surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
process. Allan Calhamer and Alexey Pajitnov for their reminder that simplicity and elegance will always remain strong design values. Noah Falstein for sticking with the medium since coin-op and advocating its potential to change and expand in form. Don Daglow for Utopia. Warren Robinett and David Crane for drawing attention to the hardware platform as a constraint and an opportunity. Yasuhiro Wada for proving that mundane everyday life is a viable subject for games. And ... as much as I enjoy his games, Shigero Miyamoto for helping me see what I don't want to emulate, namely a focus on empty leisure at all costs (the exception is This was a brilliant interview. Thanks so much for your insightful questions. I'd never heard of Persuasive Games before and now I'm shocked that I haven't already jumped head first into their work.
I think that, done right, games can be used for anything. And that if you can make a game that both does "idea's" or "learning" and be something people WANT to play, then we're all the better for it.
It's a great spin but I'll need to read more about him and his intentions before I raise him on as high a pedestal as you. I've heard a lot of people with opinions like this recently, most noteably anyone who has made a game based on recent "game-related" killing sprees....
Well I was liking this guys ideas until he said:
"Shigero Miyamoto for helping me see what I don't want to emulate"
No one disses Miyamoto.
No one.
"Shigero Miyamoto for helping me see what I don't want to emulate"
No one disses Miyamoto.
No one.
games should be taken from an academic point of view before it permeates into the mainstream line of thought to give it some sort of weight to those arguing on the behalf of games and gamers everywhere. from the art history/theory point of view, games as creations could/should be seen as a prevalent form of interactive art. cos let's face it, there is a lot of craftsmanship thrown into the development and consumption of games from creator(s) to the consumer/audience.
/art geek
//nerds lead the way
/art geek
//nerds lead the way
Great interview, but I'm not completely sold. I think I've seen this guy on The Colbert Report before. I'm not opposed to making games that are not just fun and entertaining, and I think the medium needs to start making some of these soon.
However. The current body of work of these so called persuasive games are highly lacking in solid gameplay principles, from what I've seen. Obviously, they're a small company going against giants like the Big Three, but still, I don't see a solid experience there yet, even if the message is important.
Furthermore, he says that current games are power fantasies which, while often true with games like Gears of War, is not the steadfast rule. Games like Silent Hill and early Resident Evils put you in control of weak people just wanting to survive, while games like Sim City, though giving you power, are more about making decisions to benefit your community.
(Hope some of that makes sense, as I just woke up.)
However. The current body of work of these so called persuasive games are highly lacking in solid gameplay principles, from what I've seen. Obviously, they're a small company going against giants like the Big Three, but still, I don't see a solid experience there yet, even if the message is important.
Furthermore, he says that current games are power fantasies which, while often true with games like Gears of War, is not the steadfast rule. Games like Silent Hill and early Resident Evils put you in control of weak people just wanting to survive, while games like Sim City, though giving you power, are more about making decisions to benefit your community.
(Hope some of that makes sense, as I just woke up.)
I still think that a game needs to be at least somewhat fun or enjoyable to make playing through 10, 20, or God forbid, 40 hours tolerable. The Oddworld games come to mind. Not the best games ever, but fairly enjoyable and full of messages about consumerism and corporate culture (or something).
Some games should be there to make you think, just like not all movies should be mindless action, burnt-out, overdone horror, or comedies full of dick and weed jokes. It's not that those aren't great at times, bu there needs to be something more to the medium than that.
Some games should be there to make you think, just like not all movies should be mindless action, burnt-out, overdone horror, or comedies full of dick and weed jokes. It's not that those aren't great at times, bu there needs to be something more to the medium than that.
Very nice interview, Leigh. Out of all the stands at Games 4 Change, Ian's was the most interesting and had the biggest draw. I'm hoping to see him make the jump into bigger budget games soon.
@Leigh
I'm a big fan of people like Chris Crawford, Stephen Poole and anyone else who attempts to analyse what makes a game and why we play them. I don't particularly like referring to this guy but even Danny Ledonne (creator of the Super Columbine Massacre game) can derive insight into new styles of games with overtly political tones, played not for fun but for bringing the user's attention to an issue.
I've now read up on Ian Bogost and believe that I may have encountered him before with him commenting in many articles on sites I regularly visit. And I really don't want to sound like a marketer when commenting on what he is trying to achieve with his games and I by no means think that what he is doing is a bad thing as a whole or for the games industry. But for all his comments about the scope of what games can achieve, what I see is him cashing in on the hype that surrounds video games at the moment to put across messages on political issues and social commentary. And while I really want to like him and what he's trying to achieve, I find myself increasingly disillusioned with people who use games to facilitate their expression of a particular opinion. It's beginning to get to the point where games are more of a pop-soapbox than the "all that they can be" implied by his writings.
So, for the moment, I'll respect his research and opinion, while being annoyed by his current implementation of both.
I'm a big fan of people like Chris Crawford, Stephen Poole and anyone else who attempts to analyse what makes a game and why we play them. I don't particularly like referring to this guy but even Danny Ledonne (creator of the Super Columbine Massacre game) can derive insight into new styles of games with overtly political tones, played not for fun but for bringing the user's attention to an issue.
I've now read up on Ian Bogost and believe that I may have encountered him before with him commenting in many articles on sites I regularly visit. And I really don't want to sound like a marketer when commenting on what he is trying to achieve with his games and I by no means think that what he is doing is a bad thing as a whole or for the games industry. But for all his comments about the scope of what games can achieve, what I see is him cashing in on the hype that surrounds video games at the moment to put across messages on political issues and social commentary. And while I really want to like him and what he's trying to achieve, I find myself increasingly disillusioned with people who use games to facilitate their expression of a particular opinion. It's beginning to get to the point where games are more of a pop-soapbox than the "all that they can be" implied by his writings.
So, for the moment, I'll respect his research and opinion, while being annoyed by his current implementation of both.
The ideas and theories behind all this sound great, but I need to see it in action before I pass judgment on it. Making games to get people thinking about issues is one thing. Getting them to play it is horse of a different color.
Games are art.. with a little fun attached to it.. :) this is why they hire Artists to work on them, not toy makers. Everyone who thinks games aren't art thinks that because he\she never played good game or any games at all.
Silent hill, final fantasy and elder scrolls just to name a few, I think all of these games are artistic.
Silent hill, final fantasy and elder scrolls just to name a few, I think all of these games are artistic.
@Leigh If you want to be REALLY enlightened read Bogost's Unit Operations, a book that views videogames as a distinct, interconnected part of Information Technolgy and therefore as part of the civilisation/culture he is looking to describe.
Can I then specifically direct you to page 153, which states that GTA III was released in 1999. Strange when the PS2 wasn't released until 2000. He also quotes from distinctly dubious sources throughout his book (33, 156).
I think you should revise your accolade of 'genius' before applying it to Bogost. His academic work is riddled with errors. I haven't read his latest ('Persuasive Games') yet, but I hope it's good, because a lot of the stuff coming out of America (cf Wark's Gamer Theory) is unadulterated rubbish allied with shameless self-promotion.
If it was in any other 'discipline' other than game studies, this stuff would never be published. As it is, anything with 'videogames' as the topic gets printed - and that includes the UK too.
Can I then specifically direct you to page 153, which states that GTA III was released in 1999. Strange when the PS2 wasn't released until 2000. He also quotes from distinctly dubious sources throughout his book (33, 156).
I think you should revise your accolade of 'genius' before applying it to Bogost. His academic work is riddled with errors. I haven't read his latest ('Persuasive Games') yet, but I hope it's good, because a lot of the stuff coming out of America (cf Wark's Gamer Theory) is unadulterated rubbish allied with shameless self-promotion.
If it was in any other 'discipline' other than game studies, this stuff would never be published. As it is, anything with 'videogames' as the topic gets printed - and that includes the UK too.
Colbert interviewed him better. ;) (But then, that's like saying that God makes a better universe than you do.)
I'm not sure I entirely subscribe to this guy's newsletter, but I would be interested in hearing more from him. I might have to check his book out.
I'm not sure I entirely subscribe to this guy's newsletter, but I would be interested in hearing more from him. I might have to check his book out.
I remember hearing about the presidential pong game from a TV spot or something, and I remember thinking I needed to look a little more closely into persuasive games. This reminded me and now I have the chance.
Excellent stuff.
Excellent stuff.
well i agree that a game doesnt have to be fun, but it cant be boring. no one wants to be bored. sooooo if it's not boring, wouldnt it be fun by default?
I think most people seem to have fucked up definitions of "fun." Read up on it. If a game is interesting, if it amuses and/or holds the attention, then it is fun. That is based upon actual word definitions. If a game is not fun, then it is a wholly unpleasant experience and is something that the person would want to stay away from and not experience again. I hate to be a stickler but, damn, you really make no sense when you say that.
follow
