Seminar 1 Task 1

“One of the most common misconceptions about videogames is that they are an interactive medium. By this, I do not mean to draw attention to the problematic and ideologically charged notion of "interactivity" (see Aarseth, 1997 for example) or even to the difficulty in conceiving videogames as a medium as Friedman (forthcoming) has noted. Rather, the misconception reveals a more fundamental misunderstanding of videogames and the experience of play. Quite simply, videogames are not interactive, or even ergodic. While they may contain interactive or ergodic elements, it is a mistake to consider that they present only one type of experience and foster only one type of engagement. Videogames present highly structured and, importantly, highly segmented experiences. Play sequences, from where the idea of the interactivity or ergodicity of videogames derives, are framed and punctuated by movie sequences, map screens, score or lap-time feedback screens and so on. Moreover, by examining the contexts in which videogames are actually used, it is possible to suggest that play need not be simply equated with control or active input. The pleasures of videogames are frequently enjoyed by those that commonsense might encourage us to consider as non-players – "onlookers" that exert no direct control via the game controls. In this article, I want to suggest that videogame players need not actually touch a joypad, mouse or keyboard and that our definition needs to accommodate these non-controlling roles. The pleasure of videogame play does not simply flow through the lead of a joystick. … Last year, at the UK’s first academic videogames conference, I took the opportunity to present a deliberately provocative paper that suggested that when playing videogames, appearances do not matter. Subsequently, I have tried this idea on groups of undergraduate media students and they, like many of the delegates at GameCultures, look at me as if I’ve gone completely mad. Why expend so much effort on lavish visuals, CGI intros, cut-scenes, graphics engines, texturing systems, lighting models and so on, if these things aren’t important? Videogames and systems are sold on the basis of their graphical prowess. Before long, in grappling with the apparent idiocy of such a blinkered view, discussion turns to the Lword… Lara. Can you seriously expect me to believe that if Lara Croft looked like Vibri from Vib Ribbon that Tomb Raider would have sold so well? Well no, I’m not quite saying that. In fact, in terms of the way the game sells or rather, has been sold, I’m not saying that at all. When I say that appearances don’t matter, I am certainly not talking about advertising and marketing games. What I am saying is that the pleasures of videogame play are not principally visual, but rather are kinaesthetic. In this way, the appearance of Lara or Vibri is not crucial to the primary-player during play. The way it feels to be in the Tomb Raider or Vib Ribbon gameworld is, however, of paramount importance. Many a great game has poor visuals – an entire generation of players grew up with blips of light, @ signs and even text-only games – but there are few good game [sic] with bad controls. Few good games feel bad. What I am suggesting is that, by better understanding the particular types of engagement that occur between players and on-screen characters during play, we may begin to arrive at a point where we don’t have to think about Lara in playable game sequences in terms of representation – we don’t have to think about her in terms of representational traits and appearance – we don’t even have to think about "her" at all.”

What does the author think that games are for, or how they should function?
It appears that the author does not have as in depth understanding as he presumes to, regarding videogames, and how their aesthetic -in game- entices the player. Even in games lacking in lavish aesthetics; like the old games we would all play at school when the tutor wasn't looking (Line Rider, Bloons TD), still appeal to a certain crowd somewhat due to their visuals.

Newman's attack on the interactivity of games is just convoluted contradiction. He says that video games "are not interactive" he is wrong.

Newman

Why do you think they claim this?

Who might think differently and why?

How persuasive do you find the author's argument?
This article really isn't persuasive in the slightest, the author presents no factual basis for his claims. His argument is purely opinionated verbal detritus.