Originally Posted by expat
Some games are akin to films, in the sense that they have a storyline that, if well written, is thought provoking and does leave you with something, long after the game has been uninstalled.
Surely a game is also a creative work, in the same ilk ? Someone had to create it, someone had to give it context, inject it with drama and suspense, make it challenging, etc.
In fact, this is where a film falls down. It's a passive activity. Suppose you want the protagonist to take a different course of action ? You can't. You are only passively consuming the vision that the director and scriptwriters deign you consume.
Apart from a handful of films, I cannot recall the great majority of being anything more than eye-candy. Turn on, watch, turn off, do something else instead. It's a passive pasttime.
Agreed on the first part, but there are a number of games which have a message to convey, and more importantly, you can interact with the game.
Whether you think Die Hard is trash or not is a moot point.
The question beckons.
Do you want to slob out with a bucket of popcorn on the sofa and watch the film, or do you want to interact and be a part of it ?
I would suggest that many people are content to be served their film on a plate. Others prefer to live the film and make their own desicions.
Both are equally valid, as it depends on personal preference. I can appreciate both equally.
What I cannot appreciate is comments like :
I play games as a major past time, be they pen and paper RPG's, board games, computer games, story-telling games, etc.
I find it quite sad that some people lack the imagination or the creativity to engage in games of various degrees, especially those that require a high degree of imagination and/or characterisation.
Such people may counter that games are "childish", whereas in fact it's them that have the problem, usually self-repression and fear of playful engagement.
The curious thing is that the type of people who are averse to games, still enjoy their football or sports, which are in essence, games of competition, albeit on a much more subconcious tribal level. However, they are still games.
I think for some, it's not the fear of the game that is the problem, it's the fear of others who may critique the person for playing the game in the first place.
This typically denotes low self-esteem and a desire to be accepted by the majority, even if it means sacrificing one's individuality.
I completely disagree, I see the exact opposite. Where to start? Well, in a game you make decisions, but it's just a game - it's a diversion. It's only something to do to fill in time. You may expend brain power, but after it, what have you gained? What is in your brain that wasn't in it before? Nothing, apart from a better knowledge of the game itself.
A film is a creative work - not yours certainly but the director's, maybe the writer's and actors'. You think about it and that is what makes it worthwhile. It is not just to fill up time (if that's all it is for then it is a piece of worthless junk).
In fact, this is where a film falls down. It's a passive activity. Suppose you want the protagonist to take a different course of action ? You can't. You are only passively consuming the vision that the director and scriptwriters deign you consume.
After you have watched a film, your brain has absorbed input, and generated its own thoughts, and will continue to do so in the future as you reflect on it and fit it in your view of the world and your ways of thinking and seeing. If it didn't do that, then either the film is trash or your brain is switched off. When I think of film I don't think of mind-numbing opiate.
As I said, the exact opposite: any film of any worth will make you think; some games may rise to making you think a little.
Whether you think Die Hard is trash or not is a moot point.
The question beckons.
Do you want to slob out with a bucket of popcorn on the sofa and watch the film, or do you want to interact and be a part of it ?
I would suggest that many people are content to be served their film on a plate. Others prefer to live the film and make their own desicions.
Both are equally valid, as it depends on personal preference. I can appreciate both equally.
What I cannot appreciate is comments like :
Shimano105 posted : Not a film buff but give me a good film any day over a saddo game.
I find it quite sad that some people lack the imagination or the creativity to engage in games of various degrees, especially those that require a high degree of imagination and/or characterisation.
Such people may counter that games are "childish", whereas in fact it's them that have the problem, usually self-repression and fear of playful engagement.
The curious thing is that the type of people who are averse to games, still enjoy their football or sports, which are in essence, games of competition, albeit on a much more subconcious tribal level. However, they are still games.
I think for some, it's not the fear of the game that is the problem, it's the fear of others who may critique the person for playing the game in the first place.
This typically denotes low self-esteem and a desire to be accepted by the majority, even if it means sacrificing one's individuality.
Comment