Thursday, September 10, 2009
Ch. 1 readings
I never thought I would say that an article about gaming could be so utterly boring. The debate on "video games", "videogames", "digital games" or whatever you want to call them actually amazed me that people could be so stuck on a simple title. I agree that it can be annoying when the writer changes between "videogames" and "digital games" for example but that's just a case of re-reading your paper and deciding which one to stick with. Also, games, like books, have different formats. Books for example come in both hardbacks and paperbacks and we distinguish the two. In my opinion we don’t have to mesh all games into a single category but if you do call it video games, just remember that there can be sub-categories as well. If a game is played on a computer than it should be under the sub-category of "computer game", on a hand held such as Nintendo DS, Sony PSP, ect. then it should be called a "hand held game", and of course console should be "videogames/video games". Another way of looking at this is comparing these sub-categories to different genres.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

I fully agree with the surprisingly utter dryness of the writing. Not surprising since one of his comments was 'don't get creative'. But, I do agree also with how pointless the discussion seems. Aren't there more important issues than whether we call it a video game versus a videogame? I like how he pointed out that it's inconsistent, but do you think it would be better if we accepted the differences so long as they were consistent in each area?
ReplyDeleteFor instance, if PSM wants to call them videogames and IGN wants to call them video games, are we ok with that as long as they stick to it?