Ten Reasons Why Computer Games Are Not Games
Michael Samyn at art-gamer firm Tale Of Tales is a gifted rhetoricist (if, indeed, that's a word!), and a recent thought-provoking screed from him on the Tale Of Tales Blog is named 'Ten reasons why computer games are not games' - so yes, it's kind of a list article, but bear with us.
Samyn explains: "Computer game is a misnomer. Sure, historically computer games have been electronic renderings of game concepts. And certainly a lot of developers of interactive entertainment insist on exploring game design as the basis of their work. That’s all very interesting, but in the mean time, computer games have evolved into a medium of their own."
In fact, he argues: "So rather than dwelling on the things that computer games have in common with traditional games, we, at Tale of Tales, prefer to explore what is different about them, what makes computer games unique. We believe that only the exploitation of these unique properties will lead to the maturity of the medium."
There then follow a bunch of interesting concepts - I'll pick just one, 'Players as authors', and you can click through to read the rest and start the inevitable argument: "Traditional games have strict rules. Because of this strictness, you can predict all possible outcomes of any game, based solely on analysis of the rules. Computer games, on the other hand, are much less predictable. While many of them still contain rules (although their strictness is fading with each generation), these rules tend to create options rather than diminish them. So much so that a player can play a game in ways that surprise even its creator."
Comments
I read the article. It was full of incongruities. For example, #3 Immersion says that when playing a traditional tabletop game you are "an outsider" whereas in a computer game you can become part of it. In fact the opposite is the reality. In a computer game, all rules are hard - you have NO ability to influence them (unless you hack the game); whereas in a tabletop game, say D&D, you can develop house rules, and even a player can influence modifying the rules. Point #4 says traditional games are for children. What is he talking about?
I think the blogger is well-meaning, but basically he doesn't have much depth of understanding of game design.
Posted by: Grassroots Gamemaster | July 6, 2007 7:28 AM
By the definitions he gives, wouldn't sports not be games either? I seem to remember a shot clock being added to basketball because played had morphed into something its creators hadn't intended.
Posted by: Ace of Sevens | July 6, 2007 7:33 AM
2. Stories are more important than rules
and
9. No losing
To which I respond:
!!!!!
Dammit, I did an @Play on these a couple months ago! READ MY COLUMN SAMYN, THERE CERTAINLY ARE COMPUTER GAMES LIKE THAT! Oy.
Also:
10. Cheating is allowed
If a game allows you to cheat then, from the perspective of the game, it's not cheating. If you're cheating by editing files or using something like a Game Genie, well, you suck. But that's not any different from "real" games: you can play Monopoly with $500 on Free Parking if you want. And yes, that would mean you suck. But it isn't any different from entering up up down down left right left right.
Posted by: John H. | July 6, 2007 1:19 PM
You know who's a gifted rhetorician? John Harris, that's who.
Posted by: Frank | July 6, 2007 8:43 PM
Please post a link to your column, John H, and I will. :)
Posted by: Michaël Samyn | July 8, 2007 4:30 AM