next »

[skaz]

Assigning a value (good or bad) to violence is a meaningless expression. What you value in games is the ability to resolve conflicts, by means you see fit. That's what every (good) game is about.

Sorry if I miss-expressed my point. By value I mean reward. Like killing someone, get XP, get loot. By not killing, missing some XP, missing loot. Killing is most of the time rewarding, more rewarding than dodging or resolving the conflict through any non violent actions. If all the approaches are equally rewarding, killing isn't mandatory.

[J-Snake]

No, that's what most (not every) good stories are about, and not all games need to be stories. Minecraft is a good example.

It's a shallow and misleading view on games. Without a conflict there is no game. It's no exception with Minecraft; if the player doesn't choose a goal to pursue there is no game.

[oahda]

Then you have a different definition of conflict than I do. A much wider one. I guess we need to establish some definitions before we talk.

Even if goal and conflict are synonymous I don't think a game necessarily needs a goal either.

[J-Snake]

I don't think a game necessarily needs a goal either.

Not everything needs to be a game, where I agree;)

[battlerager]

Even if goal and conflict are synonymous I don't think a game necessarily needs a goal either.

Maybe Keith Burgun's definitions might help here?





Article

[s0]

I guess we need to establish some definitions before we talk.

i think we need to figure out what we're even talking about first. this thread is kinda going everywhere and nowhere atm. basically im seeing 3 separate but related aspects that are being mixed together both in the OP article and in the posts in the thread

1. a personal (maybe even moral?) judgement of the aesthetics of violence in games (i.e. violence as a theme)

2. violent/conflict-based game mechanics irrespective of thematic metaphor

3. a "ludonarrative dissonance" problem ("this game is about [insert theme here], why does the gameplay consist of killing?")

Even if goal and conflict are synonymous I don't think a game necessarily needs a goal either.

same. never understood why "goals" are supposed to be so important.  

[J-Snake]

Why are you playing Dark Souls?

[gimymblert]

Assigning a value (good or bad) to violence is a meaningless expression. What you value in games is the ability to resolve conflicts, by means you see fit. That's what every (good) game is about.

Sorry if I miss-expressed my point. By value I mean reward. Like killing someone, get XP, get loot. By not killing, missing some XP, missing loot. Killing is most of the time rewarding, more rewarding than dodging or resolving the conflict through any non violent actions. If all the approaches are equally rewarding, killing isn't mandatory.

I want to answer that into a systemic gameplay perspective, the reason killing is rewarded and not dodging is because killing (removing obstacles) is what make the progression happen, not dodging. Reward is marking that there is a progress, before rewarding everything equally you should think about where is the progression.

I don't think a game necessarily needs a goal either.

Not everything needs to be a game, where I agree;)

What define game in a structural level is progression (just like story) ie moving from one state to another.

There is 3 way to create progression:

1. goals (ie where to go, what to do, explicitly)
2. affordances (ie presenting options)
3. stakes (ie using pressure of consequence)

Minecraft don't have goals but it has affordances (mining, collecting, crafting and building) and stakes (monster at night). You can embody all of these by "ROLE" for example in sim city you have a goal (build a city) affordances (what kind of city) and pressure (population satisfaction, natural events, budget) ie the ROLE of a MAYOR.

You understand that you can turn anything into game and learn from any game and translate into any genre or activities to ameliorate it

[J-Snake]

You understand that you can turn anything into game

Just like you can turn everything into goals. The difference is only that goals can be provided natively by the game (example chess), or they can be player defined (example Minecraft).

[oahda]

http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=47347.msg1127735#msg1127735

This doesn't seem to have any goal, but I'd still call it a game.

"Experience"

Yes, but so could an abstract movie or a piece of music be. We can still differentiate between a movie experience, a musical experience and an interactive experience (i.e. a game by my definition).

This stands in contrast to something like an Oculus Rift roller coaster where you can't interact. I wouldn't call that a game.

[DJFloppyFish]

regarding the original topic, what are some ways to replace violence as progression (from a gameplay perspective)? can a sense of rising action (from a story sense) still be achieved in a game with no violence?

obviously games havent been using violence predominantly to impact their stories (filler as gimmy said before), but it certainly has been used before as the players main way of changing the story (walking dead, gta, far cry 4). should that change? should those kinds of choices continue to exist? is the main concern making game stories more nuanced? if so, how?

even if you're not killing someone directly, the threat of death is kinda everything these games' stories are founded on. i suppose there just needs to be other stories. but again, what would those stories be? right now, i feel like all i can reference are the big dumb blockbusters of videogames, which aren't even attempting a more nuanced story.

[gimymblert]

You understand that you can turn anything into game

Just like you can turn everything into goals. The difference is only that goals can be provided natively by the game (example chess), or they can be player defined (example Minecraft).

I don't know I can't cure cancer in minecraft, the game don't allow that, you can't make all goal, you can only make permitted goal, so these goal the player make up is only those natively supported by the game. I think you are confusing implicit vs explicit. Affordances is a native and clear way to provide options as goals, except those options are combinatorial goals.

[jamesprimate]

i think we need to figure out what we're even talking about first. this thread is kinda going everywhere and nowhere atm.

seems like its people commenting without reading the article, which has pretty specific (and imho interesting!) criticism. none of which has been brought up in the thread  

but even most of the off topic stuff is totally worthy of discussion, so eh. just annoying if everyone is talking past eachother and semantics parsing.

[J-Snake]

We can still differentiate between a movie experience, a musical experience and an interactive experience (i.e. a game by my definition).

One can still differentiate between an interactive experience and a game.

[gimymblert]

I think the later discussion is about what constitute elements of game so we can justify violence (conflict) or not and how to design anything that is just as effective. And of course people disagree, some say violence is necessary because of the nature of game, and other try to say no, nature of game allow much more than violence.

[gimymblert]

also j snake rhetorical trolling as usual

[gimymblert]

i think we need to figure out what we're even talking about first. this thread is kinda going everywhere and nowhere atm.

I think the later discussion is about what constitute elements of game so we can justify violence (conflict) or not and how to design anything that is just as effective. And of course people disagree, some say violence is necessary because of the nature of game, and other try to say no, nature of game allow much more than violence.

seems like its people commenting without reading the article, which has pretty specific (and imho interesting!) criticism. none of which has been brought up in the thread 

but even most of the off topic stuff is totally worthy of discussion, so eh. just annoying if everyone is talking past eachother and semantics parsing.

Precisely this point of the article is debated

But, the method remains: murder to move forward.

The mean of progression is important to recognize some non violent game as game, non violent game are denied "game" as a title because opponent feel like that the absence of goal, that they changed the definition to fit their taste in game, don't make them register thus game are about conflict because goal mean you need a conflict. Yep total syllogism!

Hence the weird convolution battlefield hardline had to go with plot vs gameplay. It's the core of the matter HOW DO WE LOOK AT GAMES FUNDAMENTALLY.

A paradox the article don't escape either, because they talk about non violent progression in the context of violent game still. Ie walking dead isn't about killing, but teh context is still violent as if it's what define games.

[J-Snake]

I don't know I can't cure cancer in minecraft, the game don't allow that, you can't make all goal, you can only make permitted goal

You must read completely out of context if you are bringing up such an example. Otherwise it should be obvious that you can only set goals within the possibilities of your interactive system.

Assigning a value (good or bad) to violence is a meaningless expression. What you value in games is the ability to resolve conflicts, by means you see fit. That's what every (good) game is about.

Sorry if I miss-expressed my point. By value I mean reward. Like killing someone, get XP, get loot. By not killing, missing some XP, missing loot. Killing is most of the time rewarding, more rewarding than dodging or resolving the conflict through any non violent actions. If all the approaches are equally rewarding, killing isn't mandatory.

I want to answer that into a systemic gameplay perspective, the reason killing is rewarded and not dodging is because killing (removing obstacles) is what make the progression happen, not dodging. Reward is marking that there is a progress, before rewarding everything equally you should think about where is the progression.

That's not necessarily the case. In Metal Gear Solid you can often progress through stealth without applying violence.
And it feels satisfying to me, not because I value stealth more than combat but because stealth is a valid means to progress through the game. But when I play a fighter I expect a good combat system. What I am trying to say is that there is potentially no such thing as combat is better than stealth and vice versa. If you abstract away the violent aspects both systems are formal
means to resolve conflicts. They provide the infrastructure for game progression, so to speak.

[gimymblert]

That's kinda what I was saying about your mgs example, there is a reward and system for dodging, aka the progression structure support it (but you still has to defeat boss, you can't ghost them, so there is that). Remember the context of the article.

I'm not reading out of context, i'm laying the framework to show that saying some game don't have goal, therefore are not game, is silly, because the goal is implicit to the boundaries of the system, ie a fundamental property of activities. And movie tend to have goal too, that is enough to define games as games and non games as non games.

BTW a lot of people are talking about how the aesthetics of game is freedom, it's not, the aesthetics of game is permission.

[J-Snake]

i'm laying the framework to show that saying some game don't have goal, therefore are not game, is silly, because the goal is implicit to the boundaries of the system, ie a fundamental property of activities. And movie tend to have goal too, that is enough to define games as games and non games as non games.

Goal is not a property of activities, it is an orthogonal concept achieved by activities. Also your assumptions or logic is flawed. What was said is: A game implies having a goal. This statement is äquivalent to: No goal, therefore no game.
But something having a goal doesn't imply being a game, it can also be a movie etc.