Wipe your tears, I have been resurrected.
There are obvious differences between static story (books, movies) and interactive work (IF, video gaming, hypertext) that I’ve noted here in my New Media studies. One of the best, I’ve just discovered, is the possibility of second chances; (and someone I know will just love this one) the retracing and rechoosing of the paths not taken.
I’ve found that luckily a save was made during the last few moments of James’ (and my) life in Silent Hill that enables me to go back in time to that moment and rethink my strategy, armed with the knowledge of what lies ahead in the hallway where I previously lost the battle.
But not everyone has a white knight to come charging to the rescue, an experienced gamer who understands the rules and norms of interactive narrative. While I think he realizes that this is more than a game to me, that it is indeed a lesson in the learning of new media methods, I think as well that there is a type of kinship in gaming similar to the love of literary works for example and the forming of book clubs to share and discuss all aspects of a piece that for all intents and purposes, is unchanging; think what a constantly changing interactive piece can offer for argument.
My original impression of this format was that it was a form of entertainment or enlightenment done in solitude. But even while the reading of a book can be read within a group or more normally, read alone, then shared as fodder for the various perceptions to engage, so too and even more an interactive piece.
So now I understand a bit more not only about the medium, but the means.
The Lost Children: A Charity Anthology
What would you think about considering SHII and other games like it as a form of digital film rather than as “a game”? That is, is it a form of film that is pushed by an interactor that has game-like elements? A sort of hybrid of film, game, and novel? A “gomel”?
By the way, watch out for this one too: Scratches at http://www.nucleosys.com/en/index.htm
Absolutely; although I suspect this thought is driven by the possibility that you’ve taken your share of scorn for “playing games.”
In truth, I feel that movies of the future will be ruled by interaction–even in the movie houses themselves with controls added to the seating. How many decades since they first came out have movies left an audience with “I think he should have left Alice and gone to South America with Sally”?
Holy guacamole, I want it! Just checked out Scratches, and am drooling in a fever of anticipation. Just bookmarked the website into a brand new folder called “GOMELS”.
I have no problem with the charge “playing games” by some, especially those who would object to a college course devoted to video games. I think that would fall into the same category of those who had originally objected to film studies or the English Department as opposed to Classic education.
But, rather, it comes from the rather “open” definition of game. I just find it an interesting question: what is “Half-Life 2”? You should also check google Half-Life 2. Best damned CG John or I have even seen in a game (and at the moment you have the only computer that would actually be strong enough to get the thing to work). Download some of the online video trailors and see for yourself. Often bloody, yes. But remember McCarthy?
And that’s another train of thought, and one that John has recently pointed indirectly to in his weblog; the idea of “game” and what it defines. Entertainment, strategy, opposition; all gaming elements, and possibly to be considered all story elements as well. Can a romance story line for example, be considered a game? You betcha! Ask anyone over the age of thirty. Need a story be a quest? In many ways, yes as well, whether questing for a golden ring or the golden ring of marriage. Does “go north” become much different than”go (north) with Sally?” It’s all narrative, it’s all story, it’s all a game.
I’m off to check out Half-Life.