Books vs Videogames
 

I made it Videogames for a reason namely this is the Video Game caregory.

I got the idea from a post by Adamark who has recently expanded my thinking. Personally they are different things both deserving of respect and time. The rewards reaped from each are differnt. Yet several things are similar. I've cried to both. I've enjoyed both. I hope we can have an interesting discussion on the thoughts and opinons on both.
That and I also want to see a buncha ignorent people violently attacking each other on which ones better.

As a medium, neither is superior. The ability to immerse someone in an interactive world, when used properly, can do things that books can't. On the other hand, books can create worlds and better control the action, thus creating better stories and doing things that games can't.

Currently, books are superior as far as content goes, however. They've been around for millenia, they have a bit of a head start.

I must agree with krylo, but one more addition, when it comes to letting people interact with each other, internet play is far superior to book clubs.

each has it's advantages. Books do allow more imagination, but not interaction. In video games, you can make the character do whatever you want him/her to do, within reason. Video games take much more work to produce, but that doesn't mean they are better. Books take much more mind power to finish, while half of the video games just require random button-mashing.

Both have their respective downfalls and advantages, but I personally like books more simply because I appreciate how much work goes into a book because I write, but I don't program much, so I can't begin to comprehend the work a game takes.

No, books are superior. A book by the very nature of its medium can contain more information and of a higher quality than a book. How LONG do you think a LOTR-style, and LOTR-quality video game need to be? 1000 hours to beat? What company would be insane enough to manufacture such a behemoth? It would be ten years before they'd see any profit, and by then all the graphics they used would go out of style. Furthermore, the interactivity of a videogame disrupts the traditional flow of a story, which is why the story must be custom-tailored to a video game; a book-like videogame will be too "boring" and not succeed. Take Xenogears, one of the best RPGs on the PSX on its Disc 1 which essentially turned into an interactive book on Disc 2. It turned into absolute crap, is what it did.

The only thing video games are good for are for certain kinds of training, such as flight school training, and entertainment. They are not a good medium for transmitting information, because the interactivity, beyond that necessary to manipulate a computer in the e-books format, is an extra and unnecessary step. The cost, which will invariably be greater with a videogame, is also a factor.

I can't believe I didn't put this down yesterday, but I was too braindead from arguing with Archbio.

I'm going to have to disagree with you Greywolf. Neither is superior. Your saying that a video game can't convey the same information a book can and that's staight BS. If anything, a video game can convey more information, due to the fact that there is much more freedom allowed when playing a video game as opposed to reading a book. as for this statement:

"How LONG do you think a LOTR-style, and LOTR-quality video game need to be? 1000 hours to beat? What company would be insane enough to manufacture such a behemoth?"

I'm just going to say you could'nt have thought that through too much. LOTR is several books in a series, also tied to other Tolkien works. You simply make a game about each book, and possibly the transition between books. As long as the Core story is well thought out and planned, it can be conved though literature of pc/console gaming. take the Dot hack or Jak series for example. Both of which could probably exist in a book form, especially .Hack. The interactivity granted by a game experience only allowed the person on the other end to experience the story first-hand, any WELL-CRAFTED book does the same.

One more thing cost and TIME is a factor for both mediums, and can invariably lead to Crappiness. You can write an epic saga, or play an epic Saga, a book-like game that wasn't done well, would be something like Xenosaga, however many of the old nes/snes game had book quality stories that you could play out.

Books are a zillion times more important then video games will ever be.

If you're going to tell me that a videogame can contain in it more information than a normal sized book, I will tell you that what you're saying is BS. The longest RPGs, if put into script format, might have 100, maybe 150 pages of text, and that's saying it liberally. A normal book has 300-400.

You're missing the point of what I said. A book of the size and quality of LOTR can be translated into videogame format, but to be TOLD in videogame format it would take an insane amount of game power and time on the gamer's part. I haven't played the .Hack series, but I am sure they are subject to these limitations. So, next time before telling someone he couldn't have thought something through carefully, why don't you examine his statements carefully.

Cost and time are precisely the reason a video game will never have the script of an epic-sized book. Translating a 1,000+ page script into an interactive format will take too long and cost too much. With a book, the writer just needs to write a "script," if a book can be called that. With a game, the script is also needed, along with a ton of varied programming.

Books are superior to video games in the fact that they tend to be more deeply involved in there own world. Don't get me wrong, video games can be quite deep . Games such as the Final Fantasy series and many other RPGs are very involved . But games have to deal with interactivity and can't tell a story as well as a book (no duh). For entertainment in a story form, books kick ass. If I want Entertainment through video action I'll take a video game.