92: I'd Rather Game than Read a Book

[vincent kang]

Well, looks like the article stirred up a shitstorm

So, to clear things up.

1. I originally described Timothy Zahn as the best Star Wars writer. I know that his stuff is low-brow pulp, but I also think that he's the best Star Wars novelist (before the EU books went to la-la land with the Yuuzhan Vong silliness). The "universally loved" bit came from the editor. The idea was to find a place where books and video games can be compared directly, and see what could be gleaned from the comparison. And, I actually think that Zahn's "tie fighers pulled up like an exotic fountain" bit was actually a well-written and economical use of language. They're both seemingly disparate objects (fountain, tie fighter) which hold a common property (movement). My problem is with writers who think they can set a mood just by using the word "red" over and over again, or those who spend paragraphs describing setting with no regard to flow.

2. This article is more an attack on fiction than anything, although with the way it's worded, and the size constraints, movies could be used interchangeably with video games (adding movies to the mix would make for a whole 'nother topic).

3. I came to this article mostly after frustration with critically acclaimed novels which are touted as having "vivid imagery" and possessing "lyrical language." They weren't any fun to read, and I'll wager that much of the acclaim comes from the aura of impenetrability, religious mystical posturing, which at the core holds nothing. There is a good reason why fiction is in decline.

4. Yes, I like video games more than fiction. They're more visceral, they're works of art to behold, they're fun. In the end, it's all entertainment, a way to pass time, and perhaps impart a lesson. The article tries to get to why that is.

 

[Lightbulb]

Games have the POTENTIAL to be the greatest form of story telling imagined thus far.

However so far we haven't got there.

For every other form you can hold up one thing as a shining example of greatness.

So far games haven't produced something so good, but they could. Whether they will or not is another matter. In the current development model i doubt it will though...

 

[Dectilon]

What the hell? ~~

It almost impossible to tell a complicated story in a game without using similar lenghts of text as in a book because of the limitations on both imagination and interface. The choice part of a game will always stomp all over story complexity because it has to be kept relatively simple as to not get different timelines etc mixed up.

"An intrepid reader might, at the suggestion of the literary establishment, pick up a "lyrical" book, only to trudge through page after page of unnecessary adjectives."

Unnecessary? What? I mean, sure, you could take out everything that gives spice and style to a reading experinence and leave only the story elements, but who would like to read a novel written by a ten-year old boy? ~~

If necessary I'd put a brick wall between books, movies and games. They do not function in the same way, and asking one side to imitate the other will most likely result in failure (take The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy for example); both fiscal and artistic.

 

[hickwarrior]

Well, i dunno, for me it's hard to pick up a book, and start reading in it.

Allthough i can get captivated by the story, and read the book through, it just doesn't feel like i did something, like videogames do. It seems i like to play actively, rather look passively at what is happening. Maybe that's the same opinion youths might have, if they were being serious, for once.

 

[Dectilon]

Well, it's not like you reeeally influence anything in a game either. I say it's a matter of finding the right balance for what kind of story you're trying to tell. Bioshock has, imo, found the right balance for an fps while the old FF-games had found it (then lost it again) for linear rpgs.

For "non-linear" rpgs (the end usually works out basically the same. You face the same final boss in the same place for only marginally different reasons etc) I'd say Torment would've been perfect if it had had more voice acting. The writing is excellent and the atmosphere is unbeatable. Every little side-quest has quite a bit of background (obvious or not), but the problem lies in the fact that it's a far bigger strain to read large quantities of text on a computer screen than on paper. As such, reading in a game takes effort, reading a book is relaxing. The evidence suggests you should either be fed the in-game material in pictures (which strangely isn't happening) or as spoken words.

 

[Wildcard6]

Ironically, there's a book called "Everything Bad is Good for You" (which is the sort of thing *I* read) which goes into some depth regarding the value of games compared to traditional mediums such as books, and paints gaming in a very favorable light.

As has been stated before, games are a different media than books and have completely different strengths when it comes to engaging us. Books are (currently) the best way to transmit large quantities of data into our brains. Fiction or non, if you want ALL the information/story/history/detail you want a book. Games, on the other hand, can provide an interactive experience that books can't touch. Good/complex ones allow you to explore, ask questions, make choices about the outcome, and generally exert a level of control over the experience. It's a *different* kind of experience and it tickles a *different* part of your brain.

On the other end of the spectrum, playing a mindless game isn't any better or worse for you than reading a mindless novel. There's nothing wrong with plain old entertainment.

 

[Fire Daemon]

Books and games try to do the same thing by taking you into a world (that may/may not be the real world) and have you take the perspective of a person or a group of people.

If you have a good imagination (and a good book) then you can turn the writing from books to real images and actions, But you don't control the actions, you watch them in your mind. Whereas in a videogame you control the actions but the world isn't yours, its from the imagination of the developers.

Thats the difference between the two mediums, their isn't much difference between them when it all boils down.

Of course though you can't have multiplayer books and the book industry isn't dominated by large companies (aka EA) that ruin some games.

 

[edinflames]

Speaking as a wishful-thinking "games are art hippie" I would say that games have the potential, as many have stated above, to deliver unique experiences and content as well as interacting with the end-user on new, previously unimagined levels. Examples of excellence in the medium, or demonstrations of aforementioned potential are few and far between.

As a student of literature however, I must argue that the article referenced in this thread is talking rubbish. Timothy Zahn is NOT a writer worthy of critical praise. The same can be said of J.K Rowling. Just because a lot of people like it, does not mean that it is any good. Generally speaking the public respond better to marketing than they do to artistic merit. If that were not true, the Phillip Pullman trilogy 'His Dark Materials', which has been voted by critics to be the greatest children's books ever written, would sell in the stupid numbers Harry Potter does, and J.K R. would still be living in a hovel.

The real problem with the gaming industry is the same one that threatens the future of Literature: the marketing man. Games like 'The Sims' will out-sell genuine works of art like 'Monkey Island' and because the profit margins are wider, the financial support will always lean towards the mass produced rubbish. In turn this stifles the creativity of developers (or writers) who want to push the boundaries of their artistic medium.

Its not all doom and gloom however: Bioshock and S.T.A.L.K.E.R, for all their (many and often glaring) flaws, represent the most artistic steps forward in the gaming medium for years (i am no longer counting Half-Life as it is now an old franchise). Playing through both of those games I felt and experienced things I had not thought possible in a computer game (the 'Would You Kindly' twist possibly is the best moment in a game ever). Games have not yet reached the lofty plateau inhabited by the likes of Dickens, Tolstoy, Kafka or Sartre, but there is signs that they may yet.

Alan Wake and Spore are potentially the next steps up the ladder to cannonised glory for gaming, let us hope that these titles live up to their hype.

//edit//
Also, for those of you who will watch 'The Golden Compass', as good as that film MAY be, it is a disgustingly censored and sanitised version of the original novel; the incredibly clever (and subtle) critique of society (against all forms of unquestioned, secretive, ultimate authority and promoting rational thought and shared knowledge, rather than just being an Atheist polemic - which is probably why the Catholics find it so offensive) written into the narrative has been crudely white-washed so as not to offend the many millions of christians in the USA. So rather than being a thought provoking critique and a great story, we instead are offered a dumbed-down "adventure".

 

[Dectilon]

"Games have not yet reached the lofty plateau inhabited by the likes of Dickens, Tolstoy, Kafka or Sartre, but there is signs that they may yet. "

Psychonauts? : )

"Alan Wake and Spore are potentially the next steps up the ladder to cannonised glory for gaming, let us hope that these titles live up to their hype"

Isn't Spore more of a Sims:ish game? ~~

 

[edinflames]

OK, psychonauts had slipped my mind, it is exceptionally original and creative. But that lofty plateau is lofty for a reason, but i chose those authors as examples because their works changed the way people thought, having profound effects beyond the field of literature itself. Psychonauts is about as close to that as a game that i've played has gone so far i suppose, but imo it isnt there

I had high hopes for Spore when i first read about it, the code and content being based on potential variables rather than fixed scripts, though to be honest I havn't read anything about it for months, if it is going the way of the sims and will be cut down further than I thought, I can accept my wrongness in that respect.

Still, its all only opinion, and is a forum post, rather than an authoritative statement.

Wildcard6's comments are probably the closest to the truth of the matter (different stimuli of the brain and whatnot)

 

[Arbre]

Speaking as a wishful-thinking "games are art hippie" I would say that games have the potential, as many have stated above, to deliver unique experiences and content...

I think they already do. Even Pong did. There's nothing like Pong in the real world.

... as well as interacting with the end-user on new, previously unimagined levels.

You want more control on the machines? Deeper interfaces?
Aren't you asking for cybernetics?

 

[Wildcard6]

Unfortunately, even in complex games like Morrowind, all the outcomes have been pre-planned by the developers. You can't make your own ending, or even your own path, just follow one of the (admittedly very many) paths that the devs have laid out for you. You're given the illusion of freedom, but that's all it is. It's not really too different to those 'choose your own path' books they pop out every now and then. You know, the ones where if you do this you have to flick to page 85, if you do that you have to go all the way to page 163.

That's part of the reason (I think, 'cause I don't play 'em) MMORPGs are so popular. There are parts that have a distinct beginning-middle-end, but the whole experience is open ended. The story is as each player wants it to be, within his or her ability to impact the world. I think the future of gaming will include worlds where the players can impact the direction of the world in some way, but I'm not sure how that'll happen. Developers have been slow to give players the tools to make an direct impact for several reasons. One reason is pride. Developers tend to think they are smarter than their fans. Also there is a legit fear of vandalism in their world. I read in the Spore thread about a player who wants to make a race of penises. Another concern is ownership. Intellectual property is a huge deal to publishers and if the fans are building the best stuff, it's hard to own it. All of these walls (and the many others) will fall eventually. When they do, the comparison won't be between gaming and reading a book, it'll be between gaming and writing a book.

 

[Gummy]

Videogames vs Books: Apples vs Oranges, and then some.

Personally I disagreed with the article - which wasnt helped by a flawed (and somewhat jumbled?) argument and an arguably poor choice of case studies.

This said, Games and Books are comparable in the sense that they both can be (sometimes, not always) forms of storytelling. although it wasn't stated in the article, this comparason is limited to the Storytelling aspect of both game and the written word. we shouldn't be comparing Peggle with Encyclopaedia Britannica. and The Sims is pushing it too, that game is a life simulation, rather than a story.

with that in mind, lets look at these two popular mediums of conveying story (three if we count film which is a more comparable medium to game, the only difference being interactivity).
As has been mentioned, the most obvious features* (*benefits AND downfalls depending on your position and/or the case in question) of each genre are typically as follows:

Games are interactive. To a point: although the player is given choices or alternate routes to complete a given task, the major events that tell the story are pre-determined by the developers. often these arent even part of the gameplay itself but occur in FMV sequences. Very few games that I'm aware of (and I cant think of any directly) feature a completely open plan story. some games have featured choices in story arcs or alternate endings, (True Crime: Streets of LA, S.T.A.L.K.E.R, FABLE) but these are still pre-determined. the interactivity is a somewhat illusive freedom. one way or another, the story must progress, the character must achieve his goals. if the player tries to fight this, he or she will typically fail the game, die and have to restart from the last checkpoint, or just not progress in the game.

Books aren't interactive (disregarding the choose-your-own-adventure subgenre). The story is entirely dictated by the author, he doesn't allow the reader to choose their own way to overcome an obstacle or solve a problem, but rather tells the reader exactly how the character does (or doesn't) achieve his objectives.

Games and films are visual media. the player/viewer sees the action taking place exactly as it was designed by the creator. cliched as it is, the adage 'A picture tells 1000 words' is true. through visual stimulation, a lot more information can be imparted a lot quicker, and in some cases a lot less cumbersome. but I think the difference is, it's a different type of information. on-screen stories are better facilitated to describe what things look like, how people look, act and speak, the ambience of the setting can be conveyed instantly so the story can move forward quickly. however this speed of information transfer is neccessary for these mediums, film in particular because of the time restrictions faced by the genre. audiences wont sit for more than about 3 hours watching a screen. usually about 2. Games can be saved and returned to somewhat easier, although the action here rarely lasts more than 25-30 hours in story type games.

Literature, on the other hand, relies on the imagination of the reader to deliver a visual picture of what's going on. the author uses techniques such as adjectives, imagery and other descriptors to guide the readers minds eye, but ultimately, each reader's image of a certain character or scene will be slightly different based on what they imagine and their context. This is why many people argue that novel-derived films spoil the books (eg harry potter), because they'll invariably differ from how the reader imagines the characters, settings and events to look.
on one hand, the reader must make an effort to draw understanding from written word, he or she must interperet descriptions to develop an image. however it also allows for creativity on the part of the reader, and thus an arguably deeper involvement with the story.

Another fairly unique trait of written word is it's ability to place the reader inside the mind of the protagonist (Psychonauts doesnt count, I'm speaking metaphorically) The author can tell the reader what the characters are thinking. describe their motivations, emotions, reasons behind their decisions and actions. also books are able to give a lot more background information on a story (eg. Black Hawk Down the book vs. the movie- the book goes a lot more in depth). Games mostly fail to do this: allow the player to understand the thoughts of their character, other than when given vocal or text cues.


There are pros and cons to all media, and it is up to the creator to decide how he wants to tell his story. In each of the three formats there are both shining examples of storytelling, and at the other end of the scale, utter tripe. also there are many games that tell a fantastic story that just wouldnt concievably work as a written story, and vice versa. (Shadow Of The Colossus is a prime example)

(I'm in a hurry, got to finish up)
Other titles to consider in this argument might be A Bards Tale, Portal, Black in games
Books: The Bourne Trilogy by Robert Ludlum (very engaging as an action-thriller novel, with the large amount of description necessary being conveyed efficiently and non-obtrusively); The Discworld series by Terry Pratchett, (always engaging page turners, while delivering humour and satire brilliantly). Fight Club the book & movie. 'Twisted' short stories by the guy who wrote the bone collector, as with other short story anthologies often use the limited view of the reader to deliver surprises and plot twists that wouldnt be possible with a visual medium.

In conclusion both forms are different, both are good

 

[worgun]

Personally I agree with Gummi and his double posting

trying to engage in a comparison between film, games, and the printed page is an exercise in futility. Each of the different forms of media are built to stimulate different parts of the brain. I enjoy all three forms of media, but I recognize that each is a different experience and I come away with different rewards for indulging in each one.

Gummi is correct in his assertion that its all about the telling of a story. One of the reasons the gaming industry and hollywood has grown to be a tad bleak and brain-dead of late is because many have forgotten the point of thier endeavor. There are a few exceptions however, and that is not to say games who have embraced the "fun" aspect of thier existance are not worth doing. Its just you can't go into a game of peggle and expect the same kind of imaginative stimulation as reading a really good book.

 

[Gummy]

Thanks Worgun (and his typos )
dbl post deleted. and replaced by this waste of space

 

[arrr_matey]

--