Times chief film critic on videogaming

[Cacophanus]

"The problem for people like me is this: hardcore game players have become bored with the cliches of their chosen pastmime and developers have responded by making their games more intracate and therefore more baffling to the novice".

This is mostly untrue, most modern games are considerably easier in terms of skill requirements. Moreover, many are analogous to a real world scenario making the actual "gaming" aspect an almost seamless experience.

So- lazy reviewing or incisive reasoning?

As always, lazy reviewing.

[bplus]

It's complete ignorance of gaming history that irritates me,

why?

I couldnt give a crap if my friends know the history of metroid or why ico is fabulous, they want to play fun, easy to understand games with their mates and thats all.

I dont know much about films but I still enjoy them, and I doubt that irritates anybody.

[Super Dude]

most modern games are considerably easier in terms of skill requirements. Moreover, many are analogous to a real world scenario making the actual "gaming" aspect an almost seamless experience.

But most videogame reproductions of real world scenarios are only, when you think about it, partial reproductions of reality, necessarily enforcing limitations and mediating everything through an unavoidably constricting interface: thereby making it nowhere near seamless, and nowhere near approximating people's real-life experiences.

[Cacophanus]

But most videogame reproductions of real world scenarios are only, when you think about it, partial reproductions of reality, necessarily enforcing limitations and mediating everything through an unavoidably constricting interface: thereby making it nowhere near seamless, and nowhere near approximating people's real-life experiences.

Relative to the real world, yes. Relative to the games that have preceded this state of affairs, no. Hence, the journalist's conclusion is ill-informed.

[Graham S]

Relative to the real world, yes. Relative to the games that have preceded this state of affairs, no. Hence, the journalist's conclusion is ill-informed.

Isn't the whole point that he's ill-informed (about videogames)?

[scottcr]

No it's not. His point is, as someone who's not a gamer, the restrictions that games impose upon you are frustrating, once you get over the illogical means of moving your character and the forced 3d perspective and the need to excercise the spatial awareness parts of your brain...

My first experience of this was when playing a text adventure while one of my non gaming friends looked on. When I typed something that seemed totally logical for the scenario the parser didn't understand and it replied "You can't", my friend couldn't understand why it wouldn't respond properly to the question "why"?

Take broken sword 3 for example... the puzzle to keep the lift open... with the inventory you have at the time there's quite a few ways of doing it? Why can't I jam it open with a book? Why can't I use the pole? Why do I have to use the most obscure and illogical means... yes, of course, if you're a gamer and have grown up with the illogical world of gaming puzzles then it makes sense, but, in when given to a non gamer... it doesn't.

Think back to your earliest gaming experiences, there's probably times like I described above, when you tried to do something in an adventure that seemed like perfect sense to you... but the game hadn't been programmed to accept it. You now forgive this, and accept that in order to reach that switch you need to find a crate to push... but... when you were younger, you probably quite logically, would have tried to press it with the metal rod you were carrying.

Games are daft.

There's a HELL of a long way to go before they have the level of emotional involvement you can get in film.

[Cacophanus]

Isn't the whole point that he's ill-informed (about videogames)?

Partly, he states he is fresh to the medium but then makes "conclusive" analysis based on patchy data. If he just wanted to say "I am new to games and this what I think" that's fine, but to claim "I am new to games but the problem with games is that they have got more complex over time" is exceeding the parameters of his self-proclaimed lack of education.

What I am saying, is how the hell can he make comments on the history of gaming if he hasn't played that many games?

[Cacophanus]

No it's not. His point is, as someone who's not a gamer, the restrictions that games impose upon you are frustrating, once you get over the illogical means of moving your character and the forced 3d perspective and the need to excercise the spatial awareness parts of your brain...

My first experience of this was when playing a text adventure while one of my non gaming friends looked on. When I typed something that seemed totally logical for the scenario the parser didn't understand and it replied "You can't", my friend couldn't understand why it wouldn't respond properly to the question "why"?

Take broken sword 3 for example... the puzzle to keep the lift open... with the inventory you have at the time there's quite a few ways of doing it? Why can't I jam it open with a book? Why can't I use the pole? Why do I have to use the most obscure and illogical means... yes, of course, if you're a gamer and have grown up with the illogical world of gaming puzzles then it makes sense, but, in when given to a non gamer... it doesn't.

Think back to your earliest gaming experiences, there's probably times like I described above, when you tried to do something in an adventure that seemed like perfect sense to you... but the game hadn't been programmed to accept it. You now forgive this, and accept that in order to reach that switch you need to find a crate to push... but... when you were younger, you probably quite logically, would have tried to press it with the metal rod you were carrying.

Games are daft.

There's a HELL of a long way to go before they have the level of emotional involvement you can get in film.

Games are not films. Chess doesn't have "emotional involvment" and neither does Tetris, yet they are great games. Stop being mislead by aesthetics.

[scottcr]

Isn't the whole point that he's ill-informed (about videogames)?

but why does he need to be informed... why is there an "initation rite" that you need to go through games before you understand their twisted logic and illogical input mechanisms and 3d representations....

personally.. if you ask me... games shouldn't even try to be films... however, they should attempt to have more "realistic" (and I mean that, as in consistent laws and freedom - Wind Waker was great for this imho... one of the great unsung games of this generation) gaming environments and simple and logical input mechanisms. I remember Miyamoto talking about this very subject not that long ago... it doesn't make sense for me to have to stand in front of a door and press a button on a joypad to open it... rather, it would make more sense to have to go through the physical motion of opening the door... what makes more sense to a non gamer and the human mind, walking up to a door and using your hand to "grab" the door and swing it open, or pressing the "action" button, which may be different from the "pick up" button? Having said that, the whole action of walking around in a 3d environment on a 2d screen with a limited field of vision is still something that many people struggle with... how many of you have seen non/casual gamers play Halo only to spend most of their time looking at the sky or the ground?

[scottcr]

Games are not films. Chess doesn't have "emotional involvment" and neither does Tetris, yet they are great games. Stop being mislead by aesthetics.

But many games try to be films... which will ultimately lead to people comparing them and criticising them for there lack of accessibility.

Tetris was/is extremely popular for a reason... becuase it was a "game"... simple, addictive, logical and something that couldn't be achieved any other way.

[Ebisumaru]

By the beginning of January 2004, 99 million basic PlayStation units had been sold worldwide. On top of that, 70 million PlayStation2 units have been bought since 2000. Microsoft's Xbox console remains a distant second to Sony's behemoth, but is making its presence increas-ingly felt as a second-choice console for more serious gamers.

That's wonderful James. It's all about those $ man!

This bizarre social-contextulisation that videogames (apparantly,) crave is, to be blunt, ridiculous. Judging the artform of the videogame against the experiences of the 'viewer'-passive artforms that have gone before (particularly cinema,) is akin to demonishing operatic theatre on the basis that it isn't a novel. To deny the fraternity and shared conventions between the arts would be naieve in the extreme, but really, an art as unique as the videogame should do nothing more than construct its own touchstone on the path of civilization. Also intriguing is the fact that capitalism and market economics have affected the craft in such a profound way, but that's another thread entirely...

As someone said, the videogame will become 'mainstream' given the fact that there will be those raised on the 'form, so perhaps we can at least deride some contentment from that... or then again...

[scottcr]

This is mostly untrue, most modern games are considerably easier in terms of skill requirements. Moreover, many are analogous to a real world scenario making the actual "gaming" aspect an almost seamless experience.

As always, lazy reviewing.

In this case he's not saying harder, he's saying "intricate"...

Splinter Cell (off the top of my head) has a myriad of controls and possibilities of interactivity... to someone who hasn't been playing games for a long time...

To me.. some of the comment here sounds like the words of the gaming elite... those who just get gaming, live it, breath it, eat it and shag it... and can't even comprehend why a non gamer who approaches gaming and gives it a try (you MUST give the guy props for trying Ico... )

As someone who has many non gaming friends and those who have tried gaming... I fully understand this.. I've seen friends struggle with games that I think are simple.

There's a reason why driving games and footy games and tiger woods are popular... they are simple.. the input makes sense and it's real world scenarios with defined rules that the vast majority of people understand. "Press O to cross into the box" makes more sense to a casual gamer than "Press O to open your stealthometer"....

[Graham S]

but why does he need to be informed... why is there an "initation rite" that you need to go through games before you understand their twisted logic and illogical input mechanisms and 3d representations....

I don't think he does need to be well-informed about games to have an interesting view. Indeed, by the sound of things a few days with The Getaway means he's suffered enough for daring to think he can express his thoughts (and indeed, a conclusion!) about them in a newspaper.

I thought it was quite quaint the way he was talking about levers and gearsticks on the PS2 pad.

[bplus]

But many games try to be films... which will ultimately lead to people comparing them and criticising them for there lack of accessibility.

exactly.

Its getting really tiresome seeing the pathetic attempts at "cinematic experience".

Metal gear solid 2

[Jim Miles]

I thought it was quite quaint the way he was talking about levers and gearsticks on the PS2 pad.

I thought that was brilliant. Surely deliberate.

[Jim Miles]

It's complete ignorance of gaming history that irritates me,

why?

I couldnt give a crap if my friends know the history of metroid or why ico is fabulous, they want to play fun, easy to understand games with their mates and thats all.

I dont know much about films but I still enjoy them, and I doubt that irritates anybody.

The reason I said that is that people often naively believe a game is great without knowing of earlier games which used idea X when it was actually innovative. They also make naive deductions - "Pong was the first computer game ever because when people talk about the oldest games they always mention it!".

Neither are damaging in themselves - especially the first, if they enjoy it then great - but when people (like broadsheet reviewers, not James Christopher in this case, but people like Tim Whapshot) start spouting rubbish it can be frustrating.

[scottcr]

IMHO (the usual web caveat to avoid confrontattion) is that this guy is absoloutely spot on. This is no two bit critic, this is a respected critic who is paid to observe and appreciate art.

Games are not art. The approach early comic story line... simple sci-fi... but they are no where near the levels of the finest art.

Why does a simple flat image of a bunch of sunflowers in a vase evoke such love and admiration. Why does an image of the top half of a woman in a strange landscape and an enigmatic smile grip is in such a way... It's taken hundreds of cultural development for us to appreciate these images... Imho, gaming is still at the level of cave drawings... we may look back in years and wonder at their simplistic designs but we have such a long way to go. I'm not quite sure we'll even get there.

I'd rather a game remained a game... this constant drive for realism and more complex interactivity and realistic scenarios and environments will ultimately backfire on the gaming industry... and only then may we actually see "art"...

anyway, I'm rambling a bit.. had too much wine tonight. hic

[Mr Spew]

Partly, he states he is fresh to the medium but then makes "conclusive" analysis based on patchy data. If he just wanted to say "I am new to games and this what I think" that's fine, but to claim "I am new to games but the problem with games is that they have got more complex over time" is exceeding the parameters of his self-proclaimed lack of education.

What I am saying, is how the hell can he make comments on the history of gaming if he hasn't played that many games?

You need to have played games to know their history?

Fuck, I talk about games more than I play them. So am I less entitled to an opinion than you?

That's what the whole article is about, you eejit. The fact he doesn't usually play them. That might show how he was expecting a passive form of entertainment, not requiring any brainpower etc, but it does show how patchy games are, and unaccessable they still are to some audiences.

Halo, is a good example of a good game, marketed well, and developed well. Did anyone ever get stuck in it?

[Comrade]

IMHO (the usual web caveat to avoid confrontattion) is that this guy is absoloutely spot on. This is no two bit critic, this is a respected critic who is paid to observe and appreciate art.

Games are not art. The approach early comic story line... simple sci-fi... but they are no where near the levels of the finest art.

Why does a simple flat image of a bunch of sunflowers in a vase evoke such love and admiration. Why does an image of the top half of a woman in a strange landscape and an enigmatic smile grip is in such a way... It's taken hundreds of cultural development for us to appreciate these images... Imho, gaming is still at the level of cave drawings... we may look back in years and wonder at their simplistic designs but we have such a long way to go. I'm not quite sure we'll even get there.

I'd rather a game remained a game... this constant drive for realism and more complex interactivity and realistic scenarios and environments will ultimately backfire on the gaming industry... and only then may we actually see "art"...

anyway, I'm rambling a bit.. had too much wine tonight. hic

Rubbish. "Art" is not a denotion of quality. If I drew a smiley face on the back of a beer mat, it's art. Shit art, it may be, but art it is still. Games are not "not art" because they don't have very good story lines or drawings in them, they're just not very good art. You said that games are at cave painting level. Well, how are cave paintings not art?

Personally, I'd say that games are art, but there's a big debate to be had there. There are plenty of arguments of why games aren't art (I remember that Rev Stu had some interesting ones). I largely don't agree with them, but they are valid. Unlike your one.

[Comrade]

Halo, is a good example of a good game, marketed well, and developed well. Did anyone ever get stuck in it?

I'm sure plenty of people would do. The whole constantly looking at the ground or air factor as previously mentioned is still there.

[Mr Spew]

I'm sure plenty of people would do. The whole constantly looking at the ground or air factor as previously mentioned is still there.

Hmm, yes, didn't think about the control at all.

Well, you can change it to a la Goldeneye (southpaw?), but that wouldn't be clearly defined for people new to the scene of games. And the like. And might not be suitable for when you have to throw grenades into the generators etc.

I meant stuck as in where to go, for example. Which I'm sure people have done, but it is fairly logical, and leads you on.

[linkster]

Anyone who cites ICO as a standard bearer of artistic merit loses all credibility in my view. This guy's a so-called gaming novice yet completely at random comes up with that? Puh-lease.

[pancho]

Anyone who cites ICO as a standard bearer of artistic merit loses all credibility in my view. This guy's a so-called gaming novice yet completely at random comes up with that? Puh-lease.

I get the impression that the two games in point were handed to him rather than picked out by himself.

[Graham S]

I get the impression that the two games in point were handed to him rather than picked out by himself.

He's obviously been handed them by Sony at Cannes as examples of games becoming the new cinema or whatever.

[scottcr]

Rubbish. "Art" is not a denotion of quality. If I drew a smiley face on the back of a beer mat, it's art. Shit art, it may be, but art it is still. Games are not "not art" because they don't have very good story lines or drawings in them, they're just not very good art. You said that games are at cave painting level. Well, how are cave paintings not art?

Personally, I'd say that games are art, but there's a big debate to be had there. There are plenty of arguments of why games aren't art (I remember that Rev Stu had some interesting ones). I largely don't agree with them, but they are valid. Unlike your one.

just re-red my post now that I'm sober.... take your point, games do have artistic merit but, very basic and aimed at a very particular demographic, in the same way that the simplest sci-fi and shallowest summer blockbuster are. Cave paintings were a bad analogy...

I got more enjoyment and pleasure from my favourite films than I have from any game yet. Even TooT. Games haven't sent shivers down my spine or disturbed me or excited me or made me cry.

[linkster]

He's obviously been handed them by Sony at Cannes as examples of games becoming the new cinema or whatever.

Or been talking to Mr Poole.

[Cacophanus]

but why does he need to be informed... why is there an "initation rite" that you need to go through games before you understand their twisted logic and illogical input mechanisms and 3d representations.... 

He needs to be informed if he is to make analysis on the medium as a whole. Just playing games and saying "this is shit because it is too complicated" is perfectly reasonable, but he doesn't just do that. It's like someone saying that all of film is shit because they couldn't understand the Three Colours trilogy (and I imagine Mr. Christopher would have a field day villifying that individual).

personally.. if you ask me... games shouldn't even try to be films... however, they should attempt to have more "realistic" (and I mean that, as in consistent laws and freedom - Wind Waker was great for this imho... one of the great unsung games of this generation) gaming environments and simple and logical input mechanisms.  I remember Miyamoto talking about this very subject not that long ago... it doesn't make sense for me to have to stand in front of a door and press a button on a joypad to open it... rather, it would make more sense to have to go through the physical motion of opening the door... what makes more sense to a non gamer and the human mind, walking up to a door and using your hand to "grab" the door and swing it open, or pressing the "action" button, which may be different from the "pick up" button?  Having said that, the whole action of walking around in a 3d environment on a 2d screen with a limited field of vision is still something that many people struggle with... how many of you have seen non/casual gamers play Halo only to spend most of their time looking at the sky or the ground?

Games aren't trying to be films, they merely have filmic garnishes within the game. They are borrowing prestige and recognition, falsely and idiotically I should add.

You need to have played games to know their history?

Fuck, I talk about games more than I play them.  So am I less entitled to an opinion than you?

That's what the whole article is about, you eejit.  The fact he doesn't usually play them.  That might show how he was expecting a passive form of entertainment, not requiring any brainpower etc, but it does show how patchy games are, and unaccessable they still are to some audiences.

No, that's not what I said you Doraemon toting Wapanese excuse for a middlecore henchman. The lack of inclusion is one thing he highlighted with the gaming experiences he had, that's fine, however he also made historical comparisons on the evolution of gaming. This produces a quandary, after all if he was new to gaming how would he be informed enough to actually comment on the medium's evolution?

[Dimahoo]

Have games really got that deep where to the normal person they're that complex?

Maybe the Ninty DS will succeed then. Maybe thats Nintys strategy. Games are complex, give them fewer buttons. And, err more screens.

[linkster]

Have games really got that deep where to the normal person they're that complex?

Even simple games baffle most people.

[Cacophanus]

Even simple games baffle most people.

...most stupid people. Christ, most British people find chess baffling!