Read on Twitter
15 years ago Ebert made the infamous comments about games being "inherently inferior" to film.
But as much as I loved Ebert and his sharp eye for movies, his justification missed something *very* important about games: 1/
(h/t @jeremyreimer https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/11/5657-2/)
But as much as I loved Ebert and his sharp eye for movies, his justification missed something *very* important about games: 1/
(h/t @jeremyreimer https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/11/5657-2/)
"There is a structural reason for that: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control."
But the thing is, games are *full* of authorial control, but it's second-order. 2/
But the thing is, games are *full* of authorial control, but it's second-order. 2/
In movies the authorial control is over the piece itself, which doesn't change in response to the viewer.
But in games we do something different. We make rules for how the game world works, then the player acts inside that world, and their experience comes from those actions. 3/
But in games we do something different. We make rules for how the game world works, then the player acts inside that world, and their experience comes from those actions. 3/
And it's tricky because, on one hand, we do have full authorial control over the rules of the game world, and those don't change in response to the audience, just like in movies.
But on the other hand, unlike in movies, players don't "watch the rules" we've authored. 4/
But on the other hand, unlike in movies, players don't "watch the rules" we've authored. 4/
The player's experience is from the *dynamic gameplay* that happens when players (and AI systems) pick up the rules and put them to work.
And players are unpredictable, they can do whatever they want (within the rules). 5/
And players are unpredictable, they can do whatever they want (within the rules). 5/
But we still have authorial control, and tons of it.
However, it's authorial control over the entire made-up world and its whole experience, and not narrowly over a single trajectory through this world as perceived in an unchanging way. 6/
However, it's authorial control over the entire made-up world and its whole experience, and not narrowly over a single trajectory through this world as perceived in an unchanging way. 6/
To adopt @add_hawk's terminology, our medium is agency.
We create lifeworlds filled with opportunities for action and consequence, and that's the medium. We don't create static trajectories.
But to consider that this, too, could be art, does require a mental leap. 7/
We create lifeworlds filled with opportunities for action and consequence, and that's the medium. We don't create static trajectories.
But to consider that this, too, could be art, does require a mental leap. 7/
I absolutely loved Ebert's movie reviews, and his very sharp eye for the medium.
But statements like that one show just how much one can internalize the assumptions of one's beloved medium - and then mistake them for universals.
Then again - isn't that only human? :)
8/8
But statements like that one show just how much one can internalize the assumptions of one's beloved medium - and then mistake them for universals.
Then again - isn't that only human? :)
8/8
