|
The Dark Eye: Narrative, Games and Art
The Supreme Court has declared that games have the same protections as any other art form. We’re all mystified that it took so long, given the variety and realism of the exploding zombie heads we can do. In any case, seven out of nine of those folks in the stylish black robes believe that games have at least a shot at making Art with a capital A. Now we have to get everyone else on board – including, it seems, some of ourselves. Just weeks before the court decision, Brian Moriarity gave a pretty persuasive GDC talk arguing that games are NOT Art and aren’t intended to be. I don’t agree with Mr. Moriarity, but I appreciate the rigor and breadth of his reasoning. By contrast, the tone of the comments sections wherever his talk is posted is rather discouraging. Most commenters stand against Moriarity’s position, but with an off-putting defensiveness, often arguing along the lines of: “Hey! Some people think quilting is Art, by those rules, we totally count!” Defining Art down is not indicative of confident artists, sure of their powers.
Not so long ago, the industry decided that creating games that could get people to cry was our ticket to Artsville. And by George, we hit it! We can proudly say that games exist that can make people cry. It turns out, however, that most soap operas and some puppy youtubes can also make people cry. The resulting failure to get automatic admission into the Art club apparently left some of us embittered.
But that’s behind us now! The Supreme Court wants us to go for it, and the fact is: of course we can produce Art. It’s completely within our grasp. The only thing standing in our way is a little fuzzy thinking.
To that end, I’d like to humbly offer some suggestions based on a game I worked on long, long ago that may or may not be Art, but at a minimum came pretty damn close. Over fifteen years ago I worked on The Dark Eye. Anyone remember that one? Based on the tales of Poe, William S. Burroughs did VO, Thomas Dolby did the music. Anybody? (crickets) Okay, well, you’ll just have to take my word for it – we successfully translated the content, feel and impact of several of Poe’s tales into a video game. Of course, the game has aged – today it seems rickety with its Myst-like navigation and various technical problems. But as an experience, it holds up remarkably well. By a combination of art direction, source material, acting, sound design and especially interactivity, we managed to create a game that approached something, um, Art-like.
But first, why even make an interactive Poe? What distinguishes it from just another movie? One of the qualities of most Art is its ability to pull us into its evocative world. We might call this quality of Art immersion. Well, hey, baby! We make games! We’ve got immersion wholesale! We can give you intellectual immersion, emotional immersion, aesthetic immersion, physical immersion and more. If you’re going for the classic kind of Art that Moriarity is interested in (you know, “the human condition” kind of thing), in narrative terms that means that your objective is to bring about catharsis (an emotional outpouring) for the player. That’s what we wanted to do for The Dark Eye, so we set our sights on emotional immersion.
(I should note: there are forms of drama – and some important game designers – that aren’t interested in catharsis. I’m not claiming that catharsis is the only way for games to achieve Art status, but I am saying that mastery of classical methods is a prerequisite for more rule-breaking forms. Without Chopin there can be no John Cage.)
So how did we do it? Certainly we aimed for a high level of realization in terms of sound, visuals, acting, etc; but we also made a series of important decisions:
- Strive for Psychological Depth.
Storytelling-wise, games hold one clear advantage over other dramatic forms – an advantage that isn’t exploited nearly enough. All storytelling requires a certain amount of exposition. For screenwriters and playwrights, getting the exposition across efficiently and engagingly is generally considered a problem that must be solved before moving on to the really enjoyable action of the story. In games, it’s relatively easy to plant story elements in an explorable space in a way that turns exploration into an active way for the player to absorb the exposition. In The Dark Eye, we pushed this advantage one step further. Since the player was playing a character in a Poe tale, we invested objects in the environment with psychological significance. A player would interact with an object that’s important to his character, a pressed rose perhaps, and would see or hear a thought or a memory tangentially related to that object. In this way, exploration of physical space became exploration of the character’s psychological space.
- Gameplay?
No gameplay. That sounds pretty radical, but in the course of designing the game, questions kept coming up: shouldn’t we have an inventory? How about resource management? Puzzle solving? As we struggled with these questions, it became clear that these gameplay elements are meant to engage a player intellectually. Intellectual immersion and emotional immersion are not incompatible by definition, but in practice, and certainly in our project, getting the player to solve a puzzle in order to murder the Old Man would simply distance him from the character he was playing and the environment we’d labored so carefully to construct.
Be honest, haven’t you played at least one game that had such a good story that you wanted to be able to press A to skip the gameplay and get on with the story instead of the other way around?
- Branching?
Another question that came up was, “Shouldn’t player choices change the course of the story?” In terms of dramatic narrative, Choice is the Great False God of interactivity. A really good ending (that is, one with a satisfying catharsis) is very difficult to create. Everything, everything in the story must support that ending: performances, art direction, tone, music and so on. The idea that a single narrative can result in multiple satisfying endings is a contradiction in terms. In The Dark Eye, the player has NO choice: you must brick your adversary into the cave in The Cask of Amontillado. As the victim, you cannot avoid getting bricked in.
In a narrative game the only thing less interesting than meaningless choice is meaningful choice. That’s a provocative statement, and I’m only half serious, but that half is very serious indeed. A choice that is meaningful to the game is not the same thing as a choice that is meaningful to me. And a choice that is meaningful to the game implies multiple, unsatisfying endings. Okay, so there is one exception: if the single moment of choice is the catharsis itself, that choice is both meaningful to the player and to the game. That is an effective exception to the no-branching rule. Otherwise, as in The Dark Eye, everything is taking you to the point of murder.
But the big question I’ve been putting off is this one: Why should games try to create catharses when, say, films already do it better? The answer is: films don’t do it better. Was The Dark Eye more effective than a movie? Absolutely. How is this possible given that we refused to employ basic game elements like simple gameplay and branching choice? We did it by choosing instead those game elements that promote emotional immersion. These include the free exploration mentioned above, but more important was another aspect that emerged as we worked on the game: the player is able to enter into the narrative as an agent of pacing and timing. When gamers argue, as I have here, in favor of essentially linear, catharsis-based narratives, they often invoke the simile of the player as a musician in a symphony orchestra – adding their creative input to a larger enterprise that yields a satisfying creative result. But that image is too limited. The real goal is to allow the player to become a member of a jazz ensemble. Sometimes leading the group, drawing out passages, accelerating others; sometimes supporting the current beat.
The most effective moments of The Dark Eye are those where the player approaches a critical point. For example, when the player is preparing to murder the Old Man in Tell Tale Heart, he can hold off that final, fatal moment for quite some time with the music seemingly increasing in tension with each beat. I always imagined the player suspended, almost in disbelief that he was about to commit this act, but act he must and finally, finally! he completes the interaction at what to him is just the right moment to break the tension. If he breaks it too soon, the moment doesn't get its proper weight; too late, the illusion is diminished. His input is, in fact, a creative act. That element of timing brings the player into the experience personally in a way that is deeply powerful, and no other medium can provide it so well.
All those years ago, we created something that really did approach the interactive equivalent of the literary level of Edgar Poe. Back then, artful storytelling really wasn’t on anybody’s radar, but now narrative has come to the fore. Stories, stories with depth, maybe even one day, profound stories are increasingly drawing interest and budget. Developers continue to experiment with narrative techniques and improve their skills. Captial ‘A’ Art? Of course.
|
(All my posts are based on the contents of my blog - (click my name)).
Games are NOT an art form. Games are defined by a function that is separate and distinct from that of art, just like consumer electronics, cars etc.. The process of creating a game is art, and they may use forms of art, (pictures etc.), to enable a game, (optionally!), but game != art.
The words game, puzzle, art and competition all represent different applications of often different behaviour - not all of which are compatible, and sometimes, even then, only compatible in certain ways.
Art is of course compatible with game, puzzle AND competition, but none are DEFINED by or as such a thing.
All FORMS of art, must, by their very nature, be able to be DEFINED by and as art itself. Everything from films to pictures and music etc. fit such a description.
Games, puzzles and competitions (and anything else we create that is defined by a function separate to and independently from art itself), do not fit such a description and therefore do not count as FORMS of art.
An individual game, puzzle, competition, car, microwave, table, house etc. by be LABELLED and considered to be a work of art in a individually SUBJECTIVE manner, but such a perception has nothing to do with them actually being games, puzzles, competitions, cars etc.. Yes, many such objects can be labelled as works of art, and even be protected as such, but always on an individual, subjective, basis!
This is purely a matter of understanding the English language, and how such words are defined and related to and by the language itself - which, at this time, is NOT fully recognised and understood - (because nouns as a whole are not).
The only reasons any game can therefore be seen as a work of art is:
a) Existing forms of art have been used to enable the game, (and remain forms of art when they do so).
b) Someone considers the game itself a work of art in a manner consistent with its definition, completely separately from it being a game.
Since games are naturally of human creation - and the word art represents the creative process itself - they can therefore be SEEN, subjectively, as being such works of art (b), even if the word game is not DEFINED as such - (which it's not).
The reason WHY games (and puzzles and competitions) are not forms of art, is that games, (puzzles, competitions), and art, when used in combination, represent DIFFERENT applications of DIFFERENT behaviour of DIFFERENT PEOPLE!
The problem at this time, is that this is NOT recognised.
Which is why you consider merely interacting with a story being told (a narrative) to be a game, when it's NOT - (such behaviour is considered to be a puzzle independently of computers, and since computers have no place in defining any of these words, any perceptions otherwise are completely inaccurate and wrong - again, a problem with how the language is, and has been, taught, then used and perceived).
Art = creative story telling - (everything we create tells the story of it's creation).
Puzzle = 1) interacting with creative story being told, (though power of discovery, choice or inquiry). 2) Interacting with a story being told in order to solve a (difficult?) problem.
Competition = 1) As an application of compete - (tying to gain an outcome/goal (story) at the expense of, or in spite of, someone or something else. 2) That which is being competed against (the competition). 3) An activity in which a person, or people, compete to be told a story (usually whether they've won or lost).
Game = An activity in which a person/people compete in a structured environment (created rules) by writing their own stories.
Such is the nature of the problem we have at this time - (that all this is a symptom of - (not knowing and understanding what the word noun itself represents)) - that simple, basic explanations are NEVER enough to know and understand what is happening and why.
This is a failure of linguistics - and since I'm having to counteract centuries of incorrect teaching and information given to people, such a thing will never happen in a single sentence - and so I need to be able to back all that up and explain why - which I've done.
Understanding the relationship between game, art, puzzle and competition is a big problem for a lot of people at this time - both within and outside of this industry. That the Supreme Court got involved actually (technically) has nothing to do with them being games at all - they're merely works of art (which are therefore protected), that can be used to enable a game - which is not the same thing as games being art in themselves, because they're not. Unfortunately, as I said, many people fail to understand this, hence the need for an explanation.
I'd like to think that a self-contained reply would be far better than just posting something and hoping they'll read my blog to understand it - (my blog is pretty long for that reason). It should be a bit better once I've finished the part I'm working on - (a summary/recap etc.) - but until then, I prefer to post as I have here - as a self-contained replies.
My replies are ALWAYS related to the post I'm replying to - if you, personally, have trouble understanding why that's the case, here, then you're always entitled to ask related, pertinent questions yourself...
Sure my replies are long, but that's the nature of the problem itself. My blog is currently ~25k words long too, and for good reason - even though, as far as I'm concerned, all I'm doing is providing the foundations for everything else I want to talk about...
People now knowing what the words game, art, puzzle and competition represent, both in isolation and in relation to each other, usually, (but not always), underpins most of the problems people have, that becomes part of their posts and reasons for doing so, on this site, even if they do not fully realise or understand it.
Since such problems are merely symptoms of not understanding and recognising nouns for what they represent, (in addition to how they are used), the matter of recognising and understanding just how our language can affect our perceptions and understanding of the universe around us - (the "big picture") - in relation to such a problem, becomes important too.
You must understand that most of the posts and subjects this site deals with, are generally about how to build, design and understand games and how and why people play them.
But since the very foundations of such matters are not fully understood - (including what a game is, how and why, both in isolation and in relation to the rest of the language) - we have problems.
Such problems are NEVER really going to be dealt with by just me posting replies here, no - but I'm using all this to get it all sorted in my head for when I have to go and explain all this to someone that can actually do something about it - for when it matters. Because it DOES matter - what we're seeing here, is (some of) the English language becoming subjective - the enemy of language itself.
This is a problem a of linguistics, that then manifests itself as a problem of semantics - and it's only going to get MUCH worse, until the linguistics side of things - (education/information) - gets fixed.
I'm still going to do what I can to help inform people around here - if you do not understand how and why that matters, then I doubt I can help you anyway...
Pretty much you want to say that when a developer thinks "I'm making a game*" he is doomed to be caught in the replication of previous "games" because his understanding of the word will bound the creative possibilities.
A simple word (not the word, but his understanding of the word) will block potential inspiration from the word outside of "video games" from triggering unless they pass the "game" filter. If that's not what you call "THE PROBLEM", or if the problem is not affecting that "WHAT GAMES ARE AND POTENTIALLY CAN BECOME", then there's no problem, really.
But I agree that letting go of biased assumptions one has been taught is one of the needed steps to go further.
*Of course "game" is short for "video game" in that sentence, which means a game or game derivative created to use computer machines for automated presentation, representation and rule handling. Video games are to games as painting is to drawing.
"Pretty much you want to say that when a developer thinks "I'm making a game*" he is doomed to be caught in the replication of previous "games" because his understanding of the word will bound the creative possibilities."
No - it's FAR, FAR worse than that. Developers are currently caught in a trap of making what they THINK is a game, even if it's not, because their perceptions are not consistent with how the word has been, or is BEING used, (outside of such computer software), because no-one has been reliably informed as to what the word game must already represent based on such use, both in isolation and in relation to the rest of the language - especially to similar concepts, such as puzzles and competitions.
The word game has become SUBJECTIVE because of this, and the ramifications of that can be felt and seen in many pieces of software today - (and elsewhere in the language - such as the term 'gamification' etc.) - (calling all of such software 'games' would no longer be consistently accurate - (many are either puzzles or competitions, or a mish-mash of all three, usually at a games expense)). Don't get me wrong, though - some games are still being made properly and consistently, but usually in spite of such problems, rather than because they're understood.
(I don't understand your following paragraph).
"Video games are to games as painting is to drawing. "
WRONG.
Video has NOTHING to do with the word GAME. Video is a form of, or a manner of displaying, images, including art, and therefore has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the word game. Using the word video in combination with the word game is INCONSISTENT with how the word game is used in relation to its other media elsewhere.
Video is NOT the medium - a COMPUTER is. Video is merely A condition of the use of such a medium, nothing more. The term computer game(s) would therefore be accurate, instead. Calling this type of game 'video game' is the equivalent of calling board and card games 'picture games'. Again, this is a symptom of not fully understanding the relationship between games and art.
(Hint - think of a way in which a computer can be used to enable a game without using video...).
The whole point of my blog is to eventually talk about a lot of the problems I see in games today, and how they can be fixed and then made and used to a greater potential - but none of that will mean anything if people don't understand why and how it fits in with everything else, based on what games actually are - so that's where I need to start...
(Most of what I see is nothing more than a logical extrapolation of what games are, using a lot of elements games happen to possess, even now, that are not being used to their full potential precisely because that isn't recognised).
I can agree with you that “games != art” but at the same time I'll put forward the idea that videogames (as they're intuitively defined today) != games. The Dark Eye is an excellent example, as it would be called a videogame by anyone who looked at it, and yet it isn't really a game in the traditional sense (I don't mean that as an insult, I've actually wanted to play it for years but have sadly been unable to find a working copy).
In your post you propose that it should be classified as a puzzle, but I don't think this would suffice either. As Russell points out in the article itself, they deliberately steered clear of puzzle solving elements and player choice. I believe works like The Dark Eye (and many others of varying forms) don't properly or accurately fit into the categories of game, puzzle, or competition (at least not as you've defined them here). I can't say for sure that this makes them art, but to rule out the possibility is either naive or short-sighted.
I think I understand your distinction between “works of art” and “art forms” and agree it's an important one, but I don't feel it renders all works which we consider to be “videogames” ineligible. In my mind, videogames as categorized today aren't a singularly definable medium, rather they exist within a broad stratum of media which is still largely unexplored and undefined. Both within our explored boundaries and beyond, I have no doubt that there are media which would fit your view of an art form based on your criteria of having no other function than to be art. Particularly within the independent development community, there exist many works that are created solely as a form of expression, to which interactivity is integral, but not for purposes of puzzle solving, competition, or play (as defined in relation to a game).
It is more than possible I've misunderstood some of your assertions, either by my own shortcomings or by the way which you've condensed your opinions. Like I said, I will read your blog to find out more about your views on this topic, but at present I cannot help but disagree. I feel that your exclusion of videogames is either too broad or too narrow. If you are respecting the breadth of forms which we collectively refer to as videogames, then you are ignoring those works which are not definable as games, puzzles, or competition. If you are defining videogames more narrowly as only those works which can fit within one of those three types of works, than you are making a distinction which most do not and excluding many works in the process. Perhaps you would be right to do so, but then another label would have to be created for all the works which would fall outside of those boundaries.
Edit: Damn the conversation moved on without me... :)
@Darren: Reading your last reply, it seems like you're getting really caught up on the misnomer of “videogames.”
That title is largely nonsensical from a semantic standpoint for reasons that have been explored countless times and at great length. It's just a label. I do think we'd be better off if we could define the broader interactive medium under a meaningful label and relegate the term “videogames” to a small subset of that medium to which it could logically apply. However it would take a herculean effort to make that happen, as average consumers don't care about the semantics, and publishers and retailers (who are the economic driving force behind the production of these works) just want a catch-all term that has public recognition.
There are certainly reasons to fight that fight, but it doesn't sound like that's what you're interested in doing. When you talk about ramifications, and how some people are still doing it right, it seems like you're implying that people who make interactive works which are not games, puzzles, or competitions are doing it wrong. And that would be, in a word, wrongheaded. To restrict ourselves to produce only what has been done before, or what can easily be lumped in with other forms of interaction, or what fits an arbitrarily applied label of our medium, would be a great disservice to all parties involved.
There is interesting unexplored potential out there beyond the restrictions of what could logically be considered a Video-Game. The label should be considered irrelevant to the creation of the work itself. It should be created in whatever form best suits the intentions of its creators.
You summed up everything I was gonna say in your edited paragraphs. The fact something is not a game, puzzle, competition, doesn't mean it's wrong and shouldn't be made.
Their existence is not a problem, thou their labeling might be holding their own recognizance back due to misconceptions in the vein of "games are for kids". So, having a label not related to "kids" would rather help those "other beings" differentiating themselves from these obcure mankind beliefs.
It appears to me that you've been caught up in the same web of confusion as many, many other people have on this site, (and elsewhere), in thinking that computers automatically make everything they're used for *special* or *unique*.
WRONG. Incredibly, completely, totally and utterly, WRONG.
Computers are JUST a medium - nothing more - an object that can be used for, to enable or promote certain forms and types of behaviour from the people that use them.
Most of such behaviour is already defined and understood completely separately from computers, and so all a computer does is enable and promote such behaviour in maybe a different way, AS a medium. Some types of behaviour (programming, etc.) are, of course, specific to computers, yes, but what the words game, art, puzzle and competition etc. represent are NOT.
A game is a game is a game, whether using a computer, dice or a board. A puzzle is a puzzle is a puzzle, whether using a computer, a jigsaw puzzle or figuring out how gravity works - and the same for competitions and art.
The ONLY things special about computers are what it brings to the table AS a medium, nothing more - (e.g. its programmability/flexibility (esp. rules and setting), ability to combine many different forms of art in one product, and the different methods of interaction, being its main strengths as such).
Games are ONLY ever labelled in two ways - by the medium being used, and the type of behaviour of the player the game enables - (i.e. board game, or first-person-shooter).
EDIT: You'll note that the medium is always used as an extra word in COMBINATION with the word game itself - never replacing it. This is because a medium is not a game in itself, an application of behaviour - merely an object which CAN be used to enable such a thing. The use of the word game as THING in a similar manner, is also used to represent an object (or a collection of such objects) that are intended to be used to enable such an application of behaviour to exist. It's the application of behaviour, however, that the word game ultimately represents, and nearly all other uses of the word are derived from. (The use of the word as a verb to represent gambling is derived from an earlier, now obsolete, use, which came after the original use of the word to mean play (noun), as it did/does? in it's original German (gamen)).
Video is NOT a medium for games, puzzles OR competitions. It is (when applicable) a medium for ART. The confusion between the words art and game is NOT being helped by such a label - it may even be the cause of some of this confusion itself!
Games are NOT about TELLING stories, or stories being TOLD - EVER. Games are about people WRITING their OWN stories.
Mistaking things a person does for himself, with things that happen to a person, is a mistake so basic and fundamental, you wouldn't have thought it possible, yes? Well, that is exactly what is happening here...
People get so caught up in the act of creating something, (which is what the word art represents), that because of their lack of understanding, they lose sight of WHY it's being created in the first place.
"There is interesting unexplored potential out there beyond the restrictions of what could logically be considered a Video-Game. The label should be considered irrelevant to the creation of the work itself. It should be created in whatever form best suits the intentions of its creators. "
EVERY SINGLE TYPE AND FORM OF BASIC HUMAN BEHAVIOUR, (though not necessarily every specific application of it!), computers and their software can enable and promote ALREADY EXISTS AND IS LABELLED AS SUCH.
Computers, as a medium, only matters for their APPLICATION, and nothing more.
Game, art, puzzle, competition, work and play etc. are NO exception - the basic application of behaviour these words represent pre-date computers by such a long way, that there simply should BE no confusion, yet here we are, because people haven't been taught and informed correctly and consistently, even though humanity is VERY consistent with it's use (even if it's incorrect/inconsistent itself) independently and outside of computers themselves.
@Luis
"You summed up everything I was gonna say in your edited paragraphs. The fact something is not a game, puzzle, competition, doesn't mean it's wrong and shouldn't be made."
That is never a problem, and not what I'm talking and complaining about. What I'm complaining about is that *every* piece of software designed to entertain people on a computer is called a game - even if it's NOT, even if it's blatantly a puzzle or competition - (i.e. it's a puzzle outside of a computer, and yet upon/when using a computer, it magically turns into a game etc.!).
(Games do NOT have to involve play (noun), but their perception as such, (regardless of how the word is used), is why they've been perceived as something to do with 'kids', and as being toys. (Some games obviously are toys, but I doubt anyone would call a tank or a fighter plane a toy? Yet these are used to play games with too! (For work, not play (nouns)))).
Games will NEVER reach their full potential AS games until what the word itself represents is fully understood, (like, duh!), whether using computers or not - (though especially when doing so). That is the problem I have at this time. The reason why it's really bad though, is simple - games are NOT very compatible with puzzles at all, (a race to complete a puzzle is all), and completely INCOMPATIBLE with competitions (3).
Unfortunately, since neither puzzles or competitions are fully understood in isolation either, (getting confused between their definitions and applications is a very big problem), understanding how they are also related to games is obviously a step too far for a lot of people at this time, (as you'd expect, really).
EDIT:
Note:
You notice that I said that some of these words are not necessarily used in a consistent manner outside of computers? This, again, shouldn't be TOO unexpected, since these words are still not fully recognised and understood, even there, but based on how the words are used in GENERAL, such inconsistencies can, and should, be fixed, based upon consistent definitions.
So, if you've read my blog, you should have a good idea of what it is these words now represent, and can therefore figure out why a couple of uses are currently not fully correct. It's true there are still questions being asked about them, and so I'm leaving you with this challenge:
What type of activity/activities (game, art, puzzle or competition) are the following, and why?:
Solitaire/patience (Playing cards)
Blackjack/pontoon (Playing cards)
Hangman (Pen and paper)
...
“A game is a game is a game, whether using a computer, dice or a board. A puzzle is a puzzle is a puzzle, whether using a computer, a jigsaw puzzle or figuring out how gravity works - and the same for competitions and art.”
Well this is pretty funny, because it seems like we've both had similar insights, but taken them in completely different directions. I have felt for a long time, and I think we can both agree, that the term “videogames” is being widely misapplied to cover a much broader group of works than it should. I agree that said term should ONLY be applied to works that are definable as Games. Where I think we differ is that it seems like you see those outlying works which don't fit this definition as abominations, whereas I see them as interesting new areas to be explored.
“Games will NEVER reach their full potential AS games until what the word itself represents is fully understood, (like, duh!), whether using computers or not - (though especially when doing so). That is the problem I have at this time.”
I can agree with this as well. When people set out to make a Game, knowing what a Game is will unquestionably help them to make a better one. But that's not what most people who make “videogames” do. Many of them aren't interested in making the best GAME possible. Many of them don't even want to make a GAME at all. It goes back to the misnomer. People have an idea of what a videogame is to them, and usually if analyzed, it has nothing to do with Games in a specific sense, just interactivity enabled through an electronic device. People have an idea, and they see a way to use the technology on-hand to bring their idea to fruition to the best of their abilities.
This. Is. As. It. Should. Be.
Should the resulting work be called a videogame? Probably not, because odds are it isn't a game in any sense of the word. I feel, and there are others who agree, that not being a game does not make a work inherently inferior. The mislabelling of works that occurs today invites that unfair criticism, and this is one of the reasons why we need a terminology overhaul.
As an example, consider Grim Fandango.
Grim Fandango is probably my favourite “videogame” of all time, and yet it isn't really a Game. It contains puzzles, but it isn't really about puzzles, so to call it a puzzle would be missing the point. There is absolutely no competition to speak of. Grim Fandango is about the exploration of a narrative. The enjoyment I get out of it comes from learning more about the setting, characters, and plot through interaction. If you called this an “interactive story” or “interactive fiction” (a term currently reserved for text-adventures), the puzzles would seem out of place and you might assume that they detract from the experience. While there's merit to that argument I would disagree with it because I feel the added element of challenge invests us in the conflict of the narrative, teaches us more about character's motivations, and gives us a greater sense of empathy for the emotional states of the protagonist whom we control.
“Games are NOT about TELLING stories, or stories being TOLD - EVER. Games are about people WRITING their OWN stories.”
Wrong. In Grim Fandango, I am not telling my own story, I am exploring one as it is being told TO ME. This is not a problem, or a failing of the title, it is as intended and allows for a unique experience which I happen to enjoy. Granting a greater level of player agency within the plot of Grim Fandango would destroy it, because it would destroy the sense of being another person. If you put me in another world and give me choices, it's just me in another world. That's fine, it's enjoyable, nothing wrong with it. But put me in another character in another world (as Grim Fandango does) and it is a completely different experience, one I feel is more compelling (but that's just an issue of personal taste). And brings me to the main thing I find frustrating about your argument.
I think we would reach the same or similar conclusions if you had more respect for differences of opinion and personal taste. I'm not very far into your blog at the moment (sorry, I'm a slow reader) but one thing from the beginning of the first entry struck me:
“The cause of the argument, was that the person I was arguing with, (and a lot of people I’ve spoken to since agree with this), thought that cRPG’s are defined also by the stories they have to tell – i.e. their plot and narrative.
Such a definition, however, has never worked for me, since I’ve never played games for such a reason - I focus on purely what the game allows me, the player, to do. Because of this, defining games, or types of games, by their art, something that happens to me, the player, never sat well with what I perceived games to be about, and so I started to do some digging into how and why people could have such an opinion.”
Without hearing the whole argument, I'd say he/she was right. Your position seems well researched, so I'm surprised that you didn't find the source of their opinion. It's rather simple, and it isn't because they're mistaken about the “true nature of games” or anything like that. It's because many people don't put much stock in the term “videogame,” they merely use it as a label to represent interactive experiences enabled by certain technologies. As such, the reasons people play “videogames,” and the aspects of those works they enjoy, are as diverse as the types of experiences offered therein.
The person you were arguing with probably did play cRPGs for the stories those works tell. Were they wrong to do so? No. It's a personal preference. That's what they enjoy. Just because you've never played games for such a reason does not invalidate it. Are you wrong for liking the same game for different reasons? For being more focused on the gameplay rather than their art or sound or story? Absolutely not. Both are compelling reasons to enjoy a cRPG (or many works of other genres), and the fact that it does both means that you can both enjoy it. Either one of you might find greater enjoyment in a work that more exclusively caters to your reason for playing, but for one title or genre to appeal to multiple people isn't necessarily a bad thing.
The person you were arguing with probably didn't want to play a more “pure” game, because it wouldn't appeal to them. That does not mean that pure games should not exist. All of these perspectives have merit, and every “videogame” that resonates with people does so for a variety of reasons. I feel that all of these reasons should be explored, but would prefer to explore them outside of the label of videogames.
To modify the old “square peg v. round hole” metaphor. The medium of videogames as popularly (un)defined at the moment is a giant round hole into which we've been jamming pegs of every conceivable shape. Your view seems to be to shrink the round hole so that only the round pegs will fit and everything else can be thrown out or fit into its similarly small separate hole of corresponding shape. I'm more of a mind that we should just re-name the large hole to something more inclusive, then as a sub-category call the round pegs videogames (accurately), the square pegs something else, and so on and so on. Segregation of these diverse sub-categories does them a disservice by disallowing hybrid works, and dismissal of sub-categories is simply self-centred and ignorant.
“It appears to me that you've been caught up in the same web of confusion as many, many other people have on this site, (and elsewhere), in thinking that computers automatically make everything they're used for *special* or *unique*.”
I don't think that computers make anything other than what we tell them to. Interactive works are not automatically special or unique, but the creative application of technology available by talented people absolutely affords them the potential to be so. That's why I'm hesitant to draw concrete and exclusionary boundaries. We must properly define what we have now, but cannot let ourselves believe it is all there will ever be.
______
As an aside I wanna apologize to Russell Lees for this lengthy back and forth. While it's certainly related, it doesn't really have all that much to do with your excellently written article, so I feel like it's kinda derailed the comments. I really would like to play The Dark Eye, do you know who owns the rights to it? I'd love to see a modern-machine-compatible version released through GOG.com or Steam.
"Where I think we differ is that it seems like you see those outlying works which don't fit this definition as abominations, whereas I see them as interesting new areas to be explored."
No - they're NOT *abominations* at all - they're just activities that are already DEFINED and LABELLED by different words, as different applications of, (or just), behaviour itself.
Different applications of different behaviour are NOT always compatible with each other - and sometimes when they are - (such as game and art) - it's only because they're applied by DIFFERENT people!
"Many of them don't even want to make a GAME at all."
Then labelling it As a game is a very big problem, which we come back to, again - and it IS a problem!
Language CANNOT DO IT'S JOB IF IT'S SUBJECTIVE!
The words game, art, puzzle, competition etc. ALL have specific meanings, based on their use independently of computers. The fact that this is not recognised nor understood by PEOPLE in relation to computers, is, as I said, a failure of linguistics!
Anyone who fails to use the language in a consistent manner is therefore part of the PROBLEM itself, and not it's solution - unfortunately, the only way this problem CAN be solved, is by involving the system we have of teaching and informing people about the language we use, itself.
EVERYTHING you posted after this is merely describing symptoms of this problem, and nothing more! The next step you need to take, however, is to fully recognise and understand that it IS, in fact, a PROBLEM, which, based on what you've written, has not yet happened.
As an example - (rough analogy):
If PEOPLE - (not humanity as a whole, just people) - who are involved in the creation and design of furniture, did not fully understand what the word furniture represents, (even though it's used as consistently as it is now), and therefore thought that ALL items of metal furniture should be called *tables*, (even if normally considered to be chairs and beds etc. when made out of wood) - do you think that the language would then be doing it's job? Do you think that just shrugging it off and saying "who cares - they can make whatever they want?" would be the right decision to make?
How could people possibly make the best tables, chairs and beds if:
a) They don't know what furniture is.
b) They don't know the difference (and relationship to and by the word furniture) of chair, table and bed EVEN THOUGH ALL THESE WORDS ARE BEING USED CONSISTENTLY in relation to a different type of furniture, and are then being made consistently, just in a different material?
Are tables, beds and chairs compatible with each other? Is one item of furniture that can be used as all three enough, even if we don't know what they are? The answer is, of course, NO.
But this is EVEN WORSE for games, puzzles and competitions.
Why?
Because games, puzzles and competitions are NOT always compatible AT ALL. (Art is, of course, compatible with all three, but only if applied by different people).
The same story CANNOT be simultaneously written and told to and by the SAME PERSON.
The foundations of all of this are recognising the basic behaviour such words represent an application of:
Things a person does for themselves
Things a person does for others
Things that happen to a person.
If you honestly do not, or cannot, understand WHY recognising and understanding the difference between those types of behaviour when represented by DIFFERENT words within the language is important, then I cannot help you, for that is one of the root causes of the problems we have here.
The behaviour of interacting with a story being told, is consistent with the word PUZZLE, not game. (And puzzles are STILL competitive - just indirectly - (competing by interacting with a story being told, to (usually) gain a (specific) outcome/goal/solution, in SPITE OF it's creator)).
If the story of an activity already exists BEFORE it is played or taken part in, (to be discovered, or chosen etc.), then it CANNOT be a game, since the purpose of a game is to compete by WRITING such a story instead.
Choose-your-own adventure books and all other similar activities - (regardless of media) - are PUZZLES - simply MAZES in whatever - (literary in this case) - form!
Stories told, that replace or are interleaved with stories that are written, REPLACE the game itself, (even if only for a moment). Competitions are NOT compatible with games at all - an activity is either one or the other, though it can be purely a matter of subjective perception and opinion. Puzzles are ONLY compatible with games if part of a race.
The English language has the words game, art, puzzle and competition for a GOOD REASON - because they are used to represent DIFFERENT applications of often DIFFERENT behaviour, that may ONLY compatible when applied by DIFFERENT people, or in a specific manner!
People's lack of recognition and understanding of such words ensures that games ESPECIALLY will never reach their full potential simply BECAUSE of their incompatibility in general with both puzzles and competitions.
That is what I would like to fix - because I see what's POSSIBLE for games when applied for what they truly are.
Anyway as I stated above, I AGREE that falsely labelling non-games as videogames is a problem. I've felt this way for a long time. It causes a lot of confusion and misconceptions. As a label, I think the term “videogames” sucks, because it is so wildly inaccurate. We would be better off applying it more narrowly to works that are clearly intended as games, or better yet scrapping it in favour of a less display-specific term like electronic games or digital games (or something to that effect).
Where I still do not agree with you (and we're probably just at an impasse here) is the notion that every creation that we currently mislabel as a videogame is either an electronic game, an electronic puzzle, or an electronic competition. I just don't think things fit that neatly into labels. Cramming everything into three categories instead of one really just breaks up the labelling inaccuracies to a more granular level. More things would be properly labelled for sure, but you're not solving the problem completely.
If there has been any perceivable benefit from operating under a very broad and inaccurate label for so long, it's that people have created all sorts of interesting hybrids. If you want to stick to the three categories you've outlined, draw a triangle and put one of the labels on each of the points. If you mapped all “videogames” to coordinates within the triangle based on how much of each element are present within them, there would probably be titles all over the place, and good titles spread out over most areas. There might be some places that are more bare than others (perhaps halfway between game and competition as you've suggested), but I guarantee an honest placement wouldn't just have titles at each of the three corners and nowhere else.
In order to avoid the same sort of mislabelling that's happening now but on a smaller scale, or the denial of the merits of hybrids or interesting experiments, I would propose we'd be better off applying a broad title based on the common principles (interactivity, technology) but freed of any implied connection to any one of the categories you've outlined. That way those distinctions of game, puzzle, and competition could be applied as sub-categories when appropriate for a particular work.
I think the above paragraph might just be the most boring thing ever written on the internet. :)
I'm pretty sure the two of us are the only ones left (unless Luis is still here) because our respective walls of text have driven everyone else away, so I'll try (and fail) to be brief with the remainder.
“The same story CANNOT be simultaneously written and told to and by the SAME PERSON. ”
“The behaviour of interacting with a story being told, is consistent with the word PUZZLE, not game. (And puzzles are STILL competitive - just indirectly - (competing by interacting with a story being told, to (usually) gain a (specific) outcome/goal/solution, in SPITE OF it's creator)). ”
I really think you've missed the mark on the second quote in particular. Interacting with a story (as presented in works like Grim Fandango) in and of itself has nothing to do with a puzzle, because the interaction with the story isn't presented as a challenge or problem. They're also not mazes because the goal isn't to get to the end, it's in the exploration itself. You aren't doing anything in spite of the creator, if anything it's quite the opposite. You are exploring and discovering what the creator of the work has written. Challenges presented (if there are any) are only there to accentuate and intensify the narrative, they are not the focus of the work. When Manuel Calavera worked his way up from nothing to be one of the most prominent figures in Rubacava, only to give up everything to pursue a woman he'd only met once, I felt a great deal of emotional satisfaction. I didn't feel like I'd solved a puzzle (well... except for the dozen or so puzzles I solved to get to that point, but that's entirely besides the point ;).
I've never felt the conflict you describe in the first quote because I've rarely felt like I was writing a story by playing a “videogame.” I feel like the story is going on all around me and I'm discovering it or trying to keep up with it. There are a few exceptions, for example open world games. I'm not a fan (nothing against anyone who is) because while I feel like I'm writing a story, I'm writing it in blood and the only words I can use are about murder and destruction. Now I enjoy murder as much as the next guy, but in the open world games I've played, there just doesn't really seem like any point to it. When I play works that people have labelled “adventure games” I gladly forfeit my authorial control in exchange for a much more limited suite of options and a (in my opinion) greatly superior narrative experience.
I feel that is an experience which has no place within the quantifying mechanism you've created, as it is more akin to watching a movie or (more accurately) reading a book than solving a puzzle or playing a game, but is different from all of them.
Oops - fixed - doh!
(P.s. the way I see it is that this site is here to help people with the design and creation of games, especially computer games, and so anything that is posted here in any place, time or manner that is consistent with such a thing, even if replying to a blog post (especially in a related manner), is 'fair game'.)
Electronic and digital are NOT the medium being used, by which such types of game must be labelled (not defined) in a manner consistent with its use! The only medium that matters here, is, of course, a computer/computers! What we are talking about here, are simply computer games, (in general).
There are a couple of things that matter for the rest of your post, without which you are having problems.
The first is to understand that at no point did I say that games, art, puzzles and competitions HAD to exist in ISOLATION.
The problem I have, is that they are being subjectively APPLIED in a manner that is not usually fully consistent with ANY of the individual concepts they are used to represent, which is helpful for creating a good quality example of such an activity - let alone being labelled in a manner consistent with such a thing, which isn't surprising considering the problems we have in understanding and recognising what it is they represent.
Most pieces of such software generally favour one specific type of activity over another, (that, again, isn't always recognised or understood either), and so that is how they should be DEFINED. If they contain another type of activity within that, then they can certainly have an additional LABEL, just as it is for types of games themselves - (FPS with driving elements etc.) - (Game and puzzles). (The correct use of the term puzzle game, would be to describe a race to complete a puzzle). The nature of what the words game, puzzle and competition represent, (see my above definitions), already supplies the necessary information about how they should be labelled in relation to their application.
The key to this, is to understand the difference and relationship between the words ENABLE, and PROMOTE. A race to complete a puzzle, is using a puzzle to enable a game. Using a puzzle to then begin a fight between two people, would be using a puzzle to promote a game - (The Duelmaster series of 'choose-your-own adventure' books uses the latter format). Both of these would be consistent with being DEFINED as a game, yet also involve puzzles - one would be a puzzle game, whereas the other would a game and (including) a puzzle.
One of the main reasons you are having problem understanding how my definitions above are truly applicable to everything, including Grim fandango, is your lack of understanding of what the word story itself represents. (sorry for not including it in my original reply, though it's all in my blog):
Story n. An arrangement or form of information, of or about a series of events, (created and stored inside (a person's/entity's) memory).
All human behaviour can be seen and described in relation to this thing we call story.
Things a person does for themselves = writing their own story
Things a person does for others = telling a story
Things that happen to a person = a story they are (being) told
The SETTING in all computer games, is a story a person is told, and can still be COMPETED against. (Nearly all single player games involve such a thing, and so can puzzles). See my description of the word puzzle in my original reply to understand how and why Grim Fandango is still a puzzle, (based on your description - (I've never 'played' it, though know 'of' it - (not my type of 'game'/activity))).
"I've never felt the conflict you describe in the first quote because I've rarely felt like I was writing a story by playing a “videogame.”"
Perhaps now, with the definition of story above, you understand that nature of the term 'writing a story'.
EVERYTHING a person DOES and HAPPENS TO THEM, creates (writes) such information to the person's memory - creates a story.
Games are about people competing by doing something FOR themselves - writing their own stories, (in a structured environment (created rules, and for computer games, a setting too).
The whole point about games, is that the story of the activity itself is created (written) AS the game itself is PLAYED. IF a player TELLS a story instead of writing one, then it is normally considered to be cheating.
Interacting with stories being told, is obviously DIFFERENT. In this case, the story of the activity ALREADY EXISTS before it is taken part in. The process of discovering such a story when interacting with it - (which is how you describe Grim Fandango) - is still covered by the use (and definition) of the word puzzle. Again, the problem we have with the word puzzle at this time, is that its application is being confused for its definition - just like the word game itself, too.
If NO interaction is necessary with the story itself, in order for it to be perceived, i.e. the only interaction is with the media containing the story - (i.e. a book) - then it is merely a work of art of whatever form contained within or using such a medium.
Hopefully, with this definition of the word story, everything will now be a lot clearer for you to understand? I suppose I should apologise for not including it in my original reply, but I always link to my blog for a reason ;)
Hm... Let's come back to this one later... I guess... I can come up with a game that had gameplay so horribly done, boring, repetitive or boring, but none which its plot would ever be worth keep playing it. I guess I just decribed a lot of games that came out in the last five years.
"In a narrative game the only thing less interesting than meaningless choice is meaningful choice."
Narrative game. Narrative game. Definitely, narrative... that's the word that makes the whole sentence make absolute sense. The inevitable outcoming is possibly the most perfect basis for game narrative.
Also want to say that it is fun to see people that have done these kind of projects getting involved in the game's discussion again! I agree with much (almost all) of what you say and I really liked this piece:
"The real goal is to allow the player to become a member of a jazz ensemble. Sometimes leading the group, drawing out passages, accelerating others; sometimes supporting the current beat."
Are you planning on working on any more games?
What an odd thing to say. The concept called "art" doesn't have any inherent value. What is there to define down from if it doesn't have any "height" to begin with?