Wednesday, February 08, 2006


Although I agree with many ideas in Pearce's text I think we should reconsider thinking of games like chess not as games with a story. Pearce might be right that there is a metastory ("two battling kings and their armies and minions") but I think no player is really aware of that story. The story is that unimportant that we don't even think of it. Chess is completely abstract and the player focuses only on the rules and not on any type of story.

Pearce also says that authorial control in a game undermines the quality of the user experience. This is right and underlines that games should not follow a narrative pattern. Existing narrative elements should come from the player himself or from game rules and not from outside. Otherwise we have an interactive film or novel, which have never been successful. I think it's most important for the player to get into the mood and the ambient the game creates (through graphics, sound, interactivity, ...) so the game affects him emotionally.


At 7:45 AM, Blogger Mark said...

I certainly see the benefit of a game that creates a photo realistic immersive environment (the cars in most racing games now look amazingly realistic) but what about successful ones that work in a more abstract (tetris and katamari) or cartoony (hot shots golf or animal crossing) environments. Do we crave both the real and unreal?

At 5:21 PM, Blogger Betsy said...

I feel game playing is very individualistic. We play the games we want to play. Real or UnReal. I enjoy Tony Hawk and Final Fantasy games.

Games and stories go very well with one another. But then again there are games that are purley stratigic.


Post a Comment

<< Home