“One of the most common
misconceptions about videogames is that they are an interactive medium. By
this, I do not mean to draw attention to the problematic and ideologically
charged notion of "interactivity" (see Aarseth, 1997 for example) or
even to the difficulty in conceiving videogames as a medium as Friedman
(forthcoming) has noted. Rather, the misconception reveals a more fundamental
misunderstanding of videogames and the experience of play. Quite simply,
videogames are not interactive, or even ergodic. While they may contain
interactive or ergodic elements, it is a mistake to consider that they present
only one type of experience and foster only one type of engagement. Videogames
present highly structured and, importantly, highly segmented experiences. Play
sequences, from where the idea of the interactivity or ergodicity of videogames
derives, are framed and punctuated by movie sequences, map screens, score or
lap-time feedback screens and so on.
Moreover, by examining the contexts in which videogames are actually used, it is possible to suggest that play need not be simply equated with control or active input. The pleasures of videogames are frequently enjoyed by those that commonsense might encourage us to consider as non-players – "onlookers" that exert no direct control via the game controls. In this article, I want to suggest that videogame players need not actually touch a joypad, mouse or keyboard and that our definition needs to accommodate these non-controlling roles. The pleasure of videogame play does not simply flow through the lead of a joystick.
…
Last year, at the UK’s first academic videogames conference, I took the opportunity to present a deliberately provocative paper that suggested that when playing videogames, appearances do not matter. Subsequently, I have tried this idea on groups of undergraduate media students and they, like many of the delegates at GameCultures, look at me as if I’ve gone completely mad. Why expend so much effort on lavish visuals, CGI intros, cut-scenes, graphics engines, texturing systems, lighting models and so on, if these things aren’t important? Videogames and systems are sold on the basis of their graphical prowess. Before long, in grappling with the apparent idiocy of such a blinkered view, discussion turns to the Lword… Lara. Can you seriously expect me to believe that if Lara Croft looked like Vibri from Vib Ribbon that Tomb Raider would have sold so well? Well no, I’m not quite saying that. In fact, in terms of the way the game sells or rather, has been sold, I’m not saying that at all. When I say that appearances don’t matter, I am certainly not talking about advertising and marketing games. What I am saying is that the pleasures of videogame play are not principally visual, but rather are kinaesthetic. In this way, the appearance of Lara or Vibri is not crucial to the primary-player during play. The way it feels to be in the Tomb Raider or Vib Ribbon gameworld is, however, of paramount importance. Many a great game has poor visuals – an entire generation of players grew up with blips of light, @ signs and even text-only games – but there are few good game [sic] with bad controls. Few good games feel bad. What I am suggesting is that, by better understanding the particular types of engagement that occur between players and on-screen characters during play, we may begin to arrive at a point where we don’t have to think about Lara in playable game sequences in terms of representation – we don’t have to think about her in terms of representational traits and appearance – we don’t even have to think about "her" at all.”
James Newman, ‘The Myth of the Ergodic Videogame: Some thoughts on player-character relationships in videogames,’ Game Studies 2:1 (2002) [Full Article: http://www.gamestudies.org/0102/newman/]
Moreover, by examining the contexts in which videogames are actually used, it is possible to suggest that play need not be simply equated with control or active input. The pleasures of videogames are frequently enjoyed by those that commonsense might encourage us to consider as non-players – "onlookers" that exert no direct control via the game controls. In this article, I want to suggest that videogame players need not actually touch a joypad, mouse or keyboard and that our definition needs to accommodate these non-controlling roles. The pleasure of videogame play does not simply flow through the lead of a joystick.
…
Last year, at the UK’s first academic videogames conference, I took the opportunity to present a deliberately provocative paper that suggested that when playing videogames, appearances do not matter. Subsequently, I have tried this idea on groups of undergraduate media students and they, like many of the delegates at GameCultures, look at me as if I’ve gone completely mad. Why expend so much effort on lavish visuals, CGI intros, cut-scenes, graphics engines, texturing systems, lighting models and so on, if these things aren’t important? Videogames and systems are sold on the basis of their graphical prowess. Before long, in grappling with the apparent idiocy of such a blinkered view, discussion turns to the Lword… Lara. Can you seriously expect me to believe that if Lara Croft looked like Vibri from Vib Ribbon that Tomb Raider would have sold so well? Well no, I’m not quite saying that. In fact, in terms of the way the game sells or rather, has been sold, I’m not saying that at all. When I say that appearances don’t matter, I am certainly not talking about advertising and marketing games. What I am saying is that the pleasures of videogame play are not principally visual, but rather are kinaesthetic. In this way, the appearance of Lara or Vibri is not crucial to the primary-player during play. The way it feels to be in the Tomb Raider or Vib Ribbon gameworld is, however, of paramount importance. Many a great game has poor visuals – an entire generation of players grew up with blips of light, @ signs and even text-only games – but there are few good game [sic] with bad controls. Few good games feel bad. What I am suggesting is that, by better understanding the particular types of engagement that occur between players and on-screen characters during play, we may begin to arrive at a point where we don’t have to think about Lara in playable game sequences in terms of representation – we don’t have to think about her in terms of representational traits and appearance – we don’t even have to think about "her" at all.”
James Newman, ‘The Myth of the Ergodic Videogame: Some thoughts on player-character relationships in videogames,’ Game Studies 2:1 (2002) [Full Article: http://www.gamestudies.org/0102/newman/]
‘Who? What? Why? Where? When?’
1. What does the author think that games are for, or how they should function?
UK's first academic videogames
conference in London in 2001. In this conference, James Newman presented a viewpoint says appearance of
visual is not important in game, but it was widely debated. He tried to explain the
interaction of non-controlling roles and players is very important, but visual
is not the most. In recent years, people spent more cost and
attention to develop the visual of game. But a lot of games just have a nice
art work on it, and their player's experience is very bad.
‘Last year, at the UK’s first academic videogames conference, I took the opportunity
to present a deliberately provocative paper that suggested that when playing
videogames, appearances do not matter.’
‘The pleasures of
videogames are frequently enjoyed by those that commonsense might encourage us
to consider as non-players –
"onlookers" that exert no direct control via the game controls. In
this article, I want to suggest that videogame players need not actually touch
a joypad, mouse or keyboard and that our definition needs to accommodate these
non-controlling roles. ’
‘When I say
that appearances don’t matter, I am certainly not talking about advertising and
marketing games. What I am saying is that the pleasures of videogame play are
not principally visual, but rather are kinaesthetic.’
In
above reference, the author denied the importance of visual appearance. He said
the player does not even need to touch the game controller, because the
pleasures of video-game play are not principally visual, but rather are
kinaesthetic. The game itself is based on the gameplay, high quality images are
part of game. If the sale is based on the quality of games, then basically we
have an interactive activity within a HD movie, should we even call it a game?
James Newman expresses the thought that players do not even have to experience
a game before the charm of the game attracts players to it.
‘Many a great game has poor visuals – an entire
generation of players grew up with blips of light, @ signs and even text-only
games – but there are few good game [sic] with bad controls. Few good games
feel bad. ’
‘What I am suggesting is that, by better understanding
the particular types of engagement that occur between players and on-screen
characters during play’
2. Why do you think they claim this?
James
Newman found that the games company focused too much on developing the games
appearance. It actually does not matter that much to the players. We cannot
deny that many players are attached by beautiful visuals of a game, also
players think watching a quality games in CG is a very enjoyable. Players are
not bothered about cumbersome and complex designs they just want to enjoy some
game time without too much thinking. Relaxed, funny and simple is what they like,
so maybe that's why mobile games are so popular.
3. Who might think differently and why?
There are some different voice from
these people of professional
field （e.g. like undergraduate media students
and the delegates at GameCultures). They said the graphical prowess of games
is very important, even the sale is based on it.
‘Why expend so much effort on lavish visuals, CGI
intros, cut-scenes, graphics engines, texturing systems, lighting models and so
on, if these things aren’t
important? Videogames and systems are sold on the basis of their graphical
prowess. ’
I
agree that providing a better visual experience is an encouraging thing for a
player. The development of the modern games industry has been affected a lot by
trying to provide this high level of visuals but I think that visual enjoyment
does not always mean high quality. The visual enjoyment is built on resonance;
the visual arts can produce the perfect performance only in the most suitable
style. I will give up playing a game if it is not interesting; even if it has
perfect quality visuals.
If we played most of the attention to
lavish visuals, CGI intros, cut-scenes, graphics engines, texturing systems,
and lighting models etc., it will make me feel more like making movies rather
than game. A similar view is also presented in this text:
‘Many a great game has poor visuals – an entire generation of players grew up with blips of light, @
signs and even text-only games –
but there are few good game [sic] with bad controls. Few good games feel bad. ’
I think we need to create a
game with art in mind, but not a game for art itself. For example when I first
learnt my basic technique in drawing.
4. How persuasive
do you find the author’s
argument?
For example, 'Might & Magic：Heroes' is a famous and
classical series, but players received a worse experience after the update of
visuals. The
creativity of games become less and less. E.g. the core of game's heroes should
be about abundant tactical elements, but it increased the standard of game
developer. Because they reduce the budget of players experience this game
started to get boring even though the visuals were looking better.
SuperMario is also a famous series; it
is created in the period of Nintendo FC. The hero Mario can be recognized as a
man even from his pixelated body shape. I mean Mario is more popular than Lara even though he's drawn
by large pixels. Because the sales of Super Mario reached 4 billion, against the
sales of Tomb raider of just 30 million. There have been many
characters similar to Mario that have been created they also do not have not a
detailed body but players still love them. Whatever they change in the future
hopefully the character's appearance will not be one of them.
In addition, I also found some other
games to explain this. For example, No Man's Sky. A controversial game gained a
lot of attention 2 years ago. Even they presented a beautiful CG a popular topic about theoretically
infinite planets in the Universe.
It got everyone excited. This demonstrates gameplay is still more
attractive than visual, a better visual means getting a better computer. I
think maybe that is one reason why these big games are not as popular in the
groups of non-core players.
But I will not simply consider there
is no value in the game. Although there are still many games that need
improvement that are currently on sale today. For example, Billzard who took
nearly 20 years to product a game named Titan. Then they withdrew the project.
But the true AAA game `Overwatch` inherited many ideas from Titan, and achieved
great success both in sales and reputation..
'Overwatch is Blizzard's fourth major franchise, and
came about following the 2014 cancellation of the ambitious massively
multiplayer online role-playing game Titan. A portion of the Titan team came up
with the concept of Overwatch, based on the success of team-based first-person
shooters like Team Fortress 2 and the growing popularity of multiplayer online
battle arenas, creating a hero-based shooter that emphasized teamwork. '
So I think there is place for a
game to be improved, it can become excellent.
没有评论:
发表评论