Someone in class yesterday said that you can do anything in a video game, which I’m not sure I agree with. I feel that there are a lot of video games in which you can do a lot, but the sky is never really the limit. When I’m home on breaks, I’ve played my brother’s Lord of the Rings video game (I don’t know which it is—Fellowship, I think), and while I (or, rather, Gimli as controlled by me) can do a lot of really great running-jumping-climbing-fighting stuff, he cannot stop and have a snack. Or uproot the shrubberies and pull a Birnam-Wood-to-Dunsinane and disguise himself as a very short forest. Or . . . Well, you get the idea. And this has always been my main complaint with video games, that I can’t do whatever I want. But then again, if I could, would it be a game or just an alternate life? A game, as a rule, has to have rules . . . Right?
I keep thinking of the film/play Sleuth and wondering what the real definition of a game is. (I can’t really say what the film is about without giving its surprises away, but I definitely recommend it. The Laurence Olivier/Michael Caine version, not the Michael Caine/Jude Law version. It has a lot to say about games, game-playing, and the definitions of those words.) How far can you push the boundaries of a game before it’s no longer a game?test Filed under umw_nms_s08 | Tags: umw_nms_s08 | Comment (1)