Hmm. So yeah we have another new assignment and this time it's a must to think about persuasive games. everything looked all right and interesting while I was sitting at the lecture class. But now I'm trying to look at the subject in depth and to find an interesting angle or point of view. Interesting enough for me to make this task quite interesting and not an awful pain.
Looks like this guy Ian Bogost almost trademarked the term 'Persuasive Game'. I've read couple of his articles and they looked all right to me because he explained why trendy AAA market is so trendy and self duplicating and that the spirit of true gaming joy lives with indie.. Anyway. I've spend some time looking for the exact meaning of what persuasive means in games. I don't like to bring the topic that English ins't my first language and it's natural for me to encounter some obstacles. And as most of human beings I like to ask questions only when I'm comfortable in my environment. Which is why I'm asking most of my questions while I'm in form of my desktop.
So, persuasive. Is it just about lecturing and teaching? I think not entirely but mostly. This video explains some things.
http://vimeo.com/11362487
About Bogost. So far I dislike his theories. I have looked into persuasivegames website and made my impression. All of those games looks like most other games in the world. Just the subject or key theme is different. In persuasive games things supposed to mean and represent something real. But in reality it does not matter if you are collecting magical gems and building a space dragon or you are gathering blue plums, inspecting them then making a jam and donating it to the third world countries.
Although persuasive games have a good point because most of the time you are learning something new. Like how to make jam. But this controversy has been around for a long while it is like reading a book versus reading a newspaper. Both are about people both tell a story just one is purely fiction and created mostly for entertainment and other is for educational or some other reason. The thing that matters most for me despite the type of media is what useful one is able to take it. It might be in depth knowledge about something existing or stimulation of your fantasy. In general it does not matter as long as your the time was not wasted.
I see how games could be used in education. Pupils still have to learn things in schools and some or most of those things will not be interesting for some or for most of the pupils. That is where persuasive games could help right? I can imagine that textbooks with coloured pictures was something when they first came and watching historical documentaries really made things more interesting for me. Well, persuasive games have already came. I saw a little boy solving mathematical riddles and at the same time competing with his buddy online to beat the clock.
That is why I do not see persuasive games as a big thing. The games have been here for a vile all it takes to make one more or less persuasive is to change few or more key elements.
Some might ask when will people start to take games seriously? At some point they already are. We just need to look at the figures of global games industry. These days budgets of games are equal to the budgets of block busters. Releases of pretty much all major titles are celebrated with night launches around the globe.
But when we will think about games not just as an entertainment form? Well, it is already too late for us. It is in this nations blood that they see games as a tool of joy and fun, not a serious matter. I say just leave it be for now. Politicians, Professors will never see and know the truth potential of games and playing. Only when these kids who are playing games based on solving math riddles will grow up and become politicians and professors, only then society will take games seriously. They are the children of the new millennia and they are growing surrounded by modern technologies.
Everything we are inventing and everything that looks fascinating and innovative for us now will be normal and common for them just like the light bulb and toaster is for us now.
So I say that we should focus more on creating something good for the future rather than changing minds of old fashioned people.
But this topic is more interesting for me because of the other reasons. I am 24 years old and I still do not know how to appreciate art. This is rather strange because I have spent half of my life studying in art schools. I sure have learned how to express myself, how to create and how to observe, notice and learn. But after quitting my second university and coming to England it really started to bother me that I just do not know how to appreciate and understand art. At one point I thought that art is a big fraud. Just the creator himself is able to understand his piece of work and public just pretends because they do not want to look like fools. I did not wanted to be one of those fools so I have tried and I made more and more questions until I have began to get it. Or at least I think so. And the thing that makes me wonder is that video games helped me to achieve that.
I know that making a video game is a craft and lots of people would back me up on this one.
So I think that art happens between the observer and the object whatever it is. Technically there is just a mixture of pigment and oil on the canvas and nothing more just plain mater. Art might be relation or connection or feedback which occurs. It is this feel of harmony which makes you feel good in some way.
We are used to one way connection with the piece of art when we are observing it but computer games are based on continuously exchanging feedback in between player and the game.
No comments:
Post a Comment