• Video Game Review Review: Polygon's Virginia Review
    93 replies, posted
[QUOTE=TheJoey;51273195]so... i think of it as, if you can just watch a youtube video of it and get the same exact experience, why didn't you just make a fucking movie?[/QUOTE] Idk man, I personally tend to enjoy walking simulators/interactive stories, there's just something about looking and walking around and soaking up the atmosphere and processing the environment & story at your own pace that a movie can't really do Anyhow, I found this video and the rest of your VGRR videos really entertaining, keep it up, you can probably make it big
Loved it! Keep reviewing reviews!
[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;51273767]Personally I think the video would have benefited from more game footage to illustrate your points.[/quote] I sort of agree. but there comes a point where the majority of my critiques are of the game and not of the written review. I didn't want to go overboard. Some examples below. [quote]Similar deal with the part where you talk about facial expressiveness - Pixar for example was able to do a lot with very little in the case of Wall-E (barely even has a face), but it's easy to do wrong as well. Instead of a slide of TF2Scout's face being pulled apart I would have preferred to see some Virginia footage to see what you're talking about.[/quote] I should have shown some footage from the game here, but essentially if you're reviewing Virginia and saying "minimalist facial animations and body language shows enormous emotional data" that's just not true. I would not say Wall-E has minimalist body language at all. That entire movie is body language and it's done really well. There are also noises to go along with the characters to give you a sense of what emotion the creators are trying to portray, which is another thing Virginia doesn't have. There are very few indicators to let you know what you should be feeling or what the characters are feeling, except when music swells really loudly or things go in slow motion. The lack of facial animations and extremely stiff and limited body language doesn't help. But basically the critique is on the writer giving a contradictory statement. It was kind of like the writer was saying "yeah it's minimalist, BUT IT WORKS!" instead of saying why it works. It was defensive and not worded well and basically didn't make me want to play the game, but instead furrow my brow and maybe take a more critical look. [quote]This is in contrast to how you for example explained how the game wasn't very similar to Twin Peaks and showed game footage from the UFO encounter, instead of just saying "no it's not similar, wtf are you talking about?" and zooming on a text paragraph. If you don't want to/cannot show footage, it would at least help me if you described how exactly the game executes a thing that the Polygon reviewer thinks works and you think doesn't work.[/quote] Yeah I get you here. I wish I really could express this but my main points were I thought the writer was using the phrase "narrative cues" in a way that he didn't understand. I explained the game just doesn't reach the same level of conspiracy discourse as X-Files and isn't anywhere near the level of absurdity as Twin Peaks and that's really that. I could I guess link to you the entire playthrough to prove it? I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to do there to convince anyone. Unless you've watched the two shows they compare it to "Narratively" I guess there's really no way to know whether the writer is just making shit up or not. It all spearheads into "90s show namedropping for nostalgia". It's reaching (very hard) to trigger a response. [quote]Maybe it would help to either explain the game up front to set a baseline of understanding or, Yahtzee-style, take the viewer through a hyperbolic sightseeing tour and stop to talk about certain points as they come up.[/quote] The critique is really on the writing of the review here and sometimes I dip into what the game is about to kind of help the viewer understand but before cutting the script up I was critiquing the game way more than I was critiquing the writing. So if I could figure out a good balance, that'd be one thing. [quote]On a more positive note, I really appreciated you trying to keep up the pace/comedic timing by cutting a joke just before it ends, because the viewer can already tell how it's going. Like at around 6:06.[/quote] It's already 8 minutes long and I'm all about respecting the viewer's time. the rest of your critique was helpful, and I'll keep it in mind. Thanks. [editline]28th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Super Muffin;51274095]Being a literalist and arguing that a video game isn't actually a video game because it doesn't fit a classically 'gamey' worldview is incredibly masturbatory.[/quote] Yes. And really I'll just keep saying if you want to tell a story and just want someone to hold w and click the mouse the whole time to push the plot along, why didn't you just make a movie? [quote]Games don't need a typical "game over" failure state. In Virginia the failure state would be not finishing the narrative. Same for Journey, The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, Machinarium, Sam and Max, Thirty Flights of Loving, Gone Home, etc.[/quote] Most of the titles you dropped I definitely would consider walking sims and interactive stories. It's like sitting on a ride at Universal Studios. Journey had several puzzles and, actually, you could "die" and get knocked back at a few points of the game. You still had a challenge to overcome, more like a puzzle game. Ethan also had things for you to find, areas to explore, and, again, puzzles to figure out. Sam and Max once again had puzzles. Cookie Clicker is not a video game. It's an interactive ui. I don't agree with you. [quote]Hell, with this video's hyper-literal definition Dark Souls (or any game with a checkpoint system) isn't a video game since there's no real failure state. When you die the only thing you lose is time. [/quote] You're trolling me here. You lose progress when you die in Dark Souls. Dying is the failure state, and a bare minimum of challenge, by my definition. Building off of that, losing your souls is another addition to that challenge, and enemies are individual challenges. [quote]The only reason to argue a video game isn't a video game is to try to distance it from what you find comfortable because it's not for you. It's a futile and arbitrary argument that ends up with endless concessions of things that are, in fact, video games.[/QUOTE] I don't agree with you. It may be futile, but there's no reason an interactive story that holds your hand like a little baby should be praised for treating you like an idiot and spoon feeding you, and then turn around to video games that challenge you and dock them scores for "being racist" like Polygon's Shadow Warrior 2 review. There's a clear lack of quality and consistency control here.
How is this a review of a review when you spend half the video not actually dissecting or talking about the review but what you think personally about the game and what you think is a game, then go "hey my opinion here is more factual than this guy here at polygon, also he's advertising" Seems a bit weird to call this any sort of criticism of the content of the review when you didn't really criticise most of the review. Seems more like a video game review anecdote.
[QUOTE=Super Muffin;51274095]Being a literalist and arguing that a video game isn't actually a video game because it doesn't fit a classically 'gamey' worldview is incredibly masturbatory. If you took one minute you could think of a dozen games that you know don't fit this definition. All a game needs is play and all a video game needs is interaction. That's the core strength of the medium. Cookie clicker is still a video game. It's shallow and gets old quickly, but it's still a game. Games don't need a typical "game over" failure state. In Virginia the failure state would be not finishing the narrative. Same for Journey, The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, Machinarium, Sam and Max, Thirty Flights of Loving, Gone Home, etc. Hell, with this video's hyper-literal definition Dark Souls (or any game with a checkpoint system) isn't a video game since there's no real failure state. When you die the only thing you lose is time. You could say that the "you died" screen is your fail state, but you can get your souls and fight back to the boss like nothing happened. Death in Dark Souls is the same as wandering in a "walking simulator". It keeps you playing and takes up time. The only reason to argue a video game isn't a video game is to try to distance it from what you find comfortable because it's not for you. It's a futile and arbitrary argument that ends up with endless concessions of things that are, in fact, video games.[/QUOTE] It's always annoyed me that the gaming community wants games to be seen as a legitimate art form, but as soon as something that challenges the highly opinion based and impossible to define "gameplay" it has to be childishly labelled as 'not a game' and seen as a negative. I enjoyed the first one of this series, and the Polygon article is it's normal self-masturbatory stuff, but the harping on the whole 'Not a game' part kinda brought it down.
[QUOTE=TheJoey;51274404]I don't agree with you. It may be futile, but there's no reason an interactive story that holds your hand like a little baby should be praised for treating you like an idiot and spoon feeding you, and then turn around to video games that challenge you and dock them scores for "being racist" like Polygon's Shadow Warrior 2 review. There's a clear lack of quality and consistency control here.[/QUOTE] That's a problem you have with reviewers. You don't have to take it on game devs for having different views that eventually appeal to some players other than you. [QUOTE=TheJoey;51274404]You're trolling me here. You lose progress when you die in Dark Souls. Dying is the failure state, and a bare minimum of challenge, by my definition. Building off of that, losing your souls is another addition to that challenge, and enemies are individual challenges.[/QUOTE] If you're saying that the more challenging a game is, the more of a """real""" game it is, are games that are easier less of a video game than hard games? Since you can't die in the beginning of Portal, is the beginning of Portal not a real game? In other words, does Portal actually become a game from the moment when the player faces danger? Now you know how silly you sound. You're like an old man who's been studying classical art all his life, then looks at a Picasso one day and screams "THIS IS NOT A REAL PAINTING". You haven't seen the trends that have been building up on the internet for the last decade. You haven't seen that the definition of video game has been explored and debated by people who don't actually want silly notions of what is and what is not to prevent them from making games for people, in innovative ways that look like they appeared out of nowhere from your point of view. You are stuck with backwards views of the video game industry, defined solely by what you've chosen to play all your life. Your definition of video game is outdated... if it ever was true at any point in history.
Why exactly do you think that having a fail state is a requirement for something to be a video game? I don't mean to insult you, but it just seems like a pretty ignorant thing to say. What I think you are trying to say is that video games require some challenge to be video games - and I agree with that, but there are many ways in which you can introduce challenge, and not all of those ways require a fail state.
[QUOTE=WhyNott;51274725]Why exactly do you think that having a fail state is a requirement for something to be a video game? I don't mean to insult you, but it just seems like a pretty ignorant thing to say. What I think you are trying to say is that video games require some challenge to be video games - and I agree with that, but there are many ways in which you can introduce challenge, and not all of those ways require a fail state.[/QUOTE] I've heard that "fail-state" argument before. I suppose it's a way for some people sharing the same opinion against "environmental narrative games" (aka walking simulators) to make their hatred seem more rational. But like you said, it's deeply flawed.
[QUOTE=Loadingue;51274687] If you're saying that the more challenging a game is, the more of a """real""" game it is, are games that are easier less of a video game than hard games?[/QUOTE] No. [quote] Since you can't die in the beginning of Portal, is the beginning of Portal not a real game? In other words, does Portal actually become a game from the moment when the player faces danger?[/quote] I already talked about puzzle games, but I didn't make any addendum to the video or anything. Basically puzzle games' minimum challenge is figuring out the correct response. Getting stuck and not being able to figure out a puzzle is, in a sense, a failure state. Overall I guess you can just say there's something to overcome and struggle with. There's a challenge. [quote]Now you know how silly you sound. You're like an old man who's been studying classical art all his life, then looks at a Picasso one day and screams "THIS IS NOT A REAL PAINTING". [/quote] If you want to carry on with this comparison I most certainly can. But that won't make this debate any less aggravating for you. We can spend all day comparing a canvas to a blank computer screen and paint to a programming language. You're also comparing something that IS ART vs something that CAN BE art, but doesn't necessarily have to be art at all. Then we're talking about a whole new slew of topics. [quote]You haven't seen the trends[/quote] You can look into the sales trends if you'd like. Art games and walking sims like Gone Home and Virginia get all the awards at the IGF and such, but they're not selling. So what trends would you like me to take a gander at? And which of those trends actually matter? [quote]You are stuck with backwards views of the video game industry, defined solely by what you've chosen to play all your life.[/quote] I've played tons of nice walking sims. Dear Esther I was particularly fond of, Firewatch was nice looking and had good voice acting, and Layers of Fear was a delightful haunted house attraction that spooked me. I still wouldn't consider any of those games; they're still non-games to me, and interactive stories. None of them had puzzles that engaged you or challenged you, none of them had any sort of challenge at all and all required looking around and clicking on a linear, obvious set of things to turn the page. Not all of these types of media are shit IMO either. I just don't consider them video games. Yes, I know how silly I sound. You and I are both arguing about children's digital toys at the end of the day.
[QUOTE=WhyNott;51274725]Why exactly do you think that having a fail state is a requirement for something to be a video game? I don't mean to insult you, but it just seems like a pretty ignorant thing to say. What I think you are trying to say is that video games require some challenge to be video games - and I agree with that, but there are many ways in which you can introduce challenge, and not all of those ways require a fail state.[/QUOTE]Challenge is subjective, thus a walking simulator for some might be a game for others.
[QUOTE=WhyNott;51274725]Why exactly do you think that having a fail state is a requirement for something to be a video game? I don't mean to insult you, but it just seems like a pretty ignorant thing to say. [/QUOTE] I guess a better way of explaining it is "a challenge." But that's really vague, so i thought the idea of "failing" or "not progressing due to a challenge presented to you" was a better way of explaining it, the latter being more for puzzle games. A movie is something you can watch with no input, an interactive movie is something you watch with minimum input (like a single key press) to progress the story or content, and a game is something that presents some sort of challenge to you. For certain games a bare minimum to challenge is a game over or death or something like that. For puzzle games a bare minimum is just not progressing over the struggle.
i give this review review a solid 8/10 keep up the good work [editline]28th October 2016[/editline] also i subscribed, because im gay
[QUOTE=TheJoey;51274404] Yes. And really I'll just keep saying if you want to tell a story and just want someone to hold w and click the mouse the whole time to push the plot along, why didn't you just make a movie? [/QUOTE] Because a movie isn't interactive. In a movie the story is happening to the characters onscreen. In a game the story is actively involving the player no matter how minor the mechanics are. [QUOTE=TheJoey;51274404] Cookie Clicker is not a video game. It's an interactive ui. I don't agree with you.[/QUOTE] ... An "interactive ui" with an objective and mechanics to help the player reach that objective. Come on dude you have to realize how ridiculous you sound. It's bordering parody at this point.
[QUOTE=TheJoey;51274776]I already talked about puzzle games, but I didn't make any addendum to the video or anything. Basically puzzle games' minimum challenge is figuring out the correct response. Getting stuck and not being able to figure out a puzzle is, in a sense, a failure state. Overall I guess you can just say there's something to overcome and struggle with. There's a challenge.[/QUOTE] This may be too meta for you, but the actual challenge in walking simulators is to follow and reconstruct the story. The story itself is the puzzle. It's not even my opinion, it's the fact, the goal that walking simulator devs work towards. You may not see it as a challenge, but that's only because you may not be used to that kind of challenge. I mean no offense as to your intelligence, of course. Those kinds of games are simply ones that you can immerse yourself in, or don't. If you don't, then there's nothing else for you in the games. I suspect that's where you kind of opinion originates. [QUOTE=TheJoey;51274776]If you want to carry on with this comparison I most certainly can. But that won't make this debate any less aggravating for you. We can spend all day comparing a canvas to a blank computer screen and paint to a programming language. You're also comparing something that IS ART vs something that CAN BE art, but doesn't necessarily have to be art at all. Then we're talking about a whole new slew of topics.[/QUOTE] As tempting as that argument sounds, I'll leave it for another day. [QUOTE=TheJoey;51274776]You can look into the sales trends if you'd like. Art games and walking sims like Gone Home and Virginia get all the awards at the IGF and such, but they're not selling. So what trends would you like me to take a gander at? And which of those trends actually matter?[/QUOTE] First, those narrative environmental games have flourished, and still flourish on the internet, as free games. For a long time, devs were reluctant to put a pricetag on them for this reason. It's only recently that they've started to grow a budget. Second, I'm not even sure what your point is here. In analogy, the Cannes Festival rewards some of the best films made each year, but they won't be the ones who sell the most. Does that make them eventually irrelevant? Since when does quality, artistic value and innovation matter less than sales in regards to the prosperity of a work? [QUOTE=TheJoey;51274776]I've played tons of nice walking sims. Dear Esther I was particularly fond of, Firewatch was nice looking and had good voice acting, and Layers of Fear was a delightful haunted house attraction that spooked me. I still wouldn't consider any of those games; they're still non-games to me, and interactive stories. None of them had puzzles that engaged you or challenged you, none of them had any sort of challenge at all and all required looking around and clicking on a linear, obvious set of things to turn the page. Not all of these types of media are shit IMO either. I just don't consider them video games. Yes, I know how silly I sound. You and I are both arguing about children's digital toys at the end of the day.[/QUOTE] I'm pleasantly surprised that despite your harsh criticism, you still enjoy walking sims like I do. But like WhyNott mentioned, the value of challenge is extremely relative, in all things of life, always. Any person could indeed complete a walking sim by turning his sound off and walking towards the exit. But he would utterly fail at understanding the real challenge, the goal of the game: to dissect the story it offers. I know that kind of challenge can be found in all narrative-driven games, but walking sims focus on that challenge exclusively. And you have to admit that in many cases, it's justified since these games have a more twisted narrative than other games.
[QUOTE=Super Muffin;51274840]Because a movie isn't interactive. In a movie the story is happening to the characters onscreen. In a game the story is actively involving the player no matter how minor the mechanics are. [/QUOTE] That doesn't really have to be true. I've never played it, but I think in Her Story you're just watching and piecing together some footage of interviews that happened without your involvement (and that's actually a game that does have the "puzzle" factor so I think it's uncontroversially a game). I'm sure that you could find more examples of games were the story doesn't really involve the player actively.
[QUOTE=Loadingue;51274859]This may be too meta for you, but the actual challenge in walking simulators is to follow and reconstruct the story.[/QUOTE] So, are movies video games? I mean, you CAN do this in video games and I often do, but does that mean movies can be video games, because someone might find challenge in following and reconstructing the story? Many people have written essays about reconstructing and finding hidden meanings in The Shining. Is The Shining a video game to those people, because they overcame a challenge? [quote]Does that make them eventually irrelevant?[/quote] Not at all. IMO if I consider something a non-game, like a walking sim or something, I don't consider them irrelevant at all. But I think the distinction between a video game and just an interactive story is very clear. And I think that creates several divides between us, because you don't think it's so clear and I'm sure it also brings up a lot of questions regarding video game review articles. But at the end of the day, even though Virginia is a narrative environmental game ALSO doesn't mean it's a GOOD narrative environmental game. I don't even think it tells a story very well, and tries to hide that by jumping around timelines or realities when it's a detriment to the story. [quote]the value of challenge is extremely relative[/quote] Which is why I attempted to focus "challenge" down. I think maybe you're also getting caught up in the fact that I used the word "failure state"? And maybe it's more nebulous than a death or game over. I tried to kind of narrow it down as much as I can to help explain my thought process. [b]EDIT[/b] If there's only a "success" then there is no challenge. There has to be a "failure" to it. "NOT SUCCEEDING" is a bare minimum of challenge, that which you can build off of to create more challenges. If there's no way to "NOT SUCCEED" at the game besides just turning off the game or walking away from your keyboard then there is no failure state, by my logic it's not a game. Other than just throwing titles at me and having me approve or swat them down one at a time I don't know if I can help you understand what I'm trying to say, so I apologize for that.
[QUOTE=WhyNott;51274893]That doesn't really have to be true. I've never played it, but I think in Her Story you're just watching and piecing together some footage of interviews that happened without your involvement (and that's actually a game that does have the "puzzle" factor so I think it's uncontroversially a game). I'm sure that you could find more examples of games were the story doesn't really involve the player actively.[/QUOTE] In that case the player is trying to figure out what happened from the footage. The player is actively interacting with the narrative and how to interpret it. The events of a story don't have to directly involve a player avatar for players to be invested in it.
[QUOTE=Super Muffin;51274989]In that case the player is trying to figure out what happened from the footage. It's pretty active involvement man. The events of a story don't have to directly involve a player avatar for players to be invested in it.[/QUOTE] so by this logic, again, are all stories games?
[QUOTE=TheJoey;51275003]so by this logic, again, are all stories games?[/QUOTE] Of course not. The stories presented through a deliberately crafted system of player engagement using digital or physical media obviously are. But the act of storytelling can be considered a game based on context. Like stories told around a campfire where participants try to "scare" the other people. You have mechanics of how to tell a story and the objective of trying to tell the best story. Read up on some classical game design theory and try to think about games and the act of play in a broader context than video games dude.
Feedback: Ad hominem attacks, logical fallacies, and pedantic arguments are the main issues I had with this video. Puzzle games and "walking sims" aside, by your line of thought, Fable II, Prey, and The Banner Saga aren't video games either because of their lack of fail states. Also, the only better example than Twin Peaks I can think of to describe a game about FBI agents experiencing bizarre, supernatural phenomena in rural America is Deadly Premonition, if only because that has the added benefit of falling within the same medium (and even then, that game is also universally compared to Twin Peaks, so we're back at square one at that point.) One other thing that I keep hearing but haven't sern addressed yet is your accusations of "advertising". Believe me, the type of developer that makes a game (yes, a "real game") like Virginia doesn't have the skrilla needed to pay for the shady, conspiratorial marketing move that you propose is going on here. All that happened here is a journo played the game, liked it, and then promoted it. If you are recommending a product, and you know that people won't otherwise hear of it, you try your best to spread the word. If you don't, your article is targetting nobody and at that point you probably shouldn't be a journalist. By your rationale, film festivals could also be accused of "advertising" movies that were popular with attendees simply by releasing their awards to the public. This video was less of a review of Virginia, or the Polygon review of it, than it was a platform to peddle your unfortunate views of both gaming and journalism. Perhaps if you rebranded to reflect the true nature of this opinion piece, there would be more merit to this video. As it stands, however, the content doesn't reflect what's written on the package.
[QUOTE=Super Muffin;51275010]Of course not. The stories presented through a deliberately crafted system of player engagement using digital or physical media obviously are. But the act of storytelling can be considered a game based on context. Like stories told around a campfire where participants try to "scare" the other people. You have mechanics of how to tell a story and the objective of trying to tell the best story.[/QUOTE] I think for a piece of media or content to become a game it has to have an objective to reach, a challenge to overcome, or some sort of impeding obstacle for the player to pass. Thus, Virginia is not a game because there is nothing for the player to overcome to reach the end or target objective. The only way to not succeed is to turn the game off.
[QUOTE=TheJoey;51275045]I think for a piece of media or content to become a game it has to have an objective to reach, a challenge to overcome, or some sort of impeding obstacle for the player to pass. Thus, Virginia is not a game because there is nothing for the player to overcome to reach the end or target objective. The only way to not succeed is to turn the game off.[/QUOTE] We know GTA5 is a video game and there are missions with objectives and fail states. In free roam there is no objective, challenge, or obstacle for the player to pass. So is GTA5 both a game and not a game? Course not that's nuts. This is the problem with your position. It's incredibly narrow and has so many holes when applied to games that fall outside of the norm.
Okay, I found the video that everyone here needs to watch about this "game/not game" topic. This guy nails it and has very compelling arguments. [hd]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgu76ql6FSo[/hd] TheJoey, if you still care just a little about this debate, I strongly urge you to watch this, and I hope you reconsider the value of your own arguments.
[QUOTE=Loadingue;51275057]Okay, I found the video that everyone here needs to watch about this "game/not game" topic. This guy nails it and has very compelling arguments. [hd]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgu76ql6FSo[/hd] TheJoey, if you still care just a little about this debate, I strongly urge you to watch this, and I hope you reconsider the value of your own arguments.[/QUOTE] I've seen this before and there are just some things I flat out disagree with him with, and that's because I find that E.S. and I differ in definitions of the same terminology. He says you can say that Half-Life 2 or the Walking Dead do not have win states when, to me, what I probably consider a "win", "succeed" or "complete" is completing the game and reaching the end goal, so I wholeheartedly just flat out disagree with him on those types of statements. That's just one example of many. At the end of the day, in the Polygon review that I critiqued the reviewer himself is rewarding and flaunting Virginia for basically being as little of a video game as possible and holding your hand as much as possible. This "not video game-y" narrative storytelling device was given a 90 for "not being video game-y" for most of the entire article, and "worthy note: it's about social justice" for a paragraph, and that is where my vehement disagreements and rejection of the article lie. I could have brought that point across better. I agree with and will take the critique of this "what is a video game" section being too major of a part of the video, one that ended up having people try to argue with me about what a video game is and whether a camp fire story is a game. But the point of that was to put my stance on what is a video game in context with giving a reviewer-admitted "not video game-y" storytelling software device such a high score. I'm going to have to just leave it at that. I don't think we will convince eachother of agreeing with my side or yours on what a video game is.
i don't get why when people say things like firewatch or the vanishing of ethan carter aren't games it is seen as an insult. they aren't games but that doesn't make them any worse. they're pretty neat interactive stories. they don't need to be called games and are arguably better off if they aren't called games. [editline]28th October 2016[/editline] to me, calling them a game is like calling a documentary a movie. yes they both use the same medium of film but they have different objectives and thus should have different labels.
Also calling something like Dear Esther or Proteus a game gives a set of expectations which can unfairly hurt the game's reception. I wouldn't have given two shits about Dear Esther if it had been called an "Interactive Exhibit" or something, but when it was being lauded as a great game I was struggling to find the 'game' part, let alone the 'great' part. [editline]28th October 2016[/editline] Another thing I feel is important to consider is that just because something isn't a game doesn't mean it's bad or it doesn't deserve to stand along side games. Errant Signal, in his video, said that by excluding things like Dear Esther or Proteus from the category of 'games' is putting them at the kids table and I fundamentally disagree. Visual Novels aren't games, the majority of them have very little interaction, but they absolutely deserve to be sold along side games. I would say the same for Everybody's Gone to the Rapture or Gone Home. Films and documentaries are recorded with the same technology and consumed in the same manner but they are distinct from one another. Songs and audio books are recorded with the same technology and you listen to both just the same, but no one would confuse the two. Why must every interactive experience be lumped under the category of 'game'? Does that not do an equal disservice to these non-games by saddling them with the expectations of being something they're not? Why not create a new name and a new space, where the expectations can be created more in line with what these experiences deliver? People always say that if games want to be respected they need to ~grow up~ and accept these games. I could just as easily turn around and demand that if these 'experiences' want to be respected they need to ~grow up~ and stop latching on to a tangentially related medium. Of course I wouldn't say that, because I'm not a bellend.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;51275331]Also calling something like Dear Esther or Proteus a game gives a set of expectations which can unfairly hurt the game's reception. I wouldn't have given two shits about Dear Esther if it had been called an "Interactive Exhibit" or something, but when it was being lauded as a great game I was struggling to find the 'game' part, let alone the 'great' part.[/QUOTE] On the other side, people saying it's not a game would cause a lot of other people to be utterly confused and disappointed when they realize it's very much a video game. [QUOTE=Janus Vesta;51275331]Films and documentaries are recorded with the same technology and consumed in the same manner but they are distinct from one another. Songs and audio books are recorded with the same technology and you listen to both just the same, but no one would confuse the two. Why must every interactive experience be lumped under the category of 'game'? Does that not do an equal disservice to these non-games by saddling them with the expectations of being something they're not? Why not create a new name and a new space, where the expectations can be created more in line with what these experiences deliver?[/QUOTE] The reason why is because walking sims and video games are not actually clearly distinct from one another. Walking sims and the rest just took a well-known element of video games, the narrative and also the environment mostly, and decided to focus on it. Narrative-driven games represent the bulk of video games nowadays. But no one would think that a game that completely gets rid of its narrative to focus on its gameplay is therefore not a real video game. What happened is that narrative-environmental games were simply not there from the start, contrary to games with no narrative which have always existed. [QUOTE=Janus Vesta;51275331]People always say that if games want to be respected they need to ~grow up~ and accept these games. I could just as easily turn around and demand that if these 'experiences' want to be respected they need to ~grow up~ and stop latching on to a tangentially related medium. Of course I wouldn't say that, because I'm not a bellend.[/QUOTE] I don't know what you mean with "tangentially related medium". Walkings sims are fine as they are, you say this as if the idea to convey a game's idea was to plagiarize techniques used by the video game medium, but walking sims clearly descend from video games.
[QUOTE=Loadingue;51275511]On the other side, people saying it's not a game would cause a lot of other people to be utterly confused and disappointed when they realize it's very much a video game.[/QUOTE] Okay. Good job ignoring everything else I said which expands on that. I'd hate to have a discussion or whatever.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;51275537]Okay. Good job ignoring everything else I said which expands on that. I'd hate to have a discussion or whatever.[/QUOTE] I'm coming to it, just wait for the post to update. [editline]28th October 2016[/editline] Okay done. Open your eyes now.
[QUOTE=TheJoey;51275045]I think for a piece of media or content to become a game it has to have an objective to reach, a challenge to overcome, or some sort of impeding obstacle for the player to pass. Thus, Virginia is not a game because there is nothing for the player to overcome to reach the end or target objective. The only way to not succeed is to turn the game off.[/QUOTE] Could Virginia be a game if the person playing it was physically disabled and just moving around in the game was a challenge for them?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.