Ever find a YouTube video that just states everything you think on a subject?

Uhhh, I'm just opting out of getting in fights all the time. It's giving me a bad image.

 

Sounds like a smart choice

 

It's teaching me patience and when to hold my tongue and when to attack. If I attack all the time, I look like a yipping chihuahua. I'd rather have some bite.

That said, arguing is going to ruin this video for me. This is something that I actually connected to on a level because it felt like someone finally just got what one friend and I've been thinking for awhile. I'd rather discuss it, which is why I'll respond to Busa's stuff when I have time. Didn't appreciate the jab though- felt unnecessary and personal. I just don't want to sully the video nor look like a yipping chihuahua. Rather, I think the staff in this thread presented themselves best- they didn't care, so they posted something they liked instead.

 

Ah, no.

The problem is the definitive difference between a game as used in 'game theory' and game as in 'any piece of interactive software made for entertainment'.

These are two different concepts. There are people who have a reason to use game in the narrower sense, especially those with an interest in game theory. If we do not dogmatically label 'new' kinds of games as 'not games', then what words should we use in its place?

Don't answer just yet, because you need to acknowledge the problem with your behavior. Correcting it now would do some good, but only if you recognize what you did wrong at first.

You did not think of something constructive to add despite seeing the general idea behind these points. You did not try to think of a better way to define the difference; more importantly, even if you do now, you didn't without prodding. You have an attitude that says, 'If there is room for doubt, scrap the whole thing'. You didn't try to improve on what you agreed with. You came to say that you thought it was bad, and that is not good behavior.

You can answer now. For the future, please think about why you want to say 'I dislike this' before you do. Think about what kind of responses you want to get. Think about how it will affect those who read it. If all it does it get your thoughts out there, you are posting for yourself and that doesn't help anyone but you.

You are posting on a community. Please act like it. Preferably by contributing new ideas, not just tearing down existing ones.

 

It's a supply and demand sort of thing, yeah. Do it too much and people turn against you.
Anyways, I understand not wanting to get to embroiled in discussion about something you enjoy, it's nice to leave some things in life pure. If I can go on a brief tangent, this is something that happened to me a few years ago when I first started getting interested in gaming criticism. I became so acutely aware of a game's flaws that I stopped being able to enjoy them for a while, before I learnt how to compartmentalize that feeling.
Anyways, I want to apologize for the jab. I didn't intend for it to be personal, I was aiming for ribbing, but that doesn't really matter, my view has always been that when you put something in the public, you forfeit the ability to control what you put out there. So I'm sorry.

Honestly dude, you don't know me well enough to be saying pretty much any of that, but thanks for the feedback, I'll keep it in mind.

 

I lurked the forums for months after I was banned.

I'm out.

See you around.

 

lurk harder next time
and learn how to quote posts so I actually know you're talking to me

 

I do not quote posts that are directly above my replies. I do quote posts from anywhere else.

You seemed to figure it out without my help.

 

Video games are nice.

 

video games are worse than Hitler

 

Basically what I read on the internet daily.

 

Where on the internet are you? o.O

 

The definition of what a game is, is in his own words (which is what he credits). He defines it as requiring skill, yet many definition websites and my own Penguin dictionary here all summarise that games are activities played for fun, alone or together. If what he believes is a game requires skills, his points are valid from his perspective. If we're basing it off the widespread definition then we have issues.

Gone Home is a game. I find it baffling people still question this. Gaynor, one of its creators, actually satirised this conflict when he presented Gone Home mocked up as a Doom clone and discussed it in this years GDC presentation. Watch it, it's interesting: http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1020376/Why-Is-Gone-Home-a
It's nice to hear some actual developer's speak about game making, so much so I even wrote an article about it.
EDIT: to explain, Gaynor says he accepts people calling Gone Home not a gamr, he doesn't say he agrees, only that it's an opinion.
And those tweets of his about a game as a flowchart? Narratives for video games ARE flowcharts in the most basic sense. They're written pretty much like them too, with breaking paths that lead to different results. I don't' get what he's saying but he sounds like he's calling out a badly designed game and wants proof that it isn't.
EDIT: Oh for, this is mental, this guy believes story driven experiences are encroaching on the video gaming market as a whole. That's balls, most games still see story as an after though, window dressing for the experience, but not necessarily integral. I mean, how many games have actually great stories? A lot less than the games that have daft or window dressing ones, which let you play with almost no context at all.


Also, he brings up Ducktales Remastered and that it was panned by reviewers even though it wasn't different fundamentally from the original, only graphically. It's obviously not a really good game if it can't stand the test of time and instead feels dated. Compared to Pac man or Tetris which are old games yet are still incredibly playable and arguably good, where they still hold the same 'magic'. He also believes the only good games are hard ones or even ones that really challenge you. I use to think that as a kid, where I thought I was bad at games because I couldn't overcome the challenge. Which I now realise is balls, I hated those games in the end, I didn't feel satisfied at beating them, just relieved it was over. Gaming is all about making you feel good about overcoming a perceived challenge, not necessarily from being an actual challenge.

Gaming journalism corruption. Right. These low end, cheaply padi freelance writers are all in collusion. I think too many people just read reviews and don't know the reviewer behind them and can understand the point they're trying to put across.
EDIT: There is so much presumption and so little evidence in this video. "This sounds strange" "This is immature". I really need to stop editing this post.

Talking of games/not games, what are gambling games? Many are clearly not games yet market themselves as such. You don't play slots for fun, if it had no money involved you're playing a random symbol generator basically. Roulette would be basically the same, a wheel which will randomly land on a coloured number which you're trying to guess it'll be.

 

Ducktales was disliked more for the constant cutscenes
And people do play slots for fun, the money makes it a risk, or a thrill, comparable to riding a roller coaster.
And honestly his definition doesn't work by mere merit of being his opinion, because it doesn't match what he considers a game and not. When someone has a definition like "must have failure states" they can say Gone Home isn't a game because it doesn't have a true failure state. But when your definition is jsut that it involves a skill, that doesn't really work, unless you have a really high standard for what counts as a skill, and it REALLY doesn't count when it comes to QTEs
(also his thing about QTEs bugs me as a person with game design experience. Quick Time Events cheapen what could be an engaging battle? The insane level of difficulty that would come with making a battle actually recreate QTE sequences without the QTEs make that impractical even with a game with a HUGE budget. And a good QTE uses the same buttons you do for normal actions in a game anyways (like I'm playing Puppeteer right now and you jump with the X button. Whenever you press X in one of the QTEs your characters jumps. It's basically a way to perform a more cinematic version of a normal action, while keeping the pace moving)

 

See also: Game theory, which renders every one of those broad definitions 'casual', 'informal', and otherwise obsolete.

 

Sorry, I suppose I didn't say this, but I meant if you removed the money aspect of gambling and reduced it to the mechanics of the games. Slots would be a random symbol generating machine. It was designed specifically to make money, much like roulette, but unlike poker, blackjack and such which allow for a degree of skill and interaction that matters in that there is a way to alter the outcome throughout the game, and change, for example, who is the winner and loser. Money is what makes gambling... well gambling, but it doesn't mean it's a game.
Yeah, his definition isn't consistent, since he considers some skill based games not games, the conflict between some examples and the definition makes it hard to take credibly.
I'm fine with QTEs if they make me feel like I'm doing something cool or satisfying. Heavy Rain is considered QTE the game but it makes the fights dynamic and engaging enough to make me feel like I'm controlling things.

I'm sure everything could be proven, obsolete or otherwise, if given the right perspective and convincing argument.

 

Everything except paradoxes, but I see what you mean.

My point is that there is and long has been a clearly defined definition of a game that covers his definition almost to a T. The definition is muddy because of the way people use the word, but it has a history and use in the modern day that cannot be ignored or equated to the informal meaning of 'anything people do for fun'.

It's hardly fair to disregard his concerns when they are perfectly valid within a well defined context. Remember what I said before: He wants both games (formal) and games (informal) on the market. He believes that using game as casually as we do will make games (formal) go extinct. I happen to agree with him on that point.

 

If he is going to use an incorrect definition, whether it is convincingly explained or not, it's still incorrect. He says it's his definition of a game, so he doesn't see these games as games. That's his choice, and it helps support the rest of his argument, but it doesn't change that the established socially accepted norm of the term is still not the one he is using. The reasons we have definitions is to create an understanding of a term so we can better communicate with each other. When that definition is different between people, arguments like this happen. So we could either debate whether anyone person's each individual definition of a word is as merit able as another's, why do we not simply accept the formal dictionary definitions of the term?

Why would they go 'extinct'? I believe it's bollocks, because everyone loves shooty bang bang as much as they love munchy munch Pac Man or slashy slash Beat em ups. The way they'll play will evolve more than the genre going defunct. We don't all suddenly dislike books more now e-books are a wildly read format. Things change, need to in order to adapt with the time.
Better question, why would it be a problem? If the creators and the audience can't see it is viable either as an expression of their art or financially possible, then why should it linger with its husk?
His concerns are fine in his perspective, but I see a guy worrying about something he sees is a threat to his love of overly traditional games, but not an actual statistical worry at this point in time. Just because Telltale games, a mid level dev, have become popular and indie devs like Gone Home's Fullbright Company have made games like this doesn't point towards a massive shift in the market of game genres. Fullbright are a three person dev with Gone Home as their first game, they're sway over the industry is minimal at best and seen as an experimental dev, not a triple A dev. Telltale have made games like this for years, like Back to the Future, Wallace and Gromit and Jurassic Park, but since The Walking Dead has had rave reviews and publicity it's suddenly a threat to traditional games. This is like most conservative views, uniformed and subjective to the current times and not to the breadth of things.

 

As someone who has personally seen many words that are very important to me become extinct among laymen, I have very good reasons for believing that this will happen.

Allowing people to change the definition, especially to a less complex one, will make the formal one go extinct in all but the most niche of circles.

If you have nothing to add that might rectify this, please read my earlier, longer post to hatok about contributions to the subject.