next »

[GregWS]

OK, so that thread about the Destructoid article wasn't nearly as much as a mess as it could have been, and it brought up some very interesting points (as well as the usual crap).

One of the more important points brought up was how you interact with all mediums, not just games; I think it's tough to argue that creating a mental image of a place described in a book isn't a form of interaction.

So (making the assumption, just for the purposes of this discussion) that interactivity is not the defining element of video games, what are some things that can only be done in games?  It's not an easy question, but I think there are a lot of interesting answers to be found if we all think about it.  Here are two of mine:

Exploration: video games are the only place other than real life where you can engage in spatial exploration.  Basically exactly what it sounds like: exploring a space based on your whims and intuition.  All Metroidvania have some element of this; Knytt Stories is built entirely around this experience imo.

Agency: this one's a bit stranger, so bear with me.  There's a difference between watching two characters fight, and viewing one kill another, than playing as a character and killing another character.  In other mediums, viewers/watchers can empathize with the characters they're watching, but they don't have to.  In games there doesn't need to be any empathy; you're the one that pulled the trigger, for good and for bad.  You can marginalize this fact if it's not important to you or to the game (this is often the case), but that doesn't make it any less true.

So hopefully that got everyone thinking about this a bit.  I want to keep this thread constructive and open, so as someone said in the Destructoid thread, don't post here if you have prescribed views of what are and aren't video games.  Technically speaking, there could be something that's unique to the medium that's never actually been done in a video game before...who knows, really.

[alspal]

So (making the assumption, just for the purposes of this discussion) that interactivity is not the defining element of video games, what are some things that can only be done in games?  It's not an easy question, but I think there are a lot of interesting answers to be found if we all think about it.  Here are two of mine:

Videogames are a simulation, and thus interaction is vital for it to be a game. Maybe you should rephrase that.

Agency: this one's a bit stranger, so bear with me.  There's a difference between watching two characters fight, and viewing one kill another, than playing as a character and killing another character.  In other mediums, viewers/watchers can empathize with the characters they're watching, but they don't have to.  In games there doesn't need to be any empathy; you're the one that pulled the trigger, for good and for bad.  You can marginalize this fact if it's not important to you or to the game (this is often the case), but that doesn't make it any less true.

In order to make the player empathise with characters on the screen (including the player's avatar) like you would a movie, you have to make the game more like a movie and less of a game.

[increpare]

So (making the assumption, just for the purposes of this discussion) that interactivity is not the defining element of video games, what are some things that can only be done in games?  It's not an easy question, but I think there are a lot of interesting answers to be found if we all think about it.  Here are two of mine:

Videogames are a simulation, and thus interaction is vital for it to be a game. Maybe you should rephrase that.

I don't see how much more videogames need be simulations any more than novels, or poetry, need be.

Simulation is different to interaction - as anyone working in the computational sciences will tell you.

[Xion]

words

In order to make the player empathise with characters on the screen (including the player's avatar) like you would a movie, you have to make the game more like a movie and less of a game.

What? Could you explain this one because that doesn't make any kind of sense to me.

[alspal]

So (making the assumption, just for the purposes of this discussion) that interactivity is not the defining element of video games, what are some things that can only be done in games?  It's not an easy question, but I think there are a lot of interesting answers to be found if we all think about it.  Here are two of mine:

Videogames are a simulation, and thus interaction is vital for it to be a game. Maybe you should rephrase that.

I don't see how much more videogames need be simulations any more than novels, or poetry, need be.

Simulation is different to interaction - as anyone working in the computational sciences will tell you.

By interaction I mean input with the game. If there is no input, then you are essentially watching a movie, reading text or looking at a picture.

words

In order to make the player empathise with characters on the screen (including the player's avatar) like you would a movie, you have to make the game more like a movie and less of a game.

What? Could you explain this one because that doesn't make any kind of sense to me.

If you want the player to get feelings that they would from a movie, then you have to give the game the qualities of a movie (e.g., take a look at any of the latest mainstream games and notice how many cutscenes they include to make it more like a film so that they can get the players to care about the characters/story/etc.). I'm not saying that this is bad however, as some occasional cutscenes (filler/non-game segments) can be good/enjoyable.

[gimymblert]

A good start, there is a summary of janet murray's work that essentially deal with that matter
http://www.etc.cmu.edu/projects/DialogEngine/Neo-Aristotelian%20Theory.pdf

Murray's major book is Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace, which asks whether the computer can provide the basis for an expressive narrative form, just as print technology supported the development of the novel and film technology supported the development of movies. She provides an optimistic answer. Murray’s analysis rests on an understanding of the computer as a medium of representation with a distinct set of properties. She argues that the computer is procedural, participatory, encyclopedic, and spatial, and that it affords three characteristic (but not unique) pleasures: immersion, agency, and transformation. She defines interactivity as the combination of the procedural and the participatory property which together afford the pleasure of agency. She connects research work on artificial intelligence with cultural forms such as games, movies, literature, and television. Murray’s main point is that the new computer formats expand the possibilities of expression available for storytelling.

[GregWS]

OK guys, please re-rail the thread now.  If you disagree with the approach, just don't post here.  

This thread isn't about debating approaches or the importance of interactivity.  It's about other things that are important to this specific medium.  I mean come on, I shouldn't even have to say that!  Isn't that clear in the first post?

...sorry to vent, but I was worried this might happen and am rather disappointed to see that it has.  

Honestly, it's things like that that make me just want to not post interesting topics on TIGS.  I mean, what's the point if it just derails immediately (and that's the reason I haven't posted interesting topics very much at all for months).

Agency: this one's a bit stranger, so bear with me.  There's a difference between watching two characters fight, and viewing one kill another, than playing as a character and killing another character.  In other mediums, viewers/watchers can empathize with the characters they're watching, but they don't have to.  In games there doesn't need to be any empathy; you're the one that pulled the trigger, for good and for bad.  You can marginalize this fact if it's not important to you or to the game (this is often the case), but that doesn't make it any less true.

In order to make the player empathise with characters on the screen (including the player's avatar) like you would a movie, you have to make the game more like a movie and less of a game.

That's not what I meant at all.  What I'm saying is that you can never truly feel this guilt of a character you view or read about because you've never committed that character's crimes, you've just witnessed them.  In a game you can commit the character's crimes because you're playing as the character, and if you suspend your disbelief and allow yourself to be immersed in the game world you can feel the guilt as though it were your own.

[gimymblert]

By interaction I mean input with the game. If there is no input, then you are essentially watching a movie, reading text or looking at a picture.

But Input (as a navigation which is the minimal interaction) can exist in other more "passive" media. Comics are design around the double page unit with a "prompt" panel for you to turn the page. Turning the page (the input) is design explicitly (more precisely, author take advantage of it) to add immersion and participation. This is a lesser agency that say an hypertext (or a game where there is exploration) but agency none the less. Cinema have the lesser agency (pay the ticket), tv have some little more, video give you control on the flow (pause, fast forward, rewind), DVD add more to video (chapiter jump, subtitle, commentary, different version and sometimes branching choices).

The content themselves are not devoid of "passive input" (intellectual interpretation) that ask the player to explore the semantic space of the show, like it's a "puzzle to answer", interpretation can actually completely change perception of some scene and spark discussion amongst different interpretation that are radically different. Some movie actually play with the new agency given by hardware like DVD to encourage spectators to review a scene when a new revelation is done, directing attention on details they had missed on the first watch.

It may seem like stretch to see "passive media" like game, but i think it give hint to how game are more powerful (player driven "editing" of scene, greater participation, active seeking of clues, gating of knowledge, deeper exploration, encyclopedic layering of informations, etc...)

[Melly]

Excuse me, what portion of...

I want to keep this thread constructive and open, so as someone said in the Destructoid thread, don't post here if you have prescribed views of what are and aren't video games.  Technically speaking, there could be something that's unique to the medium that's never actually been done in a video game before...who knows, really.

...didn't you guys understand? Especially you alastair, but others are guilty of this too. The OP made a specific and sensible request and you basically ignored it in favor of going on your own tangent to reinforce your ideas.

This is happening a bit often lately and I won't tolerate it anymore. I also encourage off-topic posts to be reported. That's all I have to say about it.

[Alec]

Anyways, back to the original point...

I think "agency" is a really interesting thing to consider. Even in a game that has a relatively simple, linear plot - heck, even if it's not terribly clever bout hiding it's linearity and may even be "forcing" the player to do things... this can still make the player feel more involved in the actual actions they're undertaking.

I think Terry's game Judith is an example of a game that doesn't have a lot of "verbs" (in terms of gameplay, you just walk around and "activate" things) The possibility space is really, really limited. The story itself, if you ripped it out of the game, probably wouldn't be all that interesting to read as a "novel" or watch as a "movie".

What is interesting is the way that you uncover the story, and the fact that you're the one giving the input to drive it forward. You're the one that has to walk down the creepy hallways to find what's at the end. There's something unnerving about knowing that you have a "choice" to continue or not, and yet you're strangely compelled to figure out what's going on. Not deep gameplay in terms of the bare interaction, but human emotions and the story context make it interesting for the player.

There's something kinda beautifully symmetrical about how you can predict what most players will want to do. Most of them will want to unravel mysteries. You can build in story points that specifically comment on this. (Aquaria did that for example) Are unravelling mysteries always a good thing? Should the player always be rewarded for being selfish? (making choices that benefit themselves over other characters in the game)

Even if you construct a fairly linear path for the player, I'd argue that the player is still responsible for their actions if they make it to the end of the game. (they always had a choice to not play the game) Of course you can build a game with more choices and outcomes, but my point is that even at the bare minimum I think the player still feels responsible for providing the input to see the game to the end.

This can also be kind of a "bad thing" for some people. I know that, for example, my parents will never be able to play through Aquaria cause they'd never be able to "get it". However, if I had made a really "challenging" (to old people) movie, they could still sit and watch through the whole thing without having to have any skills or decision-making or really any outward effort. They might not understand it, but they could at least experience the whole thing.

^ Exceptions to this include Flower and others, but even then you still have to exert some kind of engaged effort to see the entire game through - whereas with movies you can just sit on your lazy ass and soak it up.

So would it be possible to make a compelling game that would be more like that kind of experience? I'm guessing yes, but I haven't really thought about the specifics... Something where you always "win" even if you do nothing, but you can still affect the outcome in a meaningful way by providing input. Hrmmmm....

[PsySal]

On agency, I think there is a novel by Italo Calvino that is written in the second person. I can't remember what it's called and I haven't read it, but I bet somebody here does and can explain how it might relate.

It's unusual to write a story in the second person, but it's somewhat unusual to write a game that's NOT in the second person. Or at least, the player tends to think in the second person. Mapping Chrono <=> Me in Chrono Trigger, for example, is probably the normal thing to do; even though one doesn't explicitly have to do this.

What I think games can do that other mediums can't... Hmn. I don't know if it's true in any absolute sense. The idea of turning a comic page is a good example, because it's really nearly the same as a cut scene that we advance by pressing "X" in a game. Choose your own adventure novels are another interesting comparison.

I guess what I'm saying is that there might not be absolutes here, might have more to do with what games tend to do well (agency, interactivity) vs. other mediums. Also let's not forget that games often include other mediums wholesale, e.g., games with lots of text.

[george]

I agree that making the case for uniqueness is a tough sell.

One thing games do particularly well is 'playing for others'. You can read a book aloud, or do a dvd commentary, but I think neither would provoke the engagement you experience from watching someone play a game excellently (or stupidly, or whatever). Maybe poetry and troupe improv are the exceptions here.

By extension you can do things with this that aren't exactly multiplayer, but are not single-player either. Demon's Souls for example, or BirdyWorld.  

[Parthon]

I would say that the core competency of "Computer/Video Games" is that they create interaction in a simulated environment.

Interaction can come from many forms. Board games, Choose-Your-Own-Adventure books and Sports are all examples of interactivity, but they aren't a simulated environment.

Examining board games closer though: they are also trying to simulate an environment through tokens, dice and play space and they are interactive. Take Magic the Gathering: It's interactive and it's simulating being a mage.

So what do Video Games that no other medium has?
The ability to simulate complex systems.

While some other mediums can simulate an environment and provide interaction, only video games can do it with the speed of calculation that the computer provides. Computers provide the ability to construct, simulate and render a complex environment very fast, allowing immersive and reactive settings. From the very beginning, the power of the computer was being able to input a command, then having the complex system running the game process the simulation then show the results. As video game programmers we've been doing this for so many years that we've forgotten that it's the core power of video games. It's become the air we breathe. It's what we first learn when we make a game. Input -> Process -> Render -> Output.

All that's happened since the beginning is that we can do it better. We have faster computers and better graphics cards, but the core competency of games is still the same. We can simulate complex 3d environments instead of the squares, lines and dots of the very first computers. We can network machines together from all around the world and share a simulated environment with others. We can run massive environments that stay online all the time.

And to what end? To play. To explore. To have fun. To experience. To challenge ourselves and overcome those challenges. To triumph and occasionally fail to. To broaden our thoughts and stimulate ourselves. TO interact with the game, ourselves and each other.

Why video games? Because the video game medium can achieve those goals in such a way that no other medium has access to.

ps. Sorry, I meant to answer your question directly, but went off on a side tangent. It's still on topic though! 

[increpare]

On agency, I think there is a novel by Italo Calvino that is written in the second person. I can't remember what it's called and I haven't read it, but I bet somebody here does and can explain how it might relate.

"If on a winter's night a traveller".  I don't think it does relate too much.

Second person is more common in Interactive Fiction than other media, I think.  The person-ness of a game where you control someone via input and your character isn't explicitly mentioned by pronoun is ... in a precarious, in-between state.

While some other mediums can simulate an environment and provide interaction, only video games can do it with the speed of calculation that the computer provides.

So what do Video Games that no other medium has?
[...]
And to what end? To play. To explore. To have fun. To experience. To challenge ourselves and overcome those challenges. To triumph and occasionally fail to. To broaden our thoughts and stimulate ourselves. TO interact with the game, ourselves and each other.

Also to make money, to further social and political interests, to distribute viruses/malware, to construct a portfolio, to back up an artistic manifesto, to get laid, to waste time.

[ You might say that what I list are not unique to video games, but then neither are the things in your list at the end (quoted above) either.  So the question is, as you rightly point out: ]

Why video games? Because the video game medium can achieve those goals in such a way that no other medium has access to.

People store a lot of personal information on their PC.  A computer game provides the possibility of furthering all of the above goals in a way that no other medium has access to because they have access to a repository of intimate information about a person.  Using or interfering with this, they can touch them in uncomfortable places and violate their identity.  It is hard to do this in a so direct a manner with other media*.

*okay you can spray people with the contents of an enema bag if you're doing performance art, which will leave them with feelings of being violated.

[Parthon]

Ewww. Not quite what I meant. 

You did isolate the key point though: Video Games don't have anything unique to them as a medium of expression, besides computing power. Everything that games can do could be done in another medium, just not as well.

Video Games are the masters of the fields of interactivity and simulation. The Video Game medium is unique because of it.

[SirNiko]

I think it's important to point out that both Exploration and Agency rely on player input. To me, that input, the interactivity, is indeed the key, defining aspect of video games. You really lack that in other medium, due to the inability of the medium to recognize and react to the user's unique responses.

I think Exploration comes in two different flavors. One is the obvious "Here's a world, look around." type of exploration seen in Knytt and Metroid. The other is an exploration of invisible mechanics, like the physics of the world, or the way various entities respond to each other.

I tend to look at game cartridges as containing tiny worlds, each with its own rules and creatures. I don't get the same feeling from a book or a movie, because they're so static. The world that they define doesn't exist outside the examples given in the pages. In the game, you can interact with the creatures. You can explore around the corners. You can test the limits of the game laws, such as seeing how objects react if you attack them and such. To me that's the kind of activity that you really can't get in any other medium, not even a table-top roleplaying game (because the laws of physics change subtly on the whims of the Game Master).

I think there are other ways games are unique, but the above point is the one aspect that really draws me to games, unlike anything else.

-SirNiko

[PsySal]

One thing games do particularly well is 'playing for others'. You can read a book aloud, or do a dvd commentary, but I think neither would provoke the engagement you experience from watching someone play a game excellently (or stupidly, or whatever). Maybe poetry and troupe improv are the exceptions here.

This is something very interesting that I hadn't properly appreciated before, but it is true. I think there is a sense of watching someone demonstrate their skills which is satisfying as a viewer and a player. I guess this is at the core of what makes Guitar Hero appealing to play?

EDIT: I'd add that I've always felt Guitar Hero was superior to Rock Band, because it's fun to be the star. Rock Band has the problem that nobody is watching you. It's fun to watch, and be watched.

[jwk5]

Running over an old woman with a delivery van while you've got a prostitute in the passenger seat, then getting out and rolling a grenade under the delivery van and then shooting its gas cap causing it to blow up, killing the prostitute and cooking the old woman's corpse. And then you go and get your money back from the where the prostitute's body landed.

Only in a video game (GTA) is that scenario hilarious (well, unless you're really messed up in the head... er... moreso... ).

EDIT: I've found that video games bring out people's inner sadist like no other medium (except maybe flash animations...). There is some kind of twisted thrill in vicariously causing mayhem in a controlled setting.