I was tempted to write another really long post about this in relation to the paper I'm working on, (Story Writing in Computer-based Role-Playing Games), but I'm afraid I really can't be bothered.
So instead I've been trying to think of a good analogy instead...
This is like someone complaining about the instruments used in a variety of movie soundtracks, saying it badly affects the story the film tells if the viewer has a choice about what type of soundtrack they wish to hear.
No - this game doesn't go far enough to make it into 'gambling' - though I've read up on a couple of games that were (are?) planned/talked about which probably would...
In order to count as gambling - two things need to happen:
a) any item you can find in a game would need to have recognized real-life monetary value.
b) there would be a way to convert these in-game rewards into real life money.
(Of course, the only thing then would be to make it so that there would only be a 'chance' of finding items of enough value to pay back the amount of money you spend on the game, which is why it doesn't really work with free-to-play games).
Narrative is either a) a type of story, (or at least part of a story), when used as a noun, or b) a way to describe the ACT of TELLING a story, when used as an adjective.
In other words, if narrative is used as a noun, it's automatically a story, since that is was it is describing, or relating to the telling of such a story if used an adjective.
The reason WHY so many people have trouble with the word STORY, is simply because people don't understand just how basic, simple, and fundamental it's meaning really is.
And it's easy to understand WHY that's the case, when you check various places for it's meaning, and it really does vary by a great amount...
For some it can include both general, as well as more specific uses, whereas for others, even its 'general' use, (which is what we're talking about here), is more limited and specific. In other words, it's definition, (in dictionaries), is INCONSISTENT.
But even after reading some, (like Chambers Dictionary), although they try and make it more specific - (Chambers only mentions written/oral methods, for example) - if you read the rest of the description, it doesn't quite work, (since it then talks about film and media too).
However, sitting on my desk, right now in front of me, is a copy of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, and yes, although it also goes into more specific uses, it's general use is simply defined as:
Story: An account of real or imaginary events.
The real problem, is that most people have no concept of what a story is, until AFTER it's been told (to them) - after all, that's the way most forms of entertainment work - they write a story, then package it up, and tell it to us in whatever format and medium they choose.
Obviously, there are lots of types of information which you wouldn't really class as a story, since they don't, actually, relate to any events per se, (such as pure numerical information, and even instructions etc.), but there are other types of information, which, although on the face of it, you might not consider to tell a story, (i.e. describe any events), many people would, in fact, disagree...
(My example there, of course, is MUSIC. I'm a musician and composer myself, and there a lot of musicians I know who would tell you that music ALWAYS tells a story.... And if music tells a story, then all of a sudden, it's definition, by default, gets widened considerably, (though that doesn't, actually, affect much here at all - I just thought I'd add it as an example)).
Anyway, by ANY definition I've come across of the word story - (even Chambers:p) - that short description I gave of a chess match, as an example, is STILL a story, (since it's a written account of events, (in a chess match)).
But, as I said, most people really only have a true concept of what a story is after it's been told to them, using whatever means and method of doing so - (and limiting it to just written or speech does film/animation/acting (and music!;) ), a great disservice!).
And this is a problem, because the moment you now mention the process of WRITING a story, (instead of telling it), most of the variety by which they're TOLD, suddenly goes out the window, and people start thinking purely of someone sitting there writing something down on a piece of paper...
But stories don't just happen that way. Stories can be written in exactly the same ways by which they are told! And it's this that people usually have trouble understanding, but it's IMPORTANT, if you wish to fully understand GAMES...
For instance, if I watch Match of the Day, on the BBC, they will tell me a story of a football match that happened earlier in the say, by showing me a film of the game - (selected highlights, generally). Yes, it may be incomplete, but such a film/program, would still count as a story of (some of) the events that happened in the game that took place earlier.
Now, showing a film of a game AFTER it has occurred, means it's no longer a game - i
No. You're not quite seeing it, (but it's not entirely unexpected;) ).
Actually - I would have thought chess would be pretty obvious for this - (which is why I chose it as an example). This, for instance is a story of a short chess match:
The point of the game, isn't to tell THE story I just posted, but in the act of writing A story, with there only being a possibility for it to be the one I just posted. Again, the whole point of a game, is that people DON'T know exactly what story is about to be told to them, because it hasn't been WRITTEN yet.
It's the act of WRITING a story,that makes games what they are - (which is why people fixing games, so they KNOW what will happen before hand, (and therefore just TELL a story, rather than write one), destroys what a game is supposed to be - (i.e. cheating).
Now, there are two elements to the story's that are written within games - one is player skill - the other, as you pointed out, is random chance. Games can use either or both in various degrees.
Either way - because the story of the game is only written when it's being played - (unlike last years Singapore grand prix for instance:p ) - even full player skill-based games, because they pit at least two players against each other - (like chess) - and none of the opposing players will know exactly what they're opponents will do, it all means that the story is non-existant until the players write it.
Your essentially saying that random chance is not a viable way to ensure that a story is written when playing a game, instead of told. But of course that's ridiculous, since it can work extremely well at that. Yes, many things can happen BECAUSE of what the random chance might do, but it doesn't matter, because it's only there to ensure that players don't know what will happen before hand.
Yes, the kitchen table-top would be part of the setting if that's where people choose to play their game. The only difference between different games, will be of course how much impact it actually has upon the game itself. For games like poker, it obviously doesn't mean much, except as a space around and upon which to organise the players and the/their cards - though, obviously, the table would have more importance, in, say, texas or omaha hold'em, (since the community cards will be placed upon it), than in, say, five-card draw.
Again, just because you don't 'see' it as a setting - doesn't mean it's not there:p
(Doh - first of all I realised I made a mistake - (I was in a hurry and wasn't thinking properly:p) - I meant to say TWO words in addition that that - oops).
Well, lets see... It really all depends on how well you understand the term 'story writing', as to how much I really need to explain, though - (I've had to do that on slashdot before, since some people didn't get it).
Tell you what - I'll just explain it from scratch then - (again;) ).
A lot of forms of entertainment, especially those involving media, are all about TELLING stories, such as films, animation, books and tv programs - even music is a type of story - just in sound.
Stories are merely a record of events, factual or fictional, from any period of time. There are lots of types of story - some of which can depend on the medium involved, and others, which can cover a wide variety of different media. Some types, such as comedy, tragedy, romance, are purely about the type of story told, and the events that take place within. Some, however, are, or can be about the setting within which the recorded events take place - (such as fantasy/western) - (though it's not always so clear-cut: I could have a science fiction story set in a medieval world - it would therefore be the events within the setting that would make it a science fiction story, and not the setting itself, whereas another story might be a standard romance, but in a futuristic science-fiction setting).
(If you read up on story telling - there are a few things that they are considered to involve: plot/narrative, setting, characterization and style).
Obviously, producing all this and making it available for people is a very large industry, which is good...
It's good, because story telling is IMPORTANT - it's one of the main ways in which humanity, as a whole, learns from ITSELF - every story it creates, both factual and fictional, from scientific essays and dissertations to the most fantastic science fiction novels, merely informs humanity more about itself and the world and universe in which we live - all of it - the good, the bad, AND the ugly.
But GAMES are not about story TELLING... And this is causing some problems for a few people, (well, actually, after everything I've read, I might put it at a bit more than a 'few').
Yes, it is of course possible to tell stories ABOUT games that have taken place - (a record of events that have happened) - (such a sports commentary/chess match reports etc.) - but this isn't a game in itself. No - what makes these games, is the act of WRITING the story itself, not telling it, even if it ISN'T actually being recorded 'permanently' - since it only matters that the players have their own record, (in their memory), for it to count. Obviously, with that in mind, people are constantly writing stories, and that's correct. It's just that very few are written 'permanently'.
Obviously, though, just writing a story obviously isn't enough for something to be a game - it's not like writing this post now means I'm playing one;)
What makes writing stories a game, and therefore important, is the underlying reason for doing so:
Competition.
Games are about people competing against each other to write their own story, either as individuals or in teams, either directly, (such as opposing teams in a football match, or players in a chess match), or indirectly, (such as people competing against the clock to record the quickest time for any game or sport, by which they can then compete against everyone for whom a time has been recorded, regardless of when and where they did so).
But, yes, I said TWO words, didn't I, and that's because just defining it as 'competitive' story writing doesn't seem quite enough, (though I've had a few arguments about this one, which I conceded).
There's one other thing that (apparently) makes games what they are, and that's a (firm) set of RULES. Now, obviously the rules for a particular game can vary a
In fact, I only left out one word in that title - an important word, yes, but if people understand games, then it shouldn't be too hard to figure out...
Games are fundamentally about two things, which naturally fit together and complement each other, one of which is in the title of my paper - (hint - it's not about role playing:p ).
I'll have to dig out the link - (assuming I can find it - I've swapped computers since then) - but I was posting on rpgforumsonline.com when it all started... (Had an argument with quite a few people).
As to the actual definition of what is and is not a game/computer game/cRPG etc. - well I'm in teh middle of writing a paper explaining it - (since a lot of what I've read has suggested that a paper like this is actually necessary, and may help a great deal).
In fact my paper wasn't originally supposed to be about that at all - I was just writing about some of the things I'd noticed and thought about RPG's after playing them for a while, after coming up with what I thought was something interesting - (leading on to my own cRPG system) - so I thought that site would be a good place to post it...
Since it's a site about RPG's, I thought people there would understand the fundamentals of what I was talking about, so I didn't go into too much basic detail - but it turns out I was overestimating my audience's understanding and viewpoint of not just cRPG's, but games in general. I had a rather long and drawn out argument with one person in particular, which in the end I just gave up with, since it was obvious she really didn't 'get it' at all...:(
However, the argument DID help me fully understand WHY they were all wrong in the first place, and also gave me better perspective on explaining it...
Since then, I've actually noticed a lot of people post similar opinions about RPG's in various places, and read quite a few articles - (including some on gamasutra) - which helped provide reasons for why people were taking the viewpoint they had - (even though it was wrong).
Because of this, I had to go back and write a new paper instead, (and am still working on it, (on and off), atm) - (though I'm really intending it to be an introduction to a longer paper that I will (hopefully) get round to finishing).
As to what the actual definition for games/computer games I've come up with IS, well - the title of the paper should provide quite a hint:
'Story Writing in Computer-based Role Playing Games'.
Again, I've made quite a few posts on slashdot about this now, but I'm afraid I'm not really any closer to finishing it - (been rather busy).
Re:like Oddworld or Psychonauts
on
Imagination In Games
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
But the computer games industry as a whole ISN'T thriving in the same way as every other entertainment industry, YET.
The reason is simple - the industry isn't yet mature enough to cater to the entire market as a whole with a basic quality product. (Some of the products released today, I wouldn't even count as 'basic'). At the minute, it's basically catering to some large areas of the market, and trying it's best to find ways of targeting some others, but since it's still trying to work things out for what works and what doesn't work in a computer game, it's very hit-and-miss.
Unfortunately, since it's following the same basic path as the other industries did, (though with a couple of shortcuts available, such as the internet, which the other industries didn't have at the same time in their period of evolution), it'll take a decade or two for it to fully happen.
What this is talking about is simply that computer games have got a lot more potential than some people realise, which, unfortunately, just means that they'll take even longer to fully mature.
I know some people will (probably) try and argue that the computer games industry is mature - but they're wrong - PARTS of the industry have and are maturing faster than others, but it still has a long way to go to catch up with every other form of entertainment - (and even then, those industries are still evolving too).
The problem with computer games, is that people want the industry to evolve faster than it's able to - as I said, it's going to take a decade or two for it to get to where, say, the film or maybe the music industry is TODAY - that is, assuming of course, that some of the major players in the industry ALLOW it to mature...
(I've found maybe another reason computer games haven't fully matured yet, too, (because of a paper I've been working on). It's become apparent to me that some people don't even fully understand what a computer-game actually IS - (I'm working on a paper talking about cRPG's) - but again, that's a symptom of the way some computer games have evolved and developed, and since it is also a consequence of the market and industry not being mature, it almost ended up going round in circles...
(Imagine that the only book trilogies that exist are all fantasy, such as Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Then imagine that some people, because of that, although they enjoy and prefer the longer and more developed story that trilogy's present, because only Fantasy stories are currently told in that format, they then say that fantasy is therefore defined as a trilogy...).
This is what's happening when a lot of people I've run into, (including some in the industry), who define cRPG's by the type of story they have to TELL, (i.e. plot, narrative etc.). The problem is that story telling is completely separate from gameplay - (which is why we can tell any type of story with any type of game - even two different games with the same story, or the same game with two different stories. The problem these people have, is that the sort of story they want to be told in a game, only seems to exist in cRPG's. And THAT is a consequence of the market not being fully mature... (Imagine a 60-hour racing game, with full narrative/plot/characterization etc. - would it be a cRPG? NO - it would just be longer, more developed racing game, UNLESS, it's also built around the game-play of an RPG too, (which is possible). Again, it's the game-play that matters for games - even cRPG's, though you'd be surprised at the people who've said that cRPG's are an exception to that...:-/)).
It was easy to run into thargoids on the NES version - just hold down on the d-pad when warping...
I used to play Elite on the NES when babysitting - damn I'm getting old...:( (I had it on the speccy too, but that damn lens-lok *!^$%"^&!).
Re:Who actually cares about the "good" ratings?
on
Gaming the App Store
·
· Score: 1
Yep - it's all about the QUALITY of the review itself at first, rather than it's actual rating that matters. A good review by someone who may not like the product, (regardless of what the product actually is), and who can explain why, may actually do more for someone looking to buy, than a generic 5 star review that says nothing other than the person thinks it's great!
Of course, if absolutely EVERYONE says a product is crap, then it probably is:p
It's not software, but I've had this problem in the past week, looking for some reviews for a graphics card I'm (having) to buy, (since I can't afford anything better at this time). It's a Radeon 4650 - a low, (but not quite bottom) end card, that I know won't be up to that much with today's latest games. But because of that I want to know exactly what it can, and only then, cannot do - but not a single review from any site I checked really told me that. All I could gather from almost any of the reviews I saw, was that it can -sometimes- play the latest games at 1280x1024 resolution, and for the few older games they tested it with it was okay. And even then most sites tested it the same way as higher-end cards, i.e. at resolutions up to 1920x1200 etc., which we knew it wasn't going to handle. Again, they all seemed to focus too much on what the card COULDN'T do, rather than finding out, and telling me what it COULD do. (Although at least it's better than my old Radeon 9800 Pro regardless:p ).
"But actually, all forms of entertainment you could ever think of, are subsets of what games are. Including those with a plot."
No.
There are two archetypes of entertainment, both of which are (or should be) considered the main forms of art:
Story telling, and story writing. The ONLY thing these two CAN share, is setting...
Setting is therefore the main area in which games can benefit from all of the development of the various forms of story telling (books/films etc.).
Games are what we generally call the type of entertainment based on writing stories.
What makes modern computer games what they are, is the way in which the different types of stories, both told and written, can be *interleaved* with each other, even multiples thereof at the same time, (especially with multiple players).
But too many people focus on telling stories in games these days, which is not what games are about.
"So you can create the experience with a plot. Or without one. Or to be more correct: There are four things in games: mechanics, story, aesthetics, and technology. And for a good game, you need all four of them. Seamlessly interlocked and merged, supporting each other."
Again, you're slightly missing the point. Games require THREE things:
Setting. An object, (or objects), for the player(s) to control in order to write his/her/their story with, (even just him or herself in some playground games). And the rules binding the two together.
Games do not require anything else whatsoever. Chess has nothing else, neither do games such as hopscotch/tag/sports etc..
What defines a game, are the stories the player can WRITE - NOT the story that is told. EVERY genre of game, is based around something that defines the stories told - from card games to board games, (though, yes, that is mainly about the setting, but only because it's the main element defining the written story), and even genres of computer games, (from shooters to strategy games etc.).
As it happens I'm in the process (still) of writing a paper at the minute called 'Story Writing in Computer-based Role-Playing Games' - (and, yes, I know I should probably call it 'video game RPG's but I prefer the term computer instead).
The reason why I'm writing this paper is simple - I've come to realise from many conversations that many people don't fully understand what I've explained above and the ramifications of it, at least for cRPG's - (and maybe other games too).
(I've had people try and tell me, (from both within the industry and without), that cRPGS's are defined by the stories they tell, which is the underlying reason for me writing this paper).
Games are about allowing people to write their own stories within constructed settings and rules. Everything else is not a game. Whether or not anyone else here fully understands the ramifications of that I don't know - but then, that's what my paper is/will be for...
Copyright law is about protecting the rights of the owners of the information itself - not the object that's used to distribute it. (Which is why the internet is causing problems).
If I buy a book/cd etc. I own the physical product, yes, but have very little rights over the information contained within, so copying the information itself etc. is illegal - (except under some very limited circumstances (i.e. fair use)). For this reason copy-protection is fully legal, but the problem now comes about if they should limit the way you can use the product you've bought - (which should be illegal).
However, if I buy a LICENSE to use the information itself, rather than the product it was distributed on, then I actually have MORE rights over the information, though of course it should be all covered by the license agreement itself. However, as I said above, one of the duties of the licensee is to keep a fully working copy of the licensed information for use within the full terms of the license. In other words, if I can't make a back-up copy, there's no way the terms of the license can be met so that also becomes illegal, unless the license agreement if extremely specific, but licenses for the public are not expected, (or maybe even allowed) to be so specific AFAIK.
In other words, if I buy the product, then I should be able to use it as intended with no restrictions (install limits etc.).
If I license the product, then they can put whatever they want into the license agreement, but only IF:
a) there's no copy protection. b) there's a full legally binding (registered) agreement between the actual licensee and the licensor. (Most games don't do this). c) I actually BUY the license itself, rather than the product. (Again, games don't do this).
Or at least that's how it SHOULD work according to the law, (of most countries). Pity California seems to see things differently:(
What they REALLY want, is to both sell you product, with all the copy protections that can be associated with it, and then ALSO, license it, so that they can control how you use it and resell it too...
I.e. they want to have their cake and EAT it too!
They want to BOTH sell AND license a product AT THE SAME TIME.
OF course, the above should be TOTALLY illegal, since the laws governing both are separate and distinct, though copyright law CAN apply to both, but only in certain ways for either.
For instance, if I buy a license for the information (that just so happens to be distributed on the disc), then a) the disk itself means nothing - (since I've licensed the information directly) - b) I HAVE to be able to make back-up copies, since it's my DUTY to keep working copies available for the license agreement, and c) there has to be a recorded agreement between the actual licensee and licensor. If any of the above isn't true, then it's NOT licensed, and probably illegal.
However, if I buy a product, then, yes, they can stop me from copying the information on it, but they have no right to control what I may do with the product itself, including reselling it etc..
The problem is that they're literally getting away with both...
Efficiency is the key to making a good control system. I.e. you can do the most with the least amount of effort...
The controllers we have used so far, such as keyboard and mouse, gamepads and joysticks have stuck around for a while now because they're efficient, and also evolving to become MORE efficient - (adding more buttons etc.).
The problem with ANY control system that requires more movement to use, (such as the Wii's or some of those other 'wave your hands in the air to do stuff' demos you can find, aswell as even touch-screen tech, are all pretty inefficient for long-term use. Touchscreens are great for self-contained immediate short-term use, though still have problems with calibration. All the others are really just there for novelty value in short bursts - (including light-guns).
A friend of mine keeps going on about virtual keyboards and stuff, but again, I just don't see anything like that being as efficient for the majority of people for a long time.
Well, in my defence, I've been mainly playing bluegrass and country etc., and haven't really been paying much attention to playing Celtic music for a long time - (been far more interested in writing my own instead).
(Which is why my dad still has all the Celtic sheet music, and not me).
And one of Allan's aswell, cool - (my dad has my copy of Allan's Violin Gems atm btw).
What I prefer to do is get hold of music in Midi format, then run them through with virtual instruments in cubase - (some of Bach's stuff sounds great with the Pipe-organ in EastWest Orchestral (Silver)).
If you like Irish music you can listen to some of mine - though it's nowhere near finished yet - (need a new computer before I go back and finish it all off/re-write it etc.) - here: http://www.myspace.com/darrentomlyn
"A computer game utilizes media as a primary factor in the "playing" behaviour of humans."
DON'T read too much into this statement, which I think you have. All this statement tells me is that, since computers require a display device of some kind, everything the game displays to the player(s) has to involve 'media'.
How that is used and manipulated by the game, however, is entirely up to individual games, and therefore you should not automatically assume too much.
Yes, computer games CAN involve more media than that - (sounds etc.) - but they don't HAVE to. But, since they can, their potential in this regard is obviously a LOT higher...
No. It's only confusing if you don't understand the word story. We're talking about an account of a sequence of events - i.e. a story, except rather than telling one, a game is there to allow a player to write one. (Memories and personal experiences are stories too, btw).
Yes, it may be hard for people to look at games in such a light, and, tbh, most people probably don't need to - but I feel that's important for some to do so, especially any involved in their creation and design.
It's become very obvious to me that many do not, and therefore don't fully understand the implications of this on quite a few aspects of game design - (especially when all I seem to hear about these days is 'plot' and 'narrative' etc.).
Trust me, the implications of this viewpoint upon games are massive and numerous - and it's a viewpoint I've had for about 8-9 years now, but found hard to explain and fully understand until recently: I was arguing about someone over the definition of a computer-based-RPG, and we were arguing about story - she was talking about telling stories, I was talking about them being written, but I didn't fully understand that description until afterwards - (and I always knew I was right!:p).
Note: I'm trying to write a paper about this - (called Story-writing in Computer-based Role Playing Games) - but am finding it hard to fit everything I need into the first few 'chapters' atm. (Am planning to send them in to gamasutra and see what they think before writing the rest - it's going to be a LONG paper that one) - (I'll get there eventually, though).
You don't understand what I mean by story, then, which, again, isn't entirely unsurprising.
Take chess for an example. Every move each player makes can be seen as a sentence in his own story that he writes as he plays the game. Each of the players stories combine to tell the overall story of that particular game. That story can then be told to others - (which it often is). Every game can be seen in the same way, (and probably should, from a game-design point of view).
Of course games are art: they're just looking at it from a different perspective:
Story WRITING, instead of story TELLING...
Unfortunately, it's becoming obvious that not many people in the industry, (let alone the public), see things that way - most still seem to view them as just another medium for telling stories:-/
He's missing the point of achievements - although, TBH, some of their current implementations miss the point too:
Games are about writing stories - achievements are merely the record of the story that's been written.
Now, the main thing left to do, is to enable the player to write a unique story with unique achievements...
The biggest problem I see in games atm, is that too many people are focused on them purely as a story TELLING device, rather than story writing - which, in a way, kind-of defeats the purpose of the exercise IMO. (And the mention of plot/narration in the summary is a case in point).
The above post is precisely why Eve Online is a niche game and not suitable for everyone.
If that is all that you, personally, happen to see in the game - if that is all you feel your character can do - if that is the only story you feel your character can write - then it's obviously not the game that you should consider playing.
But just because that is what YOU see in the game, does not mean that it is the only possibility - the only option available. If you can't see any others, then don't play. Because to someone like me, I saw far more options that that available; just because I may not choose to take them, is not the fault of the game, but my own choice.
Slashdot Mirror
I was tempted to write another really long post about this in relation to the paper I'm working on, (Story Writing in Computer-based Role-Playing Games), but I'm afraid I really can't be bothered.
So instead I've been trying to think of a good analogy instead...
This is like someone complaining about the instruments used in a variety of movie soundtracks, saying it badly affects the story the film tells if the viewer has a choice about what type of soundtrack they wish to hear.
(Not sure if that is the best analogy tbh?)
No - this game doesn't go far enough to make it into 'gambling' - though I've read up on a couple of games that were (are?) planned/talked about which probably would...
In order to count as gambling - two things need to happen:
a) any item you can find in a game would need to have recognized real-life monetary value.
b) there would be a way to convert these in-game rewards into real life money.
(Of course, the only thing then would be to make it so that there would only be a 'chance' of finding items of enough value to pay back the amount of money you spend on the game, which is why it doesn't really work with free-to-play games).
doh - missed another:
'For instance, if I watch Match of the Day, on the BBC, they will tell me a story of a football match that happened earlier in the DAY'
(I'm sorry - but I really, REALLY, HATE typo's! :p - (especially when they're mine!)).
doh - forgot an 'and', before the BECAUSE in the last paragraph :p ("Generic grumble about slashdot not allowing people to edit posts once submitted").
Narrative is either a) a type of story, (or at least part of a story), when used as a noun, or b) a way to describe the ACT of TELLING a story, when used as an adjective.
In other words, if narrative is used as a noun, it's automatically a story, since that is was it is describing, or relating to the telling of such a story if used an adjective.
The reason WHY so many people have trouble with the word STORY, is simply because people don't understand just how basic, simple, and fundamental it's meaning really is.
And it's easy to understand WHY that's the case, when you check various places for it's meaning, and it really does vary by a great amount...
For some it can include both general, as well as more specific uses, whereas for others, even its 'general' use, (which is what we're talking about here), is more limited and specific. In other words, it's definition, (in dictionaries), is INCONSISTENT.
But even after reading some, (like Chambers Dictionary), although they try and make it more specific - (Chambers only mentions written/oral methods, for example) - if you read the rest of the description, it doesn't quite work, (since it then talks about film and media too).
However, sitting on my desk, right now in front of me, is a copy of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, and yes, although it also goes into more specific uses, it's general use is simply defined as:
Story: An account of real or imaginary events.
The real problem, is that most people have no concept of what a story is, until AFTER it's been told (to them) - after all, that's the way most forms of entertainment work - they write a story, then package it up, and tell it to us in whatever format and medium they choose.
Obviously, there are lots of types of information which you wouldn't really class as a story, since they don't, actually, relate to any events per se, (such as pure numerical information, and even instructions etc.), but there are other types of information, which, although on the face of it, you might not consider to tell a story, (i.e. describe any events), many people would, in fact, disagree...
(My example there, of course, is MUSIC. I'm a musician and composer myself, and there a lot of musicians I know who would tell you that music ALWAYS tells a story.... And if music tells a story, then all of a sudden, it's definition, by default, gets widened considerably, (though that doesn't, actually, affect much here at all - I just thought I'd add it as an example)).
Anyway, by ANY definition I've come across of the word story - (even Chambers :p) - that short description I gave of a chess match, as an example, is STILL a story, (since it's a written account of events, (in a chess match)).
But, as I said, most people really only have a true concept of what a story is after it's been told to them, using whatever means and method of doing so - (and limiting it to just written or speech does film/animation/acting (and music! ;) ), a great disservice!).
And this is a problem, because the moment you now mention the process of WRITING a story, (instead of telling it), most of the variety by which they're TOLD, suddenly goes out the window, and people start thinking purely of someone sitting there writing something down on a piece of paper...
But stories don't just happen that way. Stories can be written in exactly the same ways by which they are told! And it's this that people usually have trouble understanding, but it's IMPORTANT, if you wish to fully understand GAMES...
For instance, if I watch Match of the Day, on the BBC, they will tell me a story of a football match that happened earlier in the say, by showing me a film of the game - (selected highlights, generally). Yes, it may be incomplete, but such a film/program, would still count as a story of (some of) the events that happened in the game that took place earlier.
Now, showing a film of a game AFTER it has occurred, means it's no longer a game - i
No. You're not quite seeing it, (but it's not entirely unexpected ;) ).
Actually - I would have thought chess would be pretty obvious for this - (which is why I chose it as an example). This, for instance is a story of a short chess match:
1. e4 e5
2. Qh5?! Nc6
3. Bc4 Nf6??
4. Qxf7# 1-0
1. e4 e5
2. Qh5?! Nc6
3. Bc4 Nf6??
4. Qxf7# 1-0
The point of the game, isn't to tell THE story I just posted, but in the act of writing A story, with there only being a possibility for it to be the one I just posted. Again, the whole point of a game, is that people DON'T know exactly what story is about to be told to them, because it hasn't been WRITTEN yet.
It's the act of WRITING a story,that makes games what they are - (which is why people fixing games, so they KNOW what will happen before hand, (and therefore just TELL a story, rather than write one), destroys what a game is supposed to be - (i.e. cheating).
Now, there are two elements to the story's that are written within games - one is player skill - the other, as you pointed out, is random chance. Games can use either or both in various degrees.
Either way - because the story of the game is only written when it's being played - (unlike last years Singapore grand prix for instance :p ) - even full player skill-based games, because they pit at least two players against each other - (like chess) - and none of the opposing players will know exactly what they're opponents will do, it all means that the story is non-existant until the players write it.
Your essentially saying that random chance is not a viable way to ensure that a story is written when playing a game, instead of told. But of course that's ridiculous, since it can work extremely well at that. Yes, many things can happen BECAUSE of what the random chance might do, but it doesn't matter, because it's only there to ensure that players don't know what will happen before hand.
Yes, the kitchen table-top would be part of the setting if that's where people choose to play their game. The only difference between different games, will be of course how much impact it actually has upon the game itself. For games like poker, it obviously doesn't mean much, except as a space around and upon which to organise the players and the/their cards - though, obviously, the table would have more importance, in, say, texas or omaha hold'em, (since the community cards will be placed upon it), than in, say, five-card draw.
Again, just because you don't 'see' it as a setting - doesn't mean it's not there :p
(Doh - first of all I realised I made a mistake - (I was in a hurry and wasn't thinking properly :p) - I meant to say TWO words in addition that that - oops).
Well, lets see... It really all depends on how well you understand the term 'story writing', as to how much I really need to explain, though - (I've had to do that on slashdot before, since some people didn't get it).
Tell you what - I'll just explain it from scratch then - (again ;) ).
A lot of forms of entertainment, especially those involving media, are all about TELLING stories, such as films, animation, books and tv programs - even music is a type of story - just in sound.
Stories are merely a record of events, factual or fictional, from any period of time. There are lots of types of story - some of which can depend on the medium involved, and others, which can cover a wide variety of different media. Some types, such as comedy, tragedy, romance, are purely about the type of story told, and the events that take place within. Some, however, are, or can be about the setting within which the recorded events take place - (such as fantasy/western) - (though it's not always so clear-cut: I could have a science fiction story set in a medieval world - it would therefore be the events within the setting that would make it a science fiction story, and not the setting itself, whereas another story might be a standard romance, but in a futuristic science-fiction setting).
(If you read up on story telling - there are a few things that they are considered to involve: plot/narrative, setting, characterization and style).
Obviously, producing all this and making it available for people is a very large industry, which is good...
It's good, because story telling is IMPORTANT - it's one of the main ways in which humanity, as a whole, learns from ITSELF - every story it creates, both factual and fictional, from scientific essays and dissertations to the most fantastic science fiction novels, merely informs humanity more about itself and the world and universe in which we live - all of it - the good, the bad, AND the ugly.
But GAMES are not about story TELLING... And this is causing some problems for a few people, (well, actually, after everything I've read, I might put it at a bit more than a 'few').
Yes, it is of course possible to tell stories ABOUT games that have taken place - (a record of events that have happened) - (such a sports commentary/chess match reports etc.) - but this isn't a game in itself. No - what makes these games, is the act of WRITING the story itself, not telling it, even if it ISN'T actually being recorded 'permanently' - since it only matters that the players have their own record, (in their memory), for it to count. Obviously, with that in mind, people are constantly writing stories, and that's correct. It's just that very few are written 'permanently'.
Obviously, though, just writing a story obviously isn't enough for something to be a game - it's not like writing this post now means I'm playing one ;)
What makes writing stories a game, and therefore important, is the underlying reason for doing so:
Competition.
Games are about people competing against each other to write their own story, either as individuals or in teams, either directly, (such as opposing teams in a football match, or players in a chess match), or indirectly, (such as people competing against the clock to record the quickest time for any game or sport, by which they can then compete against everyone for whom a time has been recorded, regardless of when and where they did so).
But, yes, I said TWO words, didn't I, and that's because just defining it as 'competitive' story writing doesn't seem quite enough, (though I've had a few arguments about this one, which I conceded).
There's one other thing that (apparently) makes games what they are, and that's a (firm) set of RULES. Now, obviously the rules for a particular game can vary a
Oh, but I did...
In fact, I only left out one word in that title - an important word, yes, but if people understand games, then it shouldn't be too hard to figure out...
Games are fundamentally about two things, which naturally fit together and complement each other, one of which is in the title of my paper - (hint - it's not about role playing :p ).
I'll have to dig out the link - (assuming I can find it - I've swapped computers since then) - but I was posting on rpgforumsonline.com when it all started... (Had an argument with quite a few people).
As to the actual definition of what is and is not a game/computer game/cRPG etc. - well I'm in teh middle of writing a paper explaining it - (since a lot of what I've read has suggested that a paper like this is actually necessary, and may help a great deal).
In fact my paper wasn't originally supposed to be about that at all - I was just writing about some of the things I'd noticed and thought about RPG's after playing them for a while, after coming up with what I thought was something interesting - (leading on to my own cRPG system) - so I thought that site would be a good place to post it...
Since it's a site about RPG's, I thought people there would understand the fundamentals of what I was talking about, so I didn't go into too much basic detail - but it turns out I was overestimating my audience's understanding and viewpoint of not just cRPG's, but games in general. I had a rather long and drawn out argument with one person in particular, which in the end I just gave up with, since it was obvious she really didn't 'get it' at all... :(
However, the argument DID help me fully understand WHY they were all wrong in the first place, and also gave me better perspective on explaining it...
Since then, I've actually noticed a lot of people post similar opinions about RPG's in various places, and read quite a few articles - (including some on gamasutra) - which helped provide reasons for why people were taking the viewpoint they had - (even though it was wrong).
Because of this, I had to go back and write a new paper instead, (and am still working on it, (on and off), atm) - (though I'm really intending it to be an introduction to a longer paper that I will (hopefully) get round to finishing).
As to what the actual definition for games/computer games I've come up with IS, well - the title of the paper should provide quite a hint:
'Story Writing in Computer-based Role Playing Games'.
Again, I've made quite a few posts on slashdot about this now, but I'm afraid I'm not really any closer to finishing it - (been rather busy).
But the computer games industry as a whole ISN'T thriving in the same way as every other entertainment industry, YET.
The reason is simple - the industry isn't yet mature enough to cater to the entire market as a whole with a basic quality product. (Some of the products released today, I wouldn't even count as 'basic'). At the minute, it's basically catering to some large areas of the market, and trying it's best to find ways of targeting some others, but since it's still trying to work things out for what works and what doesn't work in a computer game, it's very hit-and-miss.
Unfortunately, since it's following the same basic path as the other industries did, (though with a couple of shortcuts available, such as the internet, which the other industries didn't have at the same time in their period of evolution), it'll take a decade or two for it to fully happen.
What this is talking about is simply that computer games have got a lot more potential than some people realise, which, unfortunately, just means that they'll take even longer to fully mature.
I know some people will (probably) try and argue that the computer games industry is mature - but they're wrong - PARTS of the industry have and are maturing faster than others, but it still has a long way to go to catch up with every other form of entertainment - (and even then, those industries are still evolving too).
The problem with computer games, is that people want the industry to evolve faster than it's able to - as I said, it's going to take a decade or two for it to get to where, say, the film or maybe the music industry is TODAY - that is, assuming of course, that some of the major players in the industry ALLOW it to mature...
(I've found maybe another reason computer games haven't fully matured yet, too, (because of a paper I've been working on). It's become apparent to me that some people don't even fully understand what a computer-game actually IS - (I'm working on a paper talking about cRPG's) - but again, that's a symptom of the way some computer games have evolved and developed, and since it is also a consequence of the market and industry not being mature, it almost ended up going round in circles...
(Imagine that the only book trilogies that exist are all fantasy, such as Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Then imagine that some people, because of that, although they enjoy and prefer the longer and more developed story that trilogy's present, because only Fantasy stories are currently told in that format, they then say that fantasy is therefore defined as a trilogy...).
This is what's happening when a lot of people I've run into, (including some in the industry), who define cRPG's by the type of story they have to TELL, (i.e. plot, narrative etc.). The problem is that story telling is completely separate from gameplay - (which is why we can tell any type of story with any type of game - even two different games with the same story, or the same game with two different stories. The problem these people have, is that the sort of story they want to be told in a game, only seems to exist in cRPG's. And THAT is a consequence of the market not being fully mature... (Imagine a 60-hour racing game, with full narrative/plot/characterization etc. - would it be a cRPG? NO - it would just be longer, more developed racing game, UNLESS, it's also built around the game-play of an RPG too, (which is possible). Again, it's the game-play that matters for games - even cRPG's, though you'd be surprised at the people who've said that cRPG's are an exception to that... :-/)).
It was easy to run into thargoids on the NES version - just hold down on the d-pad when warping...
I used to play Elite on the NES when babysitting - damn I'm getting old... :( (I had it on the speccy too, but that damn lens-lok *!^$%"^&!).
Yep - it's all about the QUALITY of the review itself at first, rather than it's actual rating that matters. A good review by someone who may not like the product, (regardless of what the product actually is), and who can explain why, may actually do more for someone looking to buy, than a generic 5 star review that says nothing other than the person thinks it's great!
Of course, if absolutely EVERYONE says a product is crap, then it probably is :p
It's not software, but I've had this problem in the past week, looking for some reviews for a graphics card I'm (having) to buy, (since I can't afford anything better at this time). It's a Radeon 4650 - a low, (but not quite bottom) end card, that I know won't be up to that much with today's latest games. But because of that I want to know exactly what it can, and only then, cannot do - but not a single review from any site I checked really told me that. All I could gather from almost any of the reviews I saw, was that it can -sometimes- play the latest games at 1280x1024 resolution, and for the few older games they tested it with it was okay. And even then most sites tested it the same way as higher-end cards, i.e. at resolutions up to 1920x1200 etc., which we knew it wasn't going to handle. Again, they all seemed to focus too much on what the card COULDN'T do, rather than finding out, and telling me what it COULD do. (Although at least it's better than my old Radeon 9800 Pro regardless :p ).
"But actually, all forms of entertainment you could ever think of, are subsets of what games are.
Including those with a plot."
No.
There are two archetypes of entertainment, both of which are (or should be) considered the main forms of art:
Story telling, and story writing. The ONLY thing these two CAN share, is setting...
Setting is therefore the main area in which games can benefit from all of the development of the various forms of story telling (books/films etc.).
Games are what we generally call the type of entertainment based on writing stories.
What makes modern computer games what they are, is the way in which the different types of stories, both told and written, can be *interleaved* with each other, even multiples thereof at the same time, (especially with multiple players).
But too many people focus on telling stories in games these days, which is not what games are about.
"So you can create the experience with a plot. Or without one.
Or to be more correct: There are four things in games: mechanics, story, aesthetics, and technology.
And for a good game, you need all four of them. Seamlessly interlocked and merged, supporting each other."
Again, you're slightly missing the point. Games require THREE things:
Setting. An object, (or objects), for the player(s) to control in order to write his/her/their story with, (even just him or herself in some playground games). And the rules binding the two together.
Games do not require anything else whatsoever. Chess has nothing else, neither do games such as hopscotch/tag/sports etc..
What defines a game, are the stories the player can WRITE - NOT the story that is told. EVERY genre of game, is based around something that defines the stories told - from card games to board games, (though, yes, that is mainly about the setting, but only because it's the main element defining the written story), and even genres of computer games, (from shooters to strategy games etc.).
As it happens I'm in the process (still) of writing a paper at the minute called 'Story Writing in Computer-based Role-Playing Games' - (and, yes, I know I should probably call it 'video game RPG's but I prefer the term computer instead).
The reason why I'm writing this paper is simple - I've come to realise from many conversations that many people don't fully understand what I've explained above and the ramifications of it, at least for cRPG's - (and maybe other games too).
(I've had people try and tell me, (from both within the industry and without), that cRPGS's are defined by the stories they tell, which is the underlying reason for me writing this paper).
Games are about allowing people to write their own stories within constructed settings and rules. Everything else is not a game. Whether or not anyone else here fully understands the ramifications of that I don't know - but then, that's what my paper is/will be for...
No...
Copyright law is about protecting the rights of the owners of the information itself - not the object that's used to distribute it. (Which is why the internet is causing problems).
If I buy a book/cd etc. I own the physical product, yes, but have very little rights over the information contained within, so copying the information itself etc. is illegal - (except under some very limited circumstances (i.e. fair use)). For this reason copy-protection is fully legal, but the problem now comes about if they should limit the way you can use the product you've bought - (which should be illegal).
However, if I buy a LICENSE to use the information itself, rather than the product it was distributed on, then I actually have MORE rights over the information, though of course it should be all covered by the license agreement itself. However, as I said above, one of the duties of the licensee is to keep a fully working copy of the licensed information for use within the full terms of the license. In other words, if I can't make a back-up copy, there's no way the terms of the license can be met so that also becomes illegal, unless the license agreement if extremely specific, but licenses for the public are not expected, (or maybe even allowed) to be so specific AFAIK.
In other words, if I buy the product, then I should be able to use it as intended with no restrictions (install limits etc.).
If I license the product, then they can put whatever they want into the license agreement, but only IF:
a) there's no copy protection.
b) there's a full legally binding (registered) agreement between the actual licensee and the licensor. (Most games don't do this).
c) I actually BUY the license itself, rather than the product. (Again, games don't do this).
Or at least that's how it SHOULD work according to the law, (of most countries). Pity California seems to see things differently :(
What they REALLY want, is to both sell you product, with all the copy protections that can be associated with it, and then ALSO, license it, so that they can control how you use it and resell it too...
I.e. they want to have their cake and EAT it too!
They want to BOTH sell AND license a product AT THE SAME TIME.
OF course, the above should be TOTALLY illegal, since the laws governing both are separate and distinct, though copyright law CAN apply to both, but only in certain ways for either.
For instance, if I buy a license for the information (that just so happens to be distributed on the disc), then a) the disk itself means nothing - (since I've licensed the information directly) - b) I HAVE to be able to make back-up copies, since it's my DUTY to keep working copies available for the license agreement, and c) there has to be a recorded agreement between the actual licensee and licensor. If any of the above isn't true, then it's NOT licensed, and probably illegal.
However, if I buy a product, then, yes, they can stop me from copying the information on it, but they have no right to control what I may do with the product itself, including reselling it etc..
The problem is that they're literally getting away with both...
Efficiency is the key to making a good control system. I.e. you can do the most with the least amount of effort...
The controllers we have used so far, such as keyboard and mouse, gamepads and joysticks have stuck around for a while now because they're efficient, and also evolving to become MORE efficient - (adding more buttons etc.).
The problem with ANY control system that requires more movement to use, (such as the Wii's or some of those other 'wave your hands in the air to do stuff' demos you can find, aswell as even touch-screen tech, are all pretty inefficient for long-term use. Touchscreens are great for self-contained immediate short-term use, though still have problems with calibration. All the others are really just there for novelty value in short bursts - (including light-guns).
A friend of mine keeps going on about virtual keyboards and stuff, but again, I just don't see anything like that being as efficient for the majority of people for a long time.
Well, in my defence, I've been mainly playing bluegrass and country etc., and haven't really been paying much attention to playing Celtic music for a long time - (been far more interested in writing my own instead).
(Which is why my dad still has all the Celtic sheet music, and not me).
O'neills - online? oooh... (Am a fiddle-player).
And one of Allan's aswell, cool - (my dad has my copy of Allan's Violin Gems atm btw).
What I prefer to do is get hold of music in Midi format, then run them through with virtual instruments in cubase - (some of Bach's stuff sounds great with the Pipe-organ in EastWest Orchestral (Silver)).
If you like Irish music you can listen to some of mine - though it's nowhere near finished yet - (need a new computer before I go back and finish it all off/re-write it etc.) - here: http://www.myspace.com/darrentomlyn
"A computer game utilizes media as a primary factor in the "playing" behaviour of humans."
DON'T read too much into this statement, which I think you have. All this statement tells me is that, since computers require a display device of some kind, everything the game displays to the player(s) has to involve 'media'.
How that is used and manipulated by the game, however, is entirely up to individual games, and therefore you should not automatically assume too much.
Yes, computer games CAN involve more media than that - (sounds etc.) - but they don't HAVE to. But, since they can, their potential in this regard is obviously a LOT higher...
No. It's only confusing if you don't understand the word story. We're talking about an account of a sequence of events - i.e. a story, except rather than telling one, a game is there to allow a player to write one. (Memories and personal experiences are stories too, btw).
Yes, it may be hard for people to look at games in such a light, and, tbh, most people probably don't need to - but I feel that's important for some to do so, especially any involved in their creation and design.
It's become very obvious to me that many do not, and therefore don't fully understand the implications of this on quite a few aspects of game design - (especially when all I seem to hear about these days is 'plot' and 'narrative' etc.).
Trust me, the implications of this viewpoint upon games are massive and numerous - and it's a viewpoint I've had for about 8-9 years now, but found hard to explain and fully understand until recently: I was arguing about someone over the definition of a computer-based-RPG, and we were arguing about story - she was talking about telling stories, I was talking about them being written, but I didn't fully understand that description until afterwards - (and I always knew I was right! :p).
Note: I'm trying to write a paper about this - (called Story-writing in Computer-based Role Playing Games) - but am finding it hard to fit everything I need into the first few 'chapters' atm. (Am planning to send them in to gamasutra and see what they think before writing the rest - it's going to be a LONG paper that one) - (I'll get there eventually, though).
No - that's just a problem with their implementation, which, as I said before, is the main limitation of them currently.
You don't understand what I mean by story, then, which, again, isn't entirely unsurprising.
Take chess for an example. Every move each player makes can be seen as a sentence in his own story that he writes as he plays the game. Each of the players stories combine to tell the overall story of that particular game. That story can then be told to others - (which it often is). Every game can be seen in the same way, (and probably should, from a game-design point of view).
Of course games are art: they're just looking at it from a different perspective:
Story WRITING, instead of story TELLING...
Unfortunately, it's becoming obvious that not many people in the industry, (let alone the public), see things that way - most still seem to view them as just another medium for telling stories :-/
He's missing the point of achievements - although, TBH, some of their current implementations miss the point too:
Games are about writing stories - achievements are merely the record of the story that's been written.
Now, the main thing left to do, is to enable the player to write a unique story with unique achievements...
The biggest problem I see in games atm, is that too many people are focused on them purely as a story TELLING device, rather than story writing - which, in a way, kind-of defeats the purpose of the exercise IMO. (And the mention of plot/narration in the summary is a case in point).
The above post is precisely why Eve Online is a niche game and not suitable for everyone.
If that is all that you, personally, happen to see in the game - if that is all you feel your character can do - if that is the only story you feel your character can write - then it's obviously not the game that you should consider playing.
But just because that is what YOU see in the game, does not mean that it is the only possibility - the only option available. If you can't see any others, then don't play. Because to someone like me, I saw far more options that that available; just because I may not choose to take them, is not the fault of the game, but my own choice.