266: Videogame Myths Debunked

[C J Davies]

Videogame Myths Debunked

Myths and misconceptions swirl around the videogame industry in a cloud of misinformation. C. J. Davies breaks through that mist and shines light on a few common videogame myths.

Read Full Article

 

[Scobie]

DELETED

 

[commasplice]

I think Scobie brings up a pretty good point. Still, it was an interesting article. When it comes to cloud gaming, though, the deal breaker for me is the fact that my games could be taken from me if the mods decided to ban my account. It doesn't really matter how "convenient" the system is if I can't use it. :/ Same could be said for people who don't have internet.

 

[SaintWaldo]

Myth: Game Design Is An Auteur's Medium

Blame the Molyneuxs. Blame the Wrights. Blame the Bleszinkis. Blame anyone who boldly proclaims a game as their "vision," creating a skewed impression of a lone Terminator-like figure, battling with inhuman power against all odds to lovingly handcraft every line of code.

And at all costs, DON'T blame the press for running furthest (for free) with the most ridiculous examples given above. I don't see how you can talk about the myth without also discussing its most powerful vector.

But, then again, I think there's something wrong with this whole myth's frame…

Just as Hollywood likes to venerate the director (shunting every other important filmmaking role out of the limelight), the videogame public all too often focuses on one benevolent figurehead. While there invariably has to be a Big Boss calling the shots, this can often mean that the collaborative nature of design is shamefully overlooked. Games are not made by one person, but rather a team of dedicated designers and support staff.

The auteur theory [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auteur] in cinema is a critical (not systemic, i.e. "Hollywood") reaction to all the credit going to the studio or producer instead of, you know, anyone who actually labored on the film. It was a statement that the director's vision survived in spite of the apparatus of studio, which was argued as mainly interference. In modern criticism, the auteur notion of primary vision often extends (in a collaborative sense) to the screenwriter and even to DP or editing roles. A great example of the former would be Mario Puzzo's inseparability from The Godfather, and modern critics tend to include him as integral to a full critique of those films.

Auteur theory was never a self label of the Hollywood industry; it was a theory of critique focusing on the director, championed by a director, and a (gasp) French one, at that. It was also never meant to disappear the little people; to attempt to describe the Key Grip as central to the vision that brought "Lord Of The Rings" to life seems a bit disingenuous to me. The auteur theory of criticism is not about diminishing the little people, it's about placing the captain's hat on the captain of the ship, not the admiral of the navy, or the deckhand. For good or bad, mind you. Just ask Orson Welles.

So, it seems your recounting of the basis of the myth is, in itself, something of a myth.

 

[nelsonr100]

Good article. I agree with you on many of the points you raised, both against the bad myths and sometimes the good myths. However, there is one point where I disagree. "Gaming is not social".

True, single player gaming is the cornerstone of gaming as an entity, and yes, it does not need to be defended to people citing the old "antisocial" stereotype. However there are so many examples of gaming as a social medium. First off, later in your article you mention how WoW is one of the most popular games ever. I'm sure thousands of those users will testify to how they have met some really good friends while playing, with friendships that endure in the real world as well.
Secondly theres the whole aspect of console multiplayer. Theres nothing like a great evening in with 3 other mates, 4 controllers and a console with a rack of multiplayer games.
Finally theres the aspect of gaming culture which being a gamer allows you an insight into. These forums for example are social and active and all of this thanks to gaming. This can easily be applied to real life situations and conversations when gaming is often a great topic to chat about and compare experiences.

For these reasons I think gaming is social, and I hope some people will agree with me. Other than that though I enjoyed the article

 

[SonicWaffle]

Try living in a house of game nuts. You'll find that while one person is playing a game, other people are watching him play and everyone's talking, often about the game being played. This seems to me far more social than reading a book (which no-one else can share in) or listening to music or watching a movie (you need people to be quiet).

My housemate and I are both gamers, though not really 'nuts'. A week or so back we had great fun on a game together without even playing multiplayer; he stuck Civilization: Revolution in his PS3 and we spent several hours strategizing, planning our moves and builds, discussing combat tactics etc. The current shift in multiplayer gaming seems to be more towards WoW or Xbox live style multiplayer rather than some friends sharing a sofa, but as you say you can have fun with a game even when you aren't the one playing it.

While online multiplayer ("social" in a very loose sense, by the way) is hugely popular, the single-player experience still remains the cornerstone of gaming. In essence, that is socially isolating because it is an activity that is usually performed alone.

When playing over (for example) Xbox live, you are alone - but only physically. You are still enjoying (for a given value of 'enjoying') the company of others. You are interacting with other human beings; your actions, albeit interpreted via a virtual avatar, have an effect on their virtual avatar, they hear your words and vice versa. Interaction takes place. This is socialising. Is making a telephone call to a friend being social? After all, you are physically alone and only interacting vocally with someone far away.

While I do agree with your point that single-player is still the cornerstone of gaming, I worry about how long for. Big-budget games like Modern Warfare or Left 4 Dead are pure multiplayer with a bit of single-player thrown in to pass the time. I'm a single-player by nature. I don't have the reaction time or skill to go against the kind of person who competes against others whenever they play. I hope I never get to a point where the majority of games are marketed to the multiplayer crowd.

Braid. Shadow Of The Colossus. Portal. BioShock. Ocarina Of Time. Five titles that destroy this myth completely. Games are art, just as gravity pulls you to Earth and water quenches your thirst. It's not even debateable.

Well, clearly it is debateable. Did you not see the whole debate? I agree with you that games are self-evidently art, but there are a lot of people (gamers included) who disagree.

 

[Le_Lisra]

While well written there's one problem:

People who can use their brain to some extend already know this (or will know this when they are no longer 14). Anyone who NEEDS TO BE TOLD will not read the article. Pity, really.

 

[CitySquirrel]

I have only one issue with this article: the claim that games aren't social. Online multiplayer is not "social in a very loose sense". You're interacting with other people - therefore it's social. The fact that it's indirect interaction doesn't make it any less social.

When you drive you technically interact with others indirectly... does that make driving a social activity?

And I don't agree that singleplayer is necessarily solitary. Try living in a house of game nuts. You'll find that while one person is playing a game, other people are watching him play and everyone's talking, often about the game being played.

This I definitely agree with. Gaming with a crowd is a very social activity (so long as you have the crowd). This is a lot like the arcades. I also used to know some people who would sit down together and play the end of FF10 and cry every few weeks. This si also social. However, the only way online gaming would be "social" is if you are all chatting together while you do it. Simply being bodies in motion interacting is no more social than walking down a crowded street or, as I said before, driving. Playing WoW or EQ was hugely social for me, but playing Castle Crashers on Xbox live... not as much,

 

[Kellerb]

That article you attributed to The Guardian appears to be from The Telegraph.

Aside from that, I have only one issue with this article: the claim that games aren't social. Online multiplayer is not "social in a very loose sense". You're interacting with other people - therefore it's social. The fact that it's indirect interaction doesn't make it any less social. And I don't agree that singleplayer is necessarily solitary. Try living in a house of game nuts. You'll find that while one person is playing a game, other people are watching him play and everyone's talking, often about the game being played. This seems to me far more social than reading a book (which no-one else can share in) or listening to music or watching a movie (meaning you need people to be quiet).

only 7 percent of conversation is the words themselves, the rest is tone of voice, body language, facial expression and the like. so you see, the seemingly social aspects of mmo's and online gaming is really a tiny snippet of actual socialising. its just not very social.

 

[Sikachu]

This article feels like it is aimed at 7-14 year-olds. Is this intentional?

 

[mjc0961]

Anyone who says Braid doesn't have artistic merit needs to take another look. It has plenty of artistic merit... What it lacks is gameplay merit. Someone should have told those guys that a rewind time button isn't an acceptable substitute for proper level design.

 

[Tharticus]

Good article. Some myths I found out that I already knew and some are an opinionated piece.

 

[JEBWrench]

Anyone who says Braid doesn't have artistic merit needs to take another look. It has plenty of artistic merit... What it lacks is gameplay merit. Someone should have told those guys that a rewind time button isn't an acceptable substitute for proper level design.

In order for a game to have artistic merit, its gameplay must help achieve its artistic vision.

Braid. Shadow Of The Colossus. Portal. BioShock. Ocarina Of Time. Five titles that destroy this myth completely. Games are art, just as gravity pulls you to Earth and water quenches your thirst. It's not even debateable.

Well, clearly it is debateable. Did you not see the whole debate? I agree with you that games are self-evidently art, but there are a lot of people (gamers included) who disagree.

Debate here! Portal? It's a quirky, funny puzzle game. A work of art? Not even close. Just being different doesn't make it art. Ocarina of Time? Immersive. Excellent game. Solid narrative. Doesn't make it a work of art. Same with BioShock.

Good graphics, music and/or narrative do not make games artistic. None of those games I mentioned (Having not played Braid of Shadow of the Colossus) have gameplay which helps acheive an artistic vision. The closest games I've played have been Ico and I Wanna Be The Guy.

 

[Nincompoop]

A few points I'd like to touch.
..
__
Games have no artistic merit. This is something that is up for debate. And mentioning a few games and then claiming your argument to be foolproof is absolutely the worst kind of fallacious argumentation in my honest opinion. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Now, to the actual issue. I don't think of games as art because they are not something you merely gaze at. I don't think art is something you interact with. I would call games a utility or an application of sorts. Even if the point is entertainment. With no practical applications, but maybe mental or psychological applications (we need something to keep our spirits up).

You gaze a pictures, and maybe discuss them. You listen to music. You don't do these kind of things with games.
I would like to stress, however, that this is my opinion on games as art.

__
Gaming is social. There is a large percentage of people that only play online games. Gaming probably isn't social by definition, but it most certainly can be (in the sense we are talking about now).

However, it doesn't matter how many people you play with, the contact and communication is limited. Some just chat, but others talk. As in, no visual communication whatsoever. This means that most acquired social skills (that most people take for granted) get lax, and gamers might end up not being as good at "the social game". This is more than a concern if the affected actually care to nurture this attribute.

__
Cloud Computing. First, 'debunking' by using the words of skeptics is hardly realistic. Secondly, OnLive can work in places in Europe. Would it be so hard to imagine that in the future (I know this isn't valid, because we aren't talking about the future... Oh wait...) America would reach this stage as well?

Don't forget Google's attempt at pushing the capabilities of the internet (in the US) by installing fiber optic cables. And it has only begun.
..

This was an interesting read. One of the most interesting articles in recent times here on the escapist. I very much enjoyed it, and many of the points made were great.

 

[AngryMongoose]

The Guardian article links to a broken Telegraph page...

 

[Dhatz]

lemme put it this way: if you are on high school you don't want to play meaningless stuff and only pick the most vauable games, and this habit changes into a rule over time.
It's positive you didn't use the word bust in conjuctions with myths.

 

[Scobie]

DELETED

 

[Dioxide20]

I disagree that single player is still the gaming cornerstone. Yes, you still have your RPGs like Mass Effect and Dragon Age, but games such as Battlefield: Bad Company 2 and Modern Warfare 2 are all about the multiplayer. In my opinion, the single player campaigns felt sort of tacked onto the multiplayer experience.

 

[Jhales]

I have a criminology text book which I used in college which had a page on "Gaming Causing Violence". It detailed how some teen stole a car, got arrested, killed a cop, and then fled. Of course, everyone in the report blamed video games. In reality, the kid was an extremely disturbed individual. The media loves to jump on to stories like that, completely ignoring the truth of the matter which lies in the offender's screwed up brain.

Also, why on earth are people scared of new things destroying the old? I mean, has Netflix destroyed DVDs? Has the Kindle destroyed books? Have laptops destroyed desktops? Have Segways destroyed bicycles? Has Bluray destroyed anything? Casual gaming will not destroy "real" gaming. That's retarded. People who buy Wii Fit will probably never buy Gears of War 3. People who buy Gears of War 3 will probably not buy Wii Fit. They are two separate markets.