   Interesting:  Why do we have video games in the first place?
  We''re in an office.  Hunched over his PDP-7 microcomputer system, we see a long-haired, somewhat goofy-looking man typing something into the machine.  Some friends stand around him and watch.  They''re all talking and thinking through this... computer program.The programmer is Ken Thompson, rewriting the game with Dennis Ritchie et al.  The game is Space Travel, a game that he has written before on a different computer system.  This is the early seventies, and the game puts the player in a rocket that can go through space.I''ve been thinking about this for a few weeks.  Why do we have computer games at all?  What made people want to sit down for hours at a time and write a... game?Ya see, that''s the most important question man has:  Why?    In order to ask what is to come, shouldn''t we really ask why things already happened in the way that they did?  No, not just what   happened -- even though we definitely ask that   as well -- but why.    That''s the mechanism a person has for change:  Ask questions, take a step back, and take a different route.  That is how we change, and that is how we adapt.Okay, so why did Ken Thompson write Space Travel?  What was happening at that time in human history to spawn entertainment such as this?  (Well now that''s obvious, isn''t it?)Now look at Missile Command.  Look at Contra, and look at all the other twitch games in the eighties.  What was happening, and what had already happened, to inspire these games?  Again, the answer is simple.Video games are entertainment.  Clear and simple.  And as it happens, we have survived what has been called the most violent century ever as far as degree is concerned.  (Think back to just one   past century where the entire political world was at war.  The whole damn thing.  And then find one where this happened, not once, but twice.)I am convinced that this is why violence is so prevalent in games, and why it''s such a fantastically good selling point, and indeed such a wonderful source of creativity, for a lot of people.  (Granted, it always has to have more than that, but leave that for another conversation.)  Really, what would Taxi Driver be without the violence?  And then, what would inspire Taxi Driver if there had never been the Industrial Revolution, in which millions of people crowded in greater and greater numbers in polluted, dirty cities?And ya know, after I asked myself that, and after I looked back on this, I discovered something for myself that let me to appreciate all   of this even more:  History is a tree.  (We have this because we have that, and we have that because we have the other.)  And History affects -- and always will affect -- Art.Well, it''s very obvious that the ideas in this post are pretty incomplete.  I haven''t written everything that I''ve been thinking about, simply because this is a forum and I''m just trying to write this and get it out there.  Please, I hope you respect that.  The whole thing comes down to this, all things having been heard:  We have games because we want to learn, to exercise, and to entertain.  We have the computer games that we do because we have the history that we do.  I suggest that you take a seat and think about just how this history has affected the entertainment that you have around you.  You''ll see many correlations.  And I assure of that.This was not about saying that games shouldn''t have blood.  This was not about saying that players shouldn''t play criminals.  This was not about saying that entertainment should be controlled, really, in any way.  I say nothing about that.  This was just about taking a step back, and asking questions.   ==================Benjamin Heath================== 
  I'm big on the human condition thing.  We like to see artistic representations of our emotions.  Sometimes it helps us explore feelings, sometimes it helps us purge those feelings for a while.However, in some cases, if done right (or wrong), those feelings actually get intensified.It takes a real talent for someone to be able to control that.  And I'm sure advertising agencies, and companies in the TV and movie industry try to collect those people into their teams for greatest effect.Video games can be the same way.  Sometimes I will see an animation that I could swear could have been better, and I feel inspired to want to do it right.  Other times, I might see a mediocre animation, but, because of the context it is presented in and the general emotion of the game, I'm instead wanting to dig further into the game to find that better animation.  It's two very different types of thought.  One makes me want to achieve and accomplish on my own, the other calls me to go deeper into the game looking for it.Art is a powerful thing.  Video games can be a powerful tool for inspiration, if done right.   [edited by - Waverider on January 29, 2004 1:42:00 AM];quote:(Think back to just one past century where the entire political world was at war. The whole damn thing. And then find one where this happened, not once, but twice.)Unfair statement.  For most of our history leading up to the 20th century, much of the world was at war with each other locally - alliances were temporary things at best, and usually limited to borders.  You also had the issue of transportation - it's a lot easier to reach international shores now by plane, submarine and battleship than it was by caraval, schooner and three-masters.By way of example, in the 14th century alone you had:- Japanese civil wars- Mongol invasion of india- the hundred-years war- ottoman/byzantine war- polish civil war- english invasion of ireland- burmese war- hungarian civil war- teutonic war with poland- scottish invasion of ireland- anglo french war- the vietnamese-cham warand on, and on, and on.Dancing around and trying to piece together the points you're making, I do disagree that "war is the answer" to why video games are made.  Computer code is the medium - the question is why GAMES are made.  War has nothing, or very little, to do with that answer overall.  War is certainly a factor; most strategy games were little more than battle training sessions, a way to train the mind toward war strategems.  Chess is probably the most basic definition of that concept.But to say we have video games because war makes people need entertainment...hell, man, you would have to make the same argument for books, movies, and art.I'd prefer to say games - video, board, or whatever type - are a form of escapism, a way for people to get away from the hum-drum and tedium of daily life and have fun. If anything, I'd consider video games the equivalent of what hollywood films are compared to literature - eye candy escapist entertainment.  I'm not putting a negative spin on it, but if you have to define the genre then that's my take.  People play games to get away from reality, to do things they very like can't, won't, or shouldn't do in real life.  They want to be entertained.  The violence prevalent in video games is more a product of what society finds interesting or exciting.Violence and sex sells, period.  Always has, throughout history.  Computer code just gives us a new medium to express it in a much more interactive way.quote:What made people want to sit down for hours at a time and write a... game?No offense intended here, but I think you've overthought this.  What makes people write a game? The need to create, to entertain.  Creative drive.  What makes people write a novel? Paint a landscape? Programmers use code, sculptors use clay, painters use canvas and brush.  Same drive, different medium.I'd argue that most game designers/programmers make games because they like to see people enjoy the product of their labors, and they want to see their ideas come to life.Nothing too complex about that.   [edited by - EricTrickster on January 29, 2004 11:40:16 AM];quote:Original post by EricTrickster  quote:(Think back to just one past century where the entire political world was at war. The whole damn thing. And then find one where this happened, not once, but twice.)Unfair statement.  For most of our history leading up to the 20th century, much of the world was at war with each other locally - alliances were temporary things at best, and usually limited to borders.  You also had the issue of transportation - it''s a lot easier to reach international shores now by plane, submarine and battleship than it was by caraval, schooner and three-masters.By way of example, in the 14th century alone you had:- Japanese civil wars- Mongol invasion of india- the hundred-years war- ottoman/byzantine war- polish civil war- english invasion of ireland- burmese war- hungarian civil war- teutonic war with poland- scottish invasion of ireland- anglo french war- the vietnamese-cham warand on, and on, and on.Dancing around and trying to piece together the points you''re making, I do disagree that "war is the answer" to why video games are made.  Computer code is the medium - the question is why GAMES are made.  War has nothing, or very little, to do with that answer overall.  War is certainly a factor; most strategy games were little more than battle training sessions, a way to train the mind toward war strategems.  Chess is probably the most basic definition of that concept.But to say we have video games because war makes people need entertainment...hell, man, you would have to make the same argument for books, movies, and art.I''d prefer to say games - video, board, or whatever type - are a form of escapism, a way for people to get away from the hum-drum and tedium of daily life and have fun. If anything, I''d consider video games the equivalent of what hollywood films are compared to literature - eye candy escapist entertainment.  I''m not putting a negative spin on it, but if you have to define the genre then that''s my take.  People play games to get away from reality, to do things they very like can''t, won''t, or shouldn''t do in real life.  They want to be entertained.  The violence prevalent in video games is more a product of what society finds interesting or exciting.Violence and sex sells, period.  Always has, throughout history.  Computer code just gives us a new medium to express it in a much more interactive way.quote:What made people want to sit down for hours at a time and write a... game?No offense intended here, but I think you''ve overthought this.  What makes people write a game? The need to create, to entertain.  Creative drive.  What makes people write a novel? Paint a landscape? Programmers use code, sculptors use clay, painters use canvas and brush.  Same drive, different medium.I''d argue that most game designers/programmers make games because they like to see people enjoy the product of their labors, and they want to see their ideas come to life.Nothing too complex about that.   [edited by - EricTrickster on January 29, 2004 11:40:16 AM]Yes, I agree with you.  Games are used for playing, for training, and for learning.  That''s established and it''s not really what I was questioning.  But really, I was just looking at some particular games (like Missile Command, Defender, etc.) and just asking myself what could lead to them.  My idea is that our history, of course, shapes our interests.  Everybody can see that.  And that''s what games are.What we find in games, that is so prevalent in human interests -- as you said yourself -- has been affected by history.  That''s because we''re affected by other people and things, and we affect other people and things as well.  This is history.  Games are escapism, of course.  Games are, really, plays on our thoughts, and we think about that stuff a lot -- good and bad.So, that was my idea.  When you look at the past, the present, and the expectations of the future, you can ask questions about them.  Then, you can change.  And that is exactly how the world works anyway.  Alright I hope I communicated this pretty well (prob''ly not, right?) but, yeah, go ahead and ask questions if you want.  I''m gonna go play some guitar... ==================Benjamin Heath================== ;  To get chicks.No, seriously. There''s a branch of evolutionary biology (or whatever soft science) that believes that the human brain and intelligence is mainly a flamboyant sex attractor, similar to large colored feathers on birds, or bulging air sacs on frogs. The human, as it existed hundreds of thousands of years ago, certainly didn''t need intelligence, manipulation, language or art to survive (any more than, say, armadillos, storks, or lemurs).Thus, all art and thinking activities are really just a way of getting chicks. ;quote:Original post by hplus0603  To get chicks.No, seriously. There''s a branch of evolutionary biology (or whatever soft science) that believes that the human brain and intelligence is mainly a flamboyant sex attractor, similar to large colored feathers on birds, or bulging air sacs on frogs. The human, as it existed hundreds of thousands of years ago, certainly didn''t need intelligence, manipulation, language or art to survive (any more than, say, armadillos, storks, or lemurs).Thus, all art and thinking activities are really just a way of getting chicks.   I applaud your wisdom. ;  I was under the impression that it was a well known fact that all of civilization is merely an attempt to impress the opposite sex. ;  A computer-game is not very diffrent from any game that were played long before computers existed, like chess or poker. In fact, every single computer-game could be played "by hand", the only trouble is that games like Half-Life would be very unexciting if you   had to do all the calculations involved instead of letting a computer do them for you. 24 frames per second would require, aproximitly, IQ 43252. ;  People have always liked to play games? ;  Crane''s Law: Man uses his highest technology to amuse himself.I read that in an interview a few years ago, thought I''d just toss that out. 