A Response to James Newmans’ ‘The Myth of the Ergodic
Videogame: Some Thoughts On Player-Character Relationships in Videogames’ By
Edward Waring
- What
does the author think that games are for, or how they should function?
It appears that Newman believes
that games are to be mediums through which players can experience as much
freedom and possibility as they can achieve in the real world. I came to this
conclusion because their provocations about the limited aspect of interactivity
in video games suggest that they desire this as a future possibility. As for whether
this will be realised; with the increasing improvements in motion controllers
and VR technology this may yet come to fruition.
Newman appears to believe that
games should focus more on achieving engaging play and this must take
precedence over all other aspects of the game; why concentrate your time on
building Lara Croft when you could use low budget cartoon rabbit and have
practically the same game?
- Why
do you think they claim this?
First there is the interesting
and pleasurable debate that is brought on by such a provocative suggestion that
games are not interactive and visual fidelity holds no merit on the quality of
a game. Though many may not even agree with his premise, there is no denying
that many did and still do find enjoyment in games without playing actually
them. Where it used to be reading magazines and sitting on a sofa watching your
friend or relative play, it has now become watching demos and let’s play
personalities.
In the case of visual fidelity, I
think he makes a great point that most games don’t live and die by the what we
see on screen but that rather their ability to engage players. Games such as
Undertale have, whether intentional or not, very outdated and low quality
graphics; Undertale itself, however, has gained a large and devoted fan base
due to its uncommon gameplay and engaging characters.
- Who
might think differently and why?
Newman raises some good points
that necessarily make us question what truly makes not only a good game but a
game itself. The arguments against his premise although are far too apparent.
In the case of games not needing to be interacted with directly to be enjoyed,
it can be proposed that many people who watch others play are actually enjoying
the company of the player. Also in order to enjoy a game someone must be
playing or interacting with it even if that someone is not you, without someone
playing it nothing will happen from which to derive enjoyment.
As for the importance of graphics
and visuals, though for many games they could be changed and the game would
achieve the same effect, the arguments comes across as being outdated and
overly generalizing. This conclusion is drawn from the fact that games such as
Tomb Raider (before 2002) mostly just use their aesthetics as pretty window
dressing for fun mechanics; they may improve the experience but don’t
ultimately change anything to any great extent. However, since this piece was
written there have many games that use their graphical prowess as a major focus
to appeal to players, The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, and others that use their
visuals as a method through which to tell the story, Gone Home; which could
still tell the story with lower quality visuals would be unlikely to receive as
much praise as it wouldn’t evoke the same lived in feeling as it does in its
current form.
- How
persuasive do you find the author’s argument?
Though I find Newman managed to
engage my peers and I in lengthy discussions, too often did I find that we all
came to a similar conclusion; the points he raised on games, though thought
provoking, ultimately weren’t thought out far enough to answer all the many
questions we wished to direct at him in order to clarify his position. Therefore,
reading his piece frustrated more than it did persuade. Newman raises many
questions but answers very few, great if your goal is to inspire conversations
but is lacking if you wish to convince a sceptical reader.
