.
My gaming serves a purpose for me - take my brain elsewhere for a while. Why do I expect that non-gamers should be able to relate to a game they don't play themselves? Even if they did play the same game, most things we relate to each other are going to be the same. Do we start a conversation where most responses are going to be "me too"?
I hate this word. Is it one word? Is it two? Who knows. But it's one of the few words we have to describe the stuff that goes on while you are playing a game. We need something better, or we need some dictionary to step up and add it.
Love the caption on the OregonLive image:
Tom Bissell manipulates the controller while playing "Flower," a mellow video game his nieces enjoy.
Ah... right, yeah, his "nieces."
If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
Gaming is like dancing [with your thumbs]. A lot of the mechanics are shared between games. A large part of the exhilaration is managing to get the end of a game without screwing up terribly. It's more nerdy (and possibly annoying) to some because the dance partner is a computer (more accurately, it's the game developers through a computer). It leads to the same sort of frustration that Garry Kasparov expressed about Deep Blue because many are more inclined to see the challenge presented as intended to remove the fun of the game. While I wouldn't go as far as to say that such a point never holds true (ie, there is such a thing as a game that's unreasonably hard), the challenge of a game forces gamers to improve which extends the life-long enjoyment of gaming. In the end, it's this attribute that keeps people interested in the long-term.
"We are merely sprites that dance at the beck and call of our button pressing overlord."
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
I hate this word. Is it one word? Is it two? Who knows. But it's one of the few words we have to describe the stuff that goes on while you are playing a game. We need something better, or we need some dictionary to step up and add it.
horseplay - definition of horseplay by the Free Online Dictionary ... ...
frolic, gambol, romp, caper, play - gay or light-hearted recreational activity for diversion or amusement; "it was all done in play"; "their frolic in the
www.thefreedictionary.com/horseplay
To answer your conundrum: Gameplay is like horseplay, but less gay.
You can't take the sky from me...
One of the major hurdles gaming as an entertainment medium needs to overcome before it is taken as seriously as movies, theater and such by more than its major demographic is the pandering to the immature teenage obsession with sex and violence.
There are way too many games that advertise and pride themselves on the quality of their hitboxes (better headshots!), the intricacies of their scoring systems (show everyone how well you can twitch!) and their rewards for being skilled with violence (only ten more kills before I unlock the headraper 3000!). Even worse is when the amount of nudity or sex in a game is treated like some sort of sacred phenomenon like in God of War.
I wait patiently for more games like braid, heavy rain, the monkey islands remakes or portal, although they may not all have the most amazing stories, they push the capabilities of the medium or are rewarding because of the way they make you think, their humor or their beautiful art style.
There is no actual difference between story telling and gameplay. In that they are both experiences with the exact same structure (This one). Else it would not be fun.
Only that one is formed by defining generalized laws that allow movement inside the fun area, while the other is pre-scripted to the mindset of the writer.
The whole discussion about games “lacking stories” is pointless. Games are a generalization of pretty much everything we do for fun. Films, stories, art, sports, interesting contraptions, toys, learning... they are are subsets and aspects of what a game is.
So instead, it’s more correct to say, that stories lack freedom. And actually there is a free gradient between the two.
Also there is no big need to describe gameplay. As it’s actually always coming down to being the exact same thing. As in all stories too. That pattern is well known. Since the mechanics must work in that certain way, to be a game (or story) and to be fun.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Not to be confused with _ponyplay_!
Seriously.
We both said a lot of things that you are going to regret.
...I thought "gaming without a safety blanket" would be a discussion of how real men play roguelikes, where you have only one life and the game may take weeks/months to complete and death means starting over...
Advice: on VPS providers
Congratulations, you have proved the existence of the second group by demonstrating that the cardinality of the set of dumb people is equal or larger than one.
When I was a child we used to play "Cowboys and Indians". The kids would break into two groups, one the cowboys, the other Indians. It was by definition roll playing with simulated violence. There were rules; for example, the cowboys had guns and the Indians had stealth. Rules and parameters were establish and followed, if not, "NO FAIR...or YOU CHEATED" were declared.
Modern computer gaming, such as the First Person Shooter, (FPS), is an extension of this. In fact, if you can recall being a child and the various imaginary games that children play, I.E. Pirates, Fortress, Capture the Flag, Tag and so on, modern gaming is an extension of these into a modern format with the use of computer technology. You can think of your computer as both a playground and a referee. Of course it's highly evolved and segued into genres, but if one distills it down to a non "gamer" essence, I think one could find a frame of reference based in the beginning of "play" its self.
Take the Red Pill.
Seriously, why is this pure expression of stupidity modded "insightful"? It doesn't have anything to say, apart from "I don't have any thoughts of my own, and I don't want any, and I don't want to listen to someone who has".
Right now, at least, his post is modded "3: Insightful" and yours is modded "4: Insightful" -- you're winning!!
My kingdom for a mod point, man. That was insightful and eloquent. I'll be paraphrasing, copying or bookmarking your comment.
if you are shot when playing a game, a robotic gun in the console actually shoots you. Cool!
"a game with [an] incredibly dopey story but a really compelling mechanical set of resonances can still be a great game."
'Writing about pure gameplay is tough. ... I say in the book that's one of the most suspect things about the form; a game with [an] incredibly dopey story but a really compelling mechanical set of resonances can still be a great game. I don't know if there's really a way to talk about that with people who aren't sold on the form.'
Yes, this is exactly the problem, trying to describe games in the wrong terms and evaluate them in the wrong framework. We all probably agree that great games are great due to gameplay mechanics, and story doesn't really matter (some may also have good stories, but it's certainly not necessary, and for me if the story drones on too long, even if it's good, it just gets in the way of actually playing the game - like how you always skip cutscenes after the first time through).
Yet non-gamers seem to think of games in a story-driven entertainment sense, like "how does this compare to a movie?" The answer should be "it doesn't, it compares to chess and poker and ping pong and billiards (and car racing and tennis and other sports, minus the sweat)." Games are GAMES, do you care if checkers or monopoly or bridge or badminton have great stories? So why do you care if a video game does?
Of course, the entertainment industry doesn't help by putting out endless big-budget, story-driven games often derived from other forms of entertainment, but which have crappy gameplay (if there's much actual gameplay at all), thus feeding the stereotype...
For every "Casablanca", there are 10 "Dude, Where's My Car?"s, "Grandma Got Her Funk Back"s and "Under Siege 2: Dark Territory"s.
For every "Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas" there are 10 "Harold & Kumar"s, "Cheech & Chong"s and "American Pie 3"s.
Similarly, for every "Portal", "Braid" or "Monkey Island" there are numerous generic first person shooters where you have to mow down wave upon wave of enemies with increasingly powerful, brutal weapons.
With that in mind, I really don't think that getting rid of gratuitous or excessive sex, violence and swearing is the silver bullet to getting gaming accepted as a "serious" entertainment medium by the mainstream that you think it is. Nor do I agree that violent games, per se, could never be taken seriously. However I totally agree that the kind of bloodthirsty, all-out FPSs you refer to will probably never be considered "high art", in the same way that "Transporter 7: School Run Traffic" will never be, but there is no reason, for example, that a survival horror game in the vein of the Resident Evil franchise couldn't receive more serious consideration as art.
"I just sort of start"
"I just feel my way through it"
"It's about my sort of spiraling"
"sort of going coo coo for Cocoa Puffs"
"A lot of casual games sort of submerge their storytelling"
"so I just sort of showed up and went to his hotel room and interviewed him"
Would be the movie, "Avatar," which also has a silly plot but is VERY immersive. Thus, the "quality" is not in anything but in how well the thing cons the customer.
Cranky educator.
The gameplay, like C&C renegade (one of my favorite, if short lived, team FPS games), is AWESOME.
The graphics? Like C&C renegade was back then, are way past their prime. TF2 has been out for like 5 years. If they did nothing, but rebuild the engine the game sits on, and updated models and texturing, they'd have another hit. I'd re-buy it in a heart beat.
Be mindful that it doesn't mean I don't like playing it. Quite the opposite:
I can snipe w/ the best of them when on at least a mediocre team, with a headshot to K ratio of about 4:5. Taking out a demo w/ the Direct HIT is allways a plus, and few things are more satisfying than sapping a re-deployed lvl 3 sentry that some engie spent so much time building, & packing up only to have it die, or ubering a demo to take out an entire fortress w/ a few stickies, chewing through tons of ammo then chewing through a sandvich, then more ammo... The ever classic, rushing past the first point to instantly take the second pt as a scout, building a telle behind the enemy lines in TwoFort, but my heart longs for one thing... setting people on fire.
You can call me Ronald Bartel
Yes, I am the guy who plays the classes you hate: All of them!
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
The graphics? Like C&C renegade was back then, are way past their prime. TF2 has been out for like 5 years.
You are the very mincing walking stereotype of the people in the AC2 comment above about 'aerial assassinations'. Jesus wept indeed.
3.5 years = "like 5" years? Ah, but I forget I'm in the world of manchild gamer math. The 18-35 dudebrah bracket considers anything outside of a narrow range of a few years to be essentially ancient, including women (girls, really), vidyo games and cars. One, two, many indeed.
You have terrible opinions and you are a terrible human being.