Adventure Game Studio

In 2007 there was a topic in this forum titled "What is a game? (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=31783.0)". I recently wrote an academic paper on the subject, and I think my point can add to the discussion, so I'm summarizing it below, in the form of a forum topic. Consider this a "game theory" topic.

The Danish researcher Jesper Juul (2003) listed seven different definitions for the term "game", citing from Huizinga (1949) to Salen and Zimmerman (2004). His own definition is: "A game is a formal system of rules with variable and quantifiable outcome, where different outcomes are assigned different values, the player exerts effort to influence the outcome, the player feels attached to the outcome, and the consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable".

Professor Jan Simons (2007) stated that theorists like Juul, Aarseth, Eskelinen and Frasca separate the concept of game from the concept of narrative, as if they belong to totally different categories. Thus they created a division in the game studies between "ludologists" and "narratologists". For ludologists, games are not about storytelling, they have to be understood "in their own terms". The controversy over the status of games as art falls precisely in this context.

Ralph Koster (2013) agrees with the ludological position, stating that games have to be fun, and fun is defined as "the act of mastering a problem mentally". Fun is different from delight. "Games are not stories. Games are not about beauty or delight. Games are not about jockeying for social status. They are, in their own right, something incredibly valuable". See the image below:

(http://i.imgur.com/FjQsWlw.jpg)

My point is that the conflict between "ludologists" and "narratologists" is not purely theoretical. The major reason why ludologists choose to follow such definition of game is that they wanted the game industry to be fully independent from other entertainment industries, like the movie industry. Arguments on both sides demonstrate that, and the image above makes it clearer too. That's why the Independent Games Festival, which has almost only ludologists as judges, doesn't have a "best story" category. That may also explain why games focused on narrative, like adventure games, are somehow considered "minor" games.

The sociological question of the emergent game industry fighting for market territory against the established movie industry may explain the real issue behind the discussion. Understanding it may may help the game culture to find it's balance again. There is no reason to exclude or despise gamers and game designers that see games as an interactive way to tell a story. The ludological definition become too restrict when you look at some experimental, artistic, conceptual or "story-driven" games that do not deserve to be called "non-games" or "quasi-games" just because they cannot be defined as "games" in ludological terms. The very idea of using "game designer" instead of "game maker" comes from this sociological background.

Some may even consider the ludological definition as reductionist. The concept of game is reduced to the mechanics that allow the game experience. In the AGS community, it seems most people agree that creating a good game involves creating a good story. But game designers all around the world are learning to think like ludogists, because ludology books are now considered the most advanced and influential game theory available. The consequence? What do you think?

HUIZINGA, Johan. Homo ludens. Taylor & Francis, 1949.

JUUL, Jesper. The Game, the Player, the World: Looking for a Heart of Gameness. In Level Up: Digital Games Research Conference Proceedings. Utrecht: Utrecht University, 2003, p. 30-45.

KOSTER, Raph. Theory of fun for game design. O'Reilly Media, Inc., 2013.

SALEN, Katie; ZIMMERMAN, Eric. Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. MIT press, 2004.

SIMONS, Jan. Narrative, Games, and Theory. Game Studies, Volume 7, issue 1, 2007.

Interesting stuff Janos,
well you already know that most people here will consider the story as the main aspect of an adventure game because the genre is based on dialogues, descriptions and good solid plots to advance in the game, instead of "levelling up" on other genres.
It is fair to say that if you rule out sport games, the best or more popular games today do have solid plots. The best FPS's contain characters that the player can relate and a set of dramatic trials that are written in order to create an illusion that not all you doing is shooting targets. The best RPG's are strongly based on the relationship between playable characters and npc's and studios can't just rely on a set of rules and cryptic text to gather players.
But you know all this.

One thing indie adventures fail often, in my guilty opinion, is to deliver too much of a story and too less of gaming purpose.
And that's what I think you want discussed.
When we make adventure games, we sometimes really just want to tell a story that is somewhat fascinating for us. Everything else comes after. And everything means objectives, goals, puzzles, and so on. So, suddenly you realize that all the player is doing is talking to npc's. Or you don't.

I was asked to do some background art and story for a point&click flash game. It all went well and I loved the experience but the man that assembled and coded the game used 10% of my original text. It's not a bad thing. A flash game is casual and although it's a point&click, it still must be a game!
There must be clear paths for the player to win it while having fun.

Adventure games are a very particular genre Janos and I think it may be hard to clarify its strengths to ludologists.

Mhhh, I recall Wittgenstein writing something on the matter, lemme see if I can find it... here it is (http://www.postmoderntherapy.com/Wittgenstein/lw65-69c.htm) (starts from paragraph number 66)!
Obviously language related/not thorough as possible, but still food for thought.

Quote from: miguel on Sun 13/04/2014 00:52:53
One thing indie adventures fail often, in my guilty opinion, is to deliver too much of a story and too less of gaming purpose.
And that's what I think you want discussed.
When we make adventure games, we sometimes really just want to tell a story that is somewhat fascinating for us. Everything else comes after. And everything means objectives, goals, puzzles, and so on. So, suddenly you realize that all the player is doing is talking to npc's. Or you don't.

I have been guilty of/witnessed this many times, spot on Miguel.

Yay! Jesper Juul, Salen & Zimmerman, and Johan Huizenga cited on an adventure game forum! Magic Circle ftw!   

What's your academic background, Janos? I've heard Juul's latest is great.

Miguel -- you're hitting on a still-ongoing debate in games studies: do video games belong to ludological or narratological studies? Here's a piece by Juul on the matter (http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/juul-gts/).

I think it depends on the genre.

Puzzle games like Candy Crush or Bejeweled can survive entirely on their ludological merits, whereas most adventure games survive mostly on narratological merits.  I think that both can apply, and both can be considered games.  In my opinion, the best games make good use of both elements.  You'll see this a lot more in action adventure games like the Legend of Zelda series, or role playing games like Final Fantasy.

I am a fan of Raph Koster and his games and writings, although I tend to disagree with his definition of a game as being too limiting and restrictive.  It's nice to see discussion of that here.

Quote from: bicilotti on Sun 13/04/2014 01:12:49
Mhhh, I recall Wittgenstein writing something on the matter, lemme see if I can find it... here it is (http://www.postmoderntherapy.com/Wittgenstein/lw65-69c.htm) (starts from paragraph number 66)!
Obviously language related/not thorough as possible, but still food for thought.

Quote from: miguel on Sun 13/04/2014 00:52:53
One thing indie adventures fail often, in my guilty opinion, is to deliver too much of a story and too less of gaming purpose.
And that's what I think you want discussed.
When we make adventure games, we sometimes really just want to tell a story that is somewhat fascinating for us. Everything else comes after. And everything means objectives, goals, puzzles, and so on. So, suddenly you realize that all the player is doing is talking to npc's. Or you don't.

I have been guilty of/witnessed this many times, spot on Miguel.

Bici, good read, thanks. It's funny how your signature from our loved friend makes so much sense right now.

I'm inclined to argue that the term "game" in "video game" is somewhat of an artefact title, coming from the origins of video games as games in the ludological sense. Since those days, however, "video games" have branched out, and I feel that today the defining trait of a "video game" is not that it has rules or goals, but rather that it be interactive (well, and that it run on some form of electronic environment, I suppose). To me a "video game" is about having an interactive experience, whether or not it's technically a "game".

If I were to name the medium today, I'm not sure of what I'd likely call it. "Interactive media" comes to mind, but that's perhaps somewhat overlong. :/

In terms of ludic versus narrative content, I think that I agree with the poster that suggested that video games may contain both. A video game, I feel, is not necessarily all story or all game, but some mix of the two. (Albeit slightly skewed: my requirement that a game be interactive allows for entirely ludic games, but I'm not sure of how to create an entirely narrative game--that is, one with no ludic elements at all--while yet having some interactivity).

(Funnily enough, I hold a similar view with regards to the genre-title "adventure game": it stemmed, as I recall, from comparison with the old game "Adventure", thus referring to a game similar to "Adventure", rather than a game on which one goes on an adventure. Over time the genre has acquired its own traits independent from that old game.)

Thank you guys. Let me highlight some thoughts so I can continue this conversation:

"The best FPS's contain characters that the player can relate and a set of dramatic trials that are written in order to create an illusion that not all you doing is shooting targets."

I have a very radical opinion about this. When two people are making sex, love is not just a "set of dramatic trials" that create an illusion that they are not just rubbing their erogenous parts to feel pleasure. You see, that's what I call reductionism. When you are playing a good FPS, you are absolutely not just shooting things. What defines the human actions, real or virtual, is the attributed meaning. And we can consider the reductionist description of things as just another meaning.

From my point of view, games are totally about storytelling. Rules are nothing but tricks that storytellers created to make their stories more appealing. The problem is: our culture is fascinated with rules, for very specific reasons. I know very well the arguments of Jesper Juul and other ludologists, and I have reasons to disagree, but it all goes back to worldviews.

"One thing indie adventures fail often, in my guilty opinion, is to deliver too much of a story and too less of gaming purpose."

Let me try to look at it from another angle: From some point of view, the problem is not too much story. If you believe interactivity evolved from the art of telling stories around the campfire, then you can consider that storytellers learnt how to get the listeners reaction and then adapt the story to make it more interesting. In short, you don't have a good story if you don't know how to tell it, because the story and the telling are inseparable. Another analogy with love is needed: If you think you love someone, but nothing happens between you two, then what's happening there is not love, it could become love, but it is something else yet.

One thing is that games, like stories, don't actually NEED anything per se. Adventures don't really need puzzles or goals. Maybe most players think they need those things, and if you think you need to please them, then you will need to include that. But the only thing games need is the freedom to be whatever they may be.

It's not that hard to think of a good story, but that's not enough to make it remarkable. I think that adventures need better storytelling skills, with tricks that work in favor of the story, not against it. If the story and the telling are inseparable, then when the excess dialog is boring, the story is boring. I hope that makes sense.

"What's your academic background, Janos?"

I studied philosophy from 2002 to 2008, graduated (bachelor degree) and specialized in evolutionary epistemology. By that time, I've read a lot of philosophy of language and, of course, Wittgenstein. Later I studied theology and sociology (master degree).

In the full paper, I discuss a comment Jull made about that passage that bicilotti quoted from Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations. Jull says: "It is of course a common assumption, following Ludwig Wittgenstein, that games cannot be defined." It is easy to see the problem here. Wittgenstein was responding to the accusation that his work does not explains what language is because it doesn't point to what is common in all activities that we call "language". He then starts to talk about the concept of "game", and later the concept of "number", to show that those terms, just like "language", do not necessarily applies to a closed set of activities with common features, and he explains why is that. It is a concept with an open frontier, but it is not indefinable.

Jull comment is wrong (in this case), and he hasn't really given a good answer to the problem that Wittgenstein raised about the concept of game, which involves the problem of language. Wittgenstein is saying that "familiarity" is not a necessary feature of concepts, so you can have concepts with no familiarity between its members, because when you draw a line, you are just drawing a line. The concept does not draws a line for you, we draw a line to use the concept, but we can draw the line higher or lower, depends on the use of the concept. That's what ludologists are doing, they are drawing a line for the concept of game, but it is not because they understand games better than anyone else. It's because they can't stand a world where games are not such special things as they want them to be. And my argument is that this is mostly because they think that if they just let games and storytelling merge, then this can be the first step to let the game industry be merged with the movie industry, and that would be horrible for business.

QuoteOne thing is that games, like stories, don't actually NEED anything per se. Adventures don't really need puzzles or goals.

I really don't agree, Janos. When I decide to play a game, whatever game it is, I want to be challenged and feel capable of beating my opposition. If I'm playing football I want to win, if I'm playing cards I want to win and if I'm playing a video game I want to win. There's a certain thrill of winning or loosing.
When I read a book I'm in a different state of mind, very different from playing a video game.

This said, if you strip an adventure game from its puzzles and goals you are taking away all the risk and fun of it! You might as well read a comic book. My ideal imaginary adventure game would be a hybrid between a comic book, an adventure and a soft-platformer. Beautiful, daring design and graphics, smart dialogues and just that bit of action to keep you alert.

Gaming is beating the game. The most successful games are difficult to beat and either require fast fingers and quick reflexes or a good dose of the gray stuff! The best ones combine all this elements.
   

Quote from: janosbiro on Sun 13/04/2014 23:57:36
Jull comment is wrong (in this case), and he hasn't really given a good answer to the problem that Wittgenstein raised about the concept of game, which involves the problem of language. Wittgenstein is saying that "familiarity" is not a necessary feature of concepts, so you can have concepts with no familiarity between its members, because when you draw a line, you are just drawing a line. The concept does not draws a line for you, we draw a line to use the concept, but we can draw the line higher or lower, depends on the use of the concept. That's what ludologists are doing, they are drawing a line for the concept of game, but it is not because they understand games better than anyone else. It's because they can't stand a world where games are not such special things as they want them to be.

Very interesting and well put.

I agree with Miguel on the "challenge" part and the different state of mind you are when reading a book and playing a game though! Even though, you say that is just a cleverly crafter "illusion" on the part of the storyteller...

QuoteGaming is beating the game. The most successful games are difficult to beat and either require fast fingers and quick reflexes or a good dose of the gray stuff! The best ones combine all this elements.

Miguel, you are free to disagree. But let me ask you this: If I don't really want to be challenged, and I don't really care about feeling capable of beating my opposition, if I have no special need to win, no thrill for winning or loosing, and my state of mind when playing a game is very similar my state of mind when reading a book, am I still playing a game? Have a I ever enjoyed playing a game in my whole life? What am I doing all this time, then? :P

When colonizers taught my indigenous ancestors to play soccer, they liked it so much that they created a special event for all the people to play it. They only changed a few rules: the game goes on until both teams are tied. There is never a winner or a loser, everyone wins and commemorate together. They like it better that way. So, are they still playing a game?

As you can see, I think your concept of game is a little ethnocentric. Or maybe you can call me a non-gamer. Because what makes the games better for you is exactly what I don't like in them.

bicilotti,

One could say that your culture told you the story that games must be "challenging", and you took it for reality. One could say that this is because your culture wanted all games to be about the same story: a story of war, a story of conflict between opposing forces, a story about being stronger then the rest. A story that could inspire and lead your people to victory in other aspects of life. You know what I mean.

QuoteThis said, if you strip an adventure game from its puzzles and goals you are taking away all the risk and fun of it! You might as well read a comic book.

This is more or less what ludologists say: Games are X. If you take X from games, you better watch a movie. If you want to make games without X, you better make movies. Well, I like to play games that are more like interactive comic books. You don't have to strip the puzzles. Just make them optional. Does it hurt? Besides, you can have puzzles and goals in a book too. So...

Janos, this might be due to my ignorance as an undergrad but I believe you are misunderstanding the ludological position.

The distinction that games should be understood on their own terms rather then the narrological "novel form" terms is not to divorce games from story but to acknowledge that their story cannot be divorced from their interaction. Where the narrological stance believe the merits of a games story can be understood separate from the play the ludological position maintains the interactive element of the medium as the defining trait. Wittgenstein would refer to game's specific nature of interactivity the family resemblance of the medium. On the note of the problematic nature of language in many cases the reason developers will label their products non-games is to avoid that very issue of construct. Our society so easily writes off things as what they can and cannot be that when they see something they'll instantly go into the experience with the wrong state of mind. To label it a non-game in the negative manner is distinguish it as something else in the absence of positive; that is with the title game it becomes something very distinct in the mind where with the negative non in front it becomes something more ambiguous and open for the "reader". It opens the work to be based more on it's own merits then on a comparison to any other specific piece in the medium the work is associated with. In this way projects like Depression Quest, The Day the Laughter Stopped, Loneliness, and The Marriage (by Rob Humble) to name a few have tackled serious topics through gameplay without necessarily formatting their projects to the ideas of score or blatant win/lose states. These are also great explorations of ludonarrative, which simply put is just the narrative we assign to the interactions in play. The story is the interaction. Play and interaction in games simply does not function without story, while it might not take the form we immediately think of it, there is always a narrative. Whenever someone walks into the room and asks you about what you are playing, the fact that you can always explain to them the events that coincided to your present position in-game are a testament to inherent narrative in play. The events are the narrative. (here's a bit I wrote for school on ludonarrative http://nlgo.net/archives/8491)

     
I am in agreeance with Miguel that games do a "game" or interactive element for us to experience and recognize it as such. Here is the importance of the game medium's "family resemblance" to acknowledge the overlap of other mediums who also maintain a level of interactivity. Television, reading, comics, make-your-own-adventure books; all of these have a level of interactivity that could lead to them being compared to games. The difference to understand between these is what communication theorist Marshal McLuhan keyed "hot and cold" The colder the medium the more is required of the "viewer " and the more the mind maintains a residual level of activity. Where with movies you can turn it on and zone out entirely, with a book you remain more active as it requires you to turn pages and the like. Hot is more passive while cool is more interactive. Had McLuhan lived longer he would have had much to say about the internet and video games. But with this we can understand video games to be one of the coolest mediums(pun intended). The important distinction of games is that there is almost no passive information, the mind is interacting with almost everything. Where in a book when a room is described the reader is only interacting with the paragraph and description, in a game the reader is interacting within the room itself. the story, visuals, audio, everything. Think about even the most passive aspect of games, the music. Game music is typically affected by player interaction(changing maps, fight scenes, combos) it changes from passive to an interactive part of the experience. There is a difference when you throw in a cd to when you are entering the Fields of Hyrule. Also we should distinguish "challenge" or "goal" part of games are not just the stereotyped win or loose states, that would be ethnocentric. In games the goal is a quantifiable response to player input. Think of when kids make up games. They point a finger at you and say "BANG" and if you respond by grabbing your shoulder or falling down, it becomes a game, quantifiable response. Many games manage to exist on the most meager inputs. Rainbow Unicorn Attack, Jump Kick, Flappy bird for crying out loud. The "game" does not vanish without win or fail states those are simply extensions of the input=response rule of games that we use to contextualize the experience. We see this in cheat modes with games. When you are unable to die, have unlimited money, unlocked all the weapons, does the game become not a game? No. It may have become less interesting, but that is simply due to the nature of design, when I play a song backwards it doesn't stop being a song, but it's not as easily recognizable and is more difficult to experience.

I believe the individual you mentioned criticizing the adventure genre as being less game and more story is doing so out of heuristics. Without a thorough experience of any genre of any medium a viewer may not have the understanding to notice the nuances of the specific genre. Point and clicks are games just as much as any other games, simply because some individual's limited experiences with them remind him strongly of other mediums does not mean their defining nature(interactivity) is a less factor for their visual or whatever other nature is an aspect of the product. Someone whose never really listened to (rap/metal/country) could try to make the argument they are lesser forms of music, but they're only doing it because they're unfamiliar with material enough to recognize the nuances of that genre. Because of their distinctive nature from other genres it's common for people to not have heard enough of rap or metal, or country to recognize they're musical qualities.  Here's something I wrote on defining games (http://nlgo.net/archives/7355)

Weston, this might be due to my ignorance too, but I still believe that I understood the ludological position. I just don't agree with it.

You just used the "games are interactive" argument. This may look crazy to you, but no, I don't think games have any special relation with interactivity. It all depends on what you call "interactivity", really. Depending on it, interactivity may be just an illusion. The Stanley Parable is an example.

Now, is The Game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_(mind_game)) a game? Well, I'm sure that if you look hard enough, you can see some interactivity in it, or you can say this is not a game. It doesn't matter. What matters is that saying that "interaction" is what sets games apart from other things is still drawing a line, and the argument remains. We only expect something like "interaction" from games (or anything else you can cast as the "specific nature" of them) because we are told to expect something like that. The relation is constructed by the use, it is not obvious by "looking at its nature", and it is not there on its own, for a simple reason: nothing is. You can't really look directly at the "nature" of anything, your vision is always mediated by the attributed meaning. Whatever you choose to see as the "nature" of something, it is still a choice. Nothing can really be understood "on it's own terms", except maybe analytic propositions. Comparison is inevitable because concepts are always made out of comparisons.

Take calvinball (http://littlebobeep.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Calvinball1.gif), for example. Is it a game?

Instead of allowing all games to be equally valuable, what ludologists do is try to convince everyone that a game is more valuable when it has more of whatever they say it's the "defining trait" of games, preferably in enough quantity to set them safely away from other media.

Let's take interactive fiction (IF), for example. It is a kind of game, and it is a form of literature. Back in the golden age of IF, many authors believed that IF would be the future of literature. No one would want to read non-interactive books ever again. Interactivity, in this case, is a method that serves the storytelling purpose. The act of playing an IF is the act of reading and telling a story at the same time, that means being an active part in the act of telling. What you play is the story, not something that also has a story. But the story is arranged in a way that you cannot find it without interacting with the author. Rules simply mediate the interaction between player and author. What gives the title to the work is not the rules of "interaction", but the story. Interactivity is needed to play IF because the story will not be told without it.

A specific game identity is defined by its specific interaction or its specific story, or both? How much can I change the interaction or the story before it becomes a different game? How "cool" must something be to be considered a game? Video-games are necessarily more interactive than game-books? Nothing prevents you from making a game-book with more complex interaction than Pac-Man. A game that you play by not giving any input can still have a quantifiable response to player input? A purely sandbox game, no goals and no challenge, is still a game? If you set the goal of reading a book to the end in a given number of hours, does it become a game?

Is that "cool" asked in the McLuhanian definition of the term?

Yes, Eric. Sorry, I forgot to make that clear.

Weston, I have just a few more comments to make:

“The voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles”

This seems like a very good definition. I've thought about games this way for a long time. But I have some problems understanding what exactly is “voluntary” and “unnecessary”. However, the main problem is the idea that games are basically about overcoming obstacles. That's because I think that you can see any action as the “overcoming” of an “obstacle”. You can even think of love in such terms. But in the same way it doesn't seem appropriate to talk like that about such activity, I don't see the reason why I should think of games this way.

“To play a game is to attempt to achieve a specific state of affairs (prelusory goal), using only means permitted by rules (lusory means), where the rules prohibit use of more efficient in favour of less efficient means (constitutive rules), and where the rules are accepted just because they make possible such activity (lusory attitude).”

Again, when I read this, I think about a scientist describing what “love” is by describing what happens when a person is in love. It is so poor it could only be the product of a disenchanted society. Also, by this description, flirting must be considered the most popular game ever.

Quotegaming's future is bright and promising

I'm not so optimist...

Some things should remain intuitive, responsive and fun. You're going too philosophical with this gaming thing. Games are just popular events with simple rules that require some kind of skill to win. Yes, there is a goal, an objective in any game.

The argument you use that "what if I don't want to win anything, I just want to linger in a virtual world", is valid to a point. The point that you just get bored.
It's like visiting a museum, you seek some particular piece and after the rewarding feeling of being there, and the time you take to study it, there's nothing else to do, really.

"The work of art is to dominate the spectator: the spectator is not to dominate the work of art."
-- Oscar Wilde

Miguel,

You are being very philosophical too, can't you see? Your position is also a philosophy. :)

I knew I would eventually get this kind of reaction, but I believe I'm not just being nitpick. Sometimes we need to rethink the "obvious". I think that games should remain magical. Games are very simple and yet very complex. We need to discuss them so they can evolve.

My point was not simply in favor of lingering in a virtual world. It is about recognizing all the possibilities for gaming. The opposition between action and contemplation is just one aspect. See this game, for example: Wait (http://www.criticalgameplay.com/wait.html). Lindsay Grace makes extraordinary games, in my opinion. What is boring to you may be fun to me. What is fun to you may be boring to me.

Sure, poor Mary if we all loved her. But even in Wait players are rewarded for doing something, although I agree that the concept is cool.
But what about this game? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_X73jATbOI) Can't you feel the magic? The game is beautiful!

Funny you say my opinion is philosophical as well because in fact you're more academic than philosophical, in my opinion. (I'm sounding like the wizard from HQ). Trying to explore all the possibilities for gaming is okay and interesting and probably crucial to evolve, but striping genre games from their "classic" features is like taking the Mona Lisa from the Louvre. Or worse, it's like watching modern art for more than 2 hours without laughing.

Other thing I do not agree

Spoiler

mas percebo porque és Brasileiro :)

[close]

is to insert love into the equation. Scientists and Programmers may not be the greatest persons to explain love. I'd say poets are but unfortunately they rarely make video games! ;)

:-D

Here is another pearl for you to laugh on: I think programmers and game designers are not the best persons to explain what game is. They just make it happen... (http://facepalmgames.com/the-swapper/)

Hey, no one here wants to strip genres from their classic features, so relax. I'm not your enemy.

Yeah, modern art, who gets it? What about those kids playing with computers? How crazy is that? We all know REAL games are cardboard games, right?

Love is just the last refuge of the primitive.

But no, I'm cool about this debate, sorry if I sounded aggressive, it's just my poorly written sentences that cause that impression.
I'll let it rest for a while so that others may join into this very interesting debate and so that I can actually do some work on a game! :=

I think everyone can agree that the narrative forms an important part of what an adventure game is. I don't think it forms a necessary part of what a "game" is, though. Certainly, I feel much more fulfilled when I play a game with a strong narrative, but I don't think it constitutes a necessary part of what a game is.
Janos, I cannot find this academic paper of yours (and probably wouldn't have the willpower to read it if I did :P), so perhaps you can summarise for me what a game is, according to you? As far as I've read in this thread, you haven't said.

I do believe that a game can be an incredibly effective means of telling a story, though, yeah, but I wouldn't consider it a very effective game (or a good use of the medium) if it didn't use the framework and elements of interactivity for something more complex than what could be reduced to "Press button to continue story"- in that case, you may as well have written a book or made a cartoon.

PS: I have no idea about Juuls and Zimmermans and Simons. The limits of my education in Philosophy is Sophie's World :(.

Hi Babar,

I understand your point. I don't think narrative constitutes a necessary part of what a game is. The same is valid for fun, interactivity, rules, variable/quantifiable outcomes, challenges, etc.

My paper is not published yet. It is being evaluated. I wish I could summarize what a game is to me, but I can't. The best I can do is to question what theorists say a game is, and have some idea of what a game is not.

I may be incredibly wrong about that, but in this case I would like to be corrected. Here goes:

Games don't have to be fun. They don't have to take you away from reality. They can do that, but they can also do the opposite. They can bring your attention to very serious aspects of reality. Games don't have to be specially challenging or interactive. They can be as challenging as a bottle of wine, and as interactive as a light switch. They don't have to give you more freedom or goals than any other action too. They can be completely straightforward or completely open ended. Games don't rely on rules more than any other human creation. Rules are, in fact, in the eye of the beholder. In the same manner, everything can be seen as something with variable and quantifiable results. Your brain can categorize and quantify and attribute value to anything. You can feel connected to every single thing in the world. And finally, a game can have real life consequences, like Lose/Lose (http://www.stfj.net/art/2009/loselose/) by Zach Gage.

Games don't have to be anything in particular. Like art, what sets games apart from other human creations is a mystery, not an objective fact. Social conventions help us using the word “game” in a practical way, but they can't be used to impose gameness.

Imagine you start playing a game that you don't know anything about. You first spend some time in the menu, and then you start a new game. A cinematic intro begins to play. You get excited, the games looks awesome. You can't wait to start playing, but the cinematic intro is taking too long. It's telling a very long story. It is a very good one, but a very long one. It introduces a lot of characters, and shows the protagonist making a lot of important decisions, and overcoming a lot of obstacles, and you start asking when you will be able to do all those things too.

Then a friend enters the room and asks what you doing. You say you are playing a game. He says: No, you are just watching this cinematic for half an hour. And you say: The game will start at any moment now. Then you wait, and you wait, and you wait. The cinematic is great, very exciting, you feel like watching a very good movie. Your friends come and invite you to play another game, but you want to play this game, so you refuse. Then, suddenly, it all comes to a climax, the story comes to an ending, the protagonist faces the final challenge, and his victory is memorable. The screen fades out. You can see two sentences fading in: “The End. Thank you for playing”. Then the game goes back to the initial menu. You are skeptical. You choose the “New Game” option again. Nothing changes. You faint.

You feel cheated. You feel the game is a lie. Then you enter the game's forum. People are discussing what the point of the game is. There are comments about the game mechanic, the strategies to complete the game, and so on. You say it is not a game, but you get something like that as a response: it is a game, you just don't know to play it!

Now imagine this is really a game. Imagine there are things you can do while watching the cinematic that changes the result of the game, according to a system of rules, with quantifiable results, and so on... But you decide not to change anything: you like the game exactly how it plays without your interference. Your friends insist you are not playing because you are not interacting with anything, but you disagree. They say it's not a game because it is not fun if you don't have a challenge, and they try to convince you to do something different. But you think that your “challenge” is not to interfere. Doing nothing is a valid form of interaction too, you argue.

Now imagine a very advanced game. One that reads your mind and that you can control with your thoughts. You only need to use your brain to complete the game. Now imagine you are reading a book, and I can somehow block the neural signs that connect the story together in your memory. So you can understand every word and sentence you read, but not the story. You can read the book to the end, but you have no idea what it is about. What is the difference between the “interaction” in the first case and in the second case?

This probably sounds ridicule, but the hero is incapable of killing the dragon without a reader. He can't kill it in the book, you have to make him kill it in your brain. The book only gives you a "formal system of rules" to make it happen. What happens exactly depends a lot on the reader. You can read The Trial by Franz Kafka many times, and it will be a completely different experience depending on what you imagine the trial is about. You may argue I'm going too far. Sorry about that.

P.S. There is a hidden link in one of my posts that points to a very good game I think you all should play.

I dunno. In that case, again, I'd say it is a good story, but not a very good game (your cinematic example thing). Sounds like the intro to a Final Fantasy game (X, maybe? :D), minus the "good" part. My enjoyment of the story wouldn't really change what it is (to me).

The problem with defining something by what it is not, is that you can find edge cases, chip away, find more edge cases on those edge cases, chip away more, etc., until you're left with nothing at all, and everything. Everything in existence COULD be a game, somehow. But it isn't. You could apply that ambiguity in defining to literally anything ("What's a dog?"). Personally, I don't believe that "what sets games apart from other human creations is a mystery".
Sure, it may be different according to who is playing, in that the rules are man-made, so you can make them too (My self-imposed rules for a playthrough of Hitman might make for a different experience than someone else's play of Hitman). In your example case, my initial experience with your example "game" wouldn't have it as a game at all.

Now to be clear, I don't consider this a BAD thing. If something is not a game, it doesn't make it worse for me, I don't think less of it.

I think Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is a great movie. The story is cool too. I don't believe it to be a game, though. If I had it on simultaneously with a friend, and at the end of every scene, we'd both roll dice, and skip forward the number of minutes shown until someone reached the end, that might be a game (a pretty boring one), but it wouldn't really be Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade anymore.

Exactly. Yours is a very reasonable position. What I has trying to demonstrate is that we don't understand games by what they are alone. We understand games by applying a value judgement. What is the value system behind what makes someone, like Chris Crawford or Jesper Juul, think that the "power" of games is X or Y?

My examples were only to show that defining games is still connected with defining what makes one game "better" than another. Maybe this happens with every concept, but I think games are a special case, mostly because computer games are still a very recent phenomenon. We don't have so much theory on gaming as we have on literature, for example. (Other important detail is that computer games were born on a very different society than books were born. They were already born as commodities, and only later claimed to be art.)

Ralph Koster, for example, says that "fun" is nothing but a biological feedback mechanism, generated by the brain, which releases chemical rewards for successful employment of survival tactics. Can you guess what I think of it? Well, based on that, he then suggests the story is just a "side dish" in a game. It is there just do deceive the brain into thinking that it is doing more than what it is actually doing, like Miguel said. The story is almost like the wrapping of the real thing. See the problem here? It goes way beyond game theory.

Weston has a different opinion. He says the story and the interaction always go together, and that you can't separate them. It is a moderate position. My examples are here to complicate things a little bit for him, not because I totally disagree.

There is a third position in which the story is the real content of a game, and the rules or whatever are just a frame. I only tend to "defend" this point of view because I think it has been shunned. What I really think is that gaming possibilities must be opened more and more, not closed to what the market says is good.

Quote from: janosbiro on Tue 15/04/2014 14:13:26
Games don't have to be anything in particular. Like art, what sets games apart from other human creations is a mystery, not an objective fact. Social conventions help us using the word “game” in a practical way, but they can't be used to impose gameness.

For my money, this is where that whole way of thinking falls down.

I would think that social conventions are and should be used to imposed "gameness". By way of analogy if I am on a bus it may only be social convention that names it a bus rather than a car and I could try and define my own properties of what a car is which would include the bus. However this approach cannot be valid as it is only social convention that has defined the names and properties in the first place and that is the reference point which must be used.

Questioning whether society is correct in its names and definitions for buses and cars is (aside from being a waste of time) based on an invalid assumption, that cars and buses are entities (or concepts or whatever) in themselves that humanity has described - possibly incorrectly. That assumption is not valid because the cars and buses derive from human creation, naming and definitions (although definitions may be impled rather than express). They are what they are because we have created and defined them through social convention.

Your example of art is a good one for a concept which might be said to be beyond that and a phenomenon that people describe, possibly incorrectly. Other examples would be emotions such as happiness. They were not created by humans but are something experienced by all (comparatively at least) and therefore if we try to define "art" or "happiness" we may well get it wrong.

Games - in terms of video games at least - fall into the bus/car category. They are created by humans and defined by social convention. Therefore social convention is exactly the thing that should (and does in my opinion) impose "gameness" on a suspected game (if I can put it like that).

To try and force a definition outside of this (although theoretically quite interesting) is to say games are a concept in themselves without human creation or control, which they are not in my view.

[/personal opinion]

Intense Degree,

Nice comment. I just don't understand why you say "for my money" in the beginning...

Let me just say that your opinion is not just a personal opinion. It is an informed critique and a valid argument.

Maybe I couldn't express it very well, but I was not saying that the concept of game, or any other concept, is above the social conventions. I do not think that games are things "in themselves". What I said was the opposite of that. Let me try to rephrase this way: Social conventions allow us to define games, but when a given definition is used by a group of people to promote some games and exclude others, that is not a merely theoretical question anymore. It becomes a political question. I support the fight of some independent game designers to make their games be recognized as such. But I see where this is heading. Some people may be afraid that, if we open the concept too much, it will escalate into chaos and madness very quickly, and it will be taken by opportunists who will to destroy the game industry. Ludologists are, in this case, acting like a "game police", that seeks to impose order using clearly defined concepts. You see, the problem is not the social conventions per se, but a very strict position trying to pose as the only valid "social convention" for games, in a foucauldian way.

I personally am okay with saying that games are human creations. That means we are using a different concept of game than that used in the mathematical game theory, and I agree with games studies on that. It also means gods cannot play with you (just a theological joke, forget it). But if you open the Homo Ludens, by Johan Huizinga, there you see him saying that puppies play games with each other, that gaming predates humanity, and that gaming is a basic kind of social interaction that helped us to create social rules, and in fact, games helped us to become human! (Therefore, we are homo ludens). Even if you state that you are talking only about video games, the question remains: aren't video games just a modern way to play games, just like puppies play? So, as much as I think it is very fair to say that games are nothing but human creations, your personal view is not enough to dispense the hypothesis. You must have a reason to think like that. May be a theoretical or a practical reason, but it still needs to be communicated in words to be valid in a discussion, don't you think?

But a game that would involve and grasp every concept there is and was and a game that doesn't have any concept or purpose at all is a lost cause. There's no fear of such a game because people like simple rules and goals on their games, and people who dig complex (flight simulators) rules are but a minority, and even still there is a limit to where a commercial game can go.
The way I see it there's no police or elite corporation to define genres, and games (from all genres) haven't been this good. We can, for instance, critique adventure games and pick from a list of them, while some years ago the genre was dead.
In fact, I think gamers are much more educated on what to buy and that made the overall quality of games to rise.

Quote from: Intense Degree on Wed 16/04/2014 16:10:07That assumption is not valid because the cars and buses derive from human creation, naming and definitions (although definitions may be impled rather than express). They are what they are because we have created and defined them through social convention.

Symbolic Interactionism. Didn't expect to see that one pop up here.

Miguel, I think I lost track of what you saying. Who defines what people like? Game industry is like any other industry. If you think that a industry this size simply bows down to what people like, well, you are free to believe in anything. But I don't see any rational reason to believe in that, specially when I see so many talents being left behind because of some stupid "not a game" label. Maybe you can give me a good reason to relax. I really wanted to be more optimist about the future of gaming. But I think you will excuse me if I ask for something more "consistent" than your word.

QuoteSymbolic Interactionism. Didn't expect to see that one pop up here.

Yeah, it shows up when you least expect it. But when it does, ironically, it usually shows up as a universal truth...

I always enjoy reading these discussions and then feel bad for not taking much part apart from reading.

But here I have something!

Quote from: janosbiro on Thu 17/04/2014 01:18:44
Who defines what people like? Game industry is like any other industry. If you think that a industry this size simply bows down to what people like, well, you are free to believe in anything.

Industry or not, games (all games, but video games especially because they are already based on real-world games) are subject to the old creativity paradox: It is impossible to create something truly new, but still we do.

Back in the golden age of video games you could come up with a video game that had not been done before, but even those were based on ideas that have been around somewhere else. Eventually genres solidified. Then genres were mixed- again, "new" games were made out of established elements. That's how it works: All the elements are there, have probably always been there, ingrained in our culture. We're just shuffling the bits around and tweak them a little, and call it "new".

And that is it- we are in fact playing the very same games for ages now. Apart from the medium there is little difference between Minecraft and a box of LEGO, The Sims or a collection of dolls to play with, an FPS game and kids pointing their fingers at each other shouting Bang bang. If nothing else any adventure game is like a little bit of escapism. "I'll be the hero wannabe pirate, okay, and you can be... yes, you are the evil LeChuck, now let's imagine what'll happen..."

The "industry" clearly is a factor. Games make money, people like money, so they make games that sell and even do their bit to steer the masses. But that can never last forever, and even without anything like the Big Video Game Crash back then repeating itself, the industry sells and thus needs customers. They can pander to the customer, they can influence the customer, but they can never be without the customer and that does give "the industry" less power than it may (or may not) like. It is absolutely possible for the customers to take an active part in what hits the shelves.
Take the "indy scene". It took away power from the mainstream industry (when it had become properly fat and greedy) by becoming another industry.
And that will happen again once the indy scene has grown fat and greedy.

"Game crazes" always start with a forerunner, an establisher, a lot of clones, then oversaturation and then evolution into something else. And since nothing new can be created, the same things will always, in a way, find their way back into the world.
I find that somewhat comforting, actually.

Ghost,

Let me try to understand your beliefs: There is a natural cycle in the big business that will go on forever. The relation between industry and costumer will always find a natural equilibrium, and there is nothing to worry about. Things will eventually go wrong, but then they will naturally go back to balance. It's evolution, baby (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDaOgu2CQtI).

Yeah, that brings a lot of comfort, if only it was truth. I wish I could take part on that religion, but I don't have enough faith in that god. What I mean is that we have very distant political positions, and this is a political question.

There is a very good documentary about Interactive Fiction, Get Lamp (http://www.getlamp.com/). Right in the beginning, you can see a man talking about the sudden disappearance of the IF industry. It was the future of gaming in one year, and a forgotten art in the next. But why am I bringing this subject? You found comfort and I am feeling obnoxious. If everything is fine, I guess I have nothing else to say.

Ghost's last paragraph is a accurate portrait of how things go, in my opinion. And yes, because somebody, somehow, will always find a way to "refresh" some old ideas, I feel "safe" about being able to play good, diverse games for the end of my life.

I am generally against conspiracy theories and you're (Janos) claiming that some games aren't being given a chance because they don't fall down on any genre. Well, there's nothing to be surprised here, it's the same with any other form of art.
To be honest I've never seen the indie gaming scene so alive than now. There's hundreds of places to promote and showcase indie games and to indie devs to share ideas and concepts.

Concepts that major companies seek like gold, believe me. There was never a better time before for the indie dev to "sell" his ideas and games.
I'm okay when you consider me optimistic but then you're sounding like some herald of doom, Janos. These are "happy" times and not the contrary. You can finish a AGS game today and if it's good enough you can have it being played by thousands of people tomorrow. And there's no "evil" industry telling you what your game should be.

Quote from: janosbiro on Thu 17/04/2014 10:01:47
Let me try to understand your beliefs: There is a natural cycle in the big business that will go on forever. The relation between industry and costumer will always find a natural equilibrium, and there is nothing to worry about.

This is mostly my belief, yes. It's not a natural cycle though, it's a man-made cycle powered by elements that nature does not usually employ.

I know my IF inside out, Janis, and even as we have this discussion IF is very much alive, being subjected to studies, powering a couple of highly interesting approaches to software design and still being written and played by many people. In the same way that adventure games are "still alive" (though not a huge player in the commercial sense) IF can't die because it is merely one shape of the age-old desire of man to tell and experience stories. Escapism, playing with ideas, exploring stuff in a "fun environment", that's never going to disappear, no matter WHAT we call it.
THAT'S my comfort.

[edit]

Quote from: janosbiro on Thu 17/04/2014 10:01:47
Yeah, that brings a lot of comfort, if only it was truth.

That sentence sounds like you imply to know the truth, so you know what's right and I am wrong.

I read that as "Ghost, you believe something, but it is wrong. And I know what's right so I can't get the comfort you get from it."
Or: "You're wrong. I'm right."

I think we're merely at a clash of words here though. As in any discussion there are opinions and yours is different from mine (thus allowing a discussion in the first place). Is it possible to absolutely prove me wrong when I say "Games have been around for almost as long as humanity, new games are based on old games, and as long as people are around playing games, games will be played by humans?"
I think not.

Quote from: janosbiro on Thu 17/04/2014 10:01:47
I wish I could take part on that religion, but I don't have enough faith in that god.

Religion has no part in that. It's just an opinion. :)

I agree that it's the same with any other form of art and that the indie gaming scene has never been so alive than now. What I don't believe is that we can relax and assume that someone, somehow, will always find a way out of any problem that may come. I can't do that because I see no good reason to do that, and not because I want to promote paranoia. I guess the real cause of this discussion is that we have very distant world views.

I was not saying that you are absolutely wrong. I said I can't see how this can be true. From my point of view, things may superficially look good while internally things are getting worse, like a snake eating it's own tail. Sorry about comparing it with religion, but religion to me is to believe in something without rational explanation, and I see no reason to believe in this portrait of a naturally balanced (though man-made) cycle. My idea probably looks madness to you too. But you are the one saying that things work this way. Well, I don't have to prove you are wrong. You are the one that needs to show me a good reason to think that way. Because when I look at history, I see people thinking in a similar way, and they were almost always wrong.

The question is not survival of the minor, but the overgrowth of the major. Yes, we will keep playing all kinds of games. The problem is that the major players dictates the rules of the game. Here, let me give you a real example:

See this comment on Steam about 9.03m, a short charity game about the tsunami disaster in Japan:

QuoteLook, I'm all for supporting charity and a good cause. Especially when I get a game for doing so, I donate at least a hundred dollars every year in total to Humble Bundle sales alone. This "game" though, if it wasn't 1.99 I'd have asked for a refund. It's too short even for such a low price tag. I was expecting something with a little more substance, instead you click on 7 items and the game is over.

I understand that this is supposed to be somebody's "deep" artistic vision and a way to honor those who lost their lives during the Tsnumai and that's fine but don't tout this as a game in any respect because it's not one. I was hoping for a Stanely Parable/Dear Esther/Coming Home kind of deal. You get none of that. You can "beat" the game in as little as 5 minutes.

Here you can see the whole problem: “too short”, “too artsy” and “not a game”.

When people expect to get satisfied as a consumer, getting the maximum fun for the minimum price, they become incapable of enjoying all the other things you can do with a game. So, while there was never a better time before for indie ideas and games, there was also never so much insensibility and intolerance than now. And it is growing everyday. Shall we pretend it is not there and just let it roll? Can we still think of games as art that way?

Quote from: janosbiro on Thu 17/04/2014 15:35:20
Well, I don't have to prove you are wrong. You are the one that needs to show me a good reason to think that way.

But that would require me wanting to convince you (or anyone following the discussion). I think I did not make that clear- I was just stating a personal opinion, though in my eye some facts are clearly in my favour. That's why I really like these threads, they discuss. You come in, see points of view, maybe discover your own or take a side but ultimately you're not pushed into joining Team X.
If this were an argument I'd be hell-bent to convince you with big words and plenty of punctuation ;-D. But it isn't and I don't; your opinion is as valid as mine.

This may sound lazy- "Oh he's just tossing something in and won't defend it, boo" ;) but that's how I roll.

Things are, of course, not "always good" and it would be silly to assume someone else will eventually solve it, but I really believe that games, being man-made, are fully governed by a few typically human modes of operation. Your average middle class first world citizen has little to worry about and that allows him to seek out entertainment. Games are a form of entertainment that's readily available: Safe environment, fun, diverse entertainment, all there. Video games even double on the safe environment. So they are consumed and become a given thing. Something that is "new" then becomes more interesting, initially, but it may or may not catch on. If it catches on, it has good chances of becoming a standard, thereby familiar, thereby making room for the next "new" thing.

I approach things from a different perspective than you and I don't have the essays to back me up ( ;) )but in the end we're all human and humans like to play. And even rules are a form of game. The minute I set down a rule, guess what happens? The rule will be broken. Infallibly. And sometimes the broken rule is more FUN.

About the majority overgrowth thing, yes. That is noticeable. Now. Maybe it's just a trend that will collapse and make room for more diversity. Maybe my kids WILL only play Sims 4 and Ghost Of Duty because that's all there is (and Pokemon). I remain relaxed because as I see it every clone, every mainstream carbon copy of Formula X tests this formula against a huge audience, and that audience does react. Not always in the way we want and not always fast. But reacting it does.

There's a large number of games that failed to raise money or become really really popular while they still remain important and beloved to their players. System Shock never sold well. Beyond Good And Evil flopped. Anachronox had no chance to make even. People refuse to use the 3D switch on their 3DS. Curling is usually laughed at.
Doesn't matter, they were there and were played and they planted a seed. (nod)

edit
----
This all leads away from the original ludological theory maybe, but I think it remains important. :undecided:

Yeah, I guess you're right. I just don't trust humans. They always ruin good stuff. :-\

Quote from: janosbiro on Thu 17/04/2014 15:35:20
See this comment on Steam about 9.03m, a short charity game about the tsunami disaster in Japan:

QuoteLook, I'm all for supporting charity and a good cause. Especially when I get a game for doing so, I donate at least a hundred dollars every year in total to Humble Bundle sales alone. This "game" though, if it wasn't 1.99 I'd have asked for a refund. It's too short even for such a low price tag. I was expecting something with a little more substance, instead you click on 7 items and the game is over.

I understand that this is supposed to be somebody's "deep" artistic vision and a way to honor those who lost their lives during the Tsnumai and that's fine but don't tout this as a game in any respect because it's not one. I was hoping for a Stanely Parable/Dear Esther/Coming Home kind of deal. You get none of that. You can "beat" the game in as little as 5 minutes.

Here you can see the whole problem: “too short”, “too artsy” and “not a game”.

That person was not the target audience.  Players of games are devotees to and critics of many genres, just as people have been with other art forms.  Personally, I don't like country music.  If I were to buy a bundle of music tracks, and there was a deep, meaningful, but short country song in the mix, I would likely be disappointed by it (even if it was incredibly cheap).  I might even be tempted to make a public criticism in reaction.  That does not invalidate the song, nor does it make it any less a piece of music.

Speaking of genre, I'll back up Ghost and say that art in many forms has had popular movements, and they continue to inspire the next big movement.  In painting, Impressionism was a reaction to the typical portraits and landscapes of the time.  It was criticized early on, but gained a large following over time.  Impressionism eventually led to post-Impressionism and Expressionism, among others.  This article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_periods) outlines the many periods of popular painting and art.  In the article, you'll find links to Dada and other popular movements which originally had critics claiming that it was not art.

In music, let's use Hard Rock as an example.  It has its origins in Blues Rock, Psychedelic Rock, and Rhythm and Blues, and has evolved many times over the years.  There was a time when Progressive Rock was the most popular genre of Hard Rock, and that was followed by Hair (Glam) Metal.  In reaction to that sound, a small movement called Grunge began.  This movement eventually grew to become the most prominent form of Hard Rock.  In fact, it was among the most popular forms of any music during its time, despite the claims by many that is simply sounded like noise, not at all music.  In reaction to this American creation, the British began a Britpop movement.  This (http://research.google.com/bigpicture/music/#) is a fantastic resource to help understand the ways that genres change over time.  I'll go on to mention Rap music.  Many people were critical of early rappers, claiming that the vocalists were simply speaking rather than singing, and that it lacked a talent in singing.  Today, many of the most popular musicians in the world are Rap artists.

I know that all seems irrelevant, but I feel that it is directly related to the conversation at hand.  Many genres of popular art have had to struggle against the critics and detractors, but eventually gained in popularity, and over time evolved into new genres in a continuing cycle.

Interesting discussion..
which I dare not participate in..

But I will direct your attention to THIS VIDEO (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e5jDspIC4hY)

Life is a game!

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?

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)

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.

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.

(http://i.imgur.com/0WA36Vo.jpg)
Never cheases to amaze me.

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

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.

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.

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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ-Upb4Szms)".

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.

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.

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?

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.

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;

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.

Quote from: janosbiro on Sun 20/04/2014 20:09:08
Allow me to introduce you to a metaphor called "The ship of fools (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ-Upb4Szms)".

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego), 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Pratchett)

__
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? ;)

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 (http://db.tigsource.com/games/execution)? 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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

Quote from: Ghost on Mon 21/04/2014 11:39:59
I am also extremely sure that nothing is created perfect in the first place.

...
_
edited some typos away.

;-D

Ghost,

QuoteIf I have one perfectly fine axe, why should I go and invent a chainsaw?

Exactly! It's amazing how you value progress! I wonder if everybody here thinks this way or you excel among them. No joking, I'm really curious. I find it a fascinating cultural trait, but it is almost alien to other cultures. In their view, trying to "improve" things is the original sin, the root of all evil, the cause of all destruction. In some cultures, people don't even invent stuff. They are taught new techniques by talking animals or trees, they create art inspired by spirits, and other things just fall from the sky as divine gifts. In any case, there is no "trial and error" and no "constant improvement". Things change so slow that people don't even remember how it was before, so it is like it was always this way, like nothing ever changed. Nature creates, humans just imitate, because humans are inherently flawed. They are nasty little things who can only give names to everything. True creativity is a divine attribute, no human can really create anything. If the axe wasn't perfectly fine, we would have died of starvation eons ago. If we survived, we don't need anything else. On the other hand, a more efficient tool would unbalance our relation with nature and ultimately destroy us all. Like this: Caveman Science Fiction (http://dresdencodak.com/2009/09/22/caveman-science-fiction/) :-D

Now this belief (allow me to call a belief) of yours, it is really Bacon's fault. :-D

Francis Bacon said nature is like a witch that needs to be tortured so we can extract her secrets and use it as science. Modern science evolved from demonology during the inquisition. But enough about that. Consider it just an amusement. Let's go back to topic.

I have no argument against "more is not a bad thing". I would vote for less, but I know it could never win.


Snarky,

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

Really? What about all I've said about individual tastes? Okay, let me correct: Just because I (or any individual) don't like it doesn't mean it is crap.

Can we define what is crap? I will try: Being crap has nothing to do with individual taste, it is about how a game is made. An indie game designer could say a crappy game is a game without soul, made for money, made without love, by people who would never play it. So many people, in fact, that they don't even recognize the final product. Or a bugged, unfinished game that crashes your computer. It is, above all, just another product of wage slavery. But crap today must be redefined. Many indie games are crap for different reasons. Those indies who want to be so "professional" that they are really just a small copy of a big business... No one really likes crap games, except maybe the makers best friends or people who just drool on any "pro-looking" indie. "Hey, we made a game and we won awards and we making money". So what? It is so "pro" that is exactly like that commercially successful game, but with new cool features. Yeah, you are a good game improver. Congratulations, you can make less crappy games. But no offense, all my games are crap. One could say that they are games in the same way that models are buildings. I'm not thinking about any AGS game. Most AGS games I played are really, really great games.

Yeah, I hear that "myth of the noble savage" accusation a lot. People often use it to defend civilization from anything good that we can say about "primitive" people. After all, we all know those uncultured beasts are much worst than we are, right? We also have the "myth of the nobler civilized man". I bet you took me as a romantic without thinking twice. You fail to see that it is impossible for these cultures to create so much garbage because they mostly don't welcome any new things, they simply pass on traditional knowledge to the next generations, with very few adaptations if something important changes in their general situation. I said those stories are masterpieces because they stay alive for a very long time. They are not substituted by a better one every week, and they are certainly not mass produced. That includes jokes. That's why we find them very boring.


Miguel,

Aha! But why wouldn't you consider it a game? Doesn't it qualifies according to your criterion? Maybe is not a game you would want to make, but that only means it is not a good game to you. I think it's awesome! It shows how games change the way we think. It shows that, when faced with only one option that we don't want to make, we can choose not to play. It makes me think a lot. I hate obscure cult movies. This is not obscure at all.

QuoteDid you never played cowboys and indians, Janos?

No.

QuoteAnd 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.

I'm so glad you mentioned that! Please explain me why MORE jobs are good, in the first place. And why do you relate that with feeding families? Making games does not produces any food, it consumes food! It's a very weird concept. Why consumers need MORE silly options? Are the current options that bad? Why would someone force families to work on MORE unnecessary options instead of growing food?


Sunny Penguin,

I'm talking about 100.000 to 200.000 years. :-D

Yeah, you can laugh, but I'm serious. Civilization did a great job diminishing the problems itself created, as long as someone can profit from it. First, it created patriarchy, and then after treating women like inferiors for thousands of years, it discovers that they are equal to men just in time to get they to work to support the war, since men are busy killing each other. It creates slavery and after building all the great cities with forced work, frees the slaves so they can compete for very low paid jobs. It creates the ideal situation for dictatorships, and then overthrows them to make space for more Mac Donalds. It destroys the traditional wisdom of the people and them gives them "free speech", so they can tell each other how empty they are. Do you think the situation is better when we need to take pills to make life bearable?

I'm talking about that people in the Fertile Crescent that created the idea of territory conquest, and then spread around the globe killing and slavering all the other people. I call it simply civilization, but you can call it any name you want. But let's really, really move this subject to another place, can we?

QuoteWhen was making video games not about business?

Whenever you want to. I know many people who make completely free games.

QuoteMoney makes the world go around and people need to make a living.

Yeah, I just can't understand why submit your life to the dictatorship of money.

QuoteIf 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'?

No. If someone prefers to be a rock star rather then cleaning toilets, does that make them less 'honorable'? It is not a question of honor. If someone prefers to work for money and make games for free, does that make them less 'honorable'? I guess the question is: Do you know anyone that works in a fast food joint or sweeps the floor in some factory for the love of it, or for free? The conclusion is that working with something you love is the real elitism. The only thing that encourages you to be creative is money? Making games is for everyone, but games don't make food nor sweep the floor. And games are very expensive too. Why would they work so hard to buy games if they can make great games for themselves (for free)?

QuoteIf you don't like a game then don't play it.

It's not about individual taste, see above.

QuoteIf 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.

Really? Well, thanks for the support.

QuoteOr even become a game critic and sway peoples opinions to change the market.

Thanks again...

Quotebut I can't agree with you that 'civilisation and games' are moving in the wrong direction

But I don't even began to give my reasons to believe that... :-D

.

Janos: Glad to get a smile out of you there or at least some exclamation marks... I just have no idea if you got me right or if you're delivering some kick-ass sarcasm there.
Blame it on the forums being text-only :)

I wouldn't say I value progress religiously. It's just something that happens. We live and learn. There's always a new idea, something to play around with. I guess it's just what humans do because frankly, it's the only thing we really do outstandingly WELL.

My point: Perfection is the death of creativity. Fortunately it is impossible to have something perfected*. One perfect "anything" would have to be accepted as perfect by everyone on the planet, as the best there is, as the must-have for everyone, and it would be without fault and failure.
If John Everyman would create the perfect Match-3 game, no-one ever would have to make another one. Because it would be the only Match-3 game everyone will ever want to play, and nobody would want to even try another one because the perfect one is already there. Interestingly, even people who HATE Match-3 games would have to objectively admit that it is perfect and it's really THEIR FAULT that they do not like it.
That would be terrible because no-one would ever make a new Match-3 game. And maybe everyone who hates Match-3 will be considered an outlaw.
But it's also not possible to ever get such a game. Can't be done. And that's exactly the reason who no game ever will get that 10/10 rating.

__
* Okay, there are perfect angles in math and stuff. But that's not concrete. You can't make them in real life.

Quote from: janosbiro on Mon 21/04/2014 17:04:41
In some cultures, people don't even invent stuff. They are taught new techniques by talking animals or trees, they create art inspired by spirits, and other things just fall from the sky as divine gifts.

They DID invent the talking animals, chatty trees, spirits and divine beings- I'd call that quite a lot of original thought.

Quote from: janosbiro on Mon 21/04/2014 17:04:41
I'm so glad you mentioned that! Please explain me why MORE jobs are good, in the first place. And why do you relate that with feeding families? Making games does not produces any food, it consumes food! It's a very weird concept.

I will take that word-by-word. Making games does not produce food. It creates something intended to buy food. It is a means of making a living if you are not doing it for free. It's a bit like, you know, working every day to get a paycheck at the end of the month. Quite a lot of people do that. I am sure I can provide a reliable quote.

Quote from: Sunny Penguin on Mon 21/04/2014 18:47:15
It's only been 50,000 years since people developed the use of language and tools so when exactly did it go "wrong" in this time?

Fun fact: Our language has originally been invented to tell the other ape where the good fruits are. :-D

__
EDIT:
I wrote "umpossuble". Ridiculous!

QuoteFun fact: Our language has originally been invented to tell the other ape where the good fruits are.

I disagree. Our language as such was not invented. It's an inherent feature of the species (see Chomsky's theories lol). In any case, it was not the apes who developed the language but homo sapiens. Also, it might have developed to allow one human to say to the other "scratch me right there below the shoulder blade".

I would certainly not tell any random ape/human about the good food. It's all about survival. Logic would say that I would let my family know about it but no strangers. Also, I would be very territorial about it. But obviously that's another debate entirely.

Quote from: Sunny Penguin on Mon 21/04/2014 20:04:56
I disagree [snip] monkey [snip] homo sapiens [snip] quote[snip] logic [snip]

Yeah but it was such a great quote! Gimme that, at least! :-D

Sorry for off-topic, back to business.

Quote from: Ghost on Mon 21/04/2014 20:30:50

Quote from: Sunny Penguin on Mon 21/04/2014 20:04:56
I disagree [snip] monkey [snip] homo sapiens [snip] quote[snip] logic [snip]

Yeah but it was such a great quote! Gimme that, at least! :-D

Sorry for off-topic, back to business.

Ghost, I love you. Let us forget this nonsense and rejoice! (laugh)

Janos, about the game you linked: you found it strange that I gave a negative opinion or you wanted my opinion to match yours?
You also say

QuoteI think it's awesome! It shows how games change the way we think.

. Well, honestly, the game didn't change the way I think, not even for a moment. I'd never shoot a man because I'm perfectly aware of the consequences. I shoot 35472 enemies to complete a game if I have to.
Like I said, the game was surprising in the way it backfires on the player. But it is very depressing dude.

No cowboys and indians, really? You never played like you were Bruce Lee or a super hero? That just sucks.

QuotePlease explain me why MORE jobs are good, in the first place. And why do you relate that with feeding families?

Are you serious? Do you work, Janos?

QuoteWhy would someone force families to work on MORE unnecessary options instead of growing food?

Huh? People search for available jobs, if agriculture pays well they'll do it. The same with game making.
If there's a lot of oranges in the market but still some land owner pays me to pick oranges, I'll do it. It doesn't matter if I think that Bananas are more necessary than oranges.

So apparently what's wrong with the trend in modern video games is that man discovered fire. In other words, the discussion is utterly pointless.

The only thing I'm curious about: janosbiro, do you really believe the things you're writing, or is this just a kind of sophomoric "for the sake of argument" ploy? Because the way you fall back on grand statements of human nature as gospel truth (rather than just interesting ideas worth considering) sounds to me more like an exercise in hearing yourself talk than like a deeply felt and lived philosophy.

Sunny Penguin,

My answer in this topic (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=50370.0).


Ghost,

Yeah, I like you! I feel like "how in the world can someone think like that?!" about you and others, but not in bad way. I bet it must be mutual.

I guess even what defines us as human, or what we do best, varies from culture to culture.

Perfection is a concept I have a really hard time to understand. What you said makes sense, but... Nevermind, it's a perfect definition! :-D

QuoteThey DID invent the talking animals, chatty trees, spirits and divine beings- I'd call that quite a lot of original thought.

Well, that's what YOU think. They might think that you see those things as "inventions" because you can't see the truth, probably because you are possessed by an evil spirit. :-D

QuoteIt's a bit like, you know, working every day to get a paycheck at the end of the month. Quite a lot of people do that. I am sure I can provide a reliable quote.

Okay, but we were originally talking about "why MORE games", and not simply "why games", and Miguel said we need MORE jobs, so I asked why. So the question was not "why jobs", but "why MORE jobs". See, the central question is the "MORE", so don't let it aside, please.


Miguel,

QuoteJanos, about the game you linked: you found it strange that I gave a negative opinion or you wanted my opinion to match yours?

Not at all. It was not negative, you just didn't like it. I just wanted to show you because I think it has everything it needs to be considered a game according to game theory, and yet I sensed that you would say that it is not a game. My opinion is that you just didn't get it.

QuoteWell, honestly, the game didn't change the way I think, not even for a moment.

No, the game shows how OTHER games change the way we think. It's only because you played so many games that are about killing people that you saw no problem in shooting another one, see? It's not depressing, it's art! :-D But I understand we have different tastes.

QuoteNo cowboys and indians, really? You never played like you were Bruce Lee or a super hero? That just sucks.

Wait, I played those kind of games a lot! Just no "cowboys and indians" because pretending you are killing indians here is really, how you say, "depressing". But  G.I. Joe, ThunderCats, He-Man, Dungeons & Dragons and X-Men were all top!

QuoteAre you serious? Do you work, Janos?

Yes and yes. Why?

QuotePeople search for available jobs, if agriculture pays well they'll do it. The same with game making.

I don't get it. Why more GAMES if families are starving? Why not more FOOD? From where will the food come from?


Snarky,

QuoteSo apparently what's wrong with the trend in modern video games is that man discovered fire. In other words, the discussion is utterly pointless.

Well, when you put it that way, it sure looks pointless. But that's not the point. The discussion about games went to the discussion about cultural world views that went to the the discussion about civilization. The point was that the ludological definition of game is culturally restricted. My argument is that they choose to relate games with "rules" instead of "stories" and describe it like a scientist describes the anatomy of a dead bird in a vivisection, because they feared that other entertainment industries could appropriate the gaming industry. That caused a problem defining either games are art. It was just it. But then we gone to culture industry, capitalism, society, and it all got weird, because I happen to have very unusual views about those subjects too, and that seems to interest you more than the topic itself. No problem, just saying.

Quotedo you really believe the things you're writing, or is this just a kind of sophomoric "for the sake of argument" ploy?

I have very unusual ideas, but I'm very confident about the seriousness of what I'm saying, and I know a lot of people who think the same way. I think it's not interesting to you because you expect something very different. But I'm not inventing it, and it is not a joke or something like that. Just uncommon knowledge.

Janos, you're arguing just for the sake of it, and turning every single phrase into philosophical counter measures, but:

QuoteNot at all. It was not negative, you just didn't like it.

Meaning I had a negative opinion. And you'll keep at it until I agree with you, right? But, believe me: It was negative.

Quotethe game shows how OTHER games change the way we think. It's only because you played so many games that are about killing people that you saw no problem in shooting another one, see?

A FPS will rarely change the way I think about anything, it's just me role playing a cool guy that saves the day. And because I thought I was playing a proper game I had no problem shooting.

QuoteIt's not depressing, it's art!

And art can't be depressing? How does unveiling the ludo-logic barrier to the point that the player feels "guilty" about something he wasn't prepared is not depressing?

QuoteJust no "cowboys and indians" because pretending you are killing indians here is really, how you say, "depressing"

Now you're trying to be a smart ass, Janos. And not really answering any questions. You seem intelligent enough to understand what I said.

QuoteI don't get it. Why more GAMES if families are starving? Why not more FOOD? From where will the food come from?

It's not more games, it's more jobs available in the gaming industry. More jobs mean families can pay for their food.
You sincerely don't think that the gaming industry is stopping people from turning into agriculture, right?
People will always buy food and then games and governments will produce food or buy food if it's less expensive. Unless you're a politician with the means to change anything you'll produce food or buy it like everybody else. Yes, it's really almost sinful that some countries don't have a proper meal a day, but if you are really concerned just join the Red Cross or something like that.
Talking here isn't going to solve anything.

And, please, when you mix things like famine with video games the outcome will not be nor rigorous or even coherent.

Miguel,

QuoteJanos, you're arguing just for the sake of it, and turning every single phrase into philosophical counter measures

What can I do to prove that I'm not? Really, I thought you would understand my way of thinking, but it is not happening. I believe that if I try to explain, you will just think I'm arguing for the sake of it, don't you? So there's nothing more I can say...

Quote from: janobiroMy argument is that they choose to relate games with "rules" instead of "stories" and describe it like a scientist describes the anatomy of a dead bird in a vivisection, because they feared that other entertainment industries could appropriate the gaming industry.

If this is your point, what is the issue with it? Everything is restricted by some rules, from every experience emerges a story, even if the story is "I spent 15 hours on this game and finally beat the high score."

What does it matter what "they" think? Games are expression. Daring games that are well made will find their audience, no matter how unconventional. Creating a game is an expression, playing a game means picking which form of expression appeals to you personally. None of this defines how to make an engaging experience at all. Trying to approach game design as a science is like trying to approach storytelling as a science - there are patterns that you can set, but they can change in time. Cart Life did extremely well at the IGF, despite being more daring than any platformer, shooter or adventure game.

I haven't studied ludo-science at all. Played a lot of games, though.

Quote from: ThreeOhFour on Tue 22/04/2014 17:17:36
Played a lot of games, though.

And made games. That means like most of us, you're giving the third-greatest-gift (http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Laughter)*!
I'll be over in my attic making a game now ;)

Okay, if I'm going to continue this conversation, I need to say something first:

I didn't knew “negative” means “don't like it”. I was thinking of something else.

I believe games are culture, and so they change the way we think.

Yes, art can be depressing. I meant it is not just depressing, like it shouldn't have been done.

About “cowboys and indians”, I really didn't understood your question because I'm not used to this expression.

About jobs, I was oversimplifying, but what I meant was: why more jobs in game industry if we already have too much games?

I know I said some very silly things (dead bird in a vivisection, for example). Sorry, it happens.

Now, what's the issue with the definition of game? Well, if what theorists say doesn't matter... I'm sorry. I thought it was relevant. If it is all that simple, let's close the case and do something else, right?

Quote from: janosbiro on Tue 22/04/2014 19:16:34
About jobs, I was oversimplifying, but what I meant was: why more jobs in game industry if we already have too much games?

Ohwait. Here the storyteller in my disagrees. Where does it say we have too many games? I would say games are one of the few products that can be created in (theoretically) infinite number. This applies to most "entertainment media", people will always consume the next movie even if it's "just about the guy getting the girl". People will always buy the next Match-3 even though they already have Bejeweled.
Too many games, really? I don't see that.

__
Edit: And I DID start working on a game too!

Ghost,

In my view, we have too much entertainment. But if you say it's not enough until people stop buying, then, what can I say? Vive la difference!

Quote from: janosbiro on Tue 22/04/2014 20:31:35
In my view, we have too much entertainment.

Yes okay, but WHAT makes you think that? The sentence implies you see a detrimental effect there. Which one?

Quote from: janosbiro on Tue 22/04/2014 20:31:35
But if you say it's not enough until people stop buying, then, what can I say?

I'l lfind out. What makes you so defensive and yet unwilling to drop the subjec? There are four pages of good valid PoVs here, enough to sway a lesser man or at least to admit that the discussion won't reach a conclusion. Yet that quote sounds like another clearing of the throat before the next thing is bad and horrible :-D

Ghost,

QuoteYes okay, but WHAT makes you think that? The sentence implies you see a detrimental effect there. Which one?

Long story. If you really want to know, here is a good intro (http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/post_1.html).

Defensive? Me? No, I was trying to be respectful. Look, if I just ignored you, you wouldn't like it. But I really don't know what else I could say, since all I say is considered petulant. I agree we wont get anywhere like this. I'm okay with leaving it.

Got your point. And also a link. It's a serious one.
It's the Galaxy Song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk).

Quote from: janosbiro on Tue 22/04/2014 19:16:34
I didn't knew “negative” means “don't like it”. I was thinking of something else.

Hahaha :cheesy:

Quote from: janosbiro on Tue 22/04/2014 19:16:34
Yes, art can be depressing. I meant it is not just depressing, like it shouldn't have been done.

Try spending all of your free time on a project, then releasing it and having some asshole on the internet pull it to pieces even though you gave it to them for free. Try spending all of your free time making games to the point where all you ever seem to do is eat, sleep and work. Try seeing a game you're extremely passionate about get ignored while Halo 60 sells a zillion copies. Try pushing Morte into the pillar of skulls in Planescape: Torment.

Games can be depressing, mate.

Quote from: janosbiro on Tue 22/04/2014 19:16:34
About jobs, I was oversimplifying, but what I meant was: why more jobs in game industry if we already have too much games?

Can't answer a question when I disagree with the reasoning for it completely, can I?

Ben Chandler? I a fan of your work! I've played all your games! You are amazing!

Listen, sorry about the confusion, those things you quoted were directed to Miguel. I was just trying to make myself clearer about some points. You took them out of context. My fault, I didn't made it clearer to whom I was talking to. I'm sorry.