Extra Credits Addendum: Discussing the Role of the Player

[KirbyKrackle]

Last week's video was one of the few times I fundamentally disagreed with the EC creators, and man am I coming down hard on Grip's side for this.

First off, there are lots of interactive art projects that require a participant in order for them to be "complete", and if anything, that makes the participant part of the artwork, but certainly not the equivalent of an artist. I fail to see how that's fundamentally different for a video game.

Also, good luck convincing a lot of critics that the need for audience participation for a work to be complete (or that each audience member will, in fact, experience (and I do mean experience, not just interpret a work differently) is somehow unique to video games as opposed to being part of any form of communication media.

And I don't even know where to start with "Does football have a narrative? Indubitably so. But who creates this narrative? Because it's certainly not the people who originally wrote the rules to football..." Many games have more than the damned gameplay rules; they have an actual narrative accompanying them, and it's a narrative that's already in place and which the player has pretty much no control over. Portnow seems to have conveniently forgotten this for the entirety of the discussion. It's also pretty ridiculous to compare a football game to the entire video game medium with all its permutations (congrats! Madden developers can't tell you "what characters took part in what plot and in what setting the plot unfolded", but in a lot of other games, games with narratives, they can!).

Basically, Grip is right in saying "I do think that players are part in creating a story. So I agree there, but I disagree that the process is just like an artistic storyteller. I argue instead that it is quite unlike that and more like the activity of experiencing other media, just that it is much more powerful, because of interactivity." The difference between the experience of the video game medium and other media is one of degree, not type, and the player is only as much a "story teller" as the game wants them to be, same as with any other medium.

And geez, Portnow, enough with all the crappy analogies already.

Edit: Is anyone else getting a 404 on the "you might wanna read this" link? I really do wanna read it, but I can't!

 

[AzraelSteel]

I think, and you hit upon it in the original discussion, that the fundamental role of player/designed is much much closer to that of the player and gamemaster in a traditional pen-and-paper RPG than anything film, books, or painting could ever hope for. There is a structure and narrative intentions that are set out by the designer of the world, but the player should be at very least involved in the realization of the plot and story.

One thing I do as a DM on occasion is ask my players to tell me what has happened so far in a game. I think if that was asked of people playing GTA or Pirates!, then you'd likely get a similar response to what I usually get - the player is experiencing their own plots and their own choices, and your planned choices are in there, somewhere, but they are not necessarily where the players are going to go with it.

I feel the goal of electronic gaming, no matter the genre or playstyle, is ultimately to generate the same kind of collaborative storytelling that occurs at a good PnP RPG table. The developer certainly has a good say in what choices are available (setting, NPCs, areas you can go, etc), but the path of the story should ideally be in the hands of the players to succeed or fail at their own objectives in the game.

I certainly think this is the kind of thought process that Mr. Portnow is trying to make in his argument. The game itself is nothing without the player, just as a tabletop session is nothing until it is played and interacted with by the players.

 

[Therumancer]

I think this gets down to the bottom line that in the end James is looking at the medium in terms of what it is, and all that it can be, where Tom is fundementally threatened by that point of view because of the potential threat it represents to the business end of things.

We saw something similar referanced here on The Escapist earlier:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.296043-Shigeru-Miyamoto-views-games-as-products-not-art

(Which is in Japanese, but part of it was translated as part of that post)

Basically a game creator/publisher wants to firmly hold all credit, and ownership of anything they produce. The end goal nowadays being to produce a product that will sell to a specific audience, rather than to really explore anything new, or inspire an audience to climb to it's level. It's all about "do the numbers show this will succeed" rather than "wow, that's a really awesome idea for a game, let's do that".

When you start acknowleging something as being art, or the nessecity of the end user as part of the creative process, well that starts to create some interesting philsophical issues, and if acknowleged could even lead to LEGAL difficulties down the road.

I say this because I think the analogy of sports is flawed. It's probably better to look at arthouse theater, the kinds of things done by improv groups. The structure of the play or performance already exists, but part of a lot of these productions is to get the spectators involved and pull them into the production where they become part of it. This can be as simple as a group of players picking people out of the crowd to do things, or as more abstract as a group of artists wandering around in costume, trying to get reactions from people based on how they dress and act.

There have been issues however when various groups of players doing things like this have wanted to try and sell recordings of their work. It can vary from place to place, but basically if you pull some guy up on your makeshift stage as a volunteer, record it, and then sell the recording, that guy can pretty much turn around and say "hey, where's my cut?" and in a lot of places they could make a valid case out of that if they didn't have to sign a waiver or anything beforehand. A lot more could be said about it, but you should get the gist of it.

The last thing the gaming industry wants is to acknowlege the user as anything but a cashbag to be treated with contempt and milked for profits. Indeed, general contempt for the user base and fans is one of the big reasons why we're seeing a rising amount of anger being direct against the gaming industry, leading to things like death threats being made against PR guys (which was also mentioned here on The Escapist).

On the surface the EULA would seem like it should cover the bases for a game, but in reality these things have never been properly challenged. Given enough time and provocation and it will eventually happen though, and I don't think the gaming industry will win. Most upholdings of the EULAs have happened due to the wrong avenues of attack being used (I've read some stuff on it), in part due to most of the lawyers who know anything about this area of law being paid by, or paid off by (to cause a conflict of interests by acting against) big gaming companies). Issues like how the EULA isn't even visible in most cases until you've already paid for a product (when technically you should sign it as your paying for it), and then a whole area of contract law comes down to length and wording. I'm no expert on it, but basically a contract that is too long, complicated, or difficult for "the everyman" to understand can be overturned fairly easily, "oh you should have read the fine print" doesn't work IRL like it does in the movies usually. This is why with most major contracts of extreme length and with a lot of details, you have notaries involved usually. Notaries being neutral parties that pretty much read the contract, listen to what is said, and then sign off or "notarize" the document. In case of dispute they are called up to verify that everyone was in agreement, and in many cases to explain their understanding of the contract in question.

In short, the bottom line is that your current game designers and publishers pretty much want games to be viewed as a straightforward product... well as straightforward as they can be given the current trend towards argueing that the person paying gets nothing but the right to use their work for as long as it amuses them. The "games as art" thing might carry a lot of legal weight against censorship, but the industry doesn't actually WANT games to be artistic, they want games to make money off of, and in the end could really care less about the medium itself other than it bringing in the paychecks and profits. The last thing they need is to feel like they should see their consumers as equally viable human beings, never mind as part of the process itself, and god forbid someone looks at a definition of gaming and say sends EA a bill for their participation in the art project... which in some places you might be able to do by James' definition. It might not stand up in court, but would probably go to court, and probably more than once.

 

[Morbira]

This reminds me of a quote from George S. Patton. Something along the lines of "Tell your men what needs to be done, not how to do it, and see what they come up with." Perhaps that's the frame of mind developers should explore with their players.

I can attest that I've had richer gaming experiences from games that gave me an objective that allowed me to do whatever I pleased as long as the end result was the same as opposed to a lot of games these days, particularly in the action/FPS genre, that pigeon-hole all of my actions into what is essentially a stream of QTEs with no time limit.

 

[kurupt87]

I argue instead that it is quite unlike that and more like the activity of experiencing other media, just that it is much more powerful, because of interactivity.

This is the key.

The type of game Thomas is talking about would be, taken to the extreme, like Final Fantasy XIII, TF2 or CoD.

James' extreme would be more like Minecraft, EVE or Fallout.

This is essentially a debate about player license.

Gaming NEEDS to be split up into specific groupings that let the players (developers, publishers, investors) know exactly what the game is about and what it is trying to do.

 

[ZeoAssassin]

I have got a say after reading the blog post and this i got way more interested in this then when i just watched the video. any-who i got to side with the Thomas Grip on this one.

i get what James is saying but i honestly think that only applies to certain games that allow true artistic creation (Little Big Planet, Minecraft, Level-editors in other games, etc). This is mainly because art should be something that is EXPRESSIVE as oppose to an internal experience of an individual. this is not to say someone HAS to share art with the world to qualify as art but by its nature something claiming to be art should be able to be viewed, watched, listen to or in a game's case experienced. What players experience playing a game is the same as them viewing a painting or reading a book, just a little more sophisticated.

Take an RPG like Dragon Age Origins for example...a game that has the player seemingly craft an experience for them and a potential example of players as artist? right? well lets see.

in DA:O you can decide what starting race, class and various appearance your character can take. When playing you have choices you can make in the narrative that can effect certain things, like deciding weather to save the mages or kill them because they may be corrupted will decide weather you gain the aid of the mages in the final battle or the Templar who police and guard the mages and care more about preventing the corruption then they do about the mage's lives.

there are many other branching paths to take but the major factor that prevents the play from being the artist is the fact that all these paths and choices are completely dependent on the developers (Bioware)

you can choose how your character looks but all of those options were put in by the developers. the player isn't so much creating their own experience as much as choosing which one of the 1000s and 1000s of possible combinations of character options and narrative choices leading to a vast but still limited number or slightly different game experiences that Bioware has created and not the player.

more linear games are not much different except they obviously have a lot less paths to choose from during play. at the end of the day the vast majority of player decisions on how they choose to play a game is decided and limited by the ones who make it and are still ultimately following the same narrative with the exception of the games i mentions above that DO follow what James argued.

 

[Ridonculous_Ninja]

I don't think of seen so many walls of text on the Escapist in quite awhile. So this is where all the intellectuals slunk off to...

I'm going to keep this short and say that I agreed much more with James, and wanted to bring in some key examples of narratives created almost entirely by the player of a game.

Veriax's Let's Play of Oblivion on Youtube is my best example of this.
He made his character, fleshed out some backstory, and he's played that character with his goals and attitudes and fears and quirks and he has made a wonderful narrative that someone is in fact novelizing for him as he goes along because it was good enough for them to want to.

The other examples are the Dwarf Fortress Let's Plays Boatmurdered, Headshoots, and Syrupleaf (with Syrupleaf being the best example of the bunch).
Each of these is a succession game where a group of players came together and tacked on their own story and narrative and characters to the game and came away with something so much more than what regular Dwarf Fortress is capable of.

I would advise everyone interested to go check those out, and if you have a Something Awful account go read up on other Dwarf Fortress LP's too.

 

[Extracredits]

Wow, this discussion is great. I'm so glad we decided to throw this up. I'm not going to defend or clarify because this conversation is so much more important than whether I'm right or wrong.

 

[zedel]

I have a thought, but I'm not sure how I'm going to phrase it, so bear with me. After reading what Thomas Grip wrote on his site as well as the discussion within the article, I feel I have come to a different conclusion(perhaps not the right word as thought is an ongoing process) than both Thomas and James, if you'll allow my informality. I would say that Thomas is right in that players do not exactly participate in "artistic creation". I say this because, in my opinion, artistic creation is not just idealization of art, but the sharing of art. I've had this annoying thought in my head, "is something art if nobody save the creator can appreciate it?" I feel that what differentiates something of artistic value from something of sentimental value is that people not involved with the creation can appreciate the feelings that the object expresses.

This next part may be a smidgen crazy sounding and presumptuous, but it is merely a thought. That said, I would say that the people playing games can be(not are) artists. If throughout the game, you have envisioned the narrative, then it is no longer just the creator being an artist, but that the player is engaging in artistic thought and, in my opinion, being an artist. Some will see where I'm going with this already. XD Here it goes, I would say that an artist is someone that emotional interacts with a piece of art as opposed to the traditional view that the creator of art is an artist. In keeping with the football analogy, someone that does not make a living playing football can still be a football player. However, they are not a professional football player. Likewise, I would say that the creator of art is a professional artist. Does that make sense?

 

[Ryengu]

The main problem with your point is that it turns every act of storytelling into a piece of post-modern meta-fiction, simply because a main character has an adventure. Odysseus gets a pass because he spends half the story recounting what happened to him, but that places him in an explicit creator role: ie, the same role the developers are in when they make a game. The simpler explanation for your point is that Homer (here representative of storytellers in general) is the artist creating the story, Odysseus (representative of main characters in general) is the protaganist[/i] around whom the story centres, and we the readers are the audience, the ones who experience the story as a story.

OT: My main problem with seeing the gamer as 'an artist' is that art is an act of 'expression'. You create something in your mind, and then you express it, whether via paint, clay, music or digital rendering (among the many, many other art-forms). If you're playing Oblivion, you may well be creating a fictional backstory for your character, but until you express it, that backstory simply remains in your head and is therefore not a piece of art. We don't class Salvador Dali as an artist because of the countless hundreds of possible pictures that no doubt flew through his mind during his lifetime. We call him an artist because of the paintings he sat down and created. Creativity is only [i[half[/i] of being an artist, the other half being depicting and expressing that creativity.

Not to cover the obvious, but it seems to me that any discussion about developers/gamers as artists is going to run into trouble based on the old "what is art" question? There are those who think anything so much as a three-note sneeze is a piece of art, and therefore gamers are easily classified as artists, while others see art as being a more applied process.

As far as I see it, a true piece of art is not just a random or meaningless expression of creativity, but a work that offers something to the audience beyond the immediate context of itself. What is often seen as the 'message' or 'meaning' for the audience to take away with them. A true work of art doesn't just give the audience something pretty to look at, it gives them an insight, comment or question about the world we live in. A true work of art shouldn't be valued just on the piece itself, but on the insights it offers to anyone who should look/read/listen to it.

Under this definition, I would therefore say it isn't possible for a gamer to fulfil the artistic role simply by playing through a story based game, no matter how non-linear it is. Any messages given in the narrative are created by the developer, and thus reflect on them as artists. If a gamer wants to use their playthrough of a game to create a fan-fiction, a picture, or even just a Let's Play video, then the 'artist' label can theoretically start to be attached. Simply playing through the interactions the developers laid out, however, lacks the inherent creativity or meaning to be truly called 'artistic'.

Maybe a bad example on my part. I can agree with what you're saying though, I think.

 

[Gigatoast]

Of corse this is coming from the creator of one of the most linear game's I've ever played, but even then the appeal of "Amnesia" isn't the narrative, it's how the players react to the situations they encounter. He didn't make the game thinking exactly how people will react, so he wasn't the one crafting each person's personal experience.

 

[beefpelican]

I'd just like to point something out. At one point, it's mentioned that 'nobody would make a game based on the real experience of farming' or something like that. There actually is a farming simulator called Farming Simulator 2011. Just wanted to point that out.

Have to say, as much as I like the Extra Punctuation guys, I think Thomas Grip is in the right on this one.

The term artist is essentially another word for 'creator'. When you make a piece of art, you are creating something for others to experience and (hopefully) enjoy, though in this era of 'modern-art', other reactions are also often sought by artists (anger, disgust, etc). Thus, the designers and writers of any given video game are artists in that they create virtual worlds full of colour and sounds within which the player is invited to explore.

The role of the player, therefore, is fundamentally different. Even with the most non-linear, sandbox games, the player is never creating anything. They are simply experiencing the world within the confines that the developers have allowed. In a fantasy RPG, you may be able to turn your character into a stealthy ranger, a powerful mage, or a heroic warrior, but you're not creating anything new when you're doing so. You're simply experiencing and exploring the different possibilities that the developers have created and offered to you. Barring games that explicitly allow for player made content (Little BigPlanet and the like), the only things the player can play with are the things the developer has already created and included in the game.

Now, in more non-linear games, the absence of a cohesive character narrative can lead players to create their own imaginary backstories for the characters they've customised. That doesn't make them artists. As Mr Grip says in his blog, many people create imaginary backstories for secondary characters in films and books. That doesn't make book-readers and film-viewers artists. Creating an imaginary backstory for your character is not art as long as it simply remains in your head, just like hearing a great piece of music but not writing it down or playing it doesn't make you a musician. Being an artist is taking those moments of creativity and inspiration, and setting them down in a medium for others to observe and react to.

Tolkien would not have been an artist if he had simply kept his Middle-Earth mythos in his imagination. Same for George RR Martin with A Song Of Ice And Fire. Jimmy Page wouldn't have been an artist if Stairway To Heaven had only lived in his mind, and never progressed to his guitar. Being an artist is developing the skill of taking the abstract and immaterial ideas that form in your imagination, and making them material. Playing around with the various toys a developer has included in their virtual world is simply not the same process. Everything within any virtual world is only there because the developers intentionally put it there. Therefore, you the player are not discovering anything abstract or unknown, you're simply finding stuff the developer hid from you. Playing a videogame is no more artistic than playing a game of hide-and-seek.

That's not to say we shouldn't challenge the player role, or look at it in new ways. But trying to claim it as an artistic position is simply misguided, I believe. All art needs an audience in order to give it context. Videogames are no different in this regard.

Why is it that one needs to actually make their art visible to others to be considered an artist? You see, I disagree with you on that point. Every person who plays through any video game is bringing their experience to life. Most of the time, that experience is only experienced by them or a small group of people who may be watching, but that person is going through a unique experience and crafting the game world in their own mind whenever they play through a game. I think that's why people enjoy watching the 'Let's Play' type of videos. They allow people to view a person experiencing and building their own artistic experience with a game. That's also why the best are those that have some narration, as then you can get an idea of what the person playing it is experiencing.

While it's true that a person would make their work seen by others to be known as an artist, does that really make them less of an artist if they don't share it? Are they somehow less creative because they don't share their creativity with others? I'm sure there are plenty of creative stories that are not formed because the one who creates the doesn't have the knowledge or ability to craft it right.

I can understand both sides of the argument, but I do think that everyone is an artist in their own way. In the end, we create the world as we experience it, and while this might be the same for the outer world, each person can experience the same virtual world is radically different ways. It isn't about creating their own character's stories as much as creating their own story with the game based off the experiences and moments they have with it. That's my opinion at least.

I agree with you (Kapol) on the topic of art needing to be visible to make it art, and its creator an artist. Just because some piece of art has not been shared with the public does not remove its artistic status. However, I wouldn't say that experiencing someone else's art and interpreting it makes a person an artist. Instead, I'd agree with Grip in saying that it makes them a good audience. As he mentioned in his article, being a good audience is not a passive act. It requires the viewer to interpret what they see, discover the artist's intent, and maybe even draw out further themes that the artist never considered. In video games the viewer takes a more active role, as they can choose what aspects of the piece they'd like to view. This often allows for a much freer interpretation of the work, but it is still the design team's work and world, not the player's. A good Let's Play is like a good essay on a film or book or painting. It allows others to see the way that someone responded to an artistic work.

 

[HydraMoon]

As an artist and a gamer, this is a wonderful topic and I'm enjoying it very much.

First off, Grip said, "Creating a piece of art is often struggle, and, more often than not, it is quite boring and monotonous. It means doing something that you are not quite sure is possible, whether it is due to your skills or just technical or physical limitations. It is quite common that your imagined goal is not possible to attain."

There have been studies upon studies that show artists actually enter a zone while creating. I do it myself with every piece. I start working and look up- ten hours have gone by. I don't think trying to equate struggle with artistic creation was a good call. Perhaps you meant more struggling against limitations of the medium rather than the creative process itself?

When I create I am liberated, free and soaring. I am relieved of my physical limitations, time restrictions (as my brain processes them) and all the best games I have played recreate that part of my brain. The best games, the ones I still play ten years later, invoke the same 'zone' that I can drop into. From shmups to JRPGs, Civ2 and Galaga- they all allow my brain to enter that 'creating zone'.

To an outsider watching me create, it can absolutely look monotonous and grinding. Watching me tweak one tiny part of a giant wall installation must be pure torture- and I feel pain for anyone who has to watch me work. Yet, for me, I feel absolutely free and focused. It's beautiful beyond words and I start to miss it if I don't indulge in art often enough for my brain's liking. I have the same experience when playing a truly engaging game. Take something simple like Angry Birds. I enter a zone and will routinely play a level over and over for hours until I attain the desired result. To someone watching me this would be excruciatingly painful. For me? Pure bliss.

I may not be creating a physical piece of art to show in a gallery (or get paid for) but I am creating an experience. One that could not have happened without my input, thus I am also a creator. Art does not simply consist of things we can touch or see- some art is all about the experience we create. Ask a performance artist wearing a full body puppet suit- ask them if they are creating art with other people through experience.

Perhaps we are simply mixing our meanings and limiting our scope needlessly?

A closer look at this part of the earlier quote- "It means doing something that you are not quite sure is possible, whether it is due to your skills or just technical or physical limitations. It is quite common that your imagined goal is not possible to attain." I do this every time I play a platformer. Am I fast enough? Is this jump even possible?

Take a fighting game- all that practice, patience and training fights. Yet, never knowing if the game can truly be beaten by us. Can we do it? Are we fast enough? Are we skilled enough? So we pour hours going over moves- training ourselves to 'fight' better. We gather with friends to discuss strategy over beers. We read FAQs and write fanfic. This is creation- we have taken a game and made it larger, more important and more of an indicator of our skilled existence. Yes, I am aware that most of this happens outside of a game but I have never had my art only affect my time while holding a paintbrush. Art is messy- it moves into all areas whether we had planned for it to or otherwise.

(I'll stop here before I need to hire an editor)

 

[SilverUchiha]

In terms of pen and paper RP, no, I think the player should be the player, but if you think the Dungeon Master is the only one telling the story there I'd have to bitterly disagree.

Couldn't agree more with this line! I DM on a regular basis, but I'm loose enough to allow the players to mold their own experiences within the world and plot I've already set up for them to run around in. It allows for a richer and more in-depth experience. I don't always get things to flow my way, and I'm sure there are some things they want to do that I don't let them get away with as often as they like. But I don't view it as just a game, but as a different way of telling a story because they are just as much an influence on the world I create as I am, if not more so.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

I think this issue brings up a very important paradox within the industry. Both sides have made their points, but my resolution to this lies within my own opinion.

All of this boils down to creation: Who is the creator? From TG's point of view, it is he and others like him that create the canvas of a game through computations, visualizations and narrations. From James' point of view, it is the players that experience the canvas and create their own experiences within the parameters of said canvas. From my point of view, both are correct in their assessments.

I think that the ideas produced by the creator of the game and the ideas produced by the player are both artistry. Therefore, both are considered artists in my eyes. For example, have you ever played a game, finished it and then thought of a sequel to it? Then a sequel to the game was made, but it's not at all like your idea of a sequel. What makes one art and the other a fantasy? I believe that if an idea is presented and expressed well enough through either visual or mental means, then it is art regardless of medium. Case in point: Lenny Bruce's ideas were presented through the medium of comedy. His ideas are still echoed through other means today: R.E.M. took his both Lenny and his idea and put them in a different medium; in this case, music. Yet, both are considered artistry.

Also, those who present and express an idea through small or no audiences should not be denied the title 'artist' just because those who possess the means and ability to present and express an idea through larger audiences deem their work 'inartful'. All forms of art are subjective; therefore, all thoughts pretinent to this issue are treated in the same regard.

 

[aeroz]

well for one I dont think you should group all games together like that. The amount of influence I have on the protagonist in Fallout is alot more then I'd have in Final Fantasy 13.

Ultimately I think it comes down to, do you consider an actor an artist? Because that is in many ways what the player is. They are one person in the story, they do not choose his goals, what others are doing, the plot, what he can or cannot do, only the specific actions they take within the narrative.

 

[OutforEC]

In my opinion, forgive the tardiness,

A "Video Game" is the result of an artist arranging ones and zeroes to allow a player to connect the dots.
An "Interactive Game" is the result of an artist inviting a player into their world and watching the response.
And "Collaborative Gaming" is the result of the artist signing their name on a canvas and letting the player start painting.

I'm hoping we start to see a lot more of the third, and I believe as the developers allow for more input from gamers, the industry as a whole will truly begin to evolve into the artform that we keep hoping for.

 

[Jumplion]

Wow, this discussion is great. I'm so glad we decided to throw this up. I'm not going to defend or clarify because this conversation is so much more important than whether I'm right or wrong.

Probably the most walls of text I have ever seen a single thread have, with two distinct philosophy camps. Practically a divide between "Portnism" and "Gripism". Quite eerie, actually...

But to join in on this disscussion, and without going too deep into it (low on time here), I am more inclined to go with Grip; I feel that Portnow is thinking of the player and the player's role in a heavily romanticized or bright-eyed way. It comes off as "You are an artist! The best damn artist there is! Yes you are! Yes you are!" when you have to stretch that concept pretty far to make it apply like that. People may experience the same game differently, making the player the "creator" and "artist" and whatnot, but the same thing can be said for books, movies, and everything else. This does not make the participate an "artist", just an observer with a different interpretation.

In the episode being discussed here, it could easily be argued that a Movie/Painting/Novel is incomplete until there is a watcher/viewer/reader behind it, and likewise it can be argued that a game is a game as soon as it is stamped on the disc or posted on the internet regardless if it has a player behind it or not. Everyone experiences the same movie/book/music/game differently, but watering down the whole "You created that experience!" really just makes the whole concept of the player as the create kind of blase. The watcher does create any sort of narrative in football, unless you want to include the audiences reactions and stuff in the story of the game, in which case it's just needlessly broadening the definitions to suit your needs which, in turn, only make the definition meaningless.

Hope I made sense, kind of a half-rambling/half-typing whatever came to mind, but I am more on the "Gripism" philosophy here.

 

[prouler]

I loved amnesia, and I actually thought of the game when thinking of the ideas put forward by James, which makes me all the more interested by this conversation. In talking with a friend who played the game shortly after I had finished it, I learned that he encountered a monster much earlier than I had. apparently I got extremely lucky and somehow missed the first monster in the game, and because of that, the atmosphere in the game was different to me than it was for him. As well, later on I encountered a bug where a monster was caught on a door, and because of that little hiccup in the code, it tore allot of the horror away for the final stretch of the game, because that one monster stopped being threatening. that is an experience that is wholly unique to my play through, and even though someone, in a one in a million chance, may get those two events to happen in one play through, he/she will more than likely experience them differently. all these things are objects and events set down by the designer, and yet, I have created my own story from it. with this in mind, I read this article... beginning it completely agreeing with James, and now I think I have come away with a very different point of view. there is so much merit in what both James and Thomas have to say. My comment after reading this is as follows. There is a finite number of games that could ever be played in chess. assuming the game can only be played between two people, and no one else can step in, there are only so many possible moves that can be made. even if one game were to run from their birth to their death, in an indefinite stalemate, it would still be finite, within limits. that number of moves and possible moves would be so astronomically massive that it is beyond the human mind to comprehend it, but it is still a finite number. I will expand this analogy even further. there is a finite amount of art that can be created within any computer based art program. this can be determined by the number of possible pixels that can be rendered to the exponent of the number of possible colors that can be applied within those pixels. just try to imagine how many trillions of trillions are in that number. you can't because trillions doesn't even come close to it, but it is still finite. yet artists still create with these tools, and players still play chess, and both do great things with their medium. Videogames are very much like these two, but even more epic in scale. think, of every possible inch of in game space within a 3D game that could be explored at every possible time that it could be explored with each possible character that can explore it multiplied by every possible random sequence that can be possibly generated by the game code. just think of that. there are more possible creations of story within 1 videogame, than every picture that has ever been created, and will ever be created using digital means. all that has to happen, is for a player to experience it, and let his choices guide that experience, while the game paints the narrative for him/her. the designer has created so many seemingly infinite works of art in a single game, that it needs the player to make that single story from one play through exist. the designer writes the scripts, but the player brings it into existence. the player isn't the storyteller, nor is the player the audience. the player is the player, something that is unique to gaming as a medium, and impossible to emulate in any other. the pixel count can be expanded a billion fold and the color spectrum widened and more well defined, but you would have to add together every work of art ever created ever just to get close to the number of stories hiding within the virtual world of a single game.

 

[The_Decoy]

you can choose how your character looks but all of those options were put in by the developers. the player isn't so much creating their own experience as much as choosing which one of the 1000s and 1000s of possible combinations of character options and narrative choices leading to a vast but still limited number or slightly different game experiences that Bioware has created and not the player.

So forgive me if I misunderstand, but if a system has constraints then any work derived from these restraints cannot be creative? So lets say I'm a painter, but the only paints available are blue and red. Lets say the paint manufacturers are terrible around here, or maybe the lord who has commissioned my work has told me only blue and red can be used. At any rate, does this make my work their creation instead of mine? What if they said it had to contain a dragon, or some other specifications? At what point does it cease being creative? Are there a certain amount of choices I'm required to have before it becomes my own work?

In any case, I'm siding with James. Through gameplay or concentrated thought the player shapes a character and experience that is unique to them.

Though whether there is anything nearing a "right answer" to this discussion is debatable...