Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8933457" data-attributes="member: 71699">It's hard to say, right?On the one hand, it is common to be found mistaken when supposing that one's own cultural activities are in any way special in comparison to others.On the other hand, to my reading of where game studies is today, games are proving to be a more complex cultural activity than books and movies. Contemporary games represent a culture-wide shift toward non-linear, dynamic, interactive &quot;narratives&quot; (let's call them for the sake of argument.) Object-subject interactions (and especially, change in the latter) notwithstanding, books and movies are linear, static (in the sense of being unchanged on subsequent reads or viewings), and (relatively) non-interactive (previous caveat applies). It has been very difficult to define what a game is (there is no current settled definition of &quot;game&quot;, but rather a host of definitions all recognised to hold value.) There is no settled agreement on what parts make up a game. It is an extremely diverse phenomena. Espen Aarseth talks of ergodic literature, and has written interestingly on some approaches to an ontology (largely, but not solely, from the point of view of videogames.)So far, I understand from this thread a sense that RPGs might be being seen to bear relationships or similarities with books and movies as subjects of theory. A better comparative might well be religion (VB has written a little on ritual elements of RPG, over the years). One can imagine how Buddhists might feel about a Christian theory explaining how their religion is lacking.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8933457, member: 71699"] It's hard to say, right? On the one hand, it is common to be found mistaken when supposing that one's own cultural activities are in any way special in comparison to others. On the other hand, to my reading of where game studies is today, games are proving to be a more complex cultural activity than books and movies. Contemporary games represent a culture-wide shift toward non-linear, dynamic, interactive "narratives" (let's call them for the sake of argument.) Object-subject interactions (and especially, change in the latter) notwithstanding, books and movies are linear, static (in the sense of being unchanged on subsequent reads or viewings), and (relatively) non-interactive (previous caveat applies). It has been very difficult to define what a game is (there is no current settled definition of "game", but rather a host of definitions all recognised to hold value.) There is no settled agreement on what parts make up a game. It is an extremely diverse phenomena. Espen Aarseth talks of ergodic literature, and has written interestingly on some approaches to an ontology (largely, but not solely, from the point of view of videogames.) So far, I understand from this thread a sense that RPGs might be being seen to bear relationships or similarities with books and movies as subjects of theory. A better comparative might well be religion (VB has written a little on ritual elements of RPG, over the years). One can imagine how Buddhists might feel about a Christian theory explaining how their religion is lacking. [/QUOTE]

Verification