Recommended Posts

Posted
Lowenstein: Don't Call Them 'Videogames'

The head of the ESA isn't down with the term that has described our industry for 30 years.

by Daemon Hatfield

November 8, 2006 - During his keynote speech at the LA Games Conference today, Doug Lowenstein, President of the Entertainment Software Association, explained that he thinks the term 'videogame' is a detriment to the industry.

Doug Lowenstein, President of the ESA

"One of the worst things going for us is that we're called videogames," Lowenstein said. Part of his speech dealt with the rise of 'serious games' such as training programs and educational games for children. Lowenstein feels that the term videogames keeps many people from taking these serious games, and in fact the entire industry, seriously. He commented that the industry might not attract as much negative publicity if its products were categorized as something more serious than a game.

Presumably, Lowenstein would prefer videogames be referred to as 'interactive entertainment,' or 'entertainment software,' as it is the term the ESA, the organization representing the industry, has chosen. And although it showcased videogames, the Electronic Entertainment Expo went with a title that didn't mention games at all.

Source IGN.com http://ds.ign.com/articles/744/744855p1.html

Posted
But... they're games... played on a video display. :huh:

Yea really, they seem to want to move away from that term so hopefully people would stop thinking that they are just for kids...

  • 3 weeks later...
Posted

does anyone outside the "sports entertainment" industry call it "sports entertainment?" no, it's wrestling.

videogames are going to be called videogames no matter how some association tries to dress it up with purple prose.

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

does anyone outside the "sports entertainment" industry call it "sports entertainment?" no, it's wrestling.

Don't forget the Comic Books or Graphic Novels debate as well

Well, graphic novels and comic books are different things.

They should call them "pixelated hand-eye coordination rehabilitation systems."

PHECRS... :D

Posted

Technically true, yes. However, Hollywood credits most comic book-based movies as being "inspired by [insert creator here]'s graphic novel." Look at any trailer for Frank Miller's 300: they claim the source material was a graphic novel and Miller is credited as being a "graphic novelist". While the latter is true (Miller has illustrated graphic novels), 300 was a serialized comic book... not a graphic novel.

Posted

Alot of books in the past were serialized in a similar manner. The story as a whole still gets called a novel.

In that sense, I can see any serialized story (be it an arc or self-contained) could still be called a graphic novel. The reverse, however, would not always apply.

Posted

That's not a true. A graphic novel is a work of illustrated fiction created as one long story which was never serialized. Anything else is a trade paperback.

Posted
That's not a true. A graphic novel is a work of illustrated fiction created as one long story which was never serialized. Anything else is a trade paperback.

not according to the OED... :P

For common-man use, I really feel like a GN is an all encompassing term for the physical format, nowadays: comics published in a squarebound edition. A TPB gets a bit more specific in the sense that it is a collection, and all those other terms that make things more specific, digests and such.

Posted

That's not a true. A graphic novel is a work of illustrated fiction created as one long story which was never serialized. Anything else is a trade paperback.

not according to the OED... :P

According to the OED website:

graphic novel, a full-length (esp. science fiction or fantasy) story published as a book in comic-strip format.

Graphic novels are works which were created in that singular, extended form (i.e. Jew Gangster, Sin City: Family Values, Blankets, Pedro and Me). Anything which collects a series of stories is a trade paperback, including Watchmen, V for Vendetta, the other Sin City yarns, The Dark Knight Returns and Batman: Year One. Yes, the term has become a grey area as of late, due to improper usage, but a collection of stories is not a graphic novel.

What upsets me more than movies using the term (save for when it's appropriate) is when comic book companies and critics / magazines do so. They should know better.

Posted

to argue technicalities and interpretations of definitions, wouldn't not allowing the collected Watchmen to be referred to as a graphic novel mean that it is not a full-length story published in a comic format? I feel that it fits the OED criterion.

no it was not originally published that way, but I can hold in my hand the physical object I would call a Graphic Novel.

Even less strict, Ultimate Spider-Man: Warrior TPB could be a GN. It is a full length story of its own simply amid other similar stories. I don't see it as much different from The Bourne Supremecy being its own novel, yet there still exists Identity leading into it and Ultimatum following.

I never really pay attention to the credit lines for it but I would be bugged by something like the Batman movie saying it is inspired by a GN unless they could actually cite the specific story collection they used.

Posted
Again I quote OED:

graphic novel, a full-length ... story published as a book in comic-strip format.

Published as a book, not collected as a book.

The collection is still "published."

I can see Mage; The Hero Discovered from my current chair. The Hero Discovered was originally published in 15 parts by Comico Comics. The inside cover of the square bound book collecting those issues (yes I got up to grab it and check) states

MAGE, VOL. 1: THE HERO DISCOVERED. First Printing, Published by Image Comics, Inc.

My stance is simply that the book sitting open on my lap is a Graphic Novel. It is a full length story published as a book in comic-strip format. The way it was originally published would not impact the physical object-on-my-lap's classification. To me it is little different from the fact that Great Expectations was originally published serially. The bound edition is sitting on bookshelves everywhere is still a novel.

and a slight aside... Do you subscribe to OED online? Or receive it as part of an institution?

I really miss the days when I was able to use it through my school.

Posted
The collection is still "published."

I can see Mage; The Hero Discovered from my current chair. The Hero Discovered was originally published in 15 parts by Comico Comics. The inside cover of the square bound book collecting those issues (yes I got up to grab it and check) states

MAGE, VOL. 1: THE HERO DISCOVERED. First Printing, Published by Image Comics, Inc.

My stance is simply that the book sitting open on my lap is a Graphic Novel. It is a full length story published as a book in comic-strip format. The way it was originally published would not impact the physical object-on-my-lap's classification. To me it is little different from the fact that Great Expectations was originally published serially. The bound edition is sitting on bookshelves everywhere is still a novel.

The difference between old time novels (which were serialized) and serialized comic books is as follows: serialized novels do not have a separate classification as comics do (RE: TPB), so they're still listed as novels. Down the line, if a new classification arose for novels which were once serials, I would be all for reclassifying said books as such. Until one does, they're novels. But comic books have three distinct categories: periodicals (monthly or otherwise), trade paperbacks (the collection of stories which were first serialized) and graphic novels (stories first published in book format).

Calling collections "graphic novels" is an attempt by the industry, media, Hollywood and readers to legitimize the form, but it does not need legitimizing. Comics (in one form or another) have been around longer than cinema and photography, Superman and Batman are worldwide icons, children recognize word balloons as being related to comics and Spider-Man is a billion-dollar franchise. Comic books are mainstream. They're legit, so the need to call a collection a "graphic novel" seems a bit like a child dressing in daddy's suit: it's silly and the shoes don't fit.

and a slight aside... Do you subscribe to OED online? Or receive it as part of an institution?

I really miss the days when I was able to use it through my school.

I work at a college.

Posted
The difference between old time novels (which were serialized) and serialized comic books is as follows: serialized novels do not have a separate classification as comics do (RE: TPB), so they're still listed as novels. Down the line, if a new classification arose for novels which were once serials, I would be all for reclassifying said books as such. Until one does, they're novels. But comic books have three distinct categories: periodicals (monthly or otherwise), trade paperbacks (the collection of stories which were first serialized) and graphic novels (stories first published in book format).

I can totally buy that, whether I agree with the comic classification reaction or not. I do, however, agree with the legit rant which (come full circle) is pretty much the same problem with the Videogame issue.

I've enjoyed the back and forth. This is why my focus was modern rhetorical theory. But, as it stands, I'm pretty much out without becoming incessantly repetitious. Kudos

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.