Could
Games replace books as the conventional form of storytelling?
In
modern society, games are now viewed as much more than merely
time-killing entertainment, as with the advance in technology,
narrative driven gameplay has risen. Modern games now have beautiful
and entrancing stories that make games a much more powerful and
immersive experience. Games such as this include the 'Fable' series,
the 'Elder scrolls' series and even games such as 'Angry Birds' have
an underlying narrative driving the gameplay along. As games are so
interactive with their storytelling, there is an argument that there
is a possibility that they could replace books as the conventional
form of storytelling.
An
argument for this statement is driven by the fact that games are a
much more immersive experience than books. This new type of
storytelling gives the player the opportunity to create their own
story through the choices they make. This makes the narrative feel
more individual, whereas with books the ending and story are fixed,
and the same every time you read it. Also, with the emergence of open
world games such as 'Fallout', the player can create a whole new
story individual to them, and find new quests and places to explore.
With open world games, the possibilities are endless, with the player
always finding something new to experience. The is also more
opportunity for the player to bond with fictional characters in
games, as with books the people are basically given to you on a
plate; interpret them as you will. But with games, players can
interact with lots of different people throughout a long span of
time, getting to know the person virtually and becoming attached.
These attachments players make to virtual characters is very
prevalent in society, with fan groups and cosplayers obsessing over
characters and even crying at their death! This attachment is one
that is very rare to make with characters from a book, as a book is
someone else’s view of that character dictated to you, whereas in a
game that character is given to you, and you create your view of them
from the events in the game.
The
argument for this could also be linked to the use of books and games
in schools and in learning. Games could be used as a unique tool for
learning, as a child would rather sit and play a game rather than
read a book. Children will go out of their way to complete games and
challenge themselves, and with books this is the opposite. A child
would be inclined to virtually talk to a historic figure and find
things out about them, rather than read about it in a book, and this
is another reason why games could challenge the book in terms of
learning. An article by Andrew Eisen claimed that 'trial
runs at high schools and college universities have yielded positive
results',
which is expected from children and teenagers being brought up with
games, however it also claimed that 'parents
and teachers have been very receptive to the idea of educational game
technology',
which is surprising from a generation who seem to be against the
benefits of game playing. (Eisen, 2006, Will Games replace text
books?)
However, the cognitive values
of reading a book are far too valued in society in comparison to
playing games, which is why children are encouraged to read from an
early age. This is why, although games can and most likely will be
used as an educational tool, the use of books in schools will never
be replaced due to the cognitive skills they encourage and advance.
Steven
Johnsons' book, 'Everything Bad is Good for You', explores narratives
in games in comparison to books, and makes the argument that 'games
are not novels, and the ways in which they harbour novelistic
aspirations are invariably the least interesting thing about them.'
(Johnson, 2005, pg 21) This argument is true, in some cases the story
in a game is the least important part of it. This also sparks the
debate as to whether the narrative of a game influences people to buy
it, or whether it is purely the gameplay and content. It can be said
that popular RPG's such as 'Mass Effect' rely heavily on their
storyline to sell games, and this is why they bring out more to
continue the story, as it was popular in the first game. However,
games such as 'Call of Duty' do not really have strong narratives,
and players mainly buy them for their gameplay and the experience.
Steven
Johnson also makes the point that reading in itself has great
virtues, such as the 'mental work you have to do to process and
store that information', as well invoking 'the power of
imagination; reading forces you to concoct entire worlds in your
head'. (Johnson, 2005, pg 22) In comparison to playing games,
these virtues are unique to books, as the worlds in games are given
to you, whereas in books they really completely on the imagination of
the individual reading.
Reading
books requires knowledge and experience, as well as a vivid
imagination for a person to become engaged totally in the story, but
once a person is successfully immersed in a book, they become
immersed in that world completely. In comparison to a game where in
some cases while playing, people switch off, as if it is second
nature, and this is most prevalent in first person shooters such as
war games and zombie games. Games however, have their own individual
intellectual and physical advantages, which cannot be compared to
books. Games 'have intellectual or cognitive virtues of their own
right- different from, but comparable to, the rewards of reading.'
(Johnson, 2005, pg 22) This sums up the conclusion of the
question, that games have the ability to tell stories well, or in
some cases better than books, but the intellectual advantages of
physically reading a book are too great to ever be replaced by games.
References:
Johnson,
S (2005). Everything
bad is good for you.
London: Penguin Group. 21-22.
Eisen,
A. (2006). Will
games replace text books?. Available:
http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/210133.html. Last accessed 17th
Word
Count: 994
Sophie
Woollard
No comments:
Post a Comment