I think what’s new is the combination of so many at once. So far the game part of it has been emphasized more than the others, people have seen them as “games plus other things added in to improve the game” and not actually combined the forms too carefully. I don’t think it’s any one part that makes computer games unique, it’s the combination of the parts.

Think of music videos — they’re a combination of music and video, there’s nothing unique to either of those parts, but when combined you get something new, greater than either part. I think the ties that bind the different forms of art, the different ways that they can be combined, is what’s unique about computer games.

I agree that “games” are a hybrid artform. And I consider the game element optional. Like all the others, it has its own history and its own excellence. A computer game, however, is something new. We still need to discover what makes it so unique, so appealing. I personally don’t believe it’s the game element, if only because games are not new.

That being said, people play computer games for many different reasons of course, and not just because they are a unique form of entertainment, They might just like the music. Or the gameplay. Or something else.

Anyway, I agree that most of the objections are kind of weird. All general statements have exceptions, and pointing out one exception doesn’t make a general statement less useful. If I say “what goes up must come down”, and someone else says “you’re an idiot, what about space satellites?” they aren’t disproving what I’m saying, they’re just pointing out where it doesn’t apply. A lot of these responses are of that type.

How I approach this subject, for the record, is that I believe computer games are “games plus other forms of art”. E.g. a game is a game, a computer game is a game plus a painting plus a movie plus anything else you want to add. It’s a *combined* media, it’s not a single media, and different people focus on different parts of the combination. Just as opera and musicals combine music and theater, games combine virtually every form of art into one.

I also found that I actually agree with most of the objections made. If you look at it from a certain angle, everything I said is wrong. I knew that. That’s even sort of the point. I’m only trying to look at things from another angle. Because I’m not satisfied with the intellectual status quo. And I see a more glorious future for this medium than a place on the shelf in the toy store.

Much like the people who responded really like playing games, they probably saw my statements as a challenge, an obstacle to overcome. For me, however, there is always multiple realities going on simultaneously. Not one of them is the only true one or the correct one. If anything, I’m interested in adding more possible realities, rather than reducing their number to come to some kind of resolution. I’m not a gamer. There’s a reason why I did my school thesis about ‘Pataphysics -the science of imaginary solutions… ;)

Ultimately, like so many discussions, this would have become a semantic one. And those are so boring! Maybe the title to this post should have been “Ten Reason why computer games are not just games” or “Ten reasons why I could think people prefer playing computer games over other games”. Fine by me if that makes it more acceptable for you. Ultimately, I’d rather spend my time inventing more imaginary solutions than attempting to reduce reality to a single meaning.

That is why I like the interactive medium in the first place! It allows multiple realities to coexist happily. Ambiguity is at its core. Sid Meier might like games because they are a series of interesting choices. I like them when they allow me not to make a choice. To see, and be, many things simultaneously.

Embrace ambiguity!
Embrace non-linearity!
Reject plot!

Realtime is a poetic technology.

“why are many of the posters so concerned with the similarities between computer games and other games?”

the same reason anybody working within a genre or hybrid genre or cross genre is interested in its relationship to its precendents, consituents and associations. Being informed and well researched about all aspects of your pratice is a good thing. (…) Legacy is history, and history is there to be learned from.

Agreed. But contemporary videogames don’t just have old videogames or non-videogames as their precedents! We also need to learn about architecture, painting, poetry, literature, sound art, music, sculpture, theater, film, industrial design, furniture design, comic strips, performance art, opera, photography, etcetera! If I seem a bit overzealous in minimizing the importance of older games for contemporary ones, it’s only because most game developers and gamers seem to be over-focussed on only game design. There’s a lot more to this medium than games!