Latest xkcd comic

[BrotherRool]

In that case, I hope you have fun playing internet, for it is making sure you navigate the websites in some specific way.

And, just for the sake of it, let's say you went to a gallery. They give you a magnifying glass and lead you through a door - at first you see a painting, walking through the door you see it's a panorama. The layout forces you to walk around and the small details require a magnifying glass to see. Essentially, something like this comic but IRL. Would that also be considered a game? You are exploring a 2D landscape.

Again, they didn't design the internet to convey it's message through the way you navigate and you're not meant to get anything particular out of the process of you navigating. There's nothing different between that and the scrolling example before. Now if how you were meant to traverse the internet were important to some theme or message and someone had designed a particular journey to be experienced, then that's in the case of soemthing like an ARG, which is a recognised form of game.

The magnifying example was a much better one though and I think you may have made your point with it. Of course it couldn't be any painting, it would have to be a painting designed to be looked at through a magnifying glass and the process of looking would have to be an important part of the enjoyment... but if that were true I don't think I'd call that a game. I'm not sure, it's hard to imagine a painting where the process of looking at it through a magnifying glass is an integral part of the experience Still I don't think it's a game so maybe you've won.

... Except for this maybe, the XKCD drew up some conscious rules when making this. He decided how the picture would react to mouse input and how it would interpret that input. That seems like a much weaker argument to me though because he's designed it to react about as naturally to input as possible.


If there were an avatar though, a character in the centre of the screen who moved with it, and rather than clicking and dragging you moved around with the WASD keys, would you consider that a game?

 

[DoPo]

Again, they didn't design the internet to convey it's message through the way you navigate and you're not meant to get anything particular out of the process of you navigating. There's nothing different between that and the scrolling example before. Now if how you were meant to traverse the internet were important to some theme or message and someone had designed a particular journey to be experienced, then that's in the case of soemthing like an ARG, which is a recognised form of game.

Wait, have you been to a website? I believe you have, after all you post here. They are built to allow exploring but also restrict and guide it. All of them. They are there to present the message in a specific way as well as just give you access to it. Examine the top menu. Look at the breadcrumbs under it. Hover over your avatar in the top right. Look at the bottom menu. Do you think they are laid out totally at random? Layout, buttons, links, colours - they are all meaningful. Even fonts, although not as much. It is all designed from the beginning to convey specific information in a specific way. And I assure you, most websites you visit do the same.

If there were an avatar though, a character in the centre of the screen who moved with it, and rather than clicking and dragging you moved around with the WASD keys, would you consider that a game?

That is a bit harder. It will definitely be in the same boat as Dear Esther. But that's when "game" is starting to get muddy. For the record, I do consider Dear Esther to be part of the "video games" family, so yes.

 

[Goofguy]

Very impressed. I made it all the way to the end but had been going horizontally so I missed all the fun stuff.

 

[BrotherRool]

Again, they didn't design the internet to convey it's message through the way you navigate and you're not meant to get anything particular out of the process of you navigating. There's nothing different between that and the scrolling example before. Now if how you were meant to traverse the internet were important to some theme or message and someone had designed a particular journey to be experienced, then that's in the case of soemthing like an ARG, which is a recognised form of game.

Wait, have you been to a website? I believe you have, after all you post here. They are built to allow exploring but also restrict and guide it. All of them. They are there to present the message in a specific way as well as just give you access to it. Examine the top menu. Look at the breadcrumbs under it. Hover over your avatar in the top right. Look at the bottom menu. Do you think they are laid out totally at random? Layout, buttons, links, colours - they are all meaningful. Even fonts, although not as much. It is all designed from the beginning to convey specific information in a specific way. And I assure you, most websites you visit do the same.

Good point about the restrictions and guidelines. But what I meant is that the process of exploring conveys a message which is why you do it. So with the XKCD comic he designed it that by navigating the image, you experience it in a way which suggests distance travelled and size, but when you explore the Escapist, although as you rightly pointed out, it's been carefully designed, you're not meant to feel like your video watching experience has been particularly enhanced by the manner you got to click to it. If you've had to find hidden buttons scattered across pages, then the experience of navigating is part of the entertainment, it's a finding puzzle, but if we're just using the drop down menus, their design is to get you as quickly as possible to what you want, rather than give you a meaningful experience from clicking menus
[/quote]

If there were an avatar though, a character in the centre of the screen who moved with it, and rather than clicking and dragging you moved around with the WASD keys, would you consider that a game?

That is a bit harder. It will definitely be in the same boat as Dear Esther. But that's when "game" is starting to get muddy. For the record, I do consider Dear Esther to be part of the "video games" family, so yes.[/quote]
I think this is probably a fair enough place to leave this discussion. When I was exploring the page, I basically subconsciously projected myself onto it. I 'climbed' the great big pylon and 'walked' all the way across to the right, so I was having the feeling of guiding an avatar through the area. Whereas presumably, you scrolled across to the right and scrolled up to see the part of the picture at the top of the tower and that's where the difference in our impressions has come from

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Wish there was a link to the full image, I would've been a lot more impressed.

Same.

Trying to find everything reall is a viable method of inducing carpal tunnel.

 

[Rainforce]

woah, what's with all the jellyfish. they're EVERYWHERE D:

 

[Zhukov]

Ohhhh, you can click-and-drag it around!

...

I didn't notice the title the first time I read it.

I feel kind of stupid now.

 

[Gabanuka]

To everyone asking for a big picture link

http://xkcd-map.rent-a-geek.de

4chan provides.

 

[Tjebbe]

I see it as a dynamic piece of art; you are supposed to explore, and discover, and be amazed over the things you find. In that sense, looking at a full image is a bit of a waste.

 

[Ronmartin]

I think I was touched most at a point in the tunnels. At one point, I found an opening in which there were a few tall trees, a grassy knoll, and... a figure. In XKCD, it's hard to tell, but from the hair it seemed like a girl. She was sitting, holding her knees to her chest, looking down, facing away from the trees. I immediately wanted to know more. Who was she? Why was she down there? what was she feeling? I had been exploring the tunnels for what felt like quite a while, so that amped up the feeling of mystery. How does her story end? What happens to her? What will she do?

Damn you, Randall Munroe, for making me care so much about a stick figure.
You too, Rich Burlew.