Jimquisition: It's Not A Video Game!

[TheLastFeeder]

That's why definitions are important. The entirety of human society is based on them. It is never acceptable for the same word to mean completely different things to any two people, because that undermines the very foundation of human interaction.

Umm? Ok, I guess?

Exept if you look into a dictornary you'll see that most words have more than 2 definitions.

Spoiler: Let's look at the dictonary definition of the word "Set"

Spoiler: Sorry for the Uber Long post

verb (used with object), set, setting.
1.
to put (something or someone) in a particular place:
to set a vase on a table.
2.
to place in a particular position or posture:
Set the baby on his feet.
3.
to place in some relation to something or someone:
We set a supervisor over the new workers.
4.
to put into some condition:
to set a house on fire.
5.
to put or apply:
to set fire to a house.
6.
to put in the proper position:
to set a chair back on its feet.
7.
to put in the proper or desired order or condition for use:
to set a trap.
8.
to distribute or arrange china, silver, etc., for use on (a table):
to set the table for dinner.
9.
to place (the hair, especially when wet) on rollers, in clips, or the like, so that the hair will assume a particular style.
10.
to put (a price or value) upon something:
He set $7500 as the right amount for the car. The teacher sets a high value on neatness.
11.
to fix the value of at a certain amount or rate; value:
He set the car at $500. She sets neatness at a high value.
12.
to post, station, or appoint for the purpose of performing some duty:
to set spies on a person.
13.
to determine or fix definitely:
to set a time limit.
14.
to resolve or decide upon:
to set a wedding date.
15.
to cause to pass into a given state or condition:
to set one's mind at rest; to set a prisoner free.
16.
to direct or settle resolutely or wishfully:
to set one's mind to a task.
17.
to present as a model; place before others as a standard:
to set a good example.
18.
to establish for others to follow:
to set a fast pace.
19.
to prescribe or assign, as a task.
20.
to adjust (a mechanism) so as to control its performance.
21.
to adjust the hands of (a clock or watch) according to a certain standard:
I always set my watch by the clock in the library.
22.
to adjust (a timer, alarm of a clock, etc.) so as to sound when desired:
He set the alarm for seven o'clock.
23.
to fix or mount (a gem or the like) in a frame or setting.
24.
to ornament or stud with gems or the like:
a bracelet set with pearls.
25.
to cause to sit; seat:
to set a child in a highchair.
26.
to put (a hen) on eggs to hatch them.
27.
to place (eggs) under a hen or in an incubator for hatching.
28.
to place or plant firmly:
to set a flagpole in concrete.
29.
to put into a fixed, rigid, or settled state, as the face, muscles, etc.
30.
to fix at a given point or calibration:
to set the dial on an oven; to set a micrometer.
31.
to tighten (often followed by up):
to set nuts well up.
32.
to cause to take a particular direction:
to set one's course to the south.
33.
Surgery. to put (a broken or dislocated bone) back in position.
34.
(of a hunting dog) to indicate the position of (game) by standing stiffly and pointing with the muzzle.
35.
Music.

to fit, as words to music.
to arrange for musical performance.
to arrange (music) for certain voices or instruments.

36.
Theater.

to arrange the scenery, properties, lights, etc., on (a stage) for an act or scene.
to prepare (a scene) for dramatic performance.

37.
Nautical. to spread and secure (a sail) so as to catch the wind.
38.
Printing.

to arrange (type) in the order required for printing.
to put together types corresponding to (copy); compose in type:
to set an article.

39.
Baking. to put aside (a substance to which yeast has been added) in order that it may rise.
40.
to change into curd:
to set milk with rennet.
41.
to cause (glue, mortar, or the like) to become fixed or hard.
42.
to urge, goad, or encourage to attack:
to set the hounds on a trespasser.
43.
Bridge. to cause (the opposing partnership or their contract) to fall short:
We set them two tricks at four spades. Only perfect defense could set four spades.
44.
to affix or apply, as by stamping:
The king set his seal to the decree.
45.
to fix or engage (a fishhook) firmly into the jaws of a fish by pulling hard on the line once the fish has taken the bait.
46.
to sharpen or put a keen edge on (a blade, knife, razor, etc.) by honing or grinding.
47.
to fix the length, width, and shape of (yarn, fabric, etc.).
48.
Carpentry. to sink (a nail head) with a nail set.
49.
to bend or form to the proper shape, as a saw tooth or a spring.
50.
to bend the teeth of (a saw) outward from the blade alternately on both sides in order to make a cut wider than the blade itself.

51.
to pass below the horizon; sink:
The sun sets early in winter.
52.
to decline; wane.
53.
to assume a fixed or rigid state, as the countenance or the muscles.
54.
(of the hair) to be placed temporarily on rollers, in clips, or the like, in order to assume a particular style:
Long hair sets more easily than short hair.
55.
to become firm, solid, or permanent, as mortar, glue, cement, or a dye, due to drying or physical or chemical change.
56.
to sit on eggs to hatch them, as a hen.
57.
to hang or fit, as clothes.
58.
to begin to move; start (usually followed by forth, out, off, etc.).
59.
(of a flower's ovary) to develop into a fruit.
60.
(of a hunting dog) to indicate the position of game.
61.
to have a certain direction or course, as a wind, current, or the like.
62.
Nautical. (of a sail) to be spread so as to catch the wind.
63.
Printing. (of type) to occupy a certain width:
This copy sets to forty picas.
64.
Nonstandard. sit:
Come in and set a spell.

noun
65.
the act or state of setting or the state of being set.
66.
a collection of articles designed for use together:
a set of china; a chess set.
67.
a collection, each member of which is adapted for a special use in a particular operation:
a set of golf clubs; a set of carving knives.
68.
a number, group, or combination of things of similar nature, design, or function:
a set of ideas.
69.
a series of volumes by one author, about one subject, etc.
70.
a number, company, or group of persons associated by common interests, occupations, conventions, or status:
a set of murderous thieves; the smart set.
71.
the fit, as of an article of clothing:
the set of his coat.
72.
fixed direction, bent, or inclination:
The set of his mind was obvious.
73.
bearing or carriage:
the set of one's shoulders.
74.
the assumption of a fixed, rigid, or hard state, as by mortar or glue.
75.
the arrangement of the hair in a particular style:
How much does the beauty parlor charge for a shampoo and set?
76.
a plate for holding a tool or die.
77.
an apparatus for receiving radio or television programs; receiver.
78.
Philately. a group of stamps that form a complete series.
79.
Tennis. a unit of a match, consisting of a group of not fewer than six games with a margin of at least two games between the winner and loser:
He won the match in straight sets of 6?3, 6?4, 6?4.
80.
a construction representing a place or scene in which the action takes place in a stage, motion-picture, or television production.
81.
Machinery.

the bending out of the points of alternate teeth of a saw in opposite directions.
a permanent deformation or displacement of an object or part.
a tool for giving a certain form to something, as a saw tooth.

82.
a chisel having a wide blade for dividing bricks.
83.
Horticulture. a young plant, or a slip, tuber, or the like, suitable for planting.
84.
Dance.

the number of couples required to execute a quadrille or the like.
a series of movements or figures that make up a quadrille or the like.

85.
Music.

a group of pieces played by a band, as in a night club, and followed by an intermission.
the period during which these pieces are played.

86.
Bridge. a failure to take the number of tricks specified by one's contract:
Our being vulnerable made the set even more costly.
87.
Nautical.

the direction of a wind, current, etc.
the form or arrangement of the sails, spars, etc., of a vessel.
suit (def 12).

88.
Psychology. a temporary state of an organism characterized by a readiness to respond to certain stimuli in a specific way.
89.
Mining. a timber frame bracing or supporting the walls or roof of a shaft or stope.
90.
Carpentry. nail set.
91.
Mathematics. a collection of objects or elements classed together.
92.
Printing. the width of a body of type.
93.
sett (def 3).

adjective
94.
fixed or prescribed beforehand:
a set time; set rules.
95.
specified; fixed:
The hall holds a set number of people.
96.
deliberately composed; customary:
set phrases.
97.
fixed; rigid:
a set smile.
98.
resolved or determined; habitually or stubbornly fixed:
to be set in one's opinions.
99.
completely prepared; ready:
Is everyone set?
interjection
100.
(in calling the start of a race):
Ready! Set! Go!
Also, get set!
Verb phrases
101.
set about,

to begin on; start.
to undertake; attempt.
to assault; attack.

102.
set against,

to cause to be hostile or antagonistic.
to compare or contrast:
The advantages must be set against the disadvantages.

103.
set ahead, to set to a later setting or time:
Set your clocks ahead one hour.
104.
set apart,

to reserve for a particular purpose.
to cause to be noticed; distinguish:
Her bright red hair sets her apart from her sisters.

105.
set aside,

to put to one side; reserve:
The clerk set aside the silver brooch for me.
to dismiss from the mind; reject.
to prevail over; discard; annul:
to set aside a verdict.

106.
set back,

to hinder; impede.
to turn the hands of (a watch or clock) to show an earlier time:
When your plane gets to California, set your watch back two hours.
to reduce to a lower setting:
Set back the thermostat before you go to bed.

107.
set by, to save or keep for future use.
108.
set down,

to write or to copy or record in writing or printing.
to consider; estimate:
to set someone down as a fool.
to attribute; ascribe:
to set a failure down to bad planning.
to put in a position of rest on a level surface.
to humble or humiliate.
to land an airplane:
We set down in a heavy fog.
(in horse racing) to suspend (a jockey) from competition because of some offense or infraction of the rules.

109.
set forth,

to give an account of; state; describe:
He set forth his theory in a scholarly report.
to begin a journey; start:
Columbus set forth with three small ships.

110.
set in,

to begin to prevail; arrive:
Darkness set in.
(of winds or currents) to blow or flow toward the shore.

111.
set off,

to cause to become ignited or to explode.
to begin; start.
to intensify or improve by contrast.
to begin a journey or trip; depart.

112.
set on,

Also, set upon. to attack or cause to attack:
to set one's dog on a stranger.
to instigate; incite:
to set a crew to mutiny.

113.
set out,

to begin a journey or course:
to set out for home.
to undertake; attempt:
He set out to prove his point.
to design; plan:
to set out a pattern.
to define; describe:
to set out one's arguments.
to plant:
to set out petunias and pansies.
to lay out (the plan of a building) in actual size at the site.
to lay out (a building member or the like) in actual size.

114.
set to,

to make a vigorous effort; apply oneself to work; begin.
to begin to fight; contend.

115.
set up,

to put upright; raise.
to put into a high or powerful position.
to construct; assemble; erect.
to be assembled or made ready for use:
exercise equipment that sets up in a jiffy.
to inaugurate; establish.
to enable to begin in business; provide with means.
Informal. to make a gift of; treat, as to drinks.
Informal. to stimulate; elate.
to propound; plan; advance.
to bring about; cause.
to become firm or hard, as a glue or cement:
a paint that sets up within five minutes.
to lead or lure into a dangerous, detrimental, or embarrassing situation, as by deceitful prearrangement or connivance.
to entrap or frame, as an innocent person in a crime or a criminal suspect in a culpable circumstance in order to achieve an arrest.
to arrange the murder or execution of:
His partner set him up with the mob.
Bridge. to establish (a suit):
to set up spades.

But where would we be without words having different meanings

 

[gargantual]

Well so this can of worms opened up again.

I used to be more of the open perspective after I saw Campster's vid year or few back, but have come around to stricter definitions and realized that titles with EXTREMELY implicit senses of accomplishment could have very gamey systems of pattern mastery and skill that further encourage the player to perform certain actions and might not break the creative mold an avant garde dev is going for.


Get your thinking caps on people. I'm putting Mark Ceb from Action Points vs. Campster. Good arguments on both sides.

One comes from the perspective of highly contextual definitions like what is art? what is jazz? (we still can't agree on those)



The other acknowledges those esoteric considerations, but comes down on the side of (if it doesn't have specific components to enrich your participation, is it serving you the way a game naturally would?)



CAPTCHA: Moot point..

Me: Moot point?! Dem's fightin words captcha. *reaches for digital glock*

 

[pearcinator]

I liked Dear Esther but I just appreciated the slow pace and the visuals. It was quite an immersive game to me but I also like just going for a walk for no reason other than to take in my surroundings. I always considered it a game but I can see why people don't like it because it's not really entertaining.

 

[Kingjackl]

You're not the only one who's been waiting for this episode Jim. That needed to be said.

I find the "not a game" criticism to be lazy, and when applied to games like Gone Home or The Walking Dead, I find them hilarious. Have these people not heard of visual novels? I'm an Ace Attorney fan mate, don't talk to me about what is and isn't a game. At least those games let you move around in them. It just goes to show how deep the gaming spectrum can be, and how much of a stretch "not a game" is as an insult.

 

[KaZuYa]

I actually own every game you recommended, we must have so much in common Jim, can we be friends and hold hands and such?

 

[Canadamus Prime]

If it's played on some sort of video-like device and you interact with it to any sort of degree, even the most minuscule, then it'a a video game.

 

[ElMinotoro]

I've seen people bring up TB a few times. TB's "not a game" video. TB is not an authority on language use. Don't treat him as such; His opinion on which words matter, which words you should focus on and how those words should be interpreted varies depending on who is doing the speaking.

Basically, if you're a mate of his then everything you say should be looked at in the softest light possible while if you're someone he doesn't like everything you should say should be deconstructed to nth degree as harshly as possible.

I feel like this video is a jab at TB and I'm happier for it.

 

[hentropy]

It is a question I have grappled with for some time, because I have played visual novels for years, "games" that are often interactive but do little more than tell a story with visuals and words and SFX/music.

Here's a question: if I make a movie where there is no interactivity besides you pressing a button when the scene changes in order to keep it playing, have I made a game? In some ways that's what a visual novel is: you clicking every so often to get to the next part in a similar way as you might flip a page in a book.

Of course you might say, I've played a few of the VN thingies, don't they have branches and paths and in some cases many different endings? Well yes, and the only "challenge" if there is one is trying to get every ending or story route. That argument can be made, particularly for VNs that have a great many different outcomes and paths and decision trees, but it still doesn't feel like a game to me.

Keep in mind: this is not a derogatory assessment, I like VNs, as I stated before. But the game in these cases is not in the actual visual novel, the "game" if there is one exists only externally, the same as a completionist might address Super Mario 64, there's simply beating the game but there is also getting all of the stars. Achieving all of the stars isn't really the game you bought, that's a game you are making for yourself.

Then I think of a game like Long Live the Queen, a game with visual novel elements that does not use traditional game mechanics- but it is not a passive experience, you cannot simply keep clicking to advance to the end of the story. A game where you are simply shown things, the only interaction being that you press a button to walk a certain way is simply not a game.

It's not because there is no "failure state", I think that's hitting the wrong target, it's because the player is only passively interacting with the game. Animal Crossing is a game because it requires not just your input but your thought, you add what you will to the game through your actions.

Games where you have to hunt for items can indeed be called games, because your actions inside the game are not entirely passive, but when you are told exactly where to go and what to do and you simply do them, it makes it much more passive. I agree with the sentiment that this new genre of experience can and should be deemed separate, not so that they may be laughed at and shunned, but so they may be evaluated and compared on their own merits, and not the merits of less passive games, as they truly are apples and oranges.

 

[Biran53]

When it is brought to a literal, definition basis, I think it's fair to argue that there can be a difference between "games" and "videogames".

Example. Why do I consider Gone Home to be a "video game?" Because it is an interactive experience that only works in its medium. The narrative only resonates if the player interacts with it on a personal, one-to-one platform. Perhaps "interactive experience" is more fitting? The reason I (as others have mentioned) have been wary of stripping titles like Gone Home of the "game" identity is because I used to fear that it would discourage similar games from being made in the future. And I WANT games like Gone Home in the future. But it does seem to be a mostly irrational fear.

I feel that the debate often boils down to being less about how to define "interactive experiences," but if such games have a reason to exist in the first place.

 

[Therumancer]

Basically an art grant is supposed to be used to support some guy, with the idea being that they will produce things of tangible value that will fill US museums and add to our culture as a whole. In reality it can be used by some dirty hippy to keep himself in weed, with him coming out and say peeing on a cruicifix and saying it took him the time and money to make that profound statement for the world. Which of course leads to fights over standards when say the people with these grants want to limit the definition of art, to not include things like this.

Or, instead of trying to (re)define art, they could just define criteria required to receive a grant. Especially since "art" has been in the eye of the beholder since long before we had grants anyway.


One, they can also define criteria required for a scholarship or grant. Or just judge them based on those criteria.

Two, video games will be taken seriously when the people who grew up playing video games become the people giving out the scholarships and grants. (Sure, some places are already trying to get ahead of that, but often with laughable results because they don't truly understand the subject matter.)

I mean would you risk giving say $50k to me (someone you don't know) to produce a video game under the current standards? For all you know I'll blow the money on garbage, take some pictures of my junk, and put them on the internet with a mouth-shaped cursor so the world can suck me off.

No, I wouldn't risk giving you $50k because a) that's a lot of money (to me, maybe not to some) and b) even if I 100% trust your intentions, there are an awful lot of terrible or never-completed indie games out there. It would have nothing to do with what I considered a "game" or not.

(Besides, if I were giving that much money, I would want to know exactly what the game was going to be, long in advance, so we wouldn't have the problem of definitions.)

Understand by current definition we might as well consider 4chan an artists commune

Works for me. (Although I'd be much less inclined to hang out there than in most artists' communes.)

and perhaps the greatest contributor of artwork to today's popular culture given the widespread influence it has.

Quantity is not quality -- nor influence. 4chan memes are directly used in many situations, but classic works have a much more subtle influence. In fact, the proof of their widespread influence is that we often don't even know we're invoking them, they've become so ingrained in our culture. Tropes, words, film techniques, etc.

Some 4chan memes might someday reach that status, but for the most part, they're fleeting and already feel dated within a few months or years.

Slightly trimmed.

Beauty has arguably always been in the eye of the beholder (or is that a flesh to stone ray? I always get them confused) art less so. It's mostly been in the modern day that we've been trying to define art in radical new ways through performance art and so on. Sculptures, paintings, etc... those are universally accepted as artistic mediums. The problem is that when you start defining things too broadly it means nothing. You cannot take "art" or an "it's art" defense seriously when technically a snapshot someone's dog taking a poop could be defended as artistic.

The defense that the definition of artwork must be inclusive is relatively recent, and exists largely because of how awful it is to exclude someone who might put a lot of time and effort into something. It's sort of like the whole idea of "self validation" in school without competition and where someone who barfs on the rug is treated the same way as someone who does something meaningful. When you give everyone a participation trophy what value does the trophy have?
Something being legitimate art should be praise that elevates it, and that can't happen when everything is considered
to be art when presented the right way.

Sort of like how I as "Evil Therumancer" oftentimes rag on certain "primitive" and backwards cultures out there. Aboriginals, certain Native American tribes (despite having worked for two of them), and a lot of the groups being preserved out in Africa and so on. I do that actually because I'm not a racist and believe that everyone can achieve the same basic things, there is no generic imperative among any type of human that prevents it. People defend protecting these cultures and not assimilating them because of how they have been around for "thousands of years" and based on their so-called artwork, music, and so on, and discouraging adaption in order to preserve these things. Actually I think keeping these people primitive in the long term is more cruel than the short term nastiness in forced assimilation. Especially when you consider this is literally in many cases because someone out there decided that people making necklaces and statues out of dried lumps of shit (and I actually am not kidding here) and things like that was a form of art that needed to be preserved as opposed to just being you know... gross and barbaric. Ditto for music and such "OMG look at this backwards guy banging rocks together and making a horrible racket, to them that's music, how lovely". I've kind of thought "indigenous rights" has long time been code for "crimes against humanity in the name of alleged artistic preservation" but I suppose that's a big aside.

I'm of the opinion that "art" should be limited to very specific art forms that many people currently consider "classic" mediums. Painting, Sculpture, Metal Crafting, etc... along with a certain level of technological development being needed before consideration, basically if your operating on a level so primitive and backwards the ancient Eguptians would have said "WTF man" then you don't count. I guess it makes me a horrible bigot, but basically if your stringing poop on a string and wearing it as a necklace that does not count as bloody artwork, that's just backwards and disgusting. Certain things like "performance art" might be entertaining but should not be considered art and really the people doing that should be left entirely to their own devices without societal wide support. Basically if you can find someone to actually pay to watch you take a whizz on a flag, more power to you, but by no means should this be defended or protected by the rest of society, or be something that can be used to justify grants and/or government assistance. The reason why I bring up the grants and such is that by definition they are prevented from discriminating, largely because the definition of art is so broad. Really the only time you can discriminate with a grant is if your providing it to an ethnic minority in a practical sense. This is why with government programs in particular there has been pressure for the government to stop supporting the "arts" because the lack of any kind of definition or the ability to define one means that it amounts to a lot of money literally being flushed down the toilet with nothing of lasting value being created.

With things like video games and such it's a medium I suppose that could create art, but largely in the same way literature can be considered art (and frequently put into it's own category). That said it's not a classic form of art, nor is it one that has any definition, being overly broad in terms of what could be considered a game, especially given the way Jim wants to define it, which is pretty much to say that if it runs on an electronic device it can be considered a video game. By his standards I fail to see how playing a movie on a VCR wouldn't be considered a video game (after all you can interact with it by using the remote control). There is no point to anything being called a video game if literally everything is, there is no point to the label, just like there is no point to "Art" when by definition anything you want to call art can be art.

Of course at the end of the day the real issue of course, like always, is a resentment of authority. Someone has to pretty much lay down the law and say "this is what art and/or video games are" and then everyone has to abide by it, and of course nobody wants to be excluded, which is by definition going to happen. That doesn't mean that such laws and guidelines should not be laid down though, and what's more everyone is likely to benefit from them in the long term.

A big part of the whole "games as art" thing is that legally speaking one of the big things protecting video games right now is them being granted artistic protections, the same way movies and such are. Put into the existing context they are art, but overall chances are they should not be considered real art, nor should movies. Some people might appreciate them as art, but in the overall sense of things "Art" should officially refer to very specific classic mediums. Movies, video games, etc... should be protected under other protections like free speech and expression,
though I understand why people might think otherwise. One of the big problems I have with a lot of modern media being considered "art" is that it doesn't produce anything lasting. A movie, painting, or piece of metalwork can in theory survive for thousands of years if properly taken care of. Movies and video games are by definition dependent on the technology of the time, and people feeling they are worthy of bringing forward to new levels of technology. With each step things are lost. What's more in thousands of years it's doubtful if technology will still be compatible with what we have now, and indeed a lot of the concepts and such involved in current games and movies probably won't even apply or be relatable other than as perhaps an amusing anachronism showing how backwards we all were if they even survive. If say tomorrow some massive EMP pulse destroyed all the technology or whatever, paintings and statues could very well survive, in a hundred years it doesn't matter how emotional the works of David Cage were, chances are there will be no real trace of them left at all. I'd personally argue that real "art" is something that should be able to endure on it's own independent of a civilization or the need for supporting technologies. In a thousand years the Lincoln Memorial will still be there and future people will probably be able to marvel at it, almost guaranteed, heck if we all die out an aliens visit there will probably be traces of it for a long time to come. What will be left of say "Silent Hill 2"? Could they even get that to work, and what's more how could they relate to it? At least with Lincoln the basic idea... a memorial to a great leader, is communicated just by it being there. "Silent Hill 2" might have a lot to say about the human condition in it's own way, but a genuine work of art? Something lasting? I have my doubts. In a thousand years it's doubtful anyone will have any idea about that (though I could be wrong) no more than anyone will remember the dude who pisses on things as a form of performance art.

For the record I haven't been able to find it (I've been looking) but the whole point about pooping and peeing is that when I was in college there was a bit of a fiasco about someone who collected like $125,000 from the federal government and was being put up in an artists commune operating on a trust and providing food and lodging to people as long as they worked on art. When finally confronted his defense was "I'm a deep thinker and a performance artist" and his "show" was to fill a bucket with a US flag painted on the bottom and then drop a cruicifix into it and basically go "ponder my thoughts". It was news at the time, especially when I was hanging out with people in Drama Guild to an extent, and knew a few of those fringe arty types as I mentioned (and I also used to be a huge liberal). That actually seemed to be the point at which the federal government really decided to start pushing for not investing money in the arts anymore as well. For about 15 minutes I thought that was kind of cool and defiant, but in the long term I came to realize that it's simply the kind of thing that shouldn't be happening, it demonstrates why the definition of art needs to be strictly defined, and on a lot of levels the antics of the artistic community are to blame as well. As much as I defend video games and free speech, and can't blame people for using any weapon at hand, I see "games as art" as largely being a technical defense during legal battles, not as something that people should take too seriously. One day perhaps video games will become art, but right now I do not think they can be. Perhaps down the road if we say develop some kind of permanent shared VR construct that remains around forever in one form or another it will be possible for games to have some kind of permanence. Furthermore video games are also a huge business, with what they do and say being driven primarily by financial whims, even most indie games are at the mercy of market forces as they attract funding. The thing about artwork is that a lot of it wasn't known or appreciated in it's day, especially since the artists were not doing what was popular or accepted at the time. Video games are not really capable of this. Your not going to say see someone finding some indie game 100 years down the road (like people will be looking) and see it catapult into massive fame and influence. It's doubtful anything forgotten like that will have been preserved across platforms or that anyone would be using century old technology to go through obscure video games. Nobody is going to say "wow, this person was a brilliant game designer who is now influencing society in a massive way, too bad he died under a bridge during his life because nobody would see his brilliance".

 

[Juan Regular]

This entire debate just bores me to tears at this point. So we haven't got the exact definition of some stuff right, so what? Like what you like, dislike what you dislike and move the fuck on. This discussion was worth having a decade ago, it's just pointless now.
What pisses me off is how people look down on you and brand you a fucking hipster or some such bullshit term for liking games like Dear Esther and Gone Home. I don't like these games because I'm some elitist art fascist, but because I enjoy the atmosphere, the immersion, the visuals and the feeling I get from playing them and I just don't get why so many people feel the need to insult me or pull me into another fucking discussion about "non-games" or "walking simulators" for liking them.

 

[ClockworkAngel]

I never really gave this much thought before. I've always casually dismissed the idea that a game "isn't a game". I would be interested in reading reasons why people think games like Dear Esther and Gone Home aren't games.

.. I also would love to see that Silent Hill: Downpour episode.

 

[TheIceQueen]

Beauty has arguably always been in the eye of the beholder (or is that a flesh to stone ray? I always get them confused) art less so. It's mostly been in the modern day that we've been trying to define art in radical new ways through performance art and so on. Sculptures, paintings, etc... those are universally accepted as artistic mediums. The problem is that when you start defining things too broadly it means nothing. You cannot take "art" or an "it's art" defense seriously when technically a snapshot someone's dog taking a poop could be defended as artistic.

Forgetting the rest of the argument, I want to focus on this little section. It really boils down to how you see art and the subsequent defense of it. First, the "it's art" shouldn't really ever be a valid defense, so why should you have to take it seriously? Just because the Mona Lisa is art, doesn't mean you can use that as defense to halt any criticism thrown its way. Being art really is nothing special because plenty of bad sculptures, bad paintings, bad operas, bad musicals, bad plays, et cetera have existed across the years and we've forgotten about them all because they were bad. Calling them art or music or any such thing did them no credit. They still failed inevitably because being art, being games, being music is nothing inherently good. The dog poop snapshot that you mentioned? Sure, it's art, but what does that matter? Nothing. Because it's most likely bad art and bad art is still bad art, no matter if it's a photo of dog poop or a poorly constructed sculpture. We, the viewers, assign worth to it as we see it. The label itself doesn't give it any worth.

And if things are broadly defined to be more inclusive, that's fine. It allows a medium to adapt as times change. Music was once only seen to be proper music if it was voices singing. This would have stifled music as we know it now if we had allowed such a definition to remain in place. No wonderful piano pieces. No orchestras. Everything thought of as classical was once a radically new and dangerous addition to the medium. The organ that's now so synonymous with churches? Resisted for many, many years. Yet, it's now the masses and motets that most people have forgotten, not the church organs and the music that comes from that.

Resisting change to the evolution of a medium is a silly and narrow-minded view. It was often the changes to the medium that gave us the things we now consider so integral to the experience. It shouldn't be about resisting change, it should be about preserving the old as the new gets added. Classical stuff is never going to go away. It's still forever a part of each and every medium. But restraining the medium? Well, I, for one, am very glad we're not still singing Gregorian Chants primarily, even if it means enduring the likes of Justin Bieber as well.

 

[Groverfield]

Man. I hate that game Corel Wordperfect. It's just riding the coattails of the more successful XBox Works, and even then it doesn't have the same character dynamics in such classic video game characters as Clippy.

 

[sageoftruth]

What timing. Only a few days ago, I watched Totalbiscuit talk about the same thing. He was actually against calling them games, simply because as Jim pointed out, they're pretty bad when you go into them with the expectations you have for a game. For the sake of honest advertizing he supported calling them something other than "game", such as "interactive experience" or some other more honest title. Considering these are found it droves on Steam where the importance of honest marketing is discussed a lot, it sounds like a good idea to draw a clear line between something that's gamey and something this isn't.

 

[Signa]

Personally, not being a "video game" isn't an insult, nor does it diminish criticism against it. I don't consider The Walking Dead to be a very good game at all, but it's an excellent "interactive entertainment experience." To me, a game does have to have a failure state, because that's what games are. That doesn't mean video based entertainment needs to have a failure state, but I think it is a disservice to call some of the products in this video a game. If you want to call me Ebert for that, go ahead, but I'm still going to judge your "not-games" as part of the entertainment medium (and as such, part of the art that goes with all interactive "games") and how well it stacks up against others that did something similar, or how well it accomplishes what it set out to do on its own merits.

 

[Therumancer]

[

Forgetting the rest of the argument, I want to focus on this little section. It really boils down to how you see art and the subsequent defense of it. First, the "it's art" shouldn't really ever be a valid defense, so why should you have to take it seriously? Just because the Mona Lisa is art, doesn't mean you can use that as defense to halt any criticism thrown its way. Being art really is nothing special because plenty of bad sculptures, bad paintings, bad operas, bad musicals, bad plays, et cetera have existed across the years and we've forgotten about them all because they were bad. Calling them art or music or any such thing did them no credit. They still failed inevitably because being art, being games, being music is nothing inherently good. The dog poop snapshot that you mentioned? Sure, it's art, but what does that matter? Nothing. Because it's most likely bad art and bad art is still bad art, no matter if it's a photo of dog poop or a poorly constructed sculpture. We, the viewers, assign worth to it as we see it. The label itself doesn't give it any worth.

And if things are broadly defined to be more inclusive, that's fine. It allows a medium to adapt as times change. Music was once only seen to be proper music if it was voices singing. This would have stifled music as we know it now if we had allowed such a definition to remain in place. No wonderful piano pieces. No orchestras. Everything thought of as classical was once a radically new and dangerous addition to the medium. The organ that's now so synonymous with churches? Resisted for many, many years. Yet, it's now the masses and motets that most people have forgotten, not the church organs and the music that comes from that.

Resisting change to the evolution of a medium is a silly and narrow-minded view. It was often the changes to the medium that gave us the things we now consider so integral to the experience. It shouldn't be about resisting change, it should be about preserving the old as the new gets added. Classical stuff is never going to go away. It's still forever a part of each and every medium. But restraining the medium? Well, I, for one, am very glad we're not still singing Gregorian Chants primarily, even if it means enduring the likes of Justin Bieber as well.

Saying something is "Art" is not an automatic defense but gives it a certain weight. "Art" has a positive connotation, and even when your saying something is "Bad Art" your still giving it credit as having been in pursuit of something with weight even if it failed. The term exists for a reason after all, as opposed to just calling everything "stuff". If you say that everyone is art, why should the term "art" and the designation it represents to set it apart from things that are "not art" exist? Everything just becomes stuff again. This is why I brought up the issue of grants and various problems with government funding, when the idea of the government sponsoring Art was first conceived it was done with a very specific intent given that there was little debate as to what "Art" was. However as time went on and people started broadening the definition to avoid exclusion it got to the point where the label was meaningless, and the government wound up in a position where it's been increasingly wanting to cut support of the arts because there is no way for it to control where that money goes or what is produced under the current definition, and the government has been wary of being willing to sit down and define what is considered art either directly or indirectly specifically because of the potential backlash from anyone excluded from such a definition. That said, I personally think that does need to happen.

I understand what your saying, but I maintain that if everyone is art, it's just good or bad, popular or unpopular, then nothing is art, it all just becomes stuff. Protection of and empowering the arts loses meaning and actually forms a foundation for anarchy because after all, if you can't suppress artwork, it becomes difficult to regulate anything if people want to continue to stretch the definition.

I do not think that refusing things the label of "art" will prevent them from being created, and truthfully things that I feel don't have the potential enduring presence to quality for example (going by my previous post) will still be created, and I feel there are other laws and protections that should be protecting them anyway.

As I've said, I think video games are something that has the potential to create art, but we are not there yet. When technology advances to the point where electronic creations can have some degree of permanence then I'll be tempted to agree. Among other things I believe this should be one of the requirements, along with, as I pointed out, a certain basic degree of development. Basically stonecrafting is something that I think should be considered art, but poop crafting (it really does exist by the way) should not. Literature pushes the definition, in print I think it can be considered art, but when it goes permanently electronic and thus ceases to have any real substance I think it disqualifies itself. "Performance Art" is similar, basically if it's something that can be enjoyed in a permanent fashion that's fine, but if it's transient then it should not be considered art. For example Shakespeare's plays can be enjoyed as literature when simply read, some dude taking a whizz on something politically or socially sensitive not so much, especially seeing as any meaning that had is too much "of the time" being at best political satire and thus not a work of enduring value. After all peeing on a national flag in protest of recent politics requires an understanding of the time period and it's politics, someone a thousand years later, not living during the time, is going to be missing the context from the act itself. Someone doing that might say not be hating on the US itself, but doing it to say symbolize the plight of senior citizens, and really since the act doesn't explain that, it can't be considered art. Such is also my opinion of certain art "schools" which I don't think should be given that distinction, in my mind art that cannot easily convey it's meaning in a timeless fashion fails to be art. If say your say doing pretentious works, the point of which only a very select group of people can understand, that's more of a code, than a piece of artwork as it defeats the purpose of having a message to begin with. When it comes to a lot of "modern art" a lot of it likewise tends to be symbolic of things and issues unique to a very specific place and time, and thus should fail to be art based on the fact that again, someone looking back at it in a thousand years would be unable to comprehend the meaning or the point due to lacking the needed context.

At the end of the day though we'll have to agree to disagree. At some point my mind might change (I've had different opinions of this over the years) but right now this is how I think.

 

[JET1971]

Can you actually "play" with these marginally interactive stories... And that is where they simply fail. You dont "play" gone home... you simply listen to it. They tell more or less interesting stories for sure... but show me where you actually "play" with these "games".

No.... We never 'play' with game story. Like, ever (that I can reasonably think of).

Stories that happen in games...just happen. They happen due to specific events, whether by happenstance of the player's fiddling, or actions led by the game and certain motivations to such events, or somewhere in between. Story is secondary entertainment (though should lose no importance for being so, especially today). You, the player, are outside of the story, and remain there until you start making actions in the world that would spur that story on (for whatever reason; it's always at least a bit contrived).

Would Gone Home be more of a game if it did not have the story attached? If it clearly told you that it was just a 'house-exploration game'? If so, how did the introduction of a story suddenly warp that intention? If not....how far are you willing to go to perhaps hamstring the definition of a game?

I agree with this. Just because a game doesn't have competition, win/lose, or challenge doesn't meant it is not a game. The point of those games is to move the character and get the story to unfold is still playing a game. If the game is simply walking from point A to point B and watching the scenery go by then it is still a game, the goal is to watch the scenery. A boring game maybe unless you are into that sort of thing but a game none the less.

 

[Kain Yusanagi]

I think I'm more in line with what total biscuit said about the issue. I like using the term interactive experience to talk about these kinds of games, but I don't mean it in a derogatory way. Either that or call them games but have some way to classify them as more of an experience than a mechanical challenge or something. I don't know, this is an issue that the community will eventually settle as long as people like Sterling and Total biscuit keep voicing their opinions on it. Good episode as always jim.

Also that TV you showed in animal crossing looked like an apple. If you didn't notice.

They are a game that fits within the interactive story form genre. 'Game' is the broadest catagory ever, within which you must subdivide into the genres and subgenres to get a more functional definition for communication.