Wrestlevania

Nifty browser games (inc. Flash)

Recommended Posts

Is that a game? Take that design.

(honestly is it a game or is it a statement/narrative? because what I played wasnt a game by my definition, but maybe I'm too stupid to figure it out)

Ex: If it is a game there could be a different outcome to my actions, if there is not then why couldn't this be written text or a motion sequence?

The creator put it this way:

A very small notgame about Freedom Bridge, in Korea. Takes about two minutes to play through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that a game? Take that design.

(honestly is it a game or is it a statement/narrative? because what I played wasnt a game by my definition, but maybe I'm too stupid to figure it out)

Ex: If it is a game there could be a different outcome to my actions, if there is not then why couldn't this be written text or a motion sequence?

Part of the effectiveness of games like this (and one which may diminish over time) is that games are usually designed to be won. There's a greater expectation of a solution or right path, which is why it drives home the unfairness of the situation in a way unique to the medium.

In terms of aesthetics, if someone watched a movie of this game, it would be much harder to personify it. It's much, much easier to read the featureless, black square as a person, since nearly all video games ask you to put yourselves in the role of another character. A movie or short story would probably need to put in more work to develop the character to achieve the same reaction.

That said, I have a much broader personal definition of games than most.

Edit: Hell, if you want to get art-wanky, you can say that there is a choice between doing nothing and doing the only other option available, and so it's the player's choice to go on a death march across the barbed wire fences rather than staying in the safe zone. It may or may not be a failing of the design that there is really nothing motivating the player to leave besides boredom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Part of the effectiveness of games like this (and one which may diminish over time) is that games are usually designed to be won. There's a greater expectation of a solution or right path, which is why it drives home the unfairness of the situation in a way unique to the medium.

In terms of aesthetics, if someone watched a movie of this game, it would be much harder to personify it. It's much, much easier to read the featureless, black square as a person, since nearly all video games ask you to put yourselves in the role of another character. A movie or short story would probably need to put in more work to develop the character to achieve the same reaction.

That said, I have a much broader personal definition of games than most.

Edit: Hell, if you want to get art-wanky, you can say that there is a choice between doing nothing and doing the only other option available, and so it's the player's choice to go on a death march across the barbed wire fences rather than staying in the safe zone. It may or may not be a failing of the design that there is really nothing motivating the player to leave besides boredom.

I think you're exactly right on all counts. Interaction is what gives it its value, that makes it a great video game, however antiquated that term is in itself.

On the last point, I got my mum to play it, almost at gunpoint. The same unexpected non-gamer approach was evident even in something as simple as this: she tried to go off of the screen and around the barbed wire.

Again, though, I still think it's very effective. She was visibly uncomfortable emerging from the last row of wire and gasped when the ending came. Had I just said "watch me play this thing" she would have been far less affected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Part of the effectiveness of games like this (and one which may diminish over time) is that games are usually designed to be won. There's a greater expectation of a solution or right path, which is why it drives home the unfairness of the situation in a way unique to the medium.

In terms of aesthetics, if someone watched a movie of this game, it would be much harder to personify it. It's much, much easier to read the featureless, black square as a person, since nearly all video games ask you to put yourselves in the role of another character. A movie or short story would probably need to put in more work to develop the character to achieve the same reaction.

That said, I have a much broader personal definition of games than most.

Edit: Hell, if you want to get art-wanky, you can say that there is a choice between doing nothing and doing the only other option available, and so it's the player's choice to go on a death march across the barbed wire fences rather than staying in the safe zone. It may or may not be a failing of the design that there is really nothing motivating the player to leave besides boredom.

I understand where you are coming from and maybe my comments showed a desire to "win" and thus being part of my definition of what a game is, but it has nothing to do with that.

Pressing the move key to arrive to a conclusion in my opinion is not a game, I can do this with the fast forward button on a movie. It was more systems involved and potentially personal narrative all games have, some to a greater extent then others.

For example in this: You bleed in barbed wire, you can not die in barbed wire. Alright, that's cool; lots of games have these kind of deliberate/inconsistence functions.

I also have to disagree about how a movie or other forms of media would need to put more attention into character development or character representation, this is absolutely untrue. Illustration and Animation being huge genres stemming back to early civilization have represented humans, living beings and other objects in the most primitive ways and the idea still came across.

And yeah I suppose theres the personal narrative that would help support it under my definition of game by doing nothing. But let me counter this with another wank statement by saying if your choice is to interact with it or not interact with it, can a game still be a game if you never interact with it?

Jesus, I need a shower.

Anyway, I'm probably not giving much explanation in terms of what my definition of a game is... probably because I haven't given it that much thought myself.

But I still will hold it up to my comparison of hitting fast forward on a dvd and this, if someone can destroy that argument you'll probably be helping me think a little deeper on this.

The fact it "effected" you or someone doesn't make for the argument is this a game. It's a statement or opinion in interactive media, but I don't classify it as a game or a movie.

Also if we can make a good case that this is a game, I will inevitably ask "Was it fun? If it was not, then that makes it a poor game, yes?" lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I went from thinking the "game" totally sucked balls -- then I waited a little longer and *eventually* the screen went white and showed me the point of it. Then I was quite moved and liked it a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also have to disagree about how a movie or other forms of media would need to put more attention into character development or character representation, this is absolutely untrue. Illustration and Animation being huge genres stemming back to early civilization have represented humans, living beings and other objects in the most primitive ways and the idea still came across.

That's fair. I was totally overgeneralizing. There's plenty of abstract films where you can construct a clear, powerful human narrative.

76p64j3H1Ng

Can a game still be a game if you never interact with it?

My personal definition* is that a game requires interaction, but doesn't necessarily need the player to make any meaningful choices. For instance, I would call Freedom Bridge a game, but would classify something like Queue as a game-like film.

Thinking about these kinds of things a year ago, I made this game as a thought experiment.

It's basically a replay of a platform game session, except the character only moves when you press the keys that the "previous" player did on that frame. Every frame is predetermined. When you press the "right" buttons, the character moves. When you press the "wrong" buttons nothing happens. To some, it feels like playing a game, since there's positive feedback on pressing the right buttons, and the character's movement is occasionally tells a logical story or is constrained by linear areas of the level design. But the player has no meaningful choices, and is essentially playing the world's most complicated quick time event.

*Incomplete, partial vague, etc. I still don't have a precise definition for what a game is to me.

But I still will hold it up to my comparison of hitting fast forward on a dvd and this, if someone can destroy that argument you'll probably be helping me think a little deeper on this.

The game designer intended you to interact with the game. The film maker did not intend you to fast forward through the movie. Films aren't expected to account for scenes being randomly skipped or played at faster speeds. Games are driven by interaction, even if that interaction is simply holding down a button to make a character move.

When you fast-forward, you're interacting with a layer above the film. When you press right, you're causing something to happen within the game.

Also if we can make a good case that this is a game, I will inevitably ask "Was it fun? If it was not, then that makes it a poor game, yes?" lol.

That question ties into what you expect to get out of games. Are games so special that they should be evaluated on fun and fun alone? If everyone watches movies to have fun, where would that leave stuff like Schindler's List? (Not that Freedom Bridge is anywhere as powerfully executed.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noyb, that's a fascinating observation on the whole single button press vs. DVD argument. It always seemed fallacious but I couldn't never - excuse the pun - put my finger on why.

I thought it was fairly generally accepted now that to be a video game did not entail having any strong ludic component. It seems weird not to classify them as such. Furthermore, there's such a broad spectrum of gameness and narrative, I'd say that to not acknowledge Freedom Bridge as a video game would be somewhat disingenuous. It's not really a game at all, though it has a layer of rules that a film wouldn't have, but the wide-ranging definition of what a modern video game is would encompass it. "Digital interactive narrative" doesn't really have the same ring :grin:

And yeah I suppose theres the personal narrative that would help support it under my definition of game by doing nothing. But let me counter this with another wank statement by saying if your choice is to interact with it or not interact with it, can a game still be a game if you never interact with it?

This sounds a bit like the tree falling in the forest. I'd also say that by entering the game's world or interface, you are engaging with it. Thus a choice not to cross the barbed wire or even contemplate crossing, decide not to and close the tab would be a perfectly valid response that still arises from its interactive and inherently non-linear nature. This bit is most definitely mostly conjecture and speculation and possibly whiffs of bullshit, but it's at least open for more debate.

Although there are doubtless great minimalist animations etc., video games (as I've sort of defined them above) do have a unique ability to be effective with the barest of artistic direction and context because of the way someone naturally projects his or herself onto the protagonist (if it's that kind of game).

The fact it "effected" you or someone doesn't make for the argument is this a game. It's a statement or opinion in interactive media, but I don't classify it as a game or a movie.

Finally, you seem to suggest that this should be classified as existing in an entirely new medium. That would entail, though, that something like Stalker shouldn't be considered a movie compared to, say, Iron Man 2. They may be poles apart in terms of content, direction and myriad other things, but they're still both films. When you think about it, the terms "film" and "motion picture" are out of date just as badly or to an even greater extent than "video game". We don't insist that something shot using entirely digital means and thus absent of the visual side effects of a spool of film is not a film.

Perhaps I'm defining my media based on the way it is consumed, rather than technicalities and the semantic implications therein. The approach however, seems more sensible so as to avoid creating so many categories that we can't even keep track of them. This allows the definitions to expand as developments are made, rather than being rigid this = fun this = art or whatever. It's perfectly fine to only consume video games with the goal of fun or entertainment in mind - ninety per cent of cinemagoers are after this and would probably get bored and turn off a Tarkovsky after five minutes - but that doesn't necessarily mean that Freedom Bridge et al aren't video games.

[That maybe sounds more insulting than it should, it's not meant to sound as authoritative and rest assured there's no ill intent if you perceive any! It may be a case of what Remo described about voicing way stronger opinions than you necessarily have.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points Noyb, I'll think about it a bit.

This sounds a bit like the tree falling in the forest. I'd also say that by entering the game's world or interface, you are engaging with it. Thus a choice not to cross the barbed wire or even contemplate crossing, decide not to and close the tab would be a perfectly valid response that still arises from its interactive and inherently non-linear nature.

Exactly what I was getting at; that specific point seems pointless to debate, "entering the world" or in this case clicking on the link might be considered interaction, but really the most passively basic interaction you can get, I can't say its a strong argument to support the interaction of a game by pressing the play button, so to speak.

Interacting with some, either passive or active doesn't make it a game or not, it's an interface, it's media, its several other thousand things that general action could be lumped into. Example: Pressing a key on a keyboard to see a response, the response being right now letters are being displayed, is not a game.

In the same sense I am now backspacing this sentence, stopping, and then retyping to go forward... hey it's a personal narrative I derived from this interaction, is this sentence a game, I dunno. Oh shit a period, it looked like it ended, was it death or completion?

Anyway, that might be hard to follow as my train of thought was going as I typed it and maybe the effictivness is lost without typing it yourself. Again, i just created a narrative for the interactions I was pressing, I don't consider it a game even if it had a deliberate statement, a narrative, and interaction. Was it intended on the part of the creator? You bet, only I was the creator making it in real time... we're deep in the bullshit theory now, so lets get out of this quickly.

Finally, you seem to suggest that this should be classified as existing in an entirely new medium.

I didn't think this is lumped into a entirely new medium, in fact I classified it in an already established and that not that old classification. Perhaps I am wrongly classifying it as such, but it was the first thing that came to mind. There may be a more appropriate term for what category this falls under, but I am unaware of it or unable to think of it at the moment.

That would entail, though, that something like Stalker shouldn't be considered a movie compared to, say, Iron Man 2. They may be poles apart in terms of content, direction and myriad other things, but they're still both films. When you think about it, the terms "film" and "motion picture" are out of date just as badly or to an even greater extent than "video game". We don't insist that something shot using entirely digital means and thus absent of the visual side effects of a spool of film is not a film.

I honestly don't see how the term film or motion picture is out dated, they have a pretty clear definition and films, movies, motions pictures still fall under the definition today(even if that definition has slightly take on attributes to conform to modern content)

Your comparisons of Stalker and Iron Man 2 are facetious, because of narrative content or style, they clearly fall into the same distinction of what the product is.

The argument I have with Freedoms bridge is not presentation, statement, or context. I want to be absolutely clear about that.

Perhaps I'm defining my media based on the way it is consumed, rather than technicalities and the semantic implications therein. The approach however, seems more sensible so as to avoid creating so many categories that we can't even keep track of them.

The same argument was made in the cel-shading debate and there is no resolve to this as it relies on personal opinion. I am from the North American school of the English language where if we need a new word for something, we'll make it up. I full support this type of language structure as it is understandable, accurate, and digestible to civilization. Granted as our language evolves into something more complex we are at the same time removing any flourishes or unnecessary rule structures, which I am sure drives those with talent in the current structure completely mad.

Anyway back on the rails...

I think Nyob made some very good points in the case, more so then (no offense) getting into semantics about language and categories. I'll really give it a good think for a few days, because as it stands I don't want to believe Freedoms Bridge is a game, however, at the moment I honestly can't argue with Nyobs comments so I might actually think it is a game.

That won't change the fact I still didn't like it :P

[That maybe sounds more insulting than it should, it's not meant to sound as authoritative and rest assured there's no ill intent if you perceive any! It may be a case of what Remo described about voicing way stronger opinions than you necessarily have.]

I think that goes without saying about everyone in these mini exploratory debates, hehe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have an interest in tower defense and like grinding for upgrades/levelups (understandably, this is not everyone's cup of tea), Protector IV is pretty great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just made a quick HTML5 game for the 48 hour Reddit Game Jam.

The theme was opposites, and my submission is called Yang. A few of the other top submissions are web based as well, as the people using C and Python are still trying to build :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just made a quick HTML5 game for the 48 hour Reddit Game Jam.

The theme was opposites, and my submission is called Yang. A few of the other top submissions are web based as well, as the people using C and Python are still trying to build :P

that's not a flash game

but it is nifty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I played this cool dungeon crawler right at the beginning of June. I think the game was called Monster's Den or something like that, but I was addicted to that game for a while. Havent gone back to it though because I got stuck at this boss and I am not sure what to do. BTW, if anyone happens to play that game and you get past the boss I am talking about (I think it is the fourth one in the game) could you please reply to my post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats your party? I used to play this game a lot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It requires signup for the first chapter (otherwise you just get a teaser demo thing) and it ends on a "to be continued," but...holy crap

(it's a claymation point and click adventure)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

awesome.. looking forward to that...

wait a minute... I still have Samarost 2 to complete..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Captain Forever

Good God I'm addicted to this game...

It plays similar to Asteroids but the main feature is the ship: Weapons, thrusters, and girders can be slapped (Literally, they attach like magnets to your vessel) onto your ship and more parts can be taken from destroyed ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just started playing dice wars, holy crap its addicting, thanks and in the future i might be cursing you a bunch.

Heh. Yeah, it's like that for me too. Pretty much any time I'm in an MSN conversation and don't have any other web browsing to do, Dice Wars is my default activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now