The ludological definition of "game"

Started by Janos Biro, Sun 13/04/2014 00:01:05

Previous topic - Next topic

Janos Biro

#40
I hope this adds to the debate too. I think we are talking about the "evolution" of the medium in a very simplistic way. In a small scale, it is true that you can see a continuing cycle of small and "misunderstood" movements becoming very popular later. But in a larger scale, those changes form a pattern. It is not true that things always changed this way. The change itself changed. And this is not always a good sign. I can understand why most people think that it's a great advantage to have a more "dynamic" culture. But others might think this apparent increase in diversity is actually a decrease in significance, and they might be right. It makes sense to me, because I don't see a real increase in quality, I see the standard getting lower. I see an empty diversity, and it was not always like that. It is more and more empty each year. I see a world that becomes more stupid each year, and not simply different. Things today are so ridiculously lame that any innovation is welcomed with fireworks, because it promises to quench our thirst, but our thirst only grows, and we need more today than we needed yesterday. Something is missing. People are not simply making different things, they are making worse things, really. They are losing the ability to appreciate and to make good stuff, because they are becoming more concerned with "entertainment" and "fun" than with the immortal values that were present in all the works of art before. Those values are not cycling, they are really dying. They still exist, but they are barely surviving. They are still needed, but they are drying like oil. To think that this is just part of the cycle of things... It is absurd.

In the past culture, creativity was about making things that last forever, while today we simply play with random variations. Things are created to be replaced by a slightly different one. Before, we could really add something to the permanent repertoire of culture, something that the future generations would inherit and protect as a treasure. Today, things are just mixed and remixed to create the illusion of innovation. We all admit this now, but we use this little, easy and poor excuse: "This is the way things are". This is a fundamental mistake. Things can only be this way in a culture that values the ephemeral, the temporal, the mundane, the secular. It is a consequence of a specific cultural development, not a general aspect of the evolution of human cultures.

In order to make this criticism we need permission to look from a much broader angle. Unless you want to close game in this tiny culture of yours. Unless you want us to become more like you in order to make things that you can call games. Understand the problem?
I'm willing to translate from English to Brazilian Portuguese.

Ghost

#41
Quote from: janosbiro on Sat 19/04/2014 20:21:19
Unless you want to close game in this tiny culture of yours. Unless you want us to become more like you in order to make things that you can call games. Understand the problem?
Who are you adressing?

To pick one thing that caught me up there, technically we didn't have an increase in diversity for a while now. Quite the opposite; the labels become broader and when it was once accepted to divide even one genre into several valid groups, it's now mostly a case of maybe four to seven broad genres, plus Minecraft. Once you mix the specific terms you get broader genres.
This can be a good thing if you CARE about how your games are called. On the most basic level I personally know two kinds of games- game I enjoy and games I don't enjoy. (laugh)

Janos Biro

#42
I'm addressing to whom it may concern.

I was not talking about genre diversity. I was talking about the idea that more indie games means more diversity in the gaming industry. We have more indies than ever. But that's not enough to make it a good news yet. We have many indies in terms of production, but few in terms of ideals.

You can't be neutral on a moving train. If you don't care about how a concept is used, then you are letting it be used by the ones who have the power.
I'm willing to translate from English to Brazilian Portuguese.

Ghost

#43
Quote from: janosbiro on Sat 19/04/2014 23:48:39
I was not talking about genre diversity. I was talking about the idea that more indie games means more diversity in the gaming industry. We have more indies than ever. But that's not enough to make it a good news yet. We have many indies in terms of production, but few in terms of ideals.

Ah, okay. Again, I am not at odds with that, though I think the smallest "unit" in this discussion should be "game" and neither a genre nor an industrial branch.

__
edit: Had an awfully long bit of text ready but this page from an actual book by an actual studied man says it all.


Never cheases to amaze me.

miguel

#44
I feel very concerned when somebody has so little "faith" on humanity.
But, first. You (Janos) sound like a very intelligent young man. The kind of man that is on the brink of something exciting and new. All the great minds were somehow appalled with the futility of their times, and in response they've brought something great to the world.
Are you that person? You sure gather all the "ingredients" and I even sense a bit of a raging Rimbaud in your despair.
I find this kind of people captivating and so full of life, although their story is irreversibly similar to fighting wind mills.
You see, Janos, you can be a little more cynic and perhaps arrogant towards life because you are allowed and justly so. Life isn't always seeking ways to achieve ideal artistic beauty, sometimes it is ugly and smells, and for many decades there isn't really any major improvement into humankind.
Be still restless soul, for there's more beauty in people than what your eyes perceive. Search and you'll find.   

P.S: love the cartoon, Ghost
Working on a RON game!!!!!

dactylopus

I love it, Ghost.

janosbiro, it may be easy to say that today's games market is full of crappy games with no heart, but I don't think that's a valid statement.  Modern technology has ushered in the era where anyone can afford to make a game, so you're going to see a huge increase in the number of overall games.  There will, however, be some fantastic games that make it out of that heap to become critical or financial successes.  Either that, or they will inspire someone to create the next breakthrough.  And I think games are a form of both art and entertainment.  There is the capacity for both, and there are results in both.  I also feel that the entertainment side will always get the attention over the artistic side, both critically and financially.  This happens in every genre of every medium of art.

So, in metaphorical summary, more overall games means more crap to sift through while looking for the gems, but it is worth it because the gems do exist.  And of those gems, a minority of games will be outstanding successes in this medium of art, while a majority will simply be entertainment.

Ghost

#46
The book is "Understanding Comics" by Scott McCloud, if anyone doesn't know it. It is very good- solid and actually well-written theory of narrative. And since it deals with sequential art it is written as a comic, too!

Quote from: dactylopus on Sun 20/04/2014 01:24:38
Modern technology has ushered in the era where anyone can afford to make a game, so you're going to see a huge increase in the number of overall games.

That ties in nicely with the train metaphor.
Spoiler
It's not a good metaphor. It's poorly worded. I can stay neutral about many things in a riding train. The metaphor requires to be read as 'can't stay neutral about the destination of the train'. And even that is possible if I just don't care about where the train goes.
[close]

Yes. In a train I "can't stay neutral". So people just BUILD MORE TRAINS.

Janos Biro

#47
Miguel,

I feel very concerned too when somebody has so much "faith" on humanity, but I won't suggest that you read Schopenhauer or John Gray's Straw Dogs, so that you can see what I see. There is also more ugliness in people than what your eyes perceive, and if you search you will also find.

I'm not the only one fighting wind mills. Wait to you get old, sick, weak and alone, staring death in the face with no resources or perspectives, and then me life is beautiful.

Maybe you can't accept life as it is, so you need to see beauty in it. Beauty is a undeserved grace, but it can also be like a siren. I have my hopes and my dreams, and I appreciate all the beauty in the world, but I never expect people to be better than what they really are, and that saved me a lot of frustration.


Ghost,

You can afford to be neutral about the destination of the train you are ridding if you are so sure it is not ridding for destruction, or you simply don't care about your own destruction too. In case it is ridding for destruction, you can change everything inside the train, but that wont make any difference. Allow me to introduce you to a metaphor called "The ship of fools".
I'm willing to translate from English to Brazilian Portuguese.

Janos Biro

#48
dactylopus,

A critical or financial success in a society that lost it's values doesn't mean anything. So the bottom line is this: either you believe that civilization is getting better or you don't. I don't. I not happy with the direction things are heading. I don't think it's getting better just because now we have all this wonderful technology that allows us to do what we couldn't do in the past. We never needed that to make great stuff, but we can use that to fill ourselves with crap.

When I hear someone say "This happens in every genre of every medium of art", it sounds too conformist. So what if it happens everywhere? It doesn't make it right.

It is worth to spend so much time and money creating mountains of crap for the same amount of gems that we could have without it? I don't think so. It doesn't make any sense to me, and it seems like you are not thinking about the collateral effects of having that much crap.
I'm willing to translate from English to Brazilian Portuguese.

miguel

QuoteMaybe you can't accept life as it is, so you need to see beauty in it. Beauty is a undeserved grace, but it can also be like a siren. I have my hopes and my dreams, and I appreciate all the beauty in the world, but I never expect people to be better than what they really are, and that saved me a lot of frustration.

But I'm as sceptic towards people as anybody else, we live and learn and find out not to forget the songs that made us cry and the ones that saved our lives. Yes we're older now, and a clever swine, but they (songs) were the only ones that stood by us.

However, we should be really talking about games, right? ;)
Let me ask you something, Janos:
When were video games really good? Like master-pieces of a genre? Is it time already to have a master-piece?
I think it is and I have the strongest opinion that the best games ever made were all made recently. I don't want to sound game-heretic but let's face it, some of the games we worship from the old days are just bad games in terms of playability and fail miserably the test of time. Even some adventure games from the "golden age".
I've played Rock Star's LA Noir and it was such a rewarding experience, if only it ended up too quick. It's up there on my top Adventures of all time and served with NO NOSTALGIA whatsoever. Great. Period.
What about incarnating Solid Snake? It gets better with every release and I just purely love to play it!
I could go on with names and titles but I guess you understand what I mean. Modern games are freekin'aswmoe!
Not all, of course, how could it be?
But I come from the time where you had to imagine everything while looking at some pixels moving.
Working on a RON game!!!!!

Janos Biro

Right.

I love many recent games too. But that still doesn't make things right with the game industry. Look at how many games are produced each year. What is the overall cost of these few good games? Is it worth? I'm following what I said to dactylopus. All is not well in the reign of gaming. The Scratchware Manifesto still applies: "Instead of serving creative vision, it suppresses it. Instead of encouraging innovation, it represses it. Instead of taking its cue from our most imaginative minds, it takes its cue from the latest month's PC Data list. Instead of rewarding those who succeed, it penalizes them with development budgets so high and royalties so low that there can be no reward for creators. Instead of ascribing credit to those who deserve it, it seeks to associate success with the corporate machine."

When were video games really good? When making them was not a business. The indie emergence changed the balance towards the freedom of creation again? Maybe, but in a very limited way, because they just want to get in the business of making games. I'm not talking about consumer satisfaction. How could I? I'm talking about games, not products. But here we go again: who defines what is a good game?
I'm willing to translate from English to Brazilian Portuguese.

dactylopus

#51
Quote from: janosbiro on Sun 20/04/2014 20:31:57
dactylopus,

A critical or financial success in a society that lost it's values doesn't mean anything. So the bottom line is this: either you believe that civilization is getting better or you don't. I don't. I not happy with the direction things are heading. I don't think it's getting better just because now we have all this wonderful technology that allows us to do what we couldn't do in the past. We never needed that to make great stuff, but we can use that to fill ourselves with crap.

When I hear someone say "This happens in every genre of every medium of art", it sounds too conformist. So what if it happens everywhere? It doesn't make it right.

It is worth to spend so much time and money creating mountains of crap for the same amount of gems that we could have without it? I don't think so. It doesn't make any sense to me, and it seems like you are not thinking about the collateral effects of having that much crap.
I don't believe that civilization is getting better or worse.  I think that society in general is moving in both directions.  There are a lot of great things, great people, great actions.  And yes, there is a lot of scum.  I think you focus so much on the negative that you fail to see the truly positive that exists in this world, that continues to exist.  The media makes it easier to see the bad without showing the good, but there is good all around the world, every day.

To me, the mountains of crap games are a result of anybody being able to make a game.  On the flip side, you have people who are making really good games.  These games also wouldn't exist if it weren't for the technology that brings us crap.  So I'll say that it actually is worth it because we are getting a lot of gems among the crap that we wouldn't have before, and the crap is usually pretty easy to ignore if it doesn't fit into your preferences.  That is, unless it's a huge financial success, like Angry Birds or Candy Crush, but even then I can ignore it to the best of my ability because those aren't games I'm interested in playing.

In response to miguel, I think that some old games truly are masterpieces.  For my money, Legend of Zelda: A Link To The Past was a masterpiece of the form.  Civilization IV was outstanding for it's time almost 10 years ago, and still holds up today despite a new iteration of the series.  The Final Fantasy series created a masterpiece as far back as 20 years ago with FFVI, if not sooner, and continue to do so.  FFX was one of the most spectacularly beautiful games with a fantastic story and excellent gameplay, back in 2001.  And as far as Adventures go, I was always a fan of Quest for Glory, and I still think those games are beautiful and fun to play.  But I'll agree that modern games can be amazing as well.  I've truly enjoyed each and every Assassin's Creed game I've played.  Wonderful graphics, innovative and engaging story, interesting and fun gameplay, all of these truly make this series one of the best in all of gaming.

janosbiro, I think that the strength of modern indie gaming is a game changer.  You're talking about games made by businesses, not by artists.  Indie games are usually made by the artists with the creative vision.  These are the gems.  The businesses will continue churning out their crap.  This is much like the music scene of today.  The best music is coming from individuals and groups with new access to the technology that can allow them to produce their art and release it to the world.  The worst music is being fabricated by the record companies.  This is the difference between art and entertainment.  This is the difference between the Mona Lisa and a full page ad in a magazine.

The only one who can define a good game is the player.  There is no universal definition because individual tastes vary.

miguel

As a game consumer it was never this cheap to play top fabulous games than now. With the PS4 in the market I can get the best PS3 games ever made at fantastic prices. I've got more games than time to play them.
The notion that games are worse than before is simply wrong to me, it's the contrary. It's normal to have fond memories from a time when we'd play games for hours and hours without worrying about kids, bills and all that.

Dactylopus, I played the first CIV when I was about 13 or something and I do own CIV IV, yes great games indeed, and I know that there were some good excellent games in the past. But I maintain what I said without wanting to disrespect the people that worked to create such classic games. See, FF were cool (played until XIII-II) but the plot is just too much teenager oriented to me. And Paragons suck! I preferred Junctions! :-D (hello Icey?)

Anyway, after re-reading this thread I think I can answer the original topic question:
A game must:
- challenge me in a clever way;
- take me to some place different than my ordinary life;
- offer me the possibility of victory;
- reward me with cool graphics and if possible a rich plot;
- make me want to have made the game;
Working on a RON game!!!!!

dactylopus

Fair enough.  Preferences change over time.  There exists a lot of art and entertainment that I have grown out of over the years, and others that I have grown into.

I think your definition is a decent one, but it is your definition.  And I think that everyone will have their own definition because games, like any art, appeal to different people in different ways for different reasons.

Ghost

#54
Quote from: janosbiro on Sun 20/04/2014 20:09:08
Allow me to introduce you to a metaphor called "The ship of fools".
No need to do that. I know it already. And it's a nice metaphor and hard to disagree with. Personally I am more inclined to follow a different ship, though.

Quote from: janosbiro on Sun 20/04/2014 23:14:12But here we go again: who defines what is a good game?
Quote from: dactylopus on Sun 20/04/2014 23:33:51The only one who can define a good game is the player.  There is no universal definition because individual tastes vary.
Exactly. And this is even more visible these days where more and more people find their footing into the semiprofessional market. And games can trigger so many responses that it's just logical it will appeal to people on different levels.

Here comes Sturgeon's Law ("90% of everything is crap"). These days we just have more 100%. We see more games around; we even go and buy games that are not done yet ("early access", Kickstarters). With more games being made in public the 90% become more obvious.

And yet I still think it's better to embrace the good and shrug at the bad. Because in the end, HOW to change it? You'd need a watchman the size of a continent!

__
Edit: Spiced up everything with relevant links.

Another thing- we are in a discussion that has kept clever minds busy for a long time now. In fact, it almost always crops up as soon as some noticeable chance in trends is noticed. Could it be... that things always change? ;)

Janos Biro

#55
Spoiler
This is far out of topic, and maybe I could discuss this further in the Rumpus Room, but I really don't think society in general is simply "moving in both directions". I agree that we have a lot of great things, and I see many positive aspects in civilization, but they are all useless if we are fundamentally wrong. And I think we are, for reasonable reasons, not conspiracy theory. So, this may seem very pessimistic, but I don't have any good reasons to believe that this is not the case.
[close]

Ultimately, I would say that if mountains of crap are a result of easier game making, then not anybody who makes games should be encouraged to publish them, just like not anybody who writes poetry should be encouraged to publish them: because most of it is crap. But I think this is not the real problem. I think everyone should be able to make games, but I also think that we live in a culture of "more is always good" and "quantity over quality", so I would like to see less and better games, books, movies, music and culture in general being made. I know this sounds ridiculous. Globalization has taken over the world and there is nothing we can do. Still, It doesn't mean we have to conform.

Quotethe crap is usually pretty easy to ignore if it doesn't fit into your preferences

But this is the problem! Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is crap. The point is that "consumer preferences" can be statistically defined, based on consumer habits, not real criticism. Now it is much easier to ignore the good games and play only crap games.

QuoteIndie games are usually made by the artists with the creative vision

True. But artists can make crap too. Also, artists can come from different cultures, but most games come from a singular, global culture. Game culture is still very restricted to definition of game based on consumer habits of a few leading countries.

QuoteThe only one who can define a good game is the player.  There is no universal definition because individual tastes vary.

I restate what I said: what defines individual tastes? As a founder of PR would have said: People don't know what is good for them. We have to induce them to make the right choice by appealing to their unconscious desires.

Miguel, what do you think of this game? Does it qualifies as a game to you?

Jesse Venbrux is one the best game makers in my opinion. I also have more games than time to play them. But I'm not nostalgic. My favorite games are very recent. The thing is: You may have 100 good games to play only this year, but do you know how many games are produced each year?

We are talking about games "like any art", but the commodification of art remains.

Ghost,

QuotePersonally I am more inclined to follow a different ship, though.

Freud? Really?

QuoteAnd this is even more visible these days where more and more people find their footing into the semiprofessional market. And games can trigger so many responses that it's just logical it will appeal to people on different levels.

Fascinating! These are the very same reasons why I think we have a big problem with the definition of game.

QuoteThese days we just have more 100%.

If you insist that the problem is only quantitative, not qualitative, I won't discuss. But I don't think that 90% of everything is crap in a traditional culture, for example. All their stories have a deep meaning to them, and it is not because they are few, but because everything is sacred to these people. They create much, much less than us, but when they do, it is 100% master-piece, not only 10%. I'm not saying this is better, just saying that Sturgeon's Law, if such thing exists, is not universal. I really think that the overall proportion of poor creations is raisin fast in our culture, and the reason is simple: our culture is more and more shortsighted and less concerned about the future or the past. The lack of long term perspective diminishes the significance and meaning of things. That's exactly why we have to appeal to a more subjective criterion.

I hope I'm not offending anyone.
I'm willing to translate from English to Brazilian Portuguese.

Ghost

#56
Far from offending. It's fun to discuss a topic with a passionate group- personally I'm getting a lot out of it.

QuoteBut I don't think that 90% of everything is crap in a traditional culture, for example. All their stories have a deep meaning to them, and it is not because they are few, but because everything is sacred to these people. They create much, much less than us, but when they do, it is 100% master-piece, not only 10%.

Sturgeon's Revelation may not be universal but I disagree that creating less means an overall higher quality. Higher relevance for those who create it, yes, and more emotinal attachment of value, that too. We're not at odds here. But not generally "better".
I am also extremely sure that nothing is created perfect in the first place. Prototype first, then refinement; nothing pops into existence without any way to be improved- at least nothing human made (with the possible exception of bacon ;-D ).

This is why (to me) producing more (and more "bad stuff") is not a bad thing. It's one big test and it never really ends. Sometimes it takes a while until you realise something could be done better; and sometimes later there will be another iteration.
If I create few things I spend more time on them, so there is more chance for them to improve quickly- but also more chance to stagnate. If I have one perfectly fine axe, why should I go and invent a chainsaw?

_
edited some typos away.

Snarky

Quote from: janosbiro on Mon 21/04/2014 11:15:50
But this is the problem! Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is crap.

Yes, apparently it's only when YOU don't like it that something is crap.

Quote from: janosbiro on Mon 21/04/2014 11:15:50But I don't think that 90% of everything is crap in a traditional culture, for example. All their stories have a deep meaning to them, and it is not because they are few, but because everything is sacred to these people. They create much, much less than us, but when they do, it is 100% master-piece, not only 10%.

That's a highly romanticized perspective (born partly from the Romantic views of the original folk-tale collectors, who deliberately suppressed stories they considered frivolous, anecdotal or plain lewd, in order to further the ideal of the nobility of people who were "pure" and uncontaminated by modernity). I don't see how it could survive even a cursory dive into a scholarly folk tale collection. Rather, you'll find that people in almost every culture tell tall tales, dirty jokes, boasts, scurrilous gossip, self-serving lies and amusing bits of trivia, and there's no clear separation between this fluff and the "serious" stories that you assert are 100% masterpieces. You'll find it swept up into heroic epics and religious texts, including the Bible.

miguel

#58
QuoteMiguel, what do you think of this game? Does it qualifies as a game to you?

Jesse Venbrux is one the best game makers in my opinion. I also have more games than time to play them. But I'm not nostalgic. My favorite games are very recent. The thing is: You may have 100 good games to play only this year, but do you know how many games are produced each year?

We are talking about games "like any art", but the commodification of art remains.

Janos I'm afraid the download link is kaput!...Wait...I got it from another place. Okay, played, shot the wall and floor and then the poor guy. Lost. I probably should play again... Okay, got it.
Let me tell you what I think: it's a really depressing game and I would not call it a game. It fails miserably on my conceptions. It clearly slaps me in the face for something I didn't want to happen. It's an experiment and a clever one. Call it art if you want, to me is just too modern art. Just like some underground movies where things are shown too much (Elephant and the likes)...
It's not my cup of tea.

Did you never played cowboys and indians, Janos?


And what's that with too many games being produced every year? Is that bad? It means jobs, industry, families fed. And consumers are given lots to chose from.

Working on a RON game!!!!!

kaput

#59
@janosbiro - just for the sake of debate:

In what timescale are you referring to 'things are moving in the wrong direction'? The last ten years? Twenty years? Is it better now that on a global scale there is a better sense of equality ie woman and ethnic minorities getting to vote in the west and or a lower amount of fascist dictators in our world? Did civilisation move in the wrong direction in giving people more freedom of speech or in demolition the Nazis? And anyway, to which civilisation are you referring? What are your comparisons based upon? The vikings? The Romans? The Anglo Saxons? Is it better or worse that people with less motor functions can now enjoy playing games just with the movement of their bodies or the swipe or tap of a finger, instead of learning how to master tedious button combinations that they may not ever manage to pull off because of their physical disabilities?

When was making video games not about business? Money makes the world go around and people need to make a living. If someone prefers to work in the game industry rather than working in a fast food joint or sweeping the floor in some factory, does that make them less 'honourable'? Why so? And if someone has the capability of expressing themselves creatively then why the hell shouldn't they be allowed to or even encouraged to do so? Do you favour elitism or even a form of creative dictatorship where only said elites can pleasure us with their creative genious?

If you don't like a game then don't play it. If you think that there is a lack of good games 'on the market' be the change you want to see in the world and make a good game. Or even become a game critic and sway peoples opinions to change the market.

Learning that life will never be a utopia is just a part of growing up, and hell, there are a lot of things that suck, but I can't agree with you that 'civilisation and games' are moving in the wrong direction, pretty much.

Also, feel free to answer my questions.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk