Don't let that controller with the buttons on it fool you.
In the industry, games are often referred to as "interactive entertainment." This makes them sound like this great place where you go do lots of things.
I would argue that it's just the opposite.
You see, when a bunch of people see a movie or play or TV show, they are just sitting there. Not very interactive, is it? But the thing is, each of those people is seeing and hearing and feeling something slightly different. They may remember certain lines or characters. They may relate what they are seeing to another story or life experience that they are familiar with.
In other words, there is still infinite room for everyone's imagination and memories and ideas.
In a video game, you are subject to an extensive set of rules created by someone else. Your choices are all pre-determined. This is necessary, because without controls the game would break. I don't care how complicated it is, somebody had to program it.
Even if you get an avatar, your choices there are going to be limited in some way.
And, of course, to advance in a game there are predetermined things you have to do. They may be very elaborate, they may be time-consuming, but they are still pre-determined. Again, this is necessary to keep the game from breaking.
I know this because I used to work in the game industry, and I have played my share of games too. Everything from Atari on up. So I'm not just sitting here on the couch lobbing pixels. I know what's under the hood, so to speak.
You would think that more "sophisticated" entertainment would give the consumer more freedom, not less. But what is freeing about ever-more-realistic renderings of the reflections off of a football helmet? That's realism, not freedom.
Now, if you love football games, or golf games, or shoot-em-ups, or RPGs, or multiplayer stuff, or racing, or whatever, great. Lots of people do, it's a huge industry.
Just remember, it's actually more passive than your TV. So if you spend time playing games, it's that much more important to balance that time with getting outside and digging some dirt. Or drawing with melty crayons. Or throwing a real ball. Or anything that doesn't involve pixels.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
I feel I have to disagree with the assessment that a video game is less active than a television show. Just as each viewer can interpret a sitcom episode differently, or pick up different bits of subtle humor in a medical drama, each game-player will see and interpret their game experience differently. Perhaps they appreciate the visual art, the mental engagement of a puzzle, or the satisfaction of delivering a perfect swing while in the shoes of Tiger Woods.
In addition, games have the added elements of action and reaction that make the game itself "interactive". Television is a canned experience that is provided to every viewer in the same fashion, whereas Video Games are an experience the player themselves has a hand in creating. Players must act, and react to things in the game, be it by maneuvering a spaceship past asteroids, having your martial artist character block a punch, and deliver an uppercut to their opponent, or choosing a play for your favorite Football team to use against their rivals.
Additionally, I do recall data indicating a higher level of brain activity while playing games than when watching television: Television viewing is something that only requires receiving input, whereas a game requires all that as well as decision making, critical thinking, and even movement.
As an aside, surprising as it may be, books and video games are just about on par when it comes to brain activity!
Still, I'd definitely agree that nothing compares to going outside and meeting with friends, or going for a hike in the woods; TV, movies, books, and games are still only simulations of real life!
Post a Comment