[ragnar]

I haven't taken any film theory courses, but generally I think that narrowminded people should be ignored.

To make a comparison with physics: Einstein did much good work with the general relativity, but he was narrowminded and didn't want to accept Quantum Mechanics and because of it his work was more or less stalled.

EDIT: Hey, you edited your post!

EDIT2: Another thing i thought of is that the period with the more graphical revolution (Quake, Myst, etc.) is in my opinion the period of gaming history with the least good games.

[Marek]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Video games have just as much in common with movies as with traditional games

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but ... I'd say that's a false statement. Computer games at their very core are the same as board games or whatever other traditional forms you can think of. The only difference is that computer games can take the whole "creating a world to be immersed in" thing a lot further. But really, what's the difference between chess and computerized chess? Nothing.

Where's Marek? he needs to come in and defend everything

Oh crap. I'm not going to take on that responsibility It sounds like that "don't make narrative films" rule is some sort of an anti-Hollywoodian spasm. I hadn't heard of that tendency yet, but then again I only know a handful of people who are doing film related courses. It sounds pretty silly. I mean restrictions can be very useful in focusing on certain aspects of what you're trying to learn. If you want to be a great film maker you should have some classes where you need to make a film without spoken dialog, and then some screenwriting classes that focus on spoken dialog exclusively, etc. Restricting yourself creatively is the best way to learn about all the different elements right? So... encouraging not to do narrative- or genre films is misguided if it's done consistently and not just temporarily for the purposes of explaining something specific.

Erm how the hell is it possible to NOT do genre btw? Make only drama or dogma95 films? I know genre means stylistic stuff like western/action/sci-fi etc. but isn't everything "genre" besides very very basic character dramas? I'm confused and I'm also wondering if film courses are really that stupid

[ragnar]

Originally Posted by Marek

But really, what's the difference between chess and computerized chess? Nothing.

Well, in ordinary chess you won't get funny animations of the chess pieces killing each other (I love Battle Chess!).

Originally Posted by Marek

So... encouraging not to do narrative- or genre films is misguided if it's done consistently and not just temporarily for the purposes of explaining something specific.

I think it is a common way to learn to think out of the box. In other areas of learning you are also often told to not do specific things, for different reasons. Things like, "Do not use GOTO-statements when you program" and "Don't start sentences with 'and' when you write".

The forbidding of doing genre and narrative movies could have to do with the teachers wanting the students to vary themselves and not restrict themselves the same old things over and over again. This doesn't mean it isn't a useful tool if you use it properly.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by ragnar

The forbidding of doing genre and narrative movies could have to do with the teachers wanting the students to vary themselves and not restrict themselves the same old things over and over again. This doesn't mean it isn't a useful tool if you use it properly.

Aye thats the point, but the result is youre instead sort of stuck encouraging people who make mindless montages of their friends dancing out in a field intercut with some 70s car chase and low quality porn and maybe some close-up shots of an eye looking around or something instead of trying to take the knowledge from your reading and screening classes and putting it to use making something real. Anyway this has drifted beyond off topic, sorry about that.

How about that wacky world of ludology, eh?

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Marek

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but ... I'd say that's a false statement. Computer games at their very core are the same as board games or whatever other traditional forms you can think of. The only difference is that computer games can take the whole "creating a world to be immersed in" thing a lot further. But really, what's the difference between chess and computerized chess? Nothing.

That's why computerized chess is a extremely poor example of your average game nowadays. REAL games, and with real I mean 'games who take advantage of the opportunities the medium has to offer', have just as much in common with movies as with classic board games.

Take adventure games as an example. Adventure games are about riddles/puzzles/rules (which is the board game part) but just as much about narrative, story, music and general atmosphere (which are all important to movies but irrelevant to board games). Gabriel Knight and Syberia are perfect examples of this: in my opinion, it's their incredible story that makes the game what it is. The puzzles are an equally important part of the game design but on average they're certainly NOT more important than the story/atmosphere/character evolution.

[Marek]

The ludology site http://www.ludonauts.com/ has gotten a new design and as a tribute they've put Sam & Max in the header graphic. Nice.

[Erkki]

Hehe. I like that word 'Ludonaut'.

[Moron Lite]

Aw hell. I wrote up a big response and clicked 'submit', only to find out that I wasn't quite as logged in as I thought I was. Big response go down the hole.

Anyway, I figured I might as well pop in and say 'hi'. This is Walter from Ludonauts.com, and I think I've just found a new forum to get addicted to (the other being over at GameCritics.com, although sadly the quality of discussion there has gone rather downhill as of late).

I'd only found out about Adventure Gamers in the past month or two, when I discovered the Future of Adventure Games articles (awesome work, Marek), but I have to say, it kicks all ass.

[Marek]

Hey Walter Sorry about you losing your big rant.

Anyway, great to have you here. I'm quite impressed by the amount of content you guys managed to churn out on ludonauts in such a short time.

[Marek]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Video games have just as much in common with movies as with traditional games

I just looked at this from a fresh perspective (also known as: not 2 am) and I take back what I said. I now get what you mean. Oops!

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Ludology. HA! That's me name! Homoludens. Man who plays games.

Here's a good quote:

The notion of narrative in videogames has become somewhat controversial among theorists these days. Let me clarify. There doesn't seem to be much disagreement among 'indigenous' theorists, that is, those of us primarily engaged in studying games. However, theorists from other disciplines weem to be wildly divergent in their opinions about the role, or lack thereof, of narrative in games. This is a direct result of 'repurposing'. Traditionally, repurposing is viewed as an intermediate evolutionary step in the development of any new communications medium, and it frequently yields mutant life forms that don't quite hit the mark.

Among those I consider to be 'true' game theorists, that is, people who are game-centric in their theoretical ideas, there are different approaches, but few substantive disagreements. In general, we tend to look at game narrative 'on its own terms'. Although we compare videogames to other media, we are extremely clear on the fact that they have unique and distinctive properties that differentiate them form other expressive forms.

In studying games and trying to understand their value as a form of cutural production, it's crucial to recognize that games are fundamentally about play, so a play-centric framework is needed in order to look at the function of narrativity in games.

Celia Pearce, Game On: The History and Culture of Videogames, edited by Lucien King (2002, Universe Publishing)

[Moron Lite]

Of course, 'play' isn't so easily defined, and can be considered fundamental to lots of things that aren't games (which is also something not easily defined).