"Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:o6qdnfrz9r2nGsfbnZ2dnUVZ_vmqnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>I still like the game on Apple ][ even
>> though the remake are better in sound and screen. I guess game
playing
>> is not really just the multimedia effect, but the feeling!
>
> Many years ago Marshall McLuhan made a distinction between "cool"
media
> that invite us to participate in creating our own experience, and
"hot"
> media that provide us with such detail that we all just watch what
they
> have created.
>
> The emphasis on graphic photorealism in today's games at the expense
> of participation and playability is qualitatively different from the
> "cooler" games of less graphically capable platforms.
Very good reasoning. Older systems force the use of imagination and
extrapolation. I know when I play an NES or Atari game, I've often used
my brain to :fill in the gaps: as to what's behind a certain wall, or
where a character came from. On newer systems, those details are almost
always provided for you.
Interesting point: how many of us have ever read too much into a game,
maybe have seen something that wasn't intended to be there, simply
because the graphics or gameplay were lacking? For example, in the NES
game TMNT II: The Arcade Game, there is a cinema sequence following the
snow stage. The scene shows NYC snowed over (evidenced by a very pale
color scheme), and the city "thaws out" as shown by the buildings
returning to their normal shades.
I thought this was pretty self-evident, but many people I've played the
game with didn't see this as "thawing", but actually as the city growing
right in front of their eyes. How many other things in video games are
open to such misinterperitation?
--
Aaron J. Bossig
http://www.GodsLabRat.com
|
