Violent VideoGames

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

On a related note, Jack Thompson was disbarred.

[Eiturlyf]

You people need to remember that no two books or video games are the same.

[a happy song]

whereas books are limited to what you can envision in your own mind based on simple words on a page, video games present all the creativities of hundred of people

Bear in mind that video games are directed by either a single person or a close knit team with a very specific vision. When you watch a story in a video game play out, the imagery is completely set: you've no room to imagine it yourself.

With a book, aside from what the author feeds you directly with words, you're free to envision on your own.

There are many ways to make the plot more deep; with more sensory input going to the user

No, those are ways to make the experience more visceral. The more sensory input you're given, the more you're lead to feel certain things (music in certain places to heighten tension, highlight a characters personality etc..).

while a book will guide you too, it's in no way as limiting as being spoon fed such peripheral stimulus along with the story.

there are ways of developing characters that simply aren't available with books.

For instance?

it's like looking at a picture vs a description of a picture (books vs video games respectively); the actual picture itself has much more detail than the mere wording.

This quote sums up your entire argument pretty well.

When I read a great book the pictures in my mind are vibrant and full. Well written words will build the imagery for you just as well as pixels. Indeed, words give you an almost limitless freedom to fill in the surrounding environment whereas a game will dictate what you see.

To sum it up: a video game will show you everything you need to see in relation to the story, a book will allow you the freedom to imagine for yourself. The writer will lead you to fill in the gaps and create your own perfectly unique vision, you're only limited in this regard by your own imagination.

Words have much more power than you give them credit, so too does the Human imagination.

[Tanner]

It's strange that yungerkid is the one propagating this argument. Does the guy who can imagine an omnipotent Giant Sky God have trouble imagining Fremen, Razor Girls and adolescent wizards? Maybe you're just not reading the right books.

[yungerkid]

atob, there are multiple ways of acquiring creativity. not only can you gain creativity from exercising your imagination directly, you can also gain creativity from seeing new things. now, i acknowledge that the latter gives less creativity than the former. but one of my arguments is that video games give the user so much new material, and books leave so little to the imagination, that video games are on par with or better than books as far as creativity goes.

in a book, you're given a setting. you imagine the setting and the characters. you are then given the characters' personalities, all the action, and the interaction between characters. when two characters are dialoguing, i wouldn't say that you are using your imagination very much. in video games, you are given everything except your own input. your input is where imagination is required. all the rest is given to you. all the rest, however, is an extreme amount of content. there is an extremely high level of detail that you would never be able to achieve in your imagination. and so in books you use your imagination a bit, and the rest is given to you. in video games, you use your imagination even less, but an overwhelmingly large amount of new content is given to you. thus, i think that video games are on par with or better than books as far as creativity goes.

For instance?

when i said that, i was thinking specifically of Half-Life 2, and of Alyx's relations with Gordon. for instance, gestures, body postures, precise voice inflections, facial looks. all this would take forever to detail in a book. the english language, too, can only go so far in terms of efficiently communicating an atmosphere. video games can portray everything at once. they cannot portray thoughts, but....they can setup the atmosphere, and leave thoughts, to the imagination. video games' ability to portray everything at once was what i was referring to with "increased sensory output"; they are much more detailed, and give the user much more visual and audio detail than would be imaginable on the user's own.

When I read a great book the pictures in my mind are vibrant and full.

same here. but if you've ever played a high-quality video game, you'll recognize that the pictures of a video game are much more vibrant and full than the english language can ever possibly address at once. its efficiency can only go so far. so can that of pixels. but pixels give so much more than words do.

[a happy song]

Most of your post is far too upsetting to reply to, I'll just have to pretend it didn't happen.
-

the english language, too, can only go so far in terms of efficiently communicating an atmosphere.

pixels give so much more than words do.

Then you either haven't read very many well written books, or your imagination is extremely lacking. Possibly both.

It's probably all those video games you play, rotting your brain...

[otters]

yungerkid. I can't believe you are actually serious.

Then you either haven't read very many well written books, or your imagination is extremely lacking. Possibly both.

It's probably all those video games you play, rotting your brain...

Bahaha. Yeah. Poor kid...

[yungerkid]

O_o i see.

[smartalco]

Video games have the potential to create a much more vivid environment and give you much more information, but it is rare a game actually goes to this length. (Example of how visuals can be a better description then words? Try putting the 2nd scene in The Dark Knight that the Joker is in with the pencil 'trick' in words, you can't describe something like that, and in the movie, you instantly knew this guy was fucking nuts (I'm aware this isn't a game, but like I said, there aren't many games that go this far, and I really can't think of one))

[origami_alligator]

It's strange that yungerkid is the one propagating this argument. Does the guy who can imagine an omnipotent Giant Sky God have trouble imagining Fremen, Razor Girls and adolescent wizards? Maybe you're just not reading the right books.

I was gonna respond to yungerkid, but I feel like adding on to this is more appropriate.

Of the books I have read (which hasn't been a whole lot compared to some, but enough for me to make some judgments) the one book that I felt had the greatest character development was Dune. Not even a video game can come up with the immense amount of personality that Frank Herbert created with his characters of Arrakis and elsewhere.


On another note, one of the only video games I have played that felt like it was the visualization of a book was Star Wars: Knight of the Old Republic. The storyline to that was immense and I spent well over 40 hours of my life dedicated to that game. Plus, it was customizable at times, where I could do side quests and other things that would have been pointless to add to a book.

I enjoy both mediums, one for their imagery and storyline, the other for their interactive gameplay.

[yungerkid]

@smartalco: totally. i hadn't thought about it, but now that i do, movies also have more potential than books to have deeper plots, more character development, and better atmospheres. they are not, however, up to par with books as far as creativity goes, so i would still prefer video games to movies. but you raise a point.

Star Wars: Knight of the Old Republic.

oh yes. great example. i've beaten that game 25 times (20 hours or so on each goaround), and i've enjoyed every minute of it.

[a happy song]

movies also have more potential than books to have deeper plots, more character development, and better atmospheres.

Firstly. plots and character development have absolutely nothing to do with anything other than story. Story has absolutely nothing to do with anything but words.

As for atmosphere:

For every visual there is paragraph that can paint that image just as vividly.

For every sound there is are sentances that can build atmosphere just as solidly.

Example of how visuals can be a better description then words? Try putting the 2nd scene in The Dark Knight that the Joker is in with the pencil 'trick' in words, you can't describe something like that

Then this applies to you also smartalco: you've obviously not read enough - if any - very well written books.

-

I'm going in circles a little here, if anyone could jump in and make my point in a way that might be easier to hear I'd very much appreciate it.

[blue_tetris]

movies also have more potential than books to have deeper plots, more character development, and better atmospheres.

Firstly. plots and character development have absolutely nothing to do with anything other than story. Story has absolutely nothing to do with anything but words.

You can convey story without words. In fact, using sound and visuals is a unique way to convey story and can be more immersive than simple narrative exposition. Though most everything could be explained with words alone, not every type of narrative voice or mood can be instilled properly in words alone. People experience using sight and sound, so that medium is more textured.

Example of how visuals can be a better description then words? Try putting the 2nd scene in The Dark Knight that the Joker is in with the pencil 'trick' in words, you can't describe something like that

I've never seen the film, but I am a big believer that everything can be explained in words. I'm sure you could tell me what was happening enough that I could understand the scene without seeing it.

Words cannot, however, seamlessly instill any type of emotional or sensory appeal. If they could, all advertisements would be silent words on a page.

[yungerkid]

thank you, blue_tetris.

Story has absolutely nothing to do with anything but words.

wrong.

[a happy song]

OK, maybe I should have worded that better. What I meant to put across is this:

Words are the primary source of all modern stories. Words are how we communicate ideas in the first place. In certain mediums that use wordless format, it's the job of the visuals and sounds to convey the value of the missing words.

I've never claimed this wasn't an effective way to convey story, rather counter youngerkid's claim that movies and games have potential to have deeper plot. He's confused. He seems to think that the visceral stimulation of peripheral enhancements are greater depth when they're really all they're doing is making up for the absence of words.

They're just different means, one medium might be more efficient in certain contexts but not one has a greater inherent potential for depth than another.

People experience using sight and sound, so that medium is more textured.

People relate words to experiences which apply the same texture. When I read a great book I experience just as many textures as I do when I watch a movie or play a game. Emotional recall and imagination based on these experiences allow for this.

Though most everything could be explained with words alone, not every type of narrative voice or mood can be instilled properly in words alone.

Examples?

Words cannot, however, seamlessly instill any type of emotional or sensory appeal. If they could, all advertisements would be silent words on a page.

Of course they can. Certain words carry with them connotations of certain sensory appeals. Advertisements are made for radio to instill exactly these kinds of appeal. They're enhanced by sound but the words do all the real building.

Also advertisements are in visual format when they need to be as a picture can say what words can in much less time. Again, that doesn't make it any deeper merely a more efficient means for a certain medium.

[yungerkid]

When I read a great book I experience just as many textures as I do when I watch a movie or play a game.

...never played Crysis, have you? i can tell you that there is no way that your brain is capable of imagining half as much visual detail as most modern games.
http://ve3dmedia.ign.com/ve3d/image/art ... 326035.jpg
try imagining that much detail now, without looking at the picture. are you able to?

Examples?

already given. i believe a scene from Dark Knight was used.

Also advertisements are in visual format for television as a picture can say what words can in much less time. Again, that doesn't make it any deeper merely a more efficient means for a certain medium.

exactly what i was trying to say. and if you can say more words in a given time, that gives you the ability to convey a deeper plot and more intricate personalities and atmospheres.

[a happy song]

try imagining that much detail now, without looking at the picture. are you able to?

Perhaps not, but give me a good writer and they could write that picture so well that - were my technical skills up to it - I could draw it for you in equal detail.

Just as police sketch artists can construct a perfect likeness of a suspect based on words alone.

already given. i believe a scene from Dark Knight was used.

And I've already told you that a good writer will be able to convey that scene just as well.

A counter example would be the Lord Of the Rings Trilogy. I read those a long time before the movies were ever made, and the richness in detail allowed me to construct the world in my mind in just as clear a detail as Peter Jackson recreated it.

How do you think he came by the visions to produce the imagery in the films in the first place? The words in the books painted it perfectly for him.

See what I'm getting at?

and if you can say more words in a given time, that gives you the ability to convey a deeper plot and more intricate personalities and atmospheres

Greater efficiency within a certain context in no way allows for more depth. But if you insist on following this argument:

Efficiency within a certain context allows for deeper plot how exactly? Allows for more intricate personalities how exactly? Allows for greater atmosphere how exactly?

You're making grand sweeping statements with no actual reasoning.

[otters]

When I read a great book I experience just as many textures as I do when I watch a movie or play a game.

...never played Crysis, have you? i can tell you that there is no way that your brain is capable of imagining half as much visual detail as most modern games.
http://ve3dmedia.ign.com/ve3d/image/art ... 326035.jpg
try imagining that much detail now, without looking at the picture. are you able to?

That picture looks better in my head than on that screen.

[GmN819]

Fact is that very, very, few crimes have something to do with a perpetrator of a violent crime playing video games (or watching violent movies). Really its a very small % and these people who commit crimes are predisposed to violence. The games in some instances can act as a trigger, but imo the trigger will be found regardless of whether video games are played or not. Its really a parents duty to remove video games that may be seen to be harmful or provoke these sorts of incedents.

[origami_alligator]

Example of how visuals can be a better description then words? Try putting the 2nd scene in The Dark Knight that the Joker is in with the pencil 'trick' in words, you can't describe something like that

I've never seen the film, but I am a big believer that everything can be explained in words. I'm sure you could tell me what was happening enough that I could understand the scene without seeing it.

Gambol: [to The Joker] Give me one reason why I shouldn't have my boy here pull your head off.
The Joker: How about a magic trick?
[The Joker pulls out a pencil and sticks it upright into the table]
The Joker: I'm gonna make this pencil disappear.
[Gambol's thug walks over to kill The Joker, who slams his face into the pencil and kills him]
The Joker: Ta-daa! It's... it's gone.

Is that... uh, good, blue_tetris? If not I can see if I can find a video link to the scene.

[wolfgang]

Yungerkid, your whole theory falls to pieces when you realise that more isn't necessarily better. I'm an avid reader, but when I'm reading a book it's not like I take the time to visualise every scene in my head like some other people imply they do, a mere impression is enough (otherwise reading would be exhausting). Having a more detailed picture doesn't necessarily enhance anything. As atob said, you are grievously underestimating the power of words, and how their precision of use (what is said, what is left unsaid) can craft an atmosphere.

Hell, I might even grant you that video games are a more flexible medium, in that they can combine written words with visual, audio and even tactile inputs. Perhaps this translates into greater potential, but the nature of the entertainment derived from games, ie gameplay, means that rarely is plot that important. This is not to say that games can't present an engaging storyline, but they are a very young medium and still need time to evolve.

Overall, arguing about which artistic medium is 'better' is pointless and juvenile. We might as well debate whether music or painting is a stronger artform.

[a happy song]

I'm an avid reader, but when I'm reading a book it's not like I take the time to visualise every scene in my head like some other people imply they do, a mere impression is enough (otherwise reading would be exhausting).

Oh, but sometimes I find reading a very exhausting process. It depends on how well the book is written, what the story is focused on, etc..

Overall, arguing about which artistic medium is 'better' is pointless and juvenile. We might as well debate whether music or painting is a stronger artform.

Exactly.

[Tanner]

Oh, but sometimes I find reading a very exhausting process.

I found Gravity's Rainbow to be physically and mentally taxing to read.

[iangb]

From my experience, films tend to get your adrenaline pumping with more sensory overload. Books tend to get your mind working with more complex characters and plots. There are exceptions to both, of course - some books hurtle along at an insane pace (Scarecrow by Chris O'Reily springs to mind, amongst others) and some films are complex and thought-provoking (The Matrix, Dark City, eXistenZe and Donnie Darko are all examples, to varying extents).

Depends which mood you're in, I guess - Terry Pratchett will always be better on paper, and Jet Li will always be better on film. The best thing to do would be to get as much of both types as possible.


And then there's comics/manga, audio tapes, theatre, re-enactments... not to mention video games. Pick your medium - and for best results, sample 'em all.

[blue_tetris]

People relate words to experiences which apply the same texture. When I read a great book I experience just as many textures as I do when I watch a movie or play a game. Emotional recall and imagination based on these experiences allow for this.

I don't relate words to all situations. There are some experiences which I enjoy through sound and visual imagery more than through words. It's why I listen to music and watch film. If you don't do this, that's fine. But I do have a hard time believing you view words as superior to all other media for conveying any type of message.

Though most everything could be explained with words alone, not every type of narrative voice or mood can be instilled properly in words alone.

Examples?

The "examples" argument has always been a weird low blow in any form of debate. I'm saying that certain things are conveyed better through music and art than words--even though anything can be explained using words. If music and art were not the best media through which to illustrate certain moods, then they would not exist. I suppose I could grab an image and ask you to evoke the same mood and clarity as the image in the same amount of time with words, but I don't think it's needed for this argument.

Words cannot, however, seamlessly instill any type of emotional or sensory appeal. If they could, all advertisements would be silent words on a page.

Of course they can. Certain words carry with them connotations of certain sensory appeals. Advertisements are made for radio to instill exactly these kinds of appeal. They're enhanced by sound but the words do all the real building.

Also advertisements are in visual format when they need to be as a picture can say what words can in much less time. Again, that doesn't make it any deeper merely a more efficient means for a certain medium.

Time is a perfectly valid aspect of mood. In fact, it's extremely important and may be some 50% of whatever you're explaining. Although brevity can be illustrated neatly in text (and is one of my favorite methods of doing prose), you often have to sacrifice clarity for it. In music and visual media, you can make a stunningly clear although shockingly brief message. I don't think a short message is necessarily "less deep" than a drawn out one.



To Southpaw:

I'm sure more words could have been used to fully explain what he does in that scene and the architecture of the event. You were being brief in an explanation. Now, I wouldn't argue that converting the scene into words will remove some of the beauty of the scene and deprive it of its mood.

My point is that written communication can explain anything with any amount of detail (sometimes, requiring great length), but cannot necessarily instill the same mood as other media for all purposes.



Back to atob:

If you can explain why other media exist without being "the best" at doing something, atob, I'll believe you. I have a hard time believing that the humanities would have developed as they did without filling the proper niches. Some things are best made as films, some things are best made as games, some things are best made into music, some things are best made as books; and it's why you can say "the film is good, but the book was better" and "this poem would make a sweet song" and be perfectly justified in doing so.