As someone who also plays videogames, I prefer to not rate mediums with these forms of false equivalents. And I’m exhausted of the constant adaptations across mediums as it fails to capture the dimension of why something succeeded in the previous form. Every time.
Any medium has things that it can do and things that it can’t. What you’re getting from a book is not what you’re getting from a videogame. That is what media literacy is all about. I know you said you prefer it and I accept it as that is your subjective experience of it. But if you rank mediums, you will fail because they’re never even achieving the same things to be abled to be compared in the first place. It will be like saying "watching a film is “better” than “listening to a music album” because film also has image and not just sound. Doesn’t make sense as a dissection.
A book will always have the exchange of inner monologues and the vagueness of memory captured like no other medium will ever be able to. When films try this with “voice-overs” they fail miserably, because it’s not an inner exchange, but a “radio broadcast” of an actor’s voice in a booth, fragmenting the sense of presence that Cinema has as an outmost strength. I like many people don’t even consider audiobooks like books for this reason. And a graphic novel is not a novel either. And none is better or worse than the others. Including the audio book. They’re just different points of access altogether.
And videogames too have their own strengths and weaknesses as any of the others, like allowing you to roam and interact with a setting. But limitations in technology or just logic of necessity of input have games stuck in stale conventions and weird forced boundaries. And if you are a gamer you know that well.
As a 40 year old who has played videogames my whole life, my biggest quarrel with gaming for many years is that most games seem to not be interested in really testing new ways in which to interact with their propositions. Or gamers for that matter. And then most games are the same proposition and then the same story as a result. If games are only interested in telling stories where combat is the main or only form of interaction, I already know what the mechanics will be, but also the story too. How many times have you played as a “Bad Person” (90% of the time a dude) who isn’t all that terrible after all" underneath the gruff and mean posture and all the violent deeds… how many times? That’s because it’s the only character that can function in that proposition (one of combat) without creating a big case of “ludonarrative dissonance”. You have to go very far from the AAA and even the indie games and into the author category to avoid this. As people then will say indie games are better at avoiding that, and I agree, but then are playing something like “Hollow knight” which is still the same proposition and story as I just mentioned.
I have suggested in the past that videogames should divide themselves in two categories: games and Interactive Art. Because a lot of games are not Art and that’s perfectly fine. Think of Tetris for a good old example. A Game doesn’t need to be art or to be a story to be engaging. It’s the same with any sports simulator, car racing or a simple fighting game. They’re just games. And then there’s games like “Portal”, “The Wittness”, “Disco Elysium”, “Return of the Obra Dinn”, “Outer Wilds” among others that come along (and restore my faith in the possibilities of the medium) who lean heavily into the interactive as an artistic construction and not just a game. These “games” aren’t really games like tetris or chess. They’re interactive experiences to communicate so much more than the basic controlled mechanic input. Sometimes forsaking it altogether like in the case of “Before Your Eyes” where blinking is all you can do. Even if you don’t want to. Is this a game? No. But it’s a much more rich proposition for it.
Anyway. Even if you prefer videogames, you should always still engage with the other mediums as much as possible, as they will present to you the limitations and values of each other as a result.
As I get older, I don’t know if I even have a preferred medium. Not really to be honest. I used to. And then it changed a few times as I discovered more and more. Now I just see they’re all wonderful in their own unique ways.
Sorry for the “quasi-essay rant”. I wasn’t bothered by the preference, but by the dismissiveness in regards to reading and literature as if its value can be replaced or surpassed by another form. I can only tell you that I’ve had “rants” very similar to this one but in defense of videogames instead because of this same attitude of people towards them. No artwork or medium can be perceived as better or worse than another. They’re different forms of communication by different points of access. And their intrinsic value is therefore unique and irreplaceable.
As someone who also plays videogames, I prefer to not rate mediums with these forms of false equivalents. And I’m exhausted of the constant adaptations across mediums as it fails to capture the dimension of why something succeeded in the previous form. Every time.
Any medium has things that it can do and things that it can’t. What you’re getting from a book is not what you’re getting from a videogame. That is what media literacy is all about. I know you said you prefer it and I accept it as that is your subjective experience of it. But if you rank mediums, you will fail because they’re never even achieving the same things to be abled to be compared in the first place. It will be like saying "watching a film is “better” than “listening to a music album” because film also has image and not just sound. Doesn’t make sense as a dissection.
A book will always have the exchange of inner monologues and the vagueness of memory captured like no other medium will ever be able to. When films try this with “voice-overs” they fail miserably, because it’s not an inner exchange, but a “radio broadcast” of an actor’s voice in a booth, fragmenting the sense of presence that Cinema has as an outmost strength. I like many people don’t even consider audiobooks like books for this reason. And a graphic novel is not a novel either. And none is better or worse than the others. Including the audio book. They’re just different points of access altogether.
And videogames too have their own strengths and weaknesses as any of the others, like allowing you to roam and interact with a setting. But limitations in technology or just logic of necessity of input have games stuck in stale conventions and weird forced boundaries. And if you are a gamer you know that well.
As a 40 year old who has played videogames my whole life, my biggest quarrel with gaming for many years is that most games seem to not be interested in really testing new ways in which to interact with their propositions. Or gamers for that matter. And then most games are the same proposition and then the same story as a result. If games are only interested in telling stories where combat is the main or only form of interaction, I already know what the mechanics will be, but also the story too. How many times have you played as a “Bad Person” (90% of the time a dude) who isn’t all that terrible after all" underneath the gruff and mean posture and all the violent deeds… how many times? That’s because it’s the only character that can function in that proposition (one of combat) without creating a big case of “ludonarrative dissonance”. You have to go very far from the AAA and even the indie games and into the author category to avoid this. As people then will say indie games are better at avoiding that, and I agree, but then are playing something like “Hollow knight” which is still the same proposition and story as I just mentioned.
I have suggested in the past that videogames should divide themselves in two categories: games and Interactive Art. Because a lot of games are not Art and that’s perfectly fine. Think of Tetris for a good old example. A Game doesn’t need to be art or to be a story to be engaging. It’s the same with any sports simulator, car racing or a simple fighting game. They’re just games. And then there’s games like “Portal”, “The Wittness”, “Disco Elysium”, “Return of the Obra Dinn”, “Outer Wilds” among others that come along (and restore my faith in the possibilities of the medium) who lean heavily into the interactive as an artistic construction and not just a game. These “games” aren’t really games like tetris or chess. They’re interactive experiences to communicate so much more than the basic controlled mechanic input. Sometimes forsaking it altogether like in the case of “Before Your Eyes” where blinking is all you can do. Even if you don’t want to. Is this a game? No. But it’s a much more rich proposition for it.
Anyway. Even if you prefer videogames, you should always still engage with the other mediums as much as possible, as they will present to you the limitations and values of each other as a result.
As I get older, I don’t know if I even have a preferred medium. Not really to be honest. I used to. And then it changed a few times as I discovered more and more. Now I just see they’re all wonderful in their own unique ways.
Sorry for the “quasi-essay rant”. I wasn’t bothered by the preference, but by the dismissiveness in regards to reading and literature as if its value can be replaced or surpassed by another form. I can only tell you that I’ve had “rants” very similar to this one but in defense of videogames instead because of this same attitude of people towards them. No artwork or medium can be perceived as better or worse than another. They’re different forms of communication by different points of access. And their intrinsic value is therefore unique and irreplaceable.