next »

[Anarkex]

Games are designed around goals, notgames are designed around experiencing art. Done.

Experiencing art is a goal, lol. Additonally, let's not forget, the above definition requires that all notgames are art, and that other games are not. This is ridiculous. Seriously, bro, you're disregarding everything I've been saying. I suggest you re-read the thread until it starts making sense, because I'm sure I've shut down this point multiple times already. I know I joke around and put on a show to make it fun to read, but I assure you the points I'm making are dead serious.

Melly: I've never argued about art in this thread, I've purposely avoided it because there's really no point in trying to define it. And as for semantics...what else is there? If we can't agree on the meaning of words there's no point in even trying to communicate.

[Melly]

Maybe. I just feel this discussion in going in wide circles right now that most people already dropped off of.

[Absurdist]

I guess we both have a hard time giving up

I think that "experiencing art" is an umbrella for whatever an individual player happens to get out of an experience rather than a distinct goal.

Can we agree to disagree?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

you could also distinguish between passive goals and active goals, or explicit goals and implicit goals. a movie has a passive goal: watch the movie. but nobody but a pedant would say that a movie is a game because it has the implied goal of watching it.

there's a similar thing for rules. every game has implicit rules: if nothing else rules about movement, rules about text display, rules about displaying graphics, rules about playing the music, rules about starting the game and quitting it. but those aren't really game rules, they're more like 'universe rules'. so a notgame would still have rules in that sense, but wouldn't have arbitrary game-like rules like 'get 100 points to score an extra life' or 'if you get 100 experience points you gain a level'.

so yeah, of course you can't totally eliminate rules and goals from computer programs, but you can eliminate explicit goals and videogame-like arbitrary rules. whether it's a good thing to do that or not is a separate issue, but it definitely can be done to a degree, and many games have done it.

related: http://www.joystiq.com/2006/03/09/ueda-ico-isnt-a-video-game/

[Anarkex]

you could also distinguish between passive goals and active goals, or explicit goals and implicit goals. a movie has a passive goal: watch the movie. but nobody but a pedant would say that a movie is a game because it has the implied goal of watching it.

I believe I know someone who would, and he most certainly is no pedant.

there's a similar thing for rules. every game has implicit rules: if nothing else rules about movement, rules about text display, rules about displaying graphics, rules about playing the music, rules about starting the game and quitting it. but those aren't really game rules, they're more like 'universe rules'. so a notgame would still have rules in that sense, but wouldn't have arbitrary game-like rules like 'get 100 points to score an extra life' or 'if you get 100 experience points you gain a level'.

It's preposterous that you can even hallucinate a difference between the two.

so yeah, of course you can't totally eliminate rules and goals from computer programs, but you can eliminate explicit goals and videogame-like arbitrary rules.

"arbitrary". As if Mario's ability to power up when he picks up a mushroom or the number of EXP points necessary to gain a level in final fantasy are "arbitrary". The games would be unplayable if those rules weren't properly set. And sure, some rules can be removed without making the game unplayable, but they would change the game into a different game. If what they change the game into isn't something the developer wants or isn't something that's fun to play, I would hardly call them "arbitrary".

whether it's a good thing to do that or not is a separate issue, but it definitely can be done to a degree, and many games have done it.

Those games didn't "remove" the rules in question - they never had them to begin with. But all games select which rules to have and which not to have. Mario doesn't include a bomb attack that clears the screen of bullets, Dodonpatchi does. Dodonpatchi doesn't give you a free life for every 100 coins you collect, Mario does.

related: http://www.joystiq.com/2006/03/09/ueda-ico-isnt-a-video-game/

To which I would say that Ueda is wrong. Just as Michael Samyn is wrong. Much as I liked Ico, and much as it didn't give you point bonuses for juggling attack combos, it was still a video game.

It isn't a video game -- a conventional video game has things like a life meter or other icons on the screen. Ico doesn't have these things.

And yet many video games in the present as well as the past do not have "icons on the screen". Myst, Zork, Dead Space, Pong, Bushido Blade, Spacewar!... he's talking out his ass. Ico didn't have icons onscreen because Ueda saw to it that it didn't need any. This has nothing to do with whether it's a game or not.

[Jonas Kyratzes]

I think people who think that attacking this presentation means attacking innovation or artistic games are missing the point. I, for one, have spent the last ten years operating under the belief that games are art. I've made experimental games, games that touched people. But I never pretended that these games were not games. A long time ago I also thought we needed a better term - something like "interactive art" - until I realized that was nonsensical, and what we needed was better games, not pretentious terminology.

As someone who strongly, deeply believes in digital games as an artform, there are still a number of things in that presentation that are highly offensive:

• The notion that there is no innovation in games today. Basically they are dismissing everything anyone has ever done - or more precisely, they seem to know nothing about computer games. They claim to have changed the world with their games, but much of what they claim is so innovative was done long ago and better by people like Adam Cadre or Emily Short. (“To say ‘videogames have stopped evolving’ reveals a willful ignorance of the form.” - Gregory Weir)
• Their postmodernist nonsense about "the humanist machine" and the evils of technology. I'm sorry, but stuff like "you will no longer program computers to tell us what to do" coming from a team that programs software is just too precious.
• Their identification of "fun" with childishness, and of the entirety of modern gaming, from Photopia to BioShock, as childish entertainment. It's your typical elitist nonsense, but it's even more dangerous in this particular field, because it devalues almost everything that's ever been made, and suggests that enjoyment is antithetical to art.
• Their claim that goals and rules - absolutely integral to any game, including their so-called notgames - are essentially wrong and/or oppressive/unethical/childish. Please understand: no-one is opposed to them making games that alter the rules, or set no clear goals! I myself have made a game that has no ending and is an infinite loop, not exactly a standard goal. But to claim that everyone who makes games with goals and rules is wrong and unartistic is simply arrogant.

As I said before, I've already written a long and detailed response to this, and I don't feel any desire to help turn this into a flamewar, but the combination of extremely flawed theory and extraordinarily arrogant tone, the lack of reference to the reality of modern computer games, and the sheer number of nonsensical/illiterate remarks (like the stuff about "Tolkien's universe," or the sexism) make for a very, very bad presentation.

To think so is not an attack on innovation in games - it's not even an attack on ToT's games, though I personally find them uninspired and hollow. It's the natural response to a presentation that instead of wanting to make more out of games, to expand our horizons, chooses to tread contemptuously on much of what has made the interactive medium so important to so many people and announces that the only way to go forward is to rehash the ideas of postmodernist academics (i.e. failed writers).

[bento_smile]

The thing that is most tiresome, is that it always seems to come back to some kind of self-flagellation - that games can't ever be as good as books, or music, or cinema, as they have some magical shield of snobbery which is absent from games. But it's unrealistic to view other mediums as untouchable/unreachable! Bookstores don't only sell books by Tolstoy, music stores don't only sell CDs of Beethoven's symphonies, and when you go to the cinema, the films aren't all directed by Godard! There are a lot of awful games out there, but also a lot of awful books and films and songs. Why can't we allow games to be diverse and terrible and wonderful in the way that other more mature mediums are?

/rant over

[Jonas Kyratzes]

Why can't we allow games to be diverse and terrible and wonderful in the way that other more mature mediums are?

Well-said.

[Lurk]

Tale of Tale has latched on a real idea that has been slowly taken over the game industry though. Over the years, you've seen the disappearance of the finite health bar principle- now simply hiding in a corner and waiting a bit replenishes your lost energy; the adding on of plenty of continue/save points so you don't have to go through a game sequence again if you somehow manage to die between two cutscenes; the disappearance of(in my opinion)storytelling through the game elements themselves to replace it with elaborate cutscenes that sometimes makes hollywood jealous. Not because the industry is exploring any kind of new direction, but because it's what the customers want. No mainstream audience wants to put 12+hours in besting a game that, on a speedrun playthrough, takes about 20 minutes. They want to put 12 hours in a 12 hours linear game. So there's a lot of padding to be found. The customers also want to believe they are getting something more out of this experience, than just sitting on a couch enjoying a game- this is where you get all the teaching/exercise games, but that's not enough. Somehow, you need a game that makes the customer feel smart and empowered without him putting too much effort into getting there; if you felt some kind of emotional pang when Celes sings in the opera house of FFVI, you're a nerd. If you feel sad when the grandma dies in 'the Graveyard', you 'got it'. But there is something to be explored there; a sense of loss that the audience/customers must be feeling if they want to experience these things during what used to be a purely entertaining act. You don't cry when your ship gets blown up in Galaga. But maybe there's a way to make it so.

[Jo-o]

/rant over

ps: @bento_smile I agrre with every single word.

[s0]

For a "notgame", The Path sure felt pretty game-like to me. It even had an implicit goal- discovering all the events and endings. ToT's games, or at least ones I've played,  are nowhere near as radical as the supposed concepts behind them. They're sheep in wolves' clothing.

Also, I agree with Lurk.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i don't believe they ever said the path was a 'not game', they said it's a 'slow game'. the 'not game' concept was invented after the release of the path

and also yeah, i agree with lurk: returning to the roots of game design (not just copying old games in style, but using some of the principles old games used which have been abandoned by mainstream games) is probably a good way to deliver meaningful games to people.

i think it's fair to say that, on average, nes and snes games were more meaningful to people (in the sense of people having been affected or influenced or changed by them) than xbox360 and ps3 games are to people today, possibly because they gave you a sense of accomplishment, you had to work to beat them, you had pride in it. today there's not as much to be proud of by completing a game, since the game does a lot of your work for you. the only modern game i've really felt proud of accomplishments in in recent years is starcraft 2, and that's only because it has a very challenging online multiplayer element (the campaign itself is easy).

[s0]

i don't believe they ever said the path was a 'not game', they said it's a 'slow game'. the 'not game' concept was invented after the release of the path

Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding. But still, I don't think of any of the ToT games I've played (The Graveyard, The Path, Endless Forest)  as particularly "out there". I mean, I've been violently yanked out of my comfort zone by Increpare and Cactus's more experimental stuff, but I've never had that feeling with ToT. Maybe Fatale and Vanitas are different? Time to try them out I guess.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

well, i guess it's that ToT games aren't really meant to be a 'head trip' or shocking, they're meant to be a pleasant trip without having to worry about challenge or failing, which many players find stressful. auriea once expressed to me how the main purpose of endless forest is to give people a forest they can visit when they don't have one of their own near their house, a way to get back to nature from their computer so to speak.

perhaps you could say that increpare and cactus create hardcore experimental games, and ToT and rohrer create casual experimental games?

[Zaphos]

ToT's rants about games made a lot more sense to me after I read this comment by Samyn in his blog, responding to suggestions of innovative games to play:

I played the first half hour or so of Portal. I had fun. And then I was confronted with a puzzle that I couldn’t solve. This puzzle had like automatic gun turrets, I believe. And I guess I died. I went back to the game a few times in subsequent days. I must have spent over an hour trying to figure out the puzzle. It was not fun. I gave up.

And tonight with World of Goo, a similar experience. The first thing is easy. And then they tell me to build a bridge. So I do, I succeed but somehow the game says I failed. Something about a number. I got 7 out of 8. And apparently I need to have 8 out of 8 because it didn’t seem like the game was going to let me do anthing else but try again. So I did. With the same result. 7 out of 8. 7 what? 8 what? I don’t know. I did still feel the sensation of challenge, the desire to get it right. But I’ve been burned too many times. So I let go, close the application and drag it to the trash.

- http://tale-of-tales.com/blog/2008/12/05/gameless/

Generally, it's hard for me not to see the barbs they direct at games and those who play them as a bit of a prolonged temper tantrum in response to being unable to handle challenge ... really, it's a bit like an illiterate person ranting about how silly and unimportant words are.

In that context, it does make sense that a lot of their work seems oriented to just removing challenge from games.  It's not a bad direction -- actually I like the idea of exploring more challenge-free games.  But their own limitations and apparent insecurities seem to make them terrible spokesmen for it.

[Noyb]

Oh man, I forgot about that quote. I think you're on to something, Zaphos.  

Check out this post entitled "And this is when I stop gaming."

I was enjoying Assassin's Creed 2. Its linearity is a clear testament to horrid lazy design. But I tolerated it because the things they made me do to get to the next part of the game were easy enough. Until now. Some stupid capture the flag thing. Tried it a few times. Failed. Quit playing. Not jut this game. But all games. It's over. I'm not letting them abuse me like that anymore.

This also ends the Treasures series on the notgames blog in which I play AAA games and talk about something good I find in them. I had already started a post about Assassin's Creed 2. About virtual tourism. But I'm not going to finish it. It don't want to publish anything positive about this game.

Maybe in another 10 years I'll try playing a game again.

Does anyone want a second hand Playstation 3?

Four days later...

Thanks to the help of other frustrated players on the internet, I also found a way to complete the mission that ruined the game for me. I started playing again, reluctantly, carefully, afraid of more potential design disasters I may encounter.

Edit: There's a video of the presentation up at Georgia Tech's website.

[Absurdist]

I may be arguing for a definition totally different from what ToT even intends! If this was a judged debate I would have totally lost

I can't escape the feeling that it must be possible to create interactive art that is not a game, but I guess that is a different issue.

[increpare]

I can't escape the feeling that it must be possible to create interactive art that is not a game, but I guess that is a different issue.

There's a whole world of interactive media.  (hint: google).

[AshfordPride]

Check out this post entitled "And this is when I stop gaming."

What an angry baby.  Is this sort of attitude at all acceptable?  Would it be tolerated in any other sort of artform?  Christ, how would YOU guys feel if I came in and said that some indie game had ruined video games for me!  I'd be ripped to shreds by you guys, and  branded a complete idiot.  

Here, let me give it a shot!

Ahem.

I was enjoying The Graveyard. Its linearity is a clear testament to horrid lazy design. But I tolerated it because the things they made me do to get to the next part of the game were easy enough. Until now. Some stupid song thing. Tried it a few times. Failed. Quit playing. Not just this game. But all games. It's over. I'm not letting them abuse me like that anymore.

This also ends the AshfordPride series on the Tigsource in which I play AAA games and talk about something good I find in them. I had already started a post about The graveyard. About [INSERT STUPID TERM HERE THAT LEIGH ALEXANDER ONLY WISHED SHE COULD'VE MADE]. But I'm not going to finish it. It don't want to publish anything positive about this game.

Maybe in another 10 years I'll try playing a game again.

Does anyone want a second hand PC?

See, when you put it like THIS, it sounds even stupid coming from some no-name loser on the forum!  Why do you guys tolerate Tale of Tales spewing this nonsense?  

----

Also, holy shit, just look at this.

And I hate that! If I'm clumsy in a game, it's because the designer made it so. It's not my fault.

It took me all of 5 minutes (after the intro cut scenes) to get stuck in Half Life 2 Episode One because of a jump I couldn't make!...

I couldn't beat a simple jumping puzzle in the first five minutes of the game, which may even have been the FIRST puzzle in the game.  So I want to skip it!  It's hard!  It's not even like he wants to remove something difficult, he wants to REMOVE LINEARITY FROM VIDEO GAMES BECAUSE HE IS TERRIBLE AT THEM.  I died on the first pit of a platformer, fuck linearity!  My ship exploded on the first bullet in a shmup, let me skip everything!

My GOD, this man is the goddamn Antichrist of video games, his very existence a sign of the end of all things good and beautiful in this world.  Reading his informal forum posts paints the picture of a very disgusting, pathetic gamer.

To continue playing Assassin's Creed 2. The first thing I noticed was the way the main character walks. He's a young Italian noble man and he walks like a teenage metal fan, or a football player, or something.

His current mission consists of -you guessed it- assassinating some people

ASSASSINS CREED CONTAINS MORE ASSASSINATIONS THAN I WOULD'VE PREVIOUSLY SURMISED.  As a Scott Stapp fan, I am very disappointed.

Why can't I explore my relationship with this woman? Why can't I wear something more comfortable, more fitting my age? Why do I need to fight and run all the time?

Why can't I dress up the woman from the Graveyard in a silly hat?  Why can't I make my character do I handstand in The Path.  As a handstand enthusiast who has seen many people doing many handstands, I am sorely upset that video games lack handstands!  

This is the role I was playing. Not the bourgeoise who falls in love, not the silent man who rejects her, not even the strict piano teacher or the disapproving bartender. No, I was made to playing the little boy, sent outside so he wouldn't bother the grown-ups, where I could throw rocks at seagulls without every being able to hit them.

And I realized that virtually all videogames are like this.

DONT CRY FOR ME ARGENTIIIIIIIIIIIINAAAAAAAAAA

This man isn't a martyr.  Martyr don't kill themselves.  I feel terrible for this pitiful disgusting thing.  He has wrapped himself up in all these ideals and what if's that he has basically ceased to enjoy video games.  And not just a genre of video games, or new video games, THE SMALL BITS OF NAGGING DOUBTS OF WHAT COULD BE IN HIS HEAD ARE STOPPING HIM FROM ENJOYING GAMES THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS SHIT.  But they should!  Every video game should be what I want!  And not just a vague idea of what I want, but I have a very specific laundry list of the shit I want to be in my video game!

----
From the same thread, different guy.

really noticed this today as I entered "Stalker" into YouTube's search field. Did I get clips from the masterpiece by Tarkovsky? No! I got trailers and clips from a game based on it... It involved gun-wielding zombies, constant gunfires and military helicopters. Have you really no respect for the source material whatsoever?

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. stands for "Scavenger, Trespasser, Adventurer, Loner, Killer, Explorer, Robber"  I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that it's an anagram designed to explain what the game is, and only MAYBE a tangential reference to Tarkovsky.  It's practically chilling how these people can want to ruin GOOD GAMES, MAYBE EVEN THE BEST GAMES, just so they can sit at the big boy's table.  

I'm sorry it couldn't adhere to your pretentious view of what this shit should've been.  But hey, I hear if you play STALKER backwards to Tarkovsky's "Dark Side of the Blowout", it totally syncs up!

My GOD, you have no idea how hard it was for me to not just post a reaction image here.

---

But thank you, this forum is hilarious.  I will shuck some more hilarity out of these idiots when Anarkex is back on.  

[moi]

And tonight with World of Goo, a similar experience. The first thing is easy. And then they tell me to build a bridge. So I do, I succeed but somehow the game says I failed. Something about a number. I got 7 out of 8. And apparently I need to have 8 out of 8 because it didn’t seem like the game was going to let me do anthing else but try again. So I did. With the same result. 7 out of 8. 7 what? 8 what? I don’t know.

Fucking numbers. How do they even work?!