GameDreamer

Thirty Flights of Loving

Recommended Posts

... but just because you think the definition should be one thing or another doesn't mean that people will agree with you or that your definition is relevant to the discussion. ...

To be honest this does sound a bit trollish to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!

Go Steve, but first wait a moment too long for that dude to pick up a chair and start throwing it!

P.S. I kind of agree with Luftmensch. (Not talking the inflammatory bit Erkki quoted)

Edit:

Ok, I thought that this might be relevant. It's a thing from Rules of Play (by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman). Also I dropped my phone and now there is a dark spot in all my pictures. :(

nqCxdiH.jpg

My point being, that there are all these smart people with different ideas of what constitutes a game; there is no consensus and if you think you've defined what a game means, then honestly I think you're full of shit. We've nowhere near formalized what a game is and I think that definition will keep evolving as people do things we can't even foresee now. Hence my agreement with Luftmensch and disagreement with Thunderpeel. In my mind, having these games where (sometimes) the only aspect is something purely experiential still constitutes a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, because if I were to define a hierarchy (which I don't), I would intuitively put interactive digital entertainment under the umbrella of Video game. What makes video games a subset but not vice versa?

Because "more specialized" is in depth, it's not set theory like ordering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Related, there was a [way too recent] point where I got really worked up about the definition of RPGs, just so I could drive another nail into the JRPG coffin. The ensuing discussion (are JRPGs RPGs at all?) was fun, but I also realized I was being kind of a dick with my hammering on old, outdated or narrow definitions. I think the same might apply here. So, TP, I get where you're coming from, but maybe/hopefully you'll look back in a short while and laugh at yourself too, like I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S. I kind of agree with Luftmensch, even if he stated it in a dickish way.

I only meant to be blunt, not necessarily dickish. Sorry if anyone was offended.

Because "more specialized" is in depth, it's not set theory like ordering.

Subclass as a concept was invented in set theory. I didn't figure you were speaking in programming metaphors.

That metaphor still doesn't work for me anyway. Video game effectively means interactive electronic entertainment anyway, so it seems weird to invent an entirely new class above what exists to stuff a single fringe case into. I dunno. This is just a case where I think trying to define things into rigid genres or hierarchies or classes is just not very useful and doesn't need to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, I was planning on posting that bit from Rules of Play, but I was too slow. A 'game' is a surprisingly nebulous concept. Video games have often veered away from the more rigid definitions of it (simulations etc.). Video games have done a lot to loosen up the definitions that go around because all video games tend to do some things that don't really fit with older definitions. Occasionally some 'video games' step so far people don't accept them as games, but they still come from the same cultural background. There're only small incremental differences between TFoL, Proteus and some less controversial games, so I don't think it makes sense to exclude these games from our category of 'video game'. They're all part of the same discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That metaphor still doesn't work for me anyway. Video game effectively means interactive electronic entertainment anyway, so it seems weird to invent an entirely new class above what exists to stuff a single fringe case into. I dunno. This is just a case where I think trying to define things into rigid genres or hierarchies or classes is just not very useful and doesn't need to happen.

For me Video games add a goal (a thing to accomplish) to the definition of interactive entertainment. It's you goal to defeat the end boss, or score the highest points, etc. There is no explicit goal in games like Dear Ester, TFoL, Proteus, COD: BLOPS; you just navigate the world and reach an end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me Video games add a goal (a thing to accomplish) to the definition of interactive entertainment. It's you goal to defeat the end boss, or score the highest points, etc. There is no explicit goal in games like Dear Ester, TFoL, Proteus, COD: BLOPS; you just navigate the world and reach an end.

I agree with this. I can't think of a single example of a game that doesn't feature some sort of goal, and some sort of challenge needed to be overcome to reach said goal.

I went into more detail about this when I first brought it up, but since nobody can be bothered to go back and see, here it is again:

Gameplay is the thing you get from a game that watching a film can't give you. Or reading a book can't give you. Or listening to music can't give you. Or to be more precise, it's the satisfaction you get from overcoming a challenge. If the challenge is to simple (e.g. click here to win), it's boring. If it's too difficult (e.g. Paint a perfect copy of the Sistine Chapel with your mouse in 60 seconds), it's frustrating. If it's somewhere in between (e.g. Tap a button to the beat of this song), it can start becoming enjoyable.

(We get a rush from achieving something.)

A game can offer an enjoyable challenge to begin with, but then just ask the player to repeat the same action, over and over, and then it becomes boring again.

and

The only challenges I overcame [playing TFoL] was figuring out what the "game" wanted me to do next. When I did that, I got a bit more of the story. These challenges were extremely simple, however, and so as a game, I don't think it was much fun. However the story-telling was very well done. It focused on giving an immediate experience in the shortest time possible. I also enjoyed the art style and the music. There is also the fact that it was unique and original.

There are three things here that it's important not to confuse: The game (go here and click this), the storytelling (fast, short, exciting scenes), and the story itself (three criminals get together for a crime).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a pity we settled on Video-games as a term, because otherwise I'd just suggest we drop the games part and call them all videos. It's as if we'd started out calling movies 'film-comedies' (in an alternate reality where just the techniques and tropes of comedy were developed first), then gotten into the habit of just calling them comedies. Then we get stuck without a generic term, meanwhile comedy still holds it more specific & historic meaning, so we end up arguing about how comedy is difficult to define because there are dramatic elements in a lot of comedy etc etc.

It's weird to me to have this discussion because in architecture we would regularly make little virtual environments to show tutors/clients or just to express ourselves, and we would call them architectural communications or interactive art. I bet a lot of architects would be insulted if people called their designs 'games'.

And that's sort of at the heart of this, no? Some people want to eject TFoL/Proteus from game-land because they want to demote it, insult it. And people are fighting back, saying 'It's a game' in part because they feel it's equally worthy in experience to existing games, and also because they are aware of the negative stereotypes around games & want another arrow in their quiver to shoot down accusations that all games are bad art. (Obviously, not everyone has these motivations, but this feels like the core of the debate to me)

I don't think we'd have debates about this if there weren't the two stereotypes; that games are more interesting than mere interaction, or that experiential interaction is more worthy than games.

In that respect, I feel like calling Proteus/TFoL games is battle-winning, war-losing. In the long run, we should be spending more time sticking up for the worthiness of pure interaction, rather than this, which buys into the idea that being a 'game' is a mark of prestige.

Just some draft thoughts, I could be swayed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole article is a great read, but I especially enjoyed this part:

Outside of academic discussions, encouraging a strict definition of “game” does nothing but foster conservatism and defensiveness in a culture already notorious for both.

Anyway, I know that Thirty Flights of Loving is a game because I played it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a great takeaway from that piece. Because I think this is a very limiting debate to be having. It's exactly the kind of debate that happened when Duchamp started lugging toilets into galleries. (art as something you make, vs something you've found and labeled, etc.)

New kinds of video game experiences are coming out and because they don't consist of the same elements of what has come before, they're meeting resistance. But we desperately need to get past what has come before to move forward as an industry. And that means embracing games that aren't just about solving puzzles or shooting bad guys or jumping correctly.

I agree, Thunderpeel, that "Gameplay is the thing you get from a game that watching a film can't give you. Or reading a book can't give you. Or listening to music can't give you"

But would you make the claim that you could get the same experience in TFoL as you could in any of these other mediums? I wouldn't. And that's what makes it a game to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some very interesting points! I'm still not convinced, though. Also, to clarify: I said this before, and I'll say it again, I'm not criticising TFoL, nor am I trying to "protect" games. There's no subtext at the core of my belief. I just don't think it's a game.

I also don't think it's limiting anything to say it's not a game. It's just a word. I'm not detracting from it by saying it's something else. It's still something very interesting.

If someone could give me an example of a "traditional" game, one that nobody debates as being a game, (e.g Snakes and Ladders, Tag, Golf, etc.) that doesn't feature goals (and challenges needed to be overcome to reach those goals), I'd be convinced.

But I'm not sure why so many people WANT TFOL to be considered a game. Isn't putting it in the same category as Tetris somewhat selling it short?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone could give me an example of a "traditional" game, one that nobody debates as being a game, (e.g Snakes and Ladders, Tag, Golf, etc.) that doesn't feature goals (and challenges needed to be overcome to reach those goals), I'd be convinced.

Will this do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some very interesting points! I'm still not convinced, though. Also, to clarify: I said this before, and I'll say it again, I'm not criticising TFoL, nor am I trying to "protect" games. There's no subtext at the core of my belief. I just don't think it's a game.

I also don't think it's limiting anything to say it's not a game. It's just a word. I'm not detracting from it by saying it's something else. It's still something very interesting.

If someone could give me an example of a "traditional" game, one that nobody debates as being a game, (e.g Snakes and Ladders, Tag, Golf, etc.) that doesn't feature goals (and challenges needed to be overcome to reach those goals), I'd be convinced.

But I'm not sure why so many people WANT TFOL to be considered a game. Isn't putting it in the same category as Tetris somewhat selling it short?

So, why aren't you convinced by Lord Proteus' argument? Do you go around saying that comics aren't comics if they aren't funny? Do you have anything substantive to add aside from your claim that games require something that some games (like TFoL) don't have? You ask for an example of a game without goals and challenges, but you're posting in a thread of one of the best examples.* Thirty Flights of Loving is obviously a game in the sense that most people talk about games (that is, it's sold in the games section of Steam and when you tell someone to play it you tell them "hey check out this game") and even if it's not a game in the sense of your pedantic meaning of "game," you haven't explained why anyone should care, any more than you've explained why we should care about whether a comic book is actually comical or not.

*TFoL does of course have goals - get to the end. Eat an orange. Discover why Anita is pointing a gun at you or where she got the robot limbs. Save Borges. Escape the airport. But whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, why aren't you convinced by Lord Proteus' argument? Do you go around saying that comics aren't comics if they aren't funny? Do you have anything substantive to add aside from your claim that games require something that some games (like TFoL) don't have? You ask for an example of a game without goals and challenges, but you're posting in a thread of one of the best examples.* Thirty Flights of Loving is obviously a game in the sense that most people talk about games (that is, it's sold in the games section of Steam and when you tell someone to play it you tell them "hey check out this game") and even if it's not a game in the sense of your pedantic meaning of "game," you haven't explained why anyone should care, any more than you've explained why we should care about whether a comic book is actually comical or not.

*TFoL does of course have goals - get to the end. Eat an orange. Discover why Anita is pointing a gun at you or where she got the robot limbs. Save Borges. Escape the airport. But whatever.

Ok, I'm done here. This is rapidly turning into YET ANOTHER "me versus everyone else" bullying match. Just like with Microsoft's relationship with Blu-ray, I've expressed an opinion, someone has asked me to clarify, and then lots of people decide to join in and are apparently taking my opinion as a personal affront. In this particular case, I was responding to SiN's request for me to clarify. I've expressed what I (continue to believe) in the clearest terms I can (and in the case of this particular post, I've already answered every question -- apart from the one where I'm supposed to justify why someone should care about what I think... wtf? And unrelated questions about comics.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes when it's "me against the world" it's because "me" is wrong. The comics point is from the Proteus post. Words mean things that aren't the same as the meanings they used to have. "Game" is a good example - it now encompasses things like Thirty Flights of Loving. "Comics" is another good one - it encompasses things that aren't at all comic. So I was asking why you think "game" has to mean this special meaning that you alone seem to attach to it, rather than what everyone else understands it to mean. And you reply that this is turning into a bullying match. The reason I'm asking you to justify your opinion is because you come into threads like this and say "well it isn't a game" as if that's supposed to mean something other than "I made up a meaning for the word 'game' which TFoL doesn't fit."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol. prescriptivism, meet descriptivism. try not to fight too much, ok?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"me against world" -- hey, others (at least I noticed elmuerte) were agreeing that it's not a game.

I agree with the "it's a game because I played it" argument, though. If it's something you do for play, and pretty much has the format of a game (executable that produces audio and video and needs your input to "run"), it can be called a game, can it not?

There are games that don't have endings. Are they not games? Why is not having a goal the one element that seems to make it a non-game for you? Or why is getting to the end not a valid goal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess part of my frustration is feeling like I'm going around in circles... with nobody apparently understanding what I'm saying.

I can't think of a single example of a game that doesn't feature some sort of goal, and some sort of challenge needed to be overcome to reach said goal.

With Tetris (a game without an end), your goal is to stay "alive" for as long as possible (and get a huge highscore). The challenge is that there's falling blocks that, unless you clear them, will "kill" you.

With a novel (NOT a game, in my books) your goal is to understand and reach the end of the story. The challenge is that you have to read the words in order from beginning to end to understand the story. You also have to understand the language is was written in, I guess. That's not much of a challenge to overcome, but novels aren't regarded as "games".

I feel the same thing can be said about TFoL -- the goal is to reach the end of the story, but the challenge is to simply press forward (more or less). The only way I could not overcome this "challenge" is simply not to "play".

As I said before: If someone could give me an example of a "traditional" game, one that nobody debates as being a game, (e.g Snakes and Ladders, Tag, Golf, etc.) that doesn't feature goals (and challenges needed to be overcome to reach those goals), I'd be convinced.

Also, I'm not convinced by the "I played it, therefore it's a game argument": I can play a movie, I can play a musical instrument, I can play a CD.

Edit: And... I'm sucked in again ;(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your definition is flawed because clear counterexamples exist, like Thirty Flights of Loving, which is a game with no challenge.

Or, to put it another way: "I can't think of a single example of a comic that doesn't feature sequential panels of images, and some sort of humorous situation." I'd be correct about the old meaning of "comic" but incorrect about what it has come to mean. You are correct about the old meaning of "game" but incorrect about what it has come to mean.

edit: Note also that under your definition, the card game "War" isn't actually a card game because there is no challenge (you just flip cards according to the predetermined rules - it's no more challenging than pressing forward). But War is a card game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm done here. This is rapidly turning into YET ANOTHER "me versus everyone else" bullying match.

bullying match

Looks to me more like someone's playing the oppression olympics.

For the most part, people agree that TFoL is a game and that the debate of whether it is one or not doesn't matter. Most of us have voiced various explanations of why we disagree with you. Deal with it. If you played it and somehow concluded it's not a game, call it what you think it is. We won't give a shit or whine at you if you call it a deterministic digital interactive diorama or whatever you want if that's what you think it is. But we think it's a video game and I for one don't enjoy the evangelism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

edit: Note also that under your definition, the card game "War" isn't actually a card game because there is no challenge (you just flip cards according to the predetermined rules - it's no more challenging than pressing forward). But War is a card game.

Hurrah! Thanks for coming up with a good example. "War" falls into the same category as Snakes and Ladders, I guess, which is to say, it's completely random as to who will win -- but even more so, because you don't even get to "try" and roll a six (or whatever). I'm not sure I'd consider "War" to be a game (and according to the Wikipedia article you linked to, I'm not alone in that), but I have to concede that it's often seen as a game. (A really shit game that only a child learning to count would play, presumably.)

There ARE challenges in "War", though, as you can lose. The challenge is that your chosen half of a deck consistently has higher numbers than the other half. If it doesn't, you lose the hand, and so on, until you have no cards left -- So maybe I have to agree it IS a game, by my own definition. (Note: You seem to have confused "challenges" with "decisions" -- most games, certainly the most enjoyable ones, feature decisions, but not all.) You can't lose at TFoL, just like you can't lose when reading a novel.

Still, "War" has definitely come closest to convincing me that I'm in a greyer area than I previously imagined... What a shitty "game" that is! (I've never heard of it myself -- no surprise, who the hell would want to play it, even as a kid?) Hmm.

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