The Individual and the Organization.

[SuperBiasedMan]

That is totally fair. I do actually agree that Sim City could be described as nonfiction in that it attempts to emulate a specific real life system without the intention to draw out an explicit narrative. I'm just personally reluctant to accept the word's usage in the context of an article that has some questionable arguments that I do feel are connected to the problematic use of 'nonfiction'.

[tberton]

Yeah, there's definitely a way to use "nonfiction" in order to mean "better." If we're talking about terms that do that, though, I think "serious games" is the guiltier party. I really don't like that phrase and what it implies. I know that it comes out of academic game studies circles, but haven't looked very closely into its history, so I'm hesitant to throw it entirely under the bus. I think all of us here would argue that we'd like to see more serious games. It's just that the way Serious Games is thrown around feels like it's saying that only games made with a specific intent and in a specific form should be considered Serious and I can't get on board with that.

[Merus]

I kind of independently came to the conclusion that games should be using systems as much as possible, but I think where I disagree is that those systems should be set up to create stories, because humans think in stories and expecting them to enjoy or appreciate a system that does not generate stories is a fool's errand.

 

Like, Dys4ia is basically a linear story that uses mechanics as illustration. It's not particularly systemic, but it makes its points by setting up a metaphorical system that you're primed by text to see in a certain way. Papers Please wouldn't be nearly as effective without the narrative events that force difficult decisions. They're not systemic - they happen on the same days for everyone, and they work because they put a human face on the decisions that are being made.

 

In the early 2000s, the Experimental Gameplay Workshop performed an experiment where they reskinned a very systems-driven puzzle game with a simple context, and found players enjoyed it significantly more. 

 

It feels like Bogost is trying to have the narrative vs. systems fight over again, something that never really started (it was a misreading of well-intentioned academics reacting against well-intentioned film studies people using the same toolset for games) and is a dumb-ass fight anyway because a game that's just one or the other is going to be pretty fucking poor. Ludonarrative dissonance has fallen out of fashion as a critique because 1) it's a terrible name and 2) it's a critique that supposes it makes sense to examine theming stripped from the systems it describes, and that a game's mechanics can be entirely encapsulated in things which can be compared to other elements of the game. (For instance: the way information is presented to the player, the delay of registering button presses, whether animations are interruptible, all of these influence the feel of the game, yet no-one talks about ludokinesthetic dissonance, which tells you something about why only ludonarrative dissonance was a resonant critique.)

 

I also note that Bogost's most successful game, by far, is the one with no mechanics and a cute cow.