Modern Computer Games and their artistic merit

[Alatar]

As discussed in another thread, I think its worth exploring the best of computer gaming. While Cinema as an art form is generally judged by the exceptionally good movies, gaming is generally judged by the lowest common denominator, the violent "Run and Gun" genre. Now, its difficult to pigeonhole games but I'll attempt to provide some broad genres:

Adventure games
First Person Shooters
Sports Games
Racing Games
Real Time Strategy Games
Turn Based Strategy Games
Simulators (real and imagined)
Platformers
Massively Multiplayer Online Games
Roleplaying Games


However, to start with, I'll talk about games that the Gaming press tend to deny are even real games. These are often described as Quick Time Event games, or even Interactive Movies. They are the games that come closest to a cinematic experience and give the smallest amount of freedom to the player.

Of these, probably the most well known are both made by Quantic Dream. I'm referring to Heavy Rain and Beyond: Two Souls.

Heavy Rain was a noir detective story, following the most difficult of subjects, a child murderer. The story had several different endings depending on your decisions, but in most ways resembled a "Choose your own Adventure" book in game form. Gameplay consisted of interacting with highlight-able objects and actions as mundane as making a cup of coffee were "playable". Now, personally, I'm a story junkie. I'm not interested in challenging my ability when gaming by playing on the hardest setting. Its popcorn for me, so I set the game to the lowest difficulty that still provides a modicum of challenge, and I play to see what happens next. So, for me, Heavy Rain delivered in spades. It was an interactive movie, where I could influence what was happening. I became immersed in the world, in the characters, in the story. I didn't care that fight scenes were about hitting X when it appeared on screen. It wasn't a fighting game. I love playing a complex flight sim like X-Wing, but I can equally enjoy Galaga. As such I get annoyed when people tell me "Thats not a real game". Who the hell gets to make that decision?

Anyway, this is a bit rambly, but I'm off to play "Beyond: Two Souls", a game that feels to me like it should be a Joss Whedon TV series.

[yovargas]

Alas, I doubt this thread is going much of anywhere with the very few gamers round here.

I get annoyed when people tell me "Thats not a real game".

But if I were to say ""That's not a game so much as it is an interactive movie", well, why would that be annoying? It's not like I'm saying the idea of an interactive movie is bad - I think it's really cool that the medium has been exploring that so much lately! I just think it's fair to say that an "interactive movie" and a "game" are two different things, even if the line between them can get blurry. I also think it might be really useful to differentiate between the two because some people with no interest in very "gamey" games might love these experiments in non-gamey gaming (and vice versa). People who still only hear Mario or Mortal Kombat or Pong (;)) when they hear the term "video game" might become more curious to try a Heavy Rain if you said "It's not so much a video game as it is a new form of interactive storytelling".

And people like me who still mostly just wanna fling fireballs at monsters would have a clearer sense of what we're getting.

[axordil]

The spectrum between "this is an accuracy/reflex-based activity with a score counter" and "this is a story where you get to make decisions that affect the outcome" has been around for a long time...think back to text-based games like Zork, which was contemporary with the Atari 2600. Every year finer and finer gaps are filled by new entries.

I don't think there's a sharp line dividing games and interactive storytelling. I think, as yov alludes, there's a perceptual difference driven by marketing.

[yovargas]

I wasn't thinking of it from a marketing perspective - more of a "how we discuss this medium" perspective - but that works too. I just think a product that's primarily "here's a virtual space with a ton of obstacles to overcome" is a product of a different nature than one that's primarily "here's a virtual space with interesting things that you can explore". Different enough that it'd be useful to refer to them as different things.

[Passdagas the Brown]

This is not a gaming thread. It's an interactive storytelling thread.

Please change the title.

But seriously, I think there's a semantic problem here that need not exist.

Personally, I think the words "game" and "video game" are so soaked with preconceptions and misconceptions, that it's probably best not to use these general terms at all if you're trying to communicate with non-gamers.

As yov suggests, let's get specific about nomenclature and find new words.

To add to his example, why not call an MMORPG a "virtual online adventure world?" Or something similar?

There's little incentive to stick with these loaded words, IMO. Especially if we're trying to permeate the impervious.

[yovargas]

It may be silly to quote wiki on this but I looked up "game" and found this interesting:

Games are distinct from work, which is usually carried out for remuneration, and from art, which is more often an expression of aesthetic or ideological elements. However, the distinction is not clear-cut, and many games are also considered to be work (such as professional players of spectator sports/games) or art (such as jigsaw puzzles or games involving an artistic layout such as Mahjong, solitaire, or some video games).

Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction. Games generally involve mental or physical stimulation, and often both. Many games help develop practical skills, serve as a form of exercise, or otherwise perform an educational, simulational, or psychological role.

Highlight mine!

I also liked this:

In more open-ended computer simulations, also known as sandbox-style games, the game provides a virtual environment in which the player may be free to do whatever they like within the confines of this universe. Sometimes, there is a lack of goals or opposition, which has stirred some debate on whether these should be considered "games" or "toys". (Crawford specifically mentions Will Wright's SimCity as an example of a toy.)

[axordil]

I had seen the "toy" reference before, and thought it a useful observation.

Of "goals, rules, challenges and interaction" I would dispense with "rules" as a criteria for distinguishing between A and B here, since rules of one sort or another are built into everything from Pong to novels. I'm envisioning a balance triangle for the other three...

Goals I might recast as "end states" more generally, including iterative or interim end states. "Toys" don't have inherent end states unless you introduce them.

[Alatar]

I guess my point is that whatever label you choose, it will be either inaccurate, or will lead people to misunderstand it. I know people who believe Minecraft is simply Lego for the 21st century, but its far, far more than that. Its a sandbox, yes, but also a survival horror, an MMORPG, an adventure game, and anything else any modder chooses to make it.

[axordil]

anything else any modder chooses to make it

At some point though we're no longer talking about playing, but remaking. If we get into the meta aspects we'll chase our collective tails until we pass out.

[Dave_LF]

Probably as the line between things we do on computers and things we do not on computers continues to blur (and as the number of entries in the latter category continues to shrink), the term "video game" will recede into meaninglessness.

[yovargas]

Probably as the line between things we do on computers and things we do not on computers continues to blur (and as the number of entries in the latter category continues to shrink), the term "video game" will recede into meaninglessness.

I'm not sure I follow this statement.

[Alatar]

I suspect that Dave is referring to the fact that pretty much everyone now plays video games even if they don't realise it. A lot of people don't consider casual games like Bejewelled and Candy Crush Saga as "video games", but they're big business. Then you have facebook games like Farmville, or even your Fantasy Football League. How many people handle those manually? Most people are signed up to online leagues that track all the stats and allocate points. Are those "Video games"?

I guess the point is that the days of video games being a niche product for teenage boys in their basement are long gone. Games are big business and are challenging TV and Movies for time on the TV.

[Dave_LF]

Right; it's already not very meaningful to group things like World of Warcraft and Farmville together under the umbrella of "video games" simply because they both run on computers--everything runs on computers now, and those two programs share little in common beyond that incidental fact. As the trend toward computerization, augmented reality, etc. continues, it may eventually seem silly even to group things like World of Warcraft and Rome Total War, since they demand very different sorts of skills and inputs from their participants.

[axordil]

The fact that they've embedded mini-games IN World of Warcraft for one's characters to play (a Harvest Moon homage, and a licensed used of Plants vs. Zombies) shows how complex the question can get.

[yovargas]

Are you saying people aren't aware that Angry Birds is a video game?

[Alatar]

I would say that they don't think of it as a video game. Call of Duty is a video game. Battlefield is a video game. Angry Birds is just a time waster on your phone. They don't equate them.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Al's right. I've actually heard people say something almost identical to that when defending their Angry Birds obsession.

"It's not a video game! Its just a time-waster while I'm on the bus. Like a crossword puzzle."

And as ax and Al and others have suggested the "video" part of the video game moniker will eventually disappear in our electronified world.

They will all eventually just be "games," and treated with the respect that non-video games have had in the past (eg board games like Monopoly or crossword puzzles).

Though I imagine a chasm will form between "smart" computer games and "dumb" ones. Especially since that process is already underway, as expressed in this thread!

[yovargas]

Well, gaming culture has already dubbed these "casual games" with a somewhat snobby sense of "These aren't real video games". I wonder if these "Its just a time-waster" games would find the "casual games" label useful or not.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I'm sorry, yov, but I can't process any of your posts as long as those murderous dogs are staring at me.

Casually conversing while under threat of a violent death is really difficult!

[yovargas]

Speaking of......NintenDogs! Game or virtual toy?