This is not a man.
December 20, 2011 3:42 PM Subscribe
Some games, in other words, have soul. They are soul, they’re about it. They are spiritually nourishing. A meditation by Matt Colville.
I couldn't agree more about Sword & Sworcery. There's so much magic all throughout (due in large part to the gorgeous and moody folk-electronica soundtrack), but the incredibly poignant and emotionally complex yet satisfying ending is where its soul really shines through. It's the first game ending in a very long time to bring me to tears.
posted by treepour at 4:02 PM on December 20, 2011
posted by treepour at 4:02 PM on December 20, 2011
I've been an aficionado of Minecraft for a long time, and I still play it – heck, I was playing it this morning. But I've become somewhat cynical about these kinds of pronouncements, particularly a sort of overwrought one like
Minecraft is probably as good as computer games can get, for me at least, but it still has its limitations. I don't think computer games can go beyond a certain point, unfortunately. Because, once you turn them off, there's really nothing there.
posted by koeselitz at 4:10 PM on December 20, 2011 [2 favorites]
Minecraft isn’t just a game with soul, it’s nothing but soul. Its literally singular vision–one dude wrote the whole thing–is nothing except the wonder of exploration, and giving you the tools to be an artist, make what you want. Whatever you’re inspired to do. Because of this, because the game concentrates on these elements and nothing else, it is a joy to play. I mean that in the same sense St. Thomas Aquinas meant it.I don't know that St Thomas Aquinas would say that Minecraft is soul, but more importantly I find Minecraft more and more frustrating. Why? Because I have nothing when I'm done. There is some small satisfaction when I look at the stuff I've built, but that's fleeting, and it disappears completely when I turn off my machine. When I do other creative things – learn to play an instrument, or build something with my hands, for instance – I actually have something real, something I can feel proud of, something that I can take perennial joy in, when I'm finished playing.
Minecraft is probably as good as computer games can get, for me at least, but it still has its limitations. I don't think computer games can go beyond a certain point, unfortunately. Because, once you turn them off, there's really nothing there.
posted by koeselitz at 4:10 PM on December 20, 2011 [2 favorites]
once you turn them off, there's really nothing there.
Sure there is. There's the memory of that experience. There's reflecting on what went right or what went wrong. There's the lingering urge to iterate.
Value that as you will.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 4:28 PM on December 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
Sure there is. There's the memory of that experience. There's reflecting on what went right or what went wrong. There's the lingering urge to iterate.
Value that as you will.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 4:28 PM on December 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
Minecraft strikes me as an odd choice. The game portion of Minecraft is terrible - grinding, meaningless, bullshit that's not fun in the least. The game portion of Minecraft, beyond turning off monsters and just building whatever you want in creative mode, is pointless, and seems to be the antithesis of what he's talking about in this article.
This is what koeselitz is talking about. When you've finished a good game, that's challenging and well designed, you actually done have something. You've learned the skills that it takes to get good at the game and have mastered them, and if it's a really good game, then they're skills that are more broadly applicable, and that make you feel satisfied for having learned them.
I can't speak to the other games he mentions (since one is unreleased and the other two are iOS casual affairs), outside of Portal, which I agree whole-heartedly with. Portal is a game like I mention in my second paragraph: it's satisfying, involving, challenging, and complete. Its story is produced organically through playing the game, instead of through pages of text, or cut-scenes where the player is locked in place while the action unfolds around them. It requires you to think in a new way, and encourages that sort of learning with well designed levels and a funny story line with memorable characters.
Anyway, I guess I agree overall. I'm sick of having most games be the power fantasies of 15 year old boys. I disagree with the emphasis he puts on experience. Experience is a hard thing to quantify, and unique to the player. Good game design, however, is not.
Minecraft is probably as good as computer games can get, for me at least, but it still has its limitations. I don't think computer games can go beyond a certain point, unfortunately. Because, once you turn them off, there's really nothing there.
No way. Minecraft is one guy who stole an idea and was in the right place at the right time to capitalize on it. Notch and company spent the last year not improving their engine at all, adding very little to the game, and what they did add was mostly stolen from the mod community. It's just the beginning, not the end state of interesting games for adults. Technology is becoming more powerful and more accessible, and hopefully 10 years down the line the only reason that Minecraft will be notable is that it was one of the first points were people realized 'hey, a game doesn't have to be a AAA title with space marines to make money.'
posted by codacorolla at 4:33 PM on December 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
This is what koeselitz is talking about. When you've finished a good game, that's challenging and well designed, you actually done have something. You've learned the skills that it takes to get good at the game and have mastered them, and if it's a really good game, then they're skills that are more broadly applicable, and that make you feel satisfied for having learned them.
I can't speak to the other games he mentions (since one is unreleased and the other two are iOS casual affairs), outside of Portal, which I agree whole-heartedly with. Portal is a game like I mention in my second paragraph: it's satisfying, involving, challenging, and complete. Its story is produced organically through playing the game, instead of through pages of text, or cut-scenes where the player is locked in place while the action unfolds around them. It requires you to think in a new way, and encourages that sort of learning with well designed levels and a funny story line with memorable characters.
Anyway, I guess I agree overall. I'm sick of having most games be the power fantasies of 15 year old boys. I disagree with the emphasis he puts on experience. Experience is a hard thing to quantify, and unique to the player. Good game design, however, is not.
Minecraft is probably as good as computer games can get, for me at least, but it still has its limitations. I don't think computer games can go beyond a certain point, unfortunately. Because, once you turn them off, there's really nothing there.
No way. Minecraft is one guy who stole an idea and was in the right place at the right time to capitalize on it. Notch and company spent the last year not improving their engine at all, adding very little to the game, and what they did add was mostly stolen from the mod community. It's just the beginning, not the end state of interesting games for adults. Technology is becoming more powerful and more accessible, and hopefully 10 years down the line the only reason that Minecraft will be notable is that it was one of the first points were people realized 'hey, a game doesn't have to be a AAA title with space marines to make money.'
posted by codacorolla at 4:33 PM on December 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
I don't think computer games can go beyond a certain point, unfortunately. Because, once you turn them off, there's really nothing there.
Well, I don't think that's correct. There is the experience. And on some level, experiences are pretty much all we have in our lives. One could say the same thing about a CD one loves, or a movie which moved you -- that once you shut it off, it disappears and there's nothing really there.
There are studies (2003 pdf, more recently in 2010 [paywall blocked]) which show that investing in experiences rather than material things is intrinsically more satisfying. Granted, this has to do with owning things, not learning things or creating physical objects, but ultimately, I think the end result is the same.
The main thing I'd say about it is, often with video games (as with music or books or movies), the experience is something curated, designed by someone for you to inhabit for a while.
I'm willing to bet that another study which compared curated experiences against more visceral, unscripted (although perhaps planned) experiences would show that the less designed an experience is, the more satisfying it is ultimately.
Still, I think you're being a bit unfair on videogames and whether the experience of playing them has value simply for the experience. (And I say this as a non-gamer, but someone who appreciates and seeks out quality experiences.)
posted by hippybear at 4:34 PM on December 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
Well, I don't think that's correct. There is the experience. And on some level, experiences are pretty much all we have in our lives. One could say the same thing about a CD one loves, or a movie which moved you -- that once you shut it off, it disappears and there's nothing really there.
There are studies (2003 pdf, more recently in 2010 [paywall blocked]) which show that investing in experiences rather than material things is intrinsically more satisfying. Granted, this has to do with owning things, not learning things or creating physical objects, but ultimately, I think the end result is the same.
The main thing I'd say about it is, often with video games (as with music or books or movies), the experience is something curated, designed by someone for you to inhabit for a while.
I'm willing to bet that another study which compared curated experiences against more visceral, unscripted (although perhaps planned) experiences would show that the less designed an experience is, the more satisfying it is ultimately.
Still, I think you're being a bit unfair on videogames and whether the experience of playing them has value simply for the experience. (And I say this as a non-gamer, but someone who appreciates and seeks out quality experiences.)
posted by hippybear at 4:34 PM on December 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
I have both Osmos and S&S but haven't spent more than 10 minutes between the two of them. I guess I need to.
If beauty, atmosphere, emotion and feel are what constitute "soul" in a game than my top spot goes to Ico. I haven't played it in five years but thinking about leading Yorda by the hand through that castle still makes me smile.
posted by Blue Meanie at 4:35 PM on December 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
If beauty, atmosphere, emotion and feel are what constitute "soul" in a game than my top spot goes to Ico. I haven't played it in five years but thinking about leading Yorda by the hand through that castle still makes me smile.
posted by Blue Meanie at 4:35 PM on December 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
the other two are iOS casual affairs
Osmosis isn't iOS. It was part of one of the recent Humble Indie Bundles, and is available for all computing platforms.
posted by hippybear at 4:36 PM on December 20, 2011
Osmosis isn't iOS. It was part of one of the recent Humble Indie Bundles, and is available for all computing platforms.
posted by hippybear at 4:36 PM on December 20, 2011
I stand corrected. It's also $2.50 on Steam for the winter sale, so I guess I'll check it out.
posted by codacorolla at 4:38 PM on December 20, 2011
posted by codacorolla at 4:38 PM on December 20, 2011
I don't know that St Thomas Aquinas would say that Minecraft is soul, but more importantly I find Minecraft more and more frustrating. Why? Because I have nothing when I'm done. There is some small satisfaction when I look at the stuff I've built, but that's fleeting, and it disappears completely when I turn off my machine.
posted by koeselitz at 4:10 PM
I see your point about having nothing when you're done. I've made that argument myself when I find I spend too much time with games.
But it is interesting that your description of Minecraft sounds very much like a sand mandala, a form of art that is traditionally destroyed after once it is created.
A game is an experience like many others in our lives, as fleeting as a mandala or a song played live. I don't think an act is without value simply because it doesn't last.
In most cases, board games are social and video games are interactive and creative, so I think they're a step up from TV.
posted by Boxenmacher at 4:40 PM on December 20, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by koeselitz at 4:10 PM
I see your point about having nothing when you're done. I've made that argument myself when I find I spend too much time with games.
But it is interesting that your description of Minecraft sounds very much like a sand mandala, a form of art that is traditionally destroyed after once it is created.
A game is an experience like many others in our lives, as fleeting as a mandala or a song played live. I don't think an act is without value simply because it doesn't last.
In most cases, board games are social and video games are interactive and creative, so I think they're a step up from TV.
posted by Boxenmacher at 4:40 PM on December 20, 2011 [2 favorites]
Because, once you turn them off, there's really nothing there.
I was just thinking the same thing about the Kapla FPP the other day. I don't see the point in spending hours building things you just knock down. Sure, you made a YouTube video that proves you set up thousands of blocks and then knocked them down. So what? Is it somehow soul-sustaining that you knocked down more blocks than someone else?
posted by charlie don't surf at 4:43 PM on December 20, 2011
I was just thinking the same thing about the Kapla FPP the other day. I don't see the point in spending hours building things you just knock down. Sure, you made a YouTube video that proves you set up thousands of blocks and then knocked them down. So what? Is it somehow soul-sustaining that you knocked down more blocks than someone else?
posted by charlie don't surf at 4:43 PM on December 20, 2011
I've played cello for thirty years, but for all that I 'have' nothing but memories and a gnarly callus or two.
Life's just a bucket you throw memories in, when you get down to it.
posted by Sebmojo at 4:45 PM on December 20, 2011 [9 favorites]
Life's just a bucket you throw memories in, when you get down to it.
posted by Sebmojo at 4:45 PM on December 20, 2011 [9 favorites]
I don't see a great deal of different between getting good at golf, and getting good at Starcraft, in terms of virtue. Nor do I see much difference between learning to build good levels for Little Big Planet*, and learning to make nice pottery (except that probably your Little Big Planet levels will be appreciated by more people than your pottery). Is spending hours building things in Minecraft any different from using those hours constructing lego models?
posted by Pyry at 4:47 PM on December 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Pyry at 4:47 PM on December 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
All art is ephemeral. Soul is not. Great article.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 4:47 PM on December 20, 2011
posted by Potomac Avenue at 4:47 PM on December 20, 2011
This is my game of the year.
I cried like hell at the end of the game. Big, heaving sobs. It destroyed me. That's a game with soul.
posted by empath at 4:51 PM on December 20, 2011 [5 favorites]
I cried like hell at the end of the game. Big, heaving sobs. It destroyed me. That's a game with soul.
posted by empath at 4:51 PM on December 20, 2011 [5 favorites]
Is spending hours building things in Minecraft any different from using those hours constructing lego models?
Not really seeing where you're going with that.
posted by empath at 4:52 PM on December 20, 2011
Not really seeing where you're going with that.
posted by empath at 4:52 PM on December 20, 2011
OMG, Legend of Grimrock.
Also:
There are the thoughts of some other guy that touch on the topic of soul in games, using Megaman as an example. The language is NSFW.
posted by tapesonthefloor at 5:14 PM on December 20, 2011
Also:
There are the thoughts of some other guy that touch on the topic of soul in games, using Megaman as an example. The language is NSFW.
posted by tapesonthefloor at 5:14 PM on December 20, 2011
Morrowind and after that Skyrim elicited the same reaction in me:
I could barely contain myself, just couldn't wait to finish setting up my character and getting out of the starting village - to just pick a direction at random AND GO. Last time I felt like that was when I was waiting to get into FAO Schwartz when I was 7.
And then it's 3 hours later.
And then I'm somewhere high up and I see a particularly intriguing mountaintop/structure/whatever off in the far far distance. And I say "I'm going THERE."
And then it's 6 AM and tomorrow is going to require a lot of coffee.
That's soul in a video game.
posted by tempythethird at 5:17 PM on December 20, 2011 [2 favorites]
I could barely contain myself, just couldn't wait to finish setting up my character and getting out of the starting village - to just pick a direction at random AND GO. Last time I felt like that was when I was waiting to get into FAO Schwartz when I was 7.
And then it's 3 hours later.
And then I'm somewhere high up and I see a particularly intriguing mountaintop/structure/whatever off in the far far distance. And I say "I'm going THERE."
And then it's 6 AM and tomorrow is going to require a lot of coffee.
That's soul in a video game.
posted by tempythethird at 5:17 PM on December 20, 2011 [2 favorites]
"Spiritually Nourishing"?
Why do I suspect all games liked by a person who uses this phrase will have a moody trance soundtrack.
posted by lumpenprole at 5:29 PM on December 20, 2011
Why do I suspect all games liked by a person who uses this phrase will have a moody trance soundtrack.
posted by lumpenprole at 5:29 PM on December 20, 2011
"I don't think computer games can go beyond a certain point, unfortunately. Because, once you turn them off, there's really nothing there."
I don't mean to pile-on, here, but this seems to me to be a very weak argument. As others have said, it's not as if there aren't numerous other things that most consider worth doing that don't leave some tangible result. There are lots of things like this.
I mean—and you, especially, understand this—the same can be said about contemplation and conversation.
A possible response to that point could be, well, contemplation and conversation can and often do result in an increase of knowledge. But it's not clear to me why this couldn't be the case with Minecraft. It's clear to me that it isn't necessarily the case with Minecraft, mind. But when I consider some of the things people have built within it—a Universal Turing Machine comes to mind—then that seems to me pretty much comparable to the enduring value we get from, say, working through and learning a proposition from Euclid's Elements.
Furthermore, while the notion of tangibility as a necessary condition for value is clearly suspect, it also seems to me to be the case that persistence is also questionable as a necessary condition for value. After all, everything perishes given enough time. Is the tangible life's work of an artist valueless because, after his death, it's unknowingly or carelessly destroyed? Are all the works of an entire civilization valueless because, one day, they will be no more than dust and forgotten?
Would you say that a sand castle on the beach is valueless?
I wouldn't.
I have no particular motivation to defend the notion of the value of video games, in general. And I especially am rather tepid about this whole "some games have soul" thing.
But surely the fact that computers can be switched off and data structures lost is no more and no less an indictment of their ability to create valuable works within themselves than is the fact that books can be burned, their words along with them. Words are neither tangible, nor permanent.
The bias against what's often called "virtual" surely must be a sort of conservative bias, one that marks out a special category of supposed intangibility for computational objects that, in truth, cannot be convincingly argued to not also apply to a great many other things—things long familiar as products of techne, and which we do not especially deny as having value.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:04 PM on December 20, 2011 [3 favorites]
I don't mean to pile-on, here, but this seems to me to be a very weak argument. As others have said, it's not as if there aren't numerous other things that most consider worth doing that don't leave some tangible result. There are lots of things like this.
I mean—and you, especially, understand this—the same can be said about contemplation and conversation.
A possible response to that point could be, well, contemplation and conversation can and often do result in an increase of knowledge. But it's not clear to me why this couldn't be the case with Minecraft. It's clear to me that it isn't necessarily the case with Minecraft, mind. But when I consider some of the things people have built within it—a Universal Turing Machine comes to mind—then that seems to me pretty much comparable to the enduring value we get from, say, working through and learning a proposition from Euclid's Elements.
Furthermore, while the notion of tangibility as a necessary condition for value is clearly suspect, it also seems to me to be the case that persistence is also questionable as a necessary condition for value. After all, everything perishes given enough time. Is the tangible life's work of an artist valueless because, after his death, it's unknowingly or carelessly destroyed? Are all the works of an entire civilization valueless because, one day, they will be no more than dust and forgotten?
Would you say that a sand castle on the beach is valueless?
I wouldn't.
I have no particular motivation to defend the notion of the value of video games, in general. And I especially am rather tepid about this whole "some games have soul" thing.
But surely the fact that computers can be switched off and data structures lost is no more and no less an indictment of their ability to create valuable works within themselves than is the fact that books can be burned, their words along with them. Words are neither tangible, nor permanent.
The bias against what's often called "virtual" surely must be a sort of conservative bias, one that marks out a special category of supposed intangibility for computational objects that, in truth, cannot be convincingly argued to not also apply to a great many other things—things long familiar as products of techne, and which we do not especially deny as having value.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:04 PM on December 20, 2011 [3 favorites]
I don't know if it's soul he's talking about as much as setting. I always thought the greatest strength of games was in providing a sense of place, and your character's relationship to it. We can have a relationship nearly equal to game places as we can with places in real life - that's incredibly exciting and woefully under-explored. Minecraft is a good start, mostly for all the customary "game things" it lacks while continuing to be engaging to people.
I might as well throw out a very fascinating game (or un-game) that's right up the alley of all of this: The Path. More art than game, and the game mechanic actually leads you to feeling strange and uncertain about what you're doing in a real way, just a very interesting experience.
There's a lot of untapped potential for games, I think. I read an article about burn victims who played a simple game set on a snowy field greatly reduced the pain they felt. Our setting, even virtually, has a very direct relationship on how we feel - it's an incredible tool.
posted by lubujackson at 6:33 PM on December 20, 2011 [3 favorites]
I might as well throw out a very fascinating game (or un-game) that's right up the alley of all of this: The Path. More art than game, and the game mechanic actually leads you to feeling strange and uncertain about what you're doing in a real way, just a very interesting experience.
There's a lot of untapped potential for games, I think. I read an article about burn victims who played a simple game set on a snowy field greatly reduced the pain they felt. Our setting, even virtually, has a very direct relationship on how we feel - it's an incredible tool.
posted by lubujackson at 6:33 PM on December 20, 2011 [3 favorites]
Minecraft strikes me as an odd choice. The game portion of Minecraft is terrible - grinding, meaningless, bullshit that's not fun in the least. The game portion of Minecraft, beyond turning off monsters and just building whatever you want in creative mode, is pointless, and seems to be the antithesis of what he's talking about in this article.
This is what koeselitz is talking about. When you've finished a good game, that's challenging and well designed, you actually done have something. You've learned the skills that it takes to get good at the game and have mastered them, and if it's a really good game, then they're skills that are more broadly applicable, and that make you feel satisfied for having learned them.
posted by koeselitz at 4:10 PM on December 20
Yeah I pretty much completely disagree with this sentiment. You are only correct insofar as the "skills it takes to get good at the game" are skills required by the game itself (combos in a fighting game, puzzles in zelda, reflexes in a driving game etc). Minecraft being what it is, the game does not require anything to "win". You could sit there for ten minutes and then declare yourself the winner. The only criteria are your own, and therefore the skills required are whatever ones you wish to gain.
Minecraft is about two things: digging and building. I choose to grade my own building. The criteria I have for "winning" is that the things I build look good to me. I grow these skills by learning actual architecture, doodling in class, imagining possibilities. I have not won yet. But I am building my skills.
The challenge in Minecraft is overcoming the constrained, cubic nature of the environment to physically build the mental build. You only have so many colors, and shapes. You can only create things so tall. Things don't always match up.
That challenge itself, and how you chose to overcome it, is the soul of this game.
posted by rebent at 6:52 PM on December 20, 2011
This is what koeselitz is talking about. When you've finished a good game, that's challenging and well designed, you actually done have something. You've learned the skills that it takes to get good at the game and have mastered them, and if it's a really good game, then they're skills that are more broadly applicable, and that make you feel satisfied for having learned them.
posted by koeselitz at 4:10 PM on December 20
Yeah I pretty much completely disagree with this sentiment. You are only correct insofar as the "skills it takes to get good at the game" are skills required by the game itself (combos in a fighting game, puzzles in zelda, reflexes in a driving game etc). Minecraft being what it is, the game does not require anything to "win". You could sit there for ten minutes and then declare yourself the winner. The only criteria are your own, and therefore the skills required are whatever ones you wish to gain.
Minecraft is about two things: digging and building. I choose to grade my own building. The criteria I have for "winning" is that the things I build look good to me. I grow these skills by learning actual architecture, doodling in class, imagining possibilities. I have not won yet. But I am building my skills.
The challenge in Minecraft is overcoming the constrained, cubic nature of the environment to physically build the mental build. You only have so many colors, and shapes. You can only create things so tall. Things don't always match up.
That challenge itself, and how you chose to overcome it, is the soul of this game.
posted by rebent at 6:52 PM on December 20, 2011
Minecraft is about two things: digging and building. I choose to grade my own building. The criteria I have for "winning" is that the things I build look good to me. I grow these skills by learning actual architecture, doodling in class, imagining possibilities. I have not won yet. But I am building my skills.
You're describing the toylike nature of Minecraft - easily its strongest aspect. That's a perfectly valid way to enjoy the game, but it ignores that fact that there is a game part to Minecraft, and that game is in fact winnable.
Unfortunately the gamelike part of Minecraft, which is its poorly implemented combat, resource management, and RPG elements, are all bad. They're not fun. They're simplistic, repetitive, non-intuitive and get in the way of the actual fun part of Minecraft, which is building stuff. People seem to get defensive when you say that a game has flaws because they've invested so much creativity in their own toylike enjoyment of the game that they say, 'that doesn't matter, because I had fun with it.' But if this is the case then why have gamelike elements at all? Why does the game you're talking about need to be a game at all, and not just be a straight up building simulation?
Once you start ignoring gameplay in a game because it made you feel epic to build a castle, or it told a good story, then you're abandoning the things that make games a distinct form from (say) interactive novels, or simulations, or movies, or books.
That's why I'm wary about qualifying games by "soul". It's an indistinct feel-good term that doesn't really describe anything about the game other than "I had fun with it." It's meaningless.
posted by codacorolla at 7:11 PM on December 20, 2011
You're describing the toylike nature of Minecraft - easily its strongest aspect. That's a perfectly valid way to enjoy the game, but it ignores that fact that there is a game part to Minecraft, and that game is in fact winnable.
Unfortunately the gamelike part of Minecraft, which is its poorly implemented combat, resource management, and RPG elements, are all bad. They're not fun. They're simplistic, repetitive, non-intuitive and get in the way of the actual fun part of Minecraft, which is building stuff. People seem to get defensive when you say that a game has flaws because they've invested so much creativity in their own toylike enjoyment of the game that they say, 'that doesn't matter, because I had fun with it.' But if this is the case then why have gamelike elements at all? Why does the game you're talking about need to be a game at all, and not just be a straight up building simulation?
Once you start ignoring gameplay in a game because it made you feel epic to build a castle, or it told a good story, then you're abandoning the things that make games a distinct form from (say) interactive novels, or simulations, or movies, or books.
That's why I'm wary about qualifying games by "soul". It's an indistinct feel-good term that doesn't really describe anything about the game other than "I had fun with it." It's meaningless.
posted by codacorolla at 7:11 PM on December 20, 2011
Once you start ignoring gameplay in a game because it made you feel epic to build a castle, or it told a good story, then you're abandoning the things that make games a distinct form from (say) interactive novels, or simulations, or movies, or books.
Nonsense. Simulation games are still games, even if they have no win condition.
posted by empath at 7:14 PM on December 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
Nonsense. Simulation games are still games, even if they have no win condition.
posted by empath at 7:14 PM on December 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
Nonsense. Simulation games are still games, even if they have no win condition.
No, that makes them play, but not games. There's a difference.
posted by codacorolla at 7:16 PM on December 20, 2011
No, that makes them play, but not games. There's a difference.
posted by codacorolla at 7:16 PM on December 20, 2011
This person didn't feel any emotional resonance from Portal 2 or Starcraft 2? I'm not sure their judgment is particularly sound on video games.
posted by TypographicalError at 7:20 PM on December 20, 2011
posted by TypographicalError at 7:20 PM on December 20, 2011
No, that makes them play, but not games. There's a difference.
Your definition of 'game' is different from anybody involved in serious games criticism or who is actually working in the industry.
posted by empath at 7:25 PM on December 20, 2011
Your definition of 'game' is different from anybody involved in serious games criticism or who is actually working in the industry.
posted by empath at 7:25 PM on December 20, 2011
Well, the ender dragon, potions, etc were just thrown in there at the end. Not very interesting, imo - as was said, the real game was finished almost a year ago, and everything since then has been mostly junk tacked on.
As for the derail of whether it's a game or not - I feel a little like I stepped into that one. I agree with you about the distinction, but I lump "game" and "play" into the larger category of "video game." To each their own I suppose.
posted by rebent at 7:27 PM on December 20, 2011
As for the derail of whether it's a game or not - I feel a little like I stepped into that one. I agree with you about the distinction, but I lump "game" and "play" into the larger category of "video game." To each their own I suppose.
posted by rebent at 7:27 PM on December 20, 2011
Your definition of 'game' is different from anybody involved in serious games criticism or who is actually working in the industry.
My definition is pretty close to Kosters, and based directly on Huizinga and Caillois, but regardless I don't have a problem with thinking differently than the current bright minds of the game industry.
By all means, define what a game is for me.
posted by codacorolla at 7:28 PM on December 20, 2011
My definition is pretty close to Kosters, and based directly on Huizinga and Caillois, but regardless I don't have a problem with thinking differently than the current bright minds of the game industry.
By all means, define what a game is for me.
posted by codacorolla at 7:28 PM on December 20, 2011
It's the leaden, thudding pain of an arrow hitting your knee.
posted by Sebmojo at 7:44 PM on December 20, 2011 [4 favorites]
posted by Sebmojo at 7:44 PM on December 20, 2011 [4 favorites]
OK I am reading more articles by this guy and I am really loving them. Who is he? What does he do? Is there any reaction to his reactions?
posted by rebent at 7:48 PM on December 20, 2011
posted by rebent at 7:48 PM on December 20, 2011
codacorolla: No way. Minecraft is one guy who stole an idea and was in the right place at the right time to capitalize on it.Wow, I had no idea that Minecraft wasn't really invented by Persson; it sickens me quite a bit to realize that he effectively stole the look and feel, made a fucking mint, and for no good reason that Minecraft was a success where Infiniminer was not (other than a slightly more pronounceable name, and well... luck). Did Zachary Barth ever get a penny from the Minecraft millions?
posted by hincandenza at 8:02 PM on December 20, 2011
Minecraft is no more a rip off of infiniminer than Unreal was a rip off of quake. Or than World of Warcraft was a rip off of Everquest.
Play infiniminer, they're nothing alike.
posted by empath at 8:13 PM on December 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
Play infiniminer, they're nothing alike.
posted by empath at 8:13 PM on December 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
hincandenza: Wow, I had no idea that Minecraft wasn't really invented by Persson; it sickens me quite a bit to realize that he effectively stole the look and feel, made a fucking mint, and for no good reason that Minecraft was a success where Infiniminer was not (other than a slightly more pronounceable name, and well... luck).
Well, there was the whole part where Minecraft was developed for far longer, incorporates tons of elements that Infiniminer never did, and has ended up far better than it ever was. That probably didn't hurt.
posted by Mitrovarr at 9:00 PM on December 20, 2011
Well, there was the whole part where Minecraft was developed for far longer, incorporates tons of elements that Infiniminer never did, and has ended up far better than it ever was. That probably didn't hurt.
posted by Mitrovarr at 9:00 PM on December 20, 2011
codacorolla: “No way. Minecraft is one guy who stole an idea and was in the right place at the right time to capitalize on it. Notch and company spent the last year not improving their engine at all, adding very little to the game, and what they did add was mostly stolen from the mod community. It's just the beginning, not the end state of interesting games for adults. Technology is becoming more powerful and more accessible, and hopefully 10 years down the line the only reason that Minecraft will be notable is that it was one of the first points were people realized 'hey, a game doesn't have to be a AAA title with space marines to make money.'”
Eh. I like the game. But I can't stand video games with stories, so I'm not sure I would like the other games you seem to want to point to as better. Video games with stories just seem to me like interactive movies, which can't help but feel contrived to me. I don't like cutscenes, I don't like "developing" a "character" (which feels much more pointless than building something in Minecraft) and I don't like games with "endings." So, er. Yeah. All of that stuff seems ridiculous to me. Beyond a satisfying roguelike or a text adventure – which seems like the only place you can get away with a story without the whole thing being rather dumb – what is there? Not much.
Boxenmacher: “But it is interesting that your description of Minecraft sounds very much like a sand mandala, a form of art that is traditionally destroyed after once it is created.”
Ha. I'll admit something else: I think part of my frustration with Minecraft is my own damned fault. Or at least my old laptop's fault – it's old, and one of the RAM chips is cheap. If I let it overheat (which happens when I'm playing Minecraft and it's sitting in my lap) then my computer spontaneously shuts down. In case you're not aware of this, for some odd reason, if you shut down a computer in the middle of playing Minecraft, your whole world is destroyed. Not as in, "I lose all the progress I'd made since the last save." I mean, the whole world is erased. I restart the computer, fire up Minecraft, and the name of the world I was working on isn't even in the menu anymore. Everything I'd done – that library I'd built with the soaring dome, my huge paddock of hundreds of sheep and broad fields of sugar cane and wheat as far as the eye can see, my tiny collection of six precious diamonds (how the hell do you get more of those things?) – all gone. So, yeah. That seems to happen about once every other week. And I'll admit, it sours the game a bit for me.
But I also get the sense that this is how it really is, in a way. Everything is erased. If, when my world is gone, I have nothing to show for it – what am I really building?
posted by koeselitz at 9:15 PM on December 20, 2011
Eh. I like the game. But I can't stand video games with stories, so I'm not sure I would like the other games you seem to want to point to as better. Video games with stories just seem to me like interactive movies, which can't help but feel contrived to me. I don't like cutscenes, I don't like "developing" a "character" (which feels much more pointless than building something in Minecraft) and I don't like games with "endings." So, er. Yeah. All of that stuff seems ridiculous to me. Beyond a satisfying roguelike or a text adventure – which seems like the only place you can get away with a story without the whole thing being rather dumb – what is there? Not much.
Boxenmacher: “But it is interesting that your description of Minecraft sounds very much like a sand mandala, a form of art that is traditionally destroyed after once it is created.”
Ha. I'll admit something else: I think part of my frustration with Minecraft is my own damned fault. Or at least my old laptop's fault – it's old, and one of the RAM chips is cheap. If I let it overheat (which happens when I'm playing Minecraft and it's sitting in my lap) then my computer spontaneously shuts down. In case you're not aware of this, for some odd reason, if you shut down a computer in the middle of playing Minecraft, your whole world is destroyed. Not as in, "I lose all the progress I'd made since the last save." I mean, the whole world is erased. I restart the computer, fire up Minecraft, and the name of the world I was working on isn't even in the menu anymore. Everything I'd done – that library I'd built with the soaring dome, my huge paddock of hundreds of sheep and broad fields of sugar cane and wheat as far as the eye can see, my tiny collection of six precious diamonds (how the hell do you get more of those things?) – all gone. So, yeah. That seems to happen about once every other week. And I'll admit, it sours the game a bit for me.
But I also get the sense that this is how it really is, in a way. Everything is erased. If, when my world is gone, I have nothing to show for it – what am I really building?
posted by koeselitz at 9:15 PM on December 20, 2011
koeselitz: That is a feature of "hardcore" difficulty. Perhaps you have that turned on?
posted by rebent at 9:22 PM on December 20, 2011
posted by rebent at 9:22 PM on December 20, 2011
There are a few game studies theorists that have or still do insist on the distinction between play and game, or to use Caillois' terms, ludus and paidia. Often such scholars are concerned with games and play broadly, rather than just video games, which is at times a problematically unstated distinction within the field of game studies but given the field is only about 10 years old (as a somewhat distinct collection of self-identifying scholarship) it's not surprising.
A couple of things:
1) Cailliois, to my understanding, proposed a continuum, rather than distinction between ludus and paidia, which is one of the things that makes categorising one thing as a game, and another as play, sometime difficult.
2) A focus on form, rather than what the people interacting with that form actually do, leads us to kind of missing the point. It is completely possible for someone to engage in something that is somewhat clearly a game in an outright playful manner (e.g. warthog jumping in Halo), or take a more toy like playful activity, and determine their own set of structuring rules and limitations, as mentioned by others above in relation to Minecraft.
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 9:40 PM on December 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
A couple of things:
1) Cailliois, to my understanding, proposed a continuum, rather than distinction between ludus and paidia, which is one of the things that makes categorising one thing as a game, and another as play, sometime difficult.
2) A focus on form, rather than what the people interacting with that form actually do, leads us to kind of missing the point. It is completely possible for someone to engage in something that is somewhat clearly a game in an outright playful manner (e.g. warthog jumping in Halo), or take a more toy like playful activity, and determine their own set of structuring rules and limitations, as mentioned by others above in relation to Minecraft.
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 9:40 PM on December 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
The men in this game are also awful. Awful to look at, awful to inhabit. It’s a 13-year old’s aspirations, and not a very emotionally healthy 13 year old. It’s the folks who saw Heavy Metal when they were kids, and spend the rest of their lives thinking “this is normal for men and women."
I think this was a huge part of the point the author was trying to make, and it kind of gets buried in the article.
posted by Drumhellz at 10:02 PM on December 20, 2011
I think this was a huge part of the point the author was trying to make, and it kind of gets buried in the article.
posted by Drumhellz at 10:02 PM on December 20, 2011
Minecraft strikes me as an odd choice. The game portion of Minecraft is terrible - grinding, meaningless, bullshit that's not fun in the least. The game portion of Minecraft, beyond turning off monsters and just building whatever you want in creative mode, is pointless, and seems to be the antithesis of what he's talking about in this article.
I disagree of course. To me, the game portion of minecraft is exactly what's fun. It combines with the toy portion in a satisfying way to me. In order to get the blocks I want to build whatever tower or underground base I'm currently working on, I need resources. I need iron or diamond for tools, and then I need to harvest the actual blocks I want. That, to me, means finding and exploring new caves.
I find and explore a cave, digging down deeper, following monster sounds or my own intuition, I gather things along the way, and dig a little more. Then eventually, I find myself at the really interesting part of minecraft. It happens when I've gathered a good amount of stuff, but I found that I've dug myself too deep and can't remember quite the way back. I find whatever resources (food, torches) I need to explore further dwindling, and I realize that if I don't find my way back to somewhere safe with my stuff I'm going to lose it.
That point to me, is part of the reason games are fun. They allow us to experience emotions based around risk and loss that are rare or dangerous in real life.
Also I like finding treasure in caves. Any game with that feature is okay by me.
posted by benimoto at 10:04 PM on December 20, 2011 [2 favorites]
I disagree of course. To me, the game portion of minecraft is exactly what's fun. It combines with the toy portion in a satisfying way to me. In order to get the blocks I want to build whatever tower or underground base I'm currently working on, I need resources. I need iron or diamond for tools, and then I need to harvest the actual blocks I want. That, to me, means finding and exploring new caves.
I find and explore a cave, digging down deeper, following monster sounds or my own intuition, I gather things along the way, and dig a little more. Then eventually, I find myself at the really interesting part of minecraft. It happens when I've gathered a good amount of stuff, but I found that I've dug myself too deep and can't remember quite the way back. I find whatever resources (food, torches) I need to explore further dwindling, and I realize that if I don't find my way back to somewhere safe with my stuff I'm going to lose it.
That point to me, is part of the reason games are fun. They allow us to experience emotions based around risk and loss that are rare or dangerous in real life.
Also I like finding treasure in caves. Any game with that feature is okay by me.
posted by benimoto at 10:04 PM on December 20, 2011 [2 favorites]
rebent: "That is a feature of "hardcore" difficulty. Perhaps you have that turned on?"
Nope, I play pretty much exclusively on "normal." I remember back when there was no such thing as hardcore, though. Sadly it doesn't matter what difficulty level I have the game set on. If you shut off your machine while you're playing Minecraft, you'll delete the world you're playing in. I think this has something to do with the way the game is loaded into RAM during play.
posted by koeselitz at 10:33 PM on December 20, 2011
Nope, I play pretty much exclusively on "normal." I remember back when there was no such thing as hardcore, though. Sadly it doesn't matter what difficulty level I have the game set on. If you shut off your machine while you're playing Minecraft, you'll delete the world you're playing in. I think this has something to do with the way the game is loaded into RAM during play.
posted by koeselitz at 10:33 PM on December 20, 2011
1) Cailliois, to my understanding, proposed a continuum, rather than distinction between ludus and paidia, which is one of the things that makes categorising one thing as a game, and another as play, sometime difficult.
2) A focus on form, rather than what the people interacting with that form actually do, leads us to kind of missing the point. It is completely possible for someone to engage in something that is somewhat clearly a game in an outright playful manner (e.g. warthog jumping in Halo), or take a more toy like playful activity, and determine their own set of structuring rules and limitations, as mentioned by others above in relation to Minecraft.
Those are both good points. I probably reduced my argument more than I should've because it's usually so unpopular among people who fancy themselves to be game critics.
I definitely agree that play experiences exist along a continuum, and also agree that different players can approach play from different perspectives. I don't think focusing on form is missing the point, I think it's just looking at things from a different angle. One side of it is looking at games from a psychological or sociological perspective (how is the player interacting with it?) and the other side is looking at games from a structural and systematic angle (what demands does the game make of the player?). Recent game criticism seems to be coming mostly from the former rather than the latter, and it leads to excusing a lot of lazy game design.
posted by codacorolla at 10:42 PM on December 20, 2011
2) A focus on form, rather than what the people interacting with that form actually do, leads us to kind of missing the point. It is completely possible for someone to engage in something that is somewhat clearly a game in an outright playful manner (e.g. warthog jumping in Halo), or take a more toy like playful activity, and determine their own set of structuring rules and limitations, as mentioned by others above in relation to Minecraft.
Those are both good points. I probably reduced my argument more than I should've because it's usually so unpopular among people who fancy themselves to be game critics.
I definitely agree that play experiences exist along a continuum, and also agree that different players can approach play from different perspectives. I don't think focusing on form is missing the point, I think it's just looking at things from a different angle. One side of it is looking at games from a psychological or sociological perspective (how is the player interacting with it?) and the other side is looking at games from a structural and systematic angle (what demands does the game make of the player?). Recent game criticism seems to be coming mostly from the former rather than the latter, and it leads to excusing a lot of lazy game design.
posted by codacorolla at 10:42 PM on December 20, 2011
OK I am reading more articles by this guy and I am really loving them. Who is he? What does he do? Is there any reaction to his reactions?
posted by rebent at 7:48 PM on 12/20
He's a game designer, used to work at Pandemic (on BZ 2 if you remember that one).
His site had a bunch of great articles on it - but they got lost in a server crash or something.
Ephemerality, eh?
Ironically
posted by Sebmojo at 10:50 PM on December 20, 2011
posted by rebent at 7:48 PM on 12/20
He's a game designer, used to work at Pandemic (on BZ 2 if you remember that one).
His site had a bunch of great articles on it - but they got lost in a server crash or something.
Ephemerality, eh?
Ironically
posted by Sebmojo at 10:50 PM on December 20, 2011
Codacorolla, you're right that there is merit in both approaches, 'missing the point' was the wrong way to put it, and probably a result of spending a lot of effort in recent years arguing against the idea that game design in itself largely determines the play experience. The question of the relative part played by the intentions of the player and the constraints/structure of the game design is an interesting and complex one, and an ongoing open debate in the field.
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 1:10 AM on December 21, 2011
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 1:10 AM on December 21, 2011
Minecraft is no more a rip off of infiniminer than Unreal was a rip off of quake.
Yeah. I'd say digging blocks and building stuff is only half of what makes Minecraft great. The other half is the awe-inspiring procedural terrain and cavern generation that makes exploring fun and the day/night cycle and dark/light spawning of monsters. Infiniminer has none of that stuff.
Also creepers. Inventing a genuinely original--and iconic--video game enemy is a pretty rare and impressive feat all by itself.
posted by straight at 1:11 AM on December 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
Yeah. I'd say digging blocks and building stuff is only half of what makes Minecraft great. The other half is the awe-inspiring procedural terrain and cavern generation that makes exploring fun and the day/night cycle and dark/light spawning of monsters. Infiniminer has none of that stuff.
Also creepers. Inventing a genuinely original--and iconic--video game enemy is a pretty rare and impressive feat all by itself.
posted by straight at 1:11 AM on December 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
Unfortunately the gamelike part of Minecraft, which is its poorly implemented combat, resource management, and RPG elements, are all bad. They're not fun.
Maybe. But then there's the time that I was actually lost, deep in a cavern, and I died, dropping a whole bunch of valuable stuff. I respawned at my start point, naked and empty-handed, a long way from where I'd been exploring. I had five minutes to rush back to that general area (including a dangerous shortcut through the Nether), hunt for the spot I'd entered the caverns, and try to retrace my steps to a place that was surrounded by the monsters that had killed me when I was wearing armor and carrying weapons.
I grabbed a few supplies, crafted a quick sword, and made the trip. Somehow I was able to retrace my steps, find the spot, dodge the, monsters, scoop up all my stuff, and get out of there. Very seldom have I had such a feeling of triumph in a video game.
Moments like that are rare in Minecraft, but they are among the most exciting experiences I've had in any video game. It was a challenge requiring quick thinking, decision making, skill in navigating the environment, and a test of memory. And I won. If that's not a game, I've never played one.
posted by straight at 1:27 AM on December 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
Maybe. But then there's the time that I was actually lost, deep in a cavern, and I died, dropping a whole bunch of valuable stuff. I respawned at my start point, naked and empty-handed, a long way from where I'd been exploring. I had five minutes to rush back to that general area (including a dangerous shortcut through the Nether), hunt for the spot I'd entered the caverns, and try to retrace my steps to a place that was surrounded by the monsters that had killed me when I was wearing armor and carrying weapons.
I grabbed a few supplies, crafted a quick sword, and made the trip. Somehow I was able to retrace my steps, find the spot, dodge the, monsters, scoop up all my stuff, and get out of there. Very seldom have I had such a feeling of triumph in a video game.
Moments like that are rare in Minecraft, but they are among the most exciting experiences I've had in any video game. It was a challenge requiring quick thinking, decision making, skill in navigating the environment, and a test of memory. And I won. If that's not a game, I've never played one.
posted by straight at 1:27 AM on December 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
I'm giving my brother, who recently came into possession of an Xbox 360 when his oldest son moved off to college, a copy of Bioshock for Christmas. I'm so jealous of him, getting to experience it for the first time.
That's exactly how I feel about Braid and Fallout 3 and Bastion ... those were such memorable hours, immersed in these worlds and I was making things happen in them. The interactivity, the art, the music ... I'm currently experiencing it with Red Dead Redemption and it's some of the best time I spend, right up there with reading a good book or enjoying a movie.
Also, got to give some respect here:
It looks like the kind of game you’d get if the dude who made Adventure for the Atari 2600 in 1979 had a 3D engine.
That dude is Warren Robinett, father of the video game easter egg, a name etched in the memory of any Atari fanboy who worked long and hard to find it.
posted by jbickers at 8:27 AM on December 21, 2011
That's exactly how I feel about Braid and Fallout 3 and Bastion ... those were such memorable hours, immersed in these worlds and I was making things happen in them. The interactivity, the art, the music ... I'm currently experiencing it with Red Dead Redemption and it's some of the best time I spend, right up there with reading a good book or enjoying a movie.
Also, got to give some respect here:
It looks like the kind of game you’d get if the dude who made Adventure for the Atari 2600 in 1979 had a 3D engine.
That dude is Warren Robinett, father of the video game easter egg, a name etched in the memory of any Atari fanboy who worked long and hard to find it.
posted by jbickers at 8:27 AM on December 21, 2011
"That's exactly how I feel about Braid and Fallout 3 and Bastion ... those were such memorable hours, immersed in these worlds and I was making things happen in them."
Everyone talks about Braid and Fallout 3; Bastion gets much less notice, relatively.
But Bastion is a beautiful game and I wish more people were aware of it. In its gameplay, I don't think it's original...just extremely well-done. But its art design and everything related, and its story, are so well-integrated and beautiful that the whole of it is a very good example of a "game with soul".
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 8:36 AM on December 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
Everyone talks about Braid and Fallout 3; Bastion gets much less notice, relatively.
But Bastion is a beautiful game and I wish more people were aware of it. In its gameplay, I don't think it's original...just extremely well-done. But its art design and everything related, and its story, are so well-integrated and beautiful that the whole of it is a very good example of a "game with soul".
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 8:36 AM on December 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
I just can't get over how great of a blog this is. Thanks again for posting it! I'm eagerly awaiting updates :)
posted by rebent at 10:39 AM on December 30, 2011
posted by rebent at 10:39 AM on December 30, 2011
« Older Meet the Blackadder's American cousin, 1775. | Hannah and Andrew Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Mitrovarr at 4:02 PM on December 20, 2011 [2 favorites]