"Ethics and Journalistic Integrity"

[Reyturner]

In other games where your choices may change, the ones whose criteria you don't meet simply don't appear.

I'm pretty sure the old Fallout games and Planescape showed you options you couldn't select, though not for didactic reasons.

[TychoCelchuuu]

Josh Sawyer, a developer on (among other things) Fallout: New Vegas, talked a bit about why he decided they should show dialog options you couldn't really use in New Vegas (which does it slightly differently - you can select the option, but you fail the skill check and the NPC you're talking to thinks you're an idiot or something). Check it out. Obviously the reasons he gives aren't didactic, the way they are in Depression Quest, but it's an interesting topic to think about from all the various angles.

[deleted user]

_

[Deadpan]

All this is, I think, very much on topic. All tendencies in gaming that run counter to gamergaters' preset notion about what games are supposed to be about are, by their definition, the infusion of political ideology, an invalid way of making games.

 

What a wacky coincidence that the venues marginalized folk choose for expressing themselves (i.e. Twine) and trying to get by (i.e. Patreon) always become the focus of such debates about legitimacy, right?

 

 

I agree 100%. For an extensive discussion of the topic that occurred before #GamerGate was even a thing, check out this thread. As you might notice glancing through that thread, I took a ton of shit from people for (among lots of other things...) claiming that a lot of the reason behind the whole "this is not a game" sentiment is typically just veiled sexism.

 

The people who need to hear something the most are also the least likely to listen.

 

It's pretty cool that you're trying to educate people on the matter. I've generally turned my back on other forums over this stuff. Get enough shit on Twitter as it is. In general though, think it's rad and important for people to insert themselves in these environments and the conversations that are happening there.

[Gaizokubanou]

It's slightly weird reading this thread because while I do some of the things that you guys criticize (like I don't think Dear Esther is much of a game, Mountain even more so) but looks like for different reason than why you guys are disapproving of such behavior.  Because when some people bring that up "X is not a game", like you guys mentioned, what they are really getting at is "X is bad", while for me, eh like whatever doesn't really matter, good things exists in and out of games so more of personal categorization that I like to discuss, but has no bearing on the quality of the work in question.

[Ninety-Three]

The argument "It's not a game", in any discussion, universally means "I am dissatisfied with the game mechanics, but do not have the patience or rhetoric skill necessary to explain what exactly constitutes my dissatisfaction".

I really wish this weren't the case, because there is some interesting discussion to be had about what makes a game, but that discussion is to be had among people who don't think "not a game" is automatically a pejorative. Sadly, as you said, pretty much everyone just uses it to complain about things they didn't like. Books, movies and music aren't games, and we don't hold that against them, why should we look down on a piece of software for not being a game?

 

To take a more positive example, I'm not sure Minecraft is a game (at least not the way I play with it), and I say that as someone who loves Minecraft. I see it as more of a toy, the way something like Lego is. I don't so much play Minecraft as I play with Minecraft: sure there are systems in place, but for the most part I don't interact with them and I spend my time building cool stuff as if it were cubic Lego.

[Denial]

Absolutely! There's a really interesting conversation to be had about whether The Sims is a game, or a system, or a toy, or indeed at what point something becomes a game or not a game. The problem is that if you can reliably expect people to follow "It's not a game" with "it's a visual novel for girls", or similar.

 

A similar problem, of course, affects actually discussing the content of Tropes vs Women videos critically. If you say "I think this example is a little forced", and a herd of megatrogs immediately jump in to say "Yes, and she is a fraud, and a misandrist, and she bleached her skin and look at this four hour YouTube video"... well, it's not an incentive.

[Merus]

The innovation (to me, Merus may think something else) was in how various choices are able to be recognized but not pursued based on how well you were doing with depression at various stages. It's a simple change, but one that mechanically conveys so much. 

 

Well, I think that, but I'm more confident that displaying choices that players will never be able to take in order to communicate the protagonist's actions are more limited than the world supports isn't something that's been done before - some IF has played with actions that the player can take that the character wouldn't, Spider and Web being the most famous example, and plenty of games have shown potential choices to communicate options to the player, but not, to my recollection, for story purposes.

 

It's slightly weird reading this thread because while I do some of the things that you guys criticize (like I don't think Dear Esther is much of a game, Mountain even more so) but looks like for different reason than why you guys are disapproving of such behavior.  Because when some people bring that up "X is not a game", like you guys mentioned, what they are really getting at is "X is bad", while for me, eh like whatever doesn't really matter, good things exists in and out of games so more of personal categorization that I like to discuss, but has no bearing on the quality of the work in question.

 

See, I feel like being fairly inclusive on what is game, because I think it's a weird enough medium that defining boundaries mostly serves to exclude work that has something to offer. I go by Sid Meier's definition of a game as a series of interesting decisions, and so Dear Esther and walking simulators definitely qualify because 'where to go next' and 'what to look at next' qualifies as an interesting decision. Mountain has no interactivity, as far as I'm aware, so it can't contain decisions, but then the point of Mountain is that it defies the definition of a game in some key aspects while still being interesting. It has story, and graphics, and random generation, and a premise and theming, and it's sold on the Steam store. If you can make a compelling experience that feels like a game without interactivity, how crucial is it, really? When people say that they want choice, is that actually what they want, or do they just want the designers to have not already made the choice for them? Could you make a linear game that was entirely generated, down to the level sequence, and have people be satisfied that, while they don't have control over where it's going, no-one does? If you exclude games like Mountain from being games, you don't have to ask those questions.

[marblize]

I just don't see any value in declaring something not a game, and this conversation baffles me.

 

Well, it doesn't baffle me. The motive of most not-a-game-sayers seems to be to exclude titles like Gone Home from imaginary game awards that have literally no bearing on their lives.

 

As far as I'm concerned, if it's a game to anyone, it's a game.

[Akidu]

That argument reminds me of similar arguments I've heard about music genres.. I couldn't care less personally and don't see much point beyond search-ability in Google.

[Gaizokubanou]

See, I feel like being fairly inclusive on what is game, because I think it's a weird enough medium that defining boundaries mostly serves to exclude work that has something to offer.

 

That's the part I don't understand outside of the context of people yelling "stop making non-games" (and to be fair, those people do exist so I can sympathize why you are mentioning it but I'm not suggesting that at all).  Why does something have to be a game to offer us something?  We can take inspiration from lot more things that are not games.

 

If you can make a compelling experience that feels like a game without interactivity, how crucial is it, really?

 

I guess this is how we just view things quite differently because it doesn't feel like a game.  Compelling, perhaps, but nothing about it tells me that it's a game.

 

I also think 'drinking games' are completely not games and are mis-labeled BTW if that helps explain my view on that category

 

That argument reminds me of similar arguments I've heard about music genres.. I couldn't care less personally and don't see much point beyond search-ability in Google.

 

You are totally right, it really doesn't matter... kind of like everything we do on this forum so long as we are civil to one another.  But it's interesting to see how people view things (like when Merus says Moutain feels like a game, that's interesting revelation to me cause that's opposite of my experience with it), and I think so long as conversations remain civil, it's a cool discussion to be had.

 

 

Absolutely! There's a really interesting conversation to be had about whether The Sims is a game, or a system, or a toy, or indeed at what point something becomes a game or not a game. The problem is that if you can reliably expect people to follow "It's not a game" with "it's a visual novel for girls", or similar.

 

A similar problem, of course, affects actually discussing the content of Tropes vs Women videos critically. If you say "I think this example is a little forced", and a herd of megatrogs immediately jump in to say "Yes, and she is a fraud, and a misandrist, and she bleached her skin and look at this four hour YouTube video"... well, it's not an incentive.

 

My feelings on lot of these topics precisely.  So I'm ready to apologies a ton and explain myself thoroughly cause I know it is a topic ridden with these 'issues' with parties that have dubious motives.  But that alone shouldn't completely turn an interesting discussion into a taboo.

[Ninety-Three]

The Thumbs board seems remarkably lacking in megatrogs and other problems of internet debate, perhaps here is the place we can that interesting discussion. I assume that's something that should spin off into its own thread, does anyone know if that thread already exists?

[Vainamoinen]

I really wish this weren't the case, because there is some interesting discussion to be had about what makes a game, but that discussion is to be had among people who don't think "not a game" is automatically a pejorative.

 

Well, my definition of "game" begins on the lowest possible level, so quite indeed I find the discussion of what constitutes a game rather boring. Interactive entertainment software = games. As long as it's interactive, regardless of the level of interaction, and if it's consumed for entertainment, bam, it's a game. Of course The Sims is, of course Depression Quest is, of course Gone Home is, and every single interactive movie type game is right down to Dragon's Lair. That doesn't mean I have to like either one of those game mechanics just because "I like games".

 

Evaluating the game mechanics and their subjective impression on the player, in what way he/she is motivated or emotionally moved, in what way repetition is sensible, what degree or what modes of interaction feel best to an individual player, those are all very worthy fields of investigation. In comparison, calling a game "not a game" leads nowhere.

[Justin Leego]

Megatrogs?

[osmosisch]

Megatrogs?

concern/sophistry/tone trolls I assume

[Merus]

Megatrogs?

 

a million troglodytes

 

we've only got a thousand, tops

[Vainamoinen]

Cross-posted rebuttal of gamergater article incoming.
 
Reaxxion "ethics officer" Sam Roberts, who only last week called John Birch’s verbatim inflammatory anti-communist hate speech on the site a "simple case of plagiarism", has an interesting new article up: "If you don’t like games with big-boobed girls, don’t play them" (will not provide link).
 
"Interesting" of course because Roberts routinely and probably purposefully misses the issues by a mile.
 
It may be just the usual hyperbole, it may be an argument made for the sake of making an argument, but starting right from the conclusion-turned-headline, Roberts assumes games to be there for him, just him, only him. Unfortunately, the lunacy goes way beyond that.
 
As the boobs are threatened to be taken away (by whom?), the female secondary sex characteristics suddenly become the most important thing in those games, their fundamental raison d’être. Says Roberts about Dead or Alive: "it is a game about eye candy for boys".
 
An exaggerated perspective of Roberts’ view, a quote taken out of context? Not at all.
 
As eye candy for boys clearly is the central topic of the beat’em’up for Roberts, similar eye candy for girls would be strictly atopical: "if I were to demand that this year’s Madden included a boss fight with a fire-breathing dragon at half-time, everyone would look at me like I was a lunatic […]". It’s the very same thing for Roberts, and that is very telling: The integrity of the sports game is violated by fantasy elements, the integrity of the beat’em’up is violated by the sexual appetites of the opposite sex.
 
“These games are not for you” and “don’t play them” are the cries heard particularly from some of the most argument resistant gamergate cultists. We already know that the industry has chosen and in some ways created their target audience, and we already know that in our modern times, their construction of demographic reality fails big-time.
 
Roberts, together with the video game industry, lives in an imaginary world in which "girls" play mainly facebook games and the occasional Sims provided their boyfriend gets the thing to run, then go online to complain about games they’re not interested in anyway. The truth however is that female players have long since started playing all kinds of games. The truth is that they play and love a lot of games that have aspects they find problematic. The truth is that some games are made for a target group only just reaching puberty, and grown men find them cool because they have failed to grow up. The truth is that a lot of men who play beat’em’ups like DOA find the skin overload and the breasts bouncing between chin and toes to be rather cheap and childish.
 
The target group may not rebel against those games, that is true. Then again, Roberts is not part of that target group. At least not if he’s of legal age.

[TychoCelchuuu]

If you don't like opinion pieces on major gaming sites about how "gamers" are dead and about how gamer culture is regressive and blatantly misogynistic, don't read them! Checkmate, #GamerGate.

[feelthedarkness]

this is probably my age talking, but if the games were about "big boob eye candy for boys", what a totally wretched hill to choose to die on, rhetorically. 

[Vainamoinen]

Also, the actual target group of sexualized beat'em'ups is #notrobertsshield. God damn social justice warrior, fighting without asking the people he fights for, etc.

[tegan]

Someone should make a Youtube channel where their character's shtick is that they review games and always decide they they "aren't a game" due to increasingly arbitrary standards, like deciding that Half-Life isn't a game because there are no scores or levels.

[thefncrow]

Someone should make a Youtube channel where their character's shtick is that they review games and always decide they they "aren't a game" due to increasingly arbitrary standards, like deciding that Half-Life isn't a game because there are no scores or levels.

 

The grand conclusion to this should be that after many videos debunking GTA, Call of Duty, Assassins Creed, and other major series as "not a game", they do an episode on Gone Home and declare it a game.

[Nachimir]

"No red key, no skeleton, no score thing, and no magic door. Sorry, it just isn't"

[Vainamoinen]

And any game from "No Goblin" is of course going to fail the test...

[Bjorn]

Well, Half-Life is the gold standard of walking simulators, so obviously it started the whole "not a game" thing.