you know i was thinking about that comment when i went to bed last night – my analytical side tends to forget to be nice to people. i apologise.

[i'm genuinely interested to know the few incidents in which i came across as close minded, though. arrogant or short tempered i could understand...]

i never said that – you’ve made that connection on your own. much like you seem to have made several other assumptions, putting words into my mouth, seemingly for the sake of a counter-argument.

I do believe that you said this:

consider that games could be made interesting through educational content [see film documentaries]. consider that games could be made a meaningful experience purely because of how it makes us feel and think, instead of just being “fun” [see the film schindler’s list].

I see here you have related films to games. Can you blame me for making this assumption? Oh, and good luck with that essay.

Regarding the “making people cry” comments: they were not actually aimed at you. They were not even a jibe or mockery of anyone, even the person I was actually referring to. I apologise if you misunderstood as I did not make this very clear.

pointing to a lack of educational games and so forth – it’s simplistic and shortsighted to define the scope of games purely by what has come so far.

I am just following an existing trend to a conclusion. That trend, so far, is that educational games aren’t very popular: they could be the most brilliant game in the world, but they just don’t sell. I’m not saying this couldn’t change, of course. It’s not shortsighted of me to state that they aren’t very fun, either, because if that wasn’t the case they’d probably sell a little bit better to people over the age of eight.

i trust you to be a little more open minded.

Please refrain from making such patronising comments in the future as I recall a few incidents where you might have done better from taking your own advice.

This post probably seems like I have a horrible vendetta against you, but I assure you that’s far from the case. I respect the face that I am no designer, but I do enjoy the occasional philosophical debate.

[quote]I think you have fixed the link between games and non-interactive media too strongly in your mind. They are far from the same.[/quote]

i never said that – you’ve made that connection on your own. much like you seem to have made several other assumptions, putting words into my mouth, seemingly for the sake of a counter-argument.

i never said that games are the same as films [indeed i'm currently writing an essay about how they are not]; i never said that emotional or cerebral content in games [or films, or anything else] is just about “making people cry”; i never said that any game could possibly hope to evoke just one solitary emotion [as if a game could be "all about sadness" for 10 hours], and so what if “some people” don’t want to play a given game? no game could ever appeal to every kind of gamer, and it will always be a mistake to try.

as a general reply to some of the things you’ve said – pointing to a lack of educational games and so forth – it’s simplistic and shortsighted to define the scope of games purely by what has come so far. you’re leaving no room for forward-thinking, or progression into new genre – as if the art of the game is already “finished” and fully evolved. do you really think that the true and total nature of such a vast medium will be forever defined by the work from its first 30 years?

i trust you to be a little more open minded. in the time between space invaders and deux ex, games have become all kinds of things people never saw coming, and they will continue to do so in the future.

Have you ever played a game that wasn’t “fun” in some way? I’m talking about “fun” = “entertaining”, which doesn’t necessarily mean that it evokes positive emotions. In fact, games rely on the combination of positive and negative emotions to create their sense of immertion. Games can be challenging, frustrating, scary, et cetera, while also keeping the player hooked to it by creating emotions such as elation, satisfaction, relief…

However, a game that sets out just to make people cry is going to die a swift death. Or at least I hope it would. I also did not say that “games = fun”, but I meant that “games need fun”. Even the scariest games or the most frustrating games need to give some reward to the player for sitting through it. The amount of reward required to create this effect, however, can turn out to be surprisingly little.

Imagine a huge gunfight: you are going to die. You have no armour, little health. You run into a room and your enemy is hot on your heels. In there you find a health pack and that’s it. Just a health pack. But the player will be utterly grateful for it.

Now, let’s imagine a game where it’s all about sadness – making the player cry. How would you achieve this? You could do it through an NPC that the player has bonded with, who is suddenly killed. That could work, maybe with a touching cutscene with some good music. I recall the Fall of Max Payne when writing this. You could have tears through joy: maybe the NPC lives? That’s pretty tough to do. The problem here, though, is what do you do in the rest of the game?

In conclusion, yes, you can start with an emotion. However, like I said above, you cannot base a game on emotion. You need to base the game on ordinary, mundane things and cleverly weave it with the atmosphere you want to create. Sometimes, the things that you set out to achieve in the game create the emotional content as a mere by-product of good game design.

Also remember that if you want to create one emotion, your game is going to suck. Games create in us a whole range of emotions. In fact, I would say a game that sets out to create every emotion and pulls it off would be the best game in the world.

Edit: Regarding this:

consider that games could be made a meaningful experience purely because of how it makes us feel and think

True enough, but I don’t see many successful educational games. The games that make us “think” are indeed great games, but only for us. Remember here that when we are talking about games we are covering a wide variety of people. Some people do not want to think about this stuff, but would rather sit down for an hour and play Puzzle Fighter 2 (which requires a different kind of thinking). Some people just want to blow stuff up, which requires almost no thinking at all.

To elaborate on my point here: experience and emotion are elements that are always worth considering in games. They are not concepts that a game should be based on, though.

experience and emotion are what the player gets as a result of interaction and choice. it therefore makes perfect sense that a designer of a game would first think about what emotion and experience they would like to evoke, and then design the interactive system to do it.

and i disagree that “fun” is the only or most important thing in games. consider that games could be made interesting through educational content [see film documentaries]. consider that games could be made a meaningful experience purely because of how it makes us feel and think, instead of just being “fun” [see the film schindler's list].

imo, the idea that “games = fun” is shortsighted, and destined to be proven wrong as the medium evolves.

I ask you one last time to actually read my comment properly, because if you did you would certainly not make a reply like that. Or do you lack the capacity to understand simple and direct English?

I didn’t think you’d listen, because people like you never do. Which is why i’ll leave it at this and let you go on your merry ignorant way. If you can’t take honest opinion, then you shouldn’t voice yours.

As a parting shot: i quite like the way you break my comment down into segments in order to answer. Just like a 12 year old.

Comparing Morrowind to RE is like comparing a duck and a tennis ball – what is the connection?

We are talking about the role of choice in games, are we not? If we agree that Morrowind and Resident Evil are both Computer Games, then couldn’t you compare them as interactive systems?

They’re two very different, well established games which appeal to different people for different reasons.

Yes. We are discussing those reasons. Namely, whether the more choice based nature of Morrowind (more fundementally ‘game’ based), is a better, purer game because of this.

Continue making comments like that and the UnrealEd one and people will completely disregard your comments as “non-consequential” as you are arguing your views like a 12 year old.

I’ll try and simplify my (twelve year old) arguement here. I’m saying that games aren’t “purely about choice”. To prove this, the criterion of choice would be one in which every decision can be made. Like UnrealEd.

And if you think Q4 is fun, but (loudly) deride it as a “modern low-point” then, perhaps, you should revise your use of the English language?

Quake 4 is a derivative, unimaginative Doom 3 mod of the lowest intellectual quality. There is almost nothing in it that I didn’t expect or thought I’d seen before. I have made this pretty clear to everyone around me, loudly.

You should already be aware it doesn’t really matter what you think, you do not design commercial games for yourself after all. That’s the thing you must *always* keep in mind – unless it’s your own project what you think is irrelevant. That is the nature of the oft-mentioned “real world” that university fails to point out.

I can’t respond to this, it’s too inane. Other than that, thank you for trying to teach me how to write, it (loudly) sounds like I need the practice. You’re being quite offensive, and obviously aren’t reading what I’m saying. I’ll just take my uselessly ornate language, and my wildly incoherant opinion out of this argument!

I personally believe that games should be created with the initial objective to be fun/enjoyable/entertaining/”superfluous”, where emotion can be derived whether it be the frustration of a hard puzzle or fear from a Chainsaw-wielding madman.

In a way it’s great that some designers have an obscure view of games. It allows for variation. But consider this; when working on commercial games you’ll have to create games from the marketplace’s point of view. This is the reason why there are so many ‘quake clones’ – Consumers buy them.

And if you think Q4 is fun, but (loudly) deride it as a “modern low-point” then, perhaps, you should revise your use of the English language? Thoughtfully, Pete has already quoted the meaning of fun in his previous comments.

You should already be aware it doesn’t really matter what you think, you do not design commercial games for yourself after all. That’s the thing you must *always* keep in mind – unless it’s your own project what you think is irrelevant. That is the nature of the oft-mentioned “real world” that university fails to point out.

I hope you are intelligent enough to realise i am trying to point out the flaws in your argument. If you were to put them across without the ridiculous comparisons i’m sure you would do much better in provoking intelligent discussion.

Additionally, i would advise you start making your points without the waffle. I know i for starters care little for how flowery and colourful you make your text – make the point, back it up and move on. You are not a journalist – journalists write like that to hide the fact they have nothing intelligent or meaningful to say.

I hope you are mature enough to read properly what i have said, I have made my point and will not do so again, but if not – consider two of my favourite quotes (both by Plato):

“As empty vessels make the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest blabbers.”

“Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.”

I’m sure you can see why.