Messages

Sunny Penguin,

My answer in this topic.


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!

They 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.

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.

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,

Janos, 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.

Well, 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! But I understand we have different tastes.

No 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!

Are you serious? Do you work, Janos?

Yes and yes. Why?

People 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,

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.

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.

do 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.

This comes from this topic.

Sunny Penguin,

I sense a major cognitive dissonance happening here. First of all, I was not angry at all. Maybe you imagine me angry because you feel I'm attacking something you value. I don't follow conspiracy theories, ufology, mysticism or apocalyptic madness. I've read Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World and I consider myself quite balanced between skepticism and wonder.

If you really wanted to take the high ground what you should have done was answer my questions intelligently with arguments that empowered your views instead of brushing everything I said off as 'laughing at you' and not worth your time - I was being deadly serious and your attitude is insulting. If you are not going to answer this properly, then don't bother answering at all. I do not want to waste more of my time.

I think we are having a big misunderstanding, or maybe a language barrier, but I swear I was trying to answer you the best way I can. I tried to be funny just to avoid being too boring, but I was not joking. I understand that it may look like a joke to you. I may be challenging some very strong assumptions you have. But I never thought my attitude would be considered insulting, really!

I read about civilization critique since 1998, and I discuss it since 2002. It took me 4 years just to take it seriously. I had a lot of long discussions about it. Your reaction is absolutely normal, I've seem questions like yours many times. But I feel that we can talk about this for pages and pages, and still wont be enough to make you comfortable with that idea. Its just a VERY unusual and delicate subject that I would rather not discuss in here. If you are really curious about it we can open another topic. Don't take this as an insult, please.

I'm very much aware of paleoanthropology. Sure, I know it looks crazy to talk about 100.000 to 200.000 years if we usually mark 50.000 as the beginning of symbolic culture and 10.000 as the beginning of agriculture and sedentary settlements. It is very distant from what you expected (ten years, twenty years). But I said that to imply that I believe civilization is something that is within us since the beginning of the "modern man".

We usually think of human history in a very small scale. Suggesting that something went "wrong" right in the beginning of humanity sounds absurd. But it is exactly what the myth of the Fall of Adam tells us. This idea have been around for a long time.

The question is not what I would change. Yes, I'm only human. And we developed these amazing skills that allow us to be reasonable, even if in the end we may reason about reason itself and realize it was all vanity.

You cannot survive without money, IN THIS CULTURE. But people certainly can survive in another culture, if we don't kill them to take their resources, of course. The fact that you compare money to oxygen and water is a symptom that this way of life is as important to you as life itself. So maybe you will fight to death to defend it. But there is no money in bartering cultures. Its a HUGE jump from one thing to another. The idea that you can have a fixed exchange rate for things was not always obvious, it is very recent. Even bartering is very recent, because it demands surplus. The selling of entertainment services and full-time entertainers are even more recent. It all depends in the scale of time you use.

But that means nothing, since we are here and now. I only said that you can make games without having nothing to do with the game business. There is nothing WRONG with being paid for doing what you like. It's not a right and wrong question, it is just that you need enough people doing the hard work for you so it becomes possible to live as an artist or a philosopher... That's why civilization is based on slavery. Slaves can be substituted by machines, but it is not that simple. We are still trying to make it work.

I understand making a game is very hard and so you want to be paid for doing it. But you also have to understand that your game have to be worth of my time and my work too. How will you make sure it will sell if you are making a game YOU would like to play, but not sure if anyone is quite like YOU? To reduce the risk, your best option would be to follow popular trends. But that's very restricting, people would get bored soon, so let's do like other industries did in the past: let's diversify production by categorizing consumers in different sets of "individual tastes". Segmentation. The media made a good job convincing people they should all consume different things because they have different personalities. But the problem now is that the offer is growing much faster than the demand. Don't worry, we have a thing called consumerism. We make sure people will pay absurd prices for games just like they pay for clothing brands; they will buy games they will never play; they will buy disposable mass produced games, hate them, and then buy handcrafted indie games just to feel better; they will fund games; and they will spend money on game related events and merchandise. Now everybody is happy and gaming is growing fast and healthy, just like any business that is about to crack. But, don't think about it, enjoy while you can.

No, really, I know how it sounds, but the reason why we think so differently is that we have different visions about capitalism. I have nothing against you, I just looking at it from my own point of view, and something doesn't seem right.

You seem to quote all the theories to arm yourself with more ammunition but do you honestly think that these figures would all agree with each other? You appear to have a mish-mashed view of the world. These are just theories - it's time to get your own opinions. AGS forum does not require essays at the level of a doctoral thesis, where you have to substantiate everything you say by quoting someone more established than you. It is staring to look quite  desperate the way you argue with people.

I see... Well, you think I'm fighting for superiority, but I'm just answering you calmly and patiently. I'm not desperate at all. I'm sorry if this is not the place, but I just don't know how else I could express my thoughts. My world view cannot be easily summarized. Sure it's just theories. I don't discuss opinions, I discuss reasons.

You imply that ancient cultures are bad: "there is no "trial and error" and no "constant improvement".

No! You imply that "trial and error" and "constant improvement" is good, so the lack of it is bad. Not at all. Those are very modern values.

Let me rephrase: Civilization did a great job diminishing the problems itself created, as long as it can continue creating even worse problems.

That's life and there is nothing we could change about it.

Sorry, are you saying civilization is hierarchically superior to other ways of life? Like an alpha culture? Or are you saying social inequalities are comparable to natural hierarchy? And what about using the concept of profit to talk about nature? What do you mean?

If humans are not creative, then what is the point of literature, music, dance and games?

Really, what's the point? Ask different cultures, and you will get different answers. I was only showing the distance between our culture and those that would say that all those things are divine, they connect us with a higher level of existence, they are transcendent. So it doesn't really comes from us, we are just allowed to participate. Be thankful for that! If this is a very hard concept to grasp, sorry about even mentioning it here... I did cause I wanted to show how big games can be.

what is your perfect world?

I don't see the relevance of this question, but there is no perfect world. There are the things that will last enough to be part of this world, and the things that will fall before. Civilization, so far, in my view, has not earned a place in this world. All I know is that we can live in a very different way.

Ghost,

If 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

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

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,

Yes, 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.

Did you never played cowboys and indians, Janos?

No.

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.

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.

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?

When was making video games not about business?

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

Money 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.

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'?

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)?

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

It's not about individual taste, see above.

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.

Really? Well, thanks for the support.

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

Thanks again...

but 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...

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.

the 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.

Indie 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.

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

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

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

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

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

Ghost,

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

Freud? Really?

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.

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

These days we just have more 100%.

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

I hope I'm not offending anyone.

I totally agree with that, dactylopus. Let me clarify that I'm not against fantasy. Not even close. We need some fantasy in our lives, and it is no sin to embark on a journey to an imaginary world. Two of the greatest fantasy worlds (Middle Earth and Narnia) were created by Christians, people with high moral values. I believe games serves all sorts of purposes. What I meant is that I criticize the idea that games serve primarily to makes us forget about reality. The reason is clear: fantasy itself is not about "escaping" reality, but rather representing it in a figurative (or symbolic or metaphoric or analog) way. Fantasy helps us think about reality. I drink alcohol occasionally and I have no problem with that. But some people drink alcohol to forget their problems, and thus alcohol becomes a problem. I was comparing that specific similarity. Some people play games to forget their problems, and then games become a problem.

The standard length for games is driven by the consumers and will always be driven by consumers.

Can I give my non-free-marketeer opinion? If I can't, don't read the following:

NOTHING is driven by the consumers in our society. Consumers are driven by publicity, that generates desires. An opinion about the length of a game is a consumer opinion about a product, not a criticism of a work of art. And while games can be both, you cannot evaluate them in both ways at the same time. Criticism is based on knowledge and therefore can be valid or invalid, true or not true, good or not good. Consumers opinions can't be valid or invalid, true or not true, good or not good, because they are just opinions. No one can discuss opinions. And no amount of consumer opinions can define if the price is fair or even if the game is good. Popular games are not necessarily good games, because the masses don't always recognize what is good. It depends on how educated people are.

Do you know how much of your hard earned money goes to the people that really makes the games, compared to the amount that goes to the people that only publish and distribute the game? If you don't, you really should get informed about that.

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?

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.

Miguel,

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

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

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


Ghost,

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

I'm addressing to whom it may concern.

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

You can't be neutral on a moving train. If you don't care about how a concept is used, then you are letting it be used by the ones who have the power.

I 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?

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

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:

Look, 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?

It looks like a walking scrap heap to me.

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.

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. 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.

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.

Symbolic 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...

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?

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.

Fitz,

It is great to hear your experiences with gaming. Yeah, we tend to judge a lot of things for what we expect from them. But, in this case, there is an industry generating expectations. My theory is that the common expectation for longer lengths is encouraged in order to maintain the status quo. It clearly benefits some kind of games over others.

I'm waiting for a better graphic card so I can play Max Payne 3. I'm the kind that likes to savor what the game has to offer in terms of a experience, and then think and talk about it for a while, until I can get to a conclusion. That's why I treat games like works of art.

"Casual" or "Pro", it doesn't matter. Gaming must opened to everyone.

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 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.