next »

[Anarkex]

If I removed all the text from a novel and left only the illustrations, would it still be a novel? No, it would be sequential art, or an art book or something.

In the same way, if you remove goals from a game I think it's safe to say that you are left with a notgame.

Goals are not what defines games, rules are. Many games don't have obvious goals, for instance, Minecraft. But wherever there are actions, there are goals, even if the player decides on them. So, any game has goals, even if that goal is "do everything".

@Anarkex

Alternatively: ToT are not making games, but you've convinced yourself that they are and are judging them as such.

You've done this by extending your definition of what a game is.  Specifically "video games are just simulations, and all simulations are games."  A virtual wind tunnel used to help design cars is (by your standards) a game.  As a game it is pretty terrible.  The engineering company that produced that game should buck up their act, improve player agency, add some clear goals and a story.  The airflow mechanics were well implemented at least.

It is a game. It has a purpose besides being entertaining, but to the people that use it it is most certainly compelling. Consider that Conway's Game of Life is also a game.

ADDENDUM: And Paul, your latest post is basically just agreeing with me here. My point is that the very concept of notgames is absurd, and we've made it there. Games are compelling due to their use of mechanics and aesthetics, and what makes ToT's games compelling *to some people* is their use of aesthetics. That's fine. But they aren't doing anything different, they aren't *not making games*. They're just disregarding mechanics in favor of aesthetics. I don't like that, maybe you do; it's an argument for another thread.

[vazor]

I feel that RinkuHero and Sparky are completely right.  Not everyone likes the same games you do, and that's ok.  Thank you to those that have presented counter-arguments in a constructive manner. 

My thoughts:
Art has plenty of rules, but it's nice because there are fewer. 
Videogames are games, but interactive experiences are not necessarily games.  I would say "notgames" are just "interactive experiences" taken in a particular artsy/edgy direction. 
While I would like to use the term "interactive experiences" for art games and call games built for entertainment simply videogames, I think we need to call videogames art for the sake of encouraging the general public to see the value in what we all do. 

I agree with them about wanting to create something different in reaction to perceived shortcomings. But that's not a profound idea, and I am not a fool because I enjoy games or make games with game overs.

Well said. 

If they want people to make "not games" or explore what can be done with interactive experiences then why not be a bit humble and try to create interest in that movement by saying something more constructive than "you and your games suck, look at us and our beautiful creations and you'll see how it's done!".

I know you're not mad any more now that you know the context, but this was still a good statement. 

[FredFredrickson]

i agree that games have to be compelling, but (as i mentioned) many people do find tale of tales' games compelling. and many others don't. like with most games -- this is a broken record, but just because you don't find them compelling doesn't mean they aren't, or that others don't. i don't really see how it's arguable that ToT's games aren't compelling for anybody when there's clear evidence that many people compelled by them.

Whether or not something is compelling is completely subjective... but you have to be careful, because if most of the people who experience a creation think it's bullshit, and only a handful think it's compelling, chances are you've just created some bullshit and tricked a few people into believing it's not.   

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

@fred -- i wouldn't agree with the 'chances are' part. here's an example: fetishes. most people don't have fetishes for feet or whatever, but that doesn't mean that people who find feet compelling are tricked by bullsh*t or something; sometimes a small percent of people find something compelling that other people don't.

@Anarkex -- we're mostly in agreement yes, but the main disagreement (and my whole point) was that people innovating in aesthetics and enjoying games for innovation in aesthetics is fine by me, and i don't see why it's not fine by everyone. innovating in aesthetics is just as valid as innovating in gameplay or graphics programming or whatever.

but, i also don't think it's completely true that ToT only innovate in aesthetics. as a simple example, i feel that the extremely slow movement speed of the old lady in the graveyard was an innovation: forcing the player to go far slower than they are comfortable with in order to feel what it's like to be old. another innovation was the movement system in the second part of fatale: it's a unique movement system devised to avoid nausea from 3d movement, and seems to work pretty well for those who get nausea from 3d movement. endless forest was also innovative in that it was a mmo where you couldn't type / chat with other players, but had to communicate with them through gestures and signs. those are all innovations, however small, and they aren't part of the aesthetics of those games.

[FredFredrickson]

But that's a slippery slope. One person could find something compelling, so it miraculously transcends from garbage to something great just for that?

I don't buy it.  Sometimes bad art is bad art, simple as that.

[Dustin Smith]

RE Paul from a couple pages back: Throughout this thread I've said that while ToT isn't my cup of tea they should still make games. Of all people criticizing (game devs nonewithstanding) them you would think I'd be the most sympathetic; I've written up of Bento's Adventure games, increpare compilations, and I just called Norrland my favorite cactus game in my latest review. Just because I don't like Sonic doesn't mean I hate platformers.

[Nate Kling]

Part of the reason I think people are angry with tale of tale's games is because they think games should only be enjoyable in their view of what is enjoyable.  Which in modern video games is most commonly some sort of adrenaline rush or challenge.  Tale of Tale's deliberately eliminates those common modes of challenge and attempts to replace them with other methods of intrigue.  If you are looking for challenge, fast paced gameplay or whatever people commonly prescribe to "game mechanics" you will think that their games suck.  Like Paul says, people enjoy different things.

[Ego_Shiner]

i think the best way to broaden the scope of games is just to keep making them. if people make what they want to make, and tell others about games/indie games then the market will spread on its own instead of through some contrived "no goals" bullshit. a game with no goal (i know everything technically has a goal, but in the broader sense. like a sandbox game or something) lacks substance or lasting appeal. thats why scribblenauts was kind of lame, once you got past the fun of smashing bricks together, there wasn't much to it.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

But that's a slippery slope. One person could find something compelling, so it miraculously transcends from garbage to something great just for that?

I don't buy it.  Sometimes bad art is bad art, simple as that.

still it seems like a bad idea to tell someone not to enjoy what they enjoy, even if they were tricked into enjoying something. i mean, kids are tricked into enjoying pokemon cards too, but wouldn't it be being a party pooper to take a kid's beloved pokemon cards away, and explain to the kid why they should not enjoy pokemon cards and should enjoy magic cards instead?

[Gnarf]

Hah. Yeah, I kind of do that with my nephew. I'm like no, those MMO-like Flash games are rubbish, so you're going to play Age of Wonders with me instead. Works out pretty nicely.

Either way though, there's not a lot of telling people what to enjoy going on here. At least not to any greater extent than there is you telling people to not enjoy/make/whatever shmups and platformers.

It's just some people not enjoying some things, and talking about it and making fun of it and such.

Plus I really enjoyed reading those posts by AshfordPride and Anarkex in this thread. So you can't, uh...

[Absurdist]

Goals are not what defines games, rules are. Many games don't have obvious goals, for instance, Minecraft. But wherever there are actions, there are goals, even if the player decides on them. So, any game has goals, even if that goal is "do everything".

Not really. How would you differentiate a toy from a game? Lego pieces fit together in certain ways and thus have rules, but there is not necessarily a goal in playing with Lego.

If you take away any meta-competition and various game modes, Minecraft is a toy - you are given a world (defined by rules, obviously) and can do whatever you want with it. If you build a ugly block tower, you don't "lose."

You could argue that we automatically make goals for everything, but in that case everything would be a game.

So you could say that notgames/ interactive experiences are toys that are intended to make an artistic statement.

[Anarkex]

Not really. How would you differentiate a toy from a game? Lego pieces fit together in certain ways and thus have rules, but there is not necessarily a goal in playing with Lego.

Very astute. There's no differentiation, toys are games. Or at least, playing with toys is playing games.

If you take away any meta-competition and various game modes, Minecraft is a toy - you are given a world (defined by rules, obviously) and can do whatever you want with it. If you build a ugly block tower, you don't "lose."

You could say Minecraft is a toy, I guess. But it would still be a game, and it's definitely a video game.

You could argue that we automatically make goals for everything, but in that case everything would be a game.

EXACTLY. Now you're getting it!

So you could say that notgames/ interactive experiences are toys that are intended to make an artistic statement.

Like putting a jack-in-the-box on display at MoMA.

[AshfordPride]

WarHampster, your rebuttals are becoming increasingly offensive to my sense of self and sanity.  

Not really. How would you differentiate a toy from a game? Lego pieces fit together in certain ways and thus have rules, but there is not necessarily a goal in playing with Lego.

Wouldn't those rulebooks that come with the Legos be the rules?  Wouldn't following the intended directions supplied with this manner of toy be the rules?

Toys are tools of fantasy anyway.  They're merely avatars of our baby fantasies.  Gee man, Thomas the Tank Engine vs. Leonardo on top of my couch seems largely undefined by any manner of rules.  I GUESS GAMES CAN BE LIKE THIS TOO I SEE NO TROUBLE IN DRAWING A COMPARISON BETWEEN ON MAN MAKING UP A GAME WITH TOYS AND A MAN PLAYING A VIDEO GAME DESIGNED BY ANOTHER PERSON

EVERYTHING IS GOOD IN METAPHOR LAND

If you take away any meta-competition and various game modes, Minecraft is a toy - you are given a world (defined by rules, obviously) and can do whatever you want with it. If you build a ugly block tower, you don't "lose."

Freebuild was a building block simulator, basically.  This is what steams my vegetables, when you guys take something fun and enjoyable and strip off it's clothes and have it stand naked next to all the other emperor-has-no-clothes nongames and call them equal.

HOWS THAT FOR A METAPHOR WARHAMPSTER

Yes, I suppose if we were to take an INCOMPLETE PRE-ALPHA GAME and compared it to a FULLY FINISHED NONGAME BY TALE OF TALES they would be rather similar!  And that would just say something absolutely hilarious about ToT.  

You could argue that we automatically make goals for everything, but in that case everything would be a game.

Does a game have a lot more merit when the rules are set forth by a third party, or when the player is making them up as he goes?  Let's take away from a man succeeding in a sport, a board game, or a video game because someone said that their goal was whatever struck their fancy at the moment.

So you could say that notgames/ interactive experiences are toys that are intended to make an artistic statement.

We could argue that.  We could argue a lot of things.  In fact we are!  And you're losing!  Oh ho ho!

The point is, there are inescapable trappings of video games that no ammount of not not not rebelling against them will solve.   You're either making a game, or you're making a mess.  ToT, pick a side, and pick it quickly.  

[Absurdist]

@Ashford -

@Anarkex - You're just arguing definitions. I think that anyone would agree that there is a very big difference between playing with Lego and playing a platformer, RPG, FPS, or whatever.

How about this - the creator of a notgame does not impose any goals upon the "player" (I don't really know what word should go here), whereas the creator of a game specifically defines goals for the player to achieve.

[Anarkex]

@Anarkex - You're just arguing definitions.

The whole discussion was about definitions.

I think that anyone would agree that there is a very big difference between playing with Lego and playing a platformer, RPG, FPS, or whatever.

I think most people could see the similarities between playing with Lego and playing Crackdown or GTA.

How about this - the creator of a notgame does not impose any goals upon the "player" (I don't really know what word should go here), whereas the creator of a game specifically defines goals for the player to achieve.

Oh yeah, how silly of me. Of course, notgames distinguish themselves from games by not imposing goals on the players. Which is why when you follow The Path and reach grandma's house without encountering any "wolves", the screen says


Seriously. Anyway, yeah, the game still doesn't *impose* the goals on the player, nor does any game, because the player doesn't need to do what they're told. It's only suggested to the player through text, dialog, or sometimes the fact that there isn't much else to do. In no game are goals forced on the player. I can choose to play through Mario without killing any goombas. I can choose to play Perfect Cherry Blossom for score or for survival, and if all else fails I can choose to turn off the game. Don't think that if the game tells you "you lose!" that it means you've failed to achieve any goals. Maybe your goal WAS to lose! Maybe you were just trying to figure something out about the game engine! Or the game was pathetically easy and you really just have nothing going on today. You can do whatever you want according to the rules of the simulation, just, sometimes the rules make you die, or make words pop up on the screen, or make you deal with the consequences of your actions.

Gettin' it?

[deathtotheweird]

the end screen was meant to be very tongue-in-cheek and not to be taken seriously

[Melly]

Ashford, I'm sure you can make your points without using all-caps.

[Anarkex]

Don't worry Allen, I don't really take anything Tale of Tales does seriously.

[Absurdist]

Cute.

Anarkex:

Typing this post is a game, because I have a goal (convincing people that the concept of notgames is not stupid).

Brushing my teeth is a game; my goal is to not get cavities.

Eating is a game; my goal is to not be hungry.

Really?

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

[Melly]

It seems somewhat obvious you guys aren't going to reach a consensus here, especially when you argue subjective concepts like art and semantics.