Worth Playing: 05/16/2014

@kadayi: I'm not sure a definition that holds up to universal scrutiny is possible for "game" at this point, as with "art." Definitions are social constructs agreed upon by communities that hold power in a given area. Manzoni put his shit in a can and called it art, and though many rejected the notion at first, today it is accepted by the establishment (though not everyone who's told the story will agree). I don't think the wheel is broken to begin with; I think you're trying to put wheels on a boat.

I don't agree that a challenge+fail states+uniqueness of experience makes a game though those are components of many. Play makes a game, and games are structures wherein play occurs. That you play TFOL is what makes it a game. The rest are just variables that are used to distinguish one game from another.

Art is a fairly well understood concept (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/art is a perfectly adequate definition), so eluding to it as if it's some mysterious esoteric be whatever you want get out of jail free card and the notion of 'game' is some how equally elusive is a fallacy. The idea that 'game' is indefinable is a hangover from Ludwig Wittgenstein's rather antiquated commentary on the subject, however the writer Bernard Suits managed to overturn that common conceit when he summarized it as 'the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles' in his book 'The Grasshopper'. As far as definitions of 'game' go it's a pretty solid one. Which begs the question where are the obstacles in TFOL? You bandy around the word 'play' a lot but in truth 'play' is more than straight interaction. I'm not 'playing' Chrome when I'm opening a new tab, or 'playing' my kindle when I advance a page, so this idea that I'm 'playing' TFOL when I click on an object alone is rather fanciful.

@kadayi: I have to dispute your claim that art is a well understood concept. The definition you cited is one that we can agree on, but in practice, it's a different story. This is where sentiments like "that's not art, my kid could paint that" and "games can't be art" come from. We agree on a base definition but not a Formalist criteria. And isn't this conversation anecdotal evidence of a similar discrepancy in games?

I'm not familiar with Suits, but sounds like he has some interesting ideas. I'd say the obstacle in TFOL is to get to the end of it, but there are plenty of smaller obstacles along the way (follow character up the stairs, speak to characters to learn backstory, etc.), same goes for Kentucky Route Zero. "Unnecessary obstacles" is a great way to describe play, but tying challenge to that is a relative condition. That's why I think of game in terms of goals instead of obstacles; I think they're getting at the same thing, but "obstacles" implies more of a challenge, which I find problematic from a Formalist perspective. Just because a goal is easy, doesn't mean it's not a goal.

I'm curious what you'd call the interaction with TFOL if not play.

As someone who actually studied Art & Design I'll refer you back to that quote from Douglas Adams from earlier on: -

All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.

This idea that someone on the street says 'that's not Art' or 'My Kid could do better ' is proffering an opinion of substance is falling into the same trap as before of applying a democracy to opinions. That's not how critical discourse goes, least of all in Art & Design circles.

Frankly the most hilarious thing about the whole 'Can games be Art?' hand wringing was the entire 'Video Games can never be Art' proposition was put forward by a man who in truth lacked any real degree of qualification to comment on it. Roger Ebert was a film critic at the end of the day, not an art critic or artist. People giving credence to his opinion on a subject he possessed little if any real understanding of with reference to a medium that he had zero hands on experience with was complete /facepalm. As a mainstay of film, a medium increasingly under perceived threat from the rise of interactive media as well as the increased sophisitication of Television drama, it's understandable that he'd have some reservations/hostility to it as a whole, but to take his sniping as anything other than an attempt to diminish the new kid on the block is a mistake a great many people made.

If you're an Artist then you're going to elect to use the medium that best suits you with regard to expression, whether that be painting, printmaking, sculpture, sound, writing, photography, film, performance, etc. Certainly some Artists might elect to restrict themselves to a particular medium out of choice, but there's no rules on it. I might not view TFOL or Dear Esther as games, but I'd certainly say that there's a case for each being interactive Art pieces.

@gold_skulltulla said:

@kadayi: Not to spend too much breath on the art thing, but I'll concede to a degree that the idea that certain opinions hold more stock than others and that the two examples I gave come from voices that don't have much experience with the subjects at hand (Ebert was clueless on games, but at least he sparked some healthy self-reflection). However, one pervasive school of thought is that art is what an artist deems to be art (tying back into my point about designers choosing to refer to what they make as games). Not everyone agrees with that, but it's one of several prominent philosophies on the subject. I'm not sure I even agree with it entirely, but that's fine, I'm just trying to point out the fractured foundation of what gets to be called art.

As for "play" and TFOL, I think we've finally arrived at the core of our differing opinions here. I don't think all interaction is play, because there's a mental state associated with play that involves entering into a game mindset (i.e. setting up unnecessary obstacles; "unnecessary" being the operative term here). And it's possible that the context with which one approaches TFOL would lead the interaction to be something other than play, but I definitely played TFOL. I don't think page turning is a game (though you could make it one), nor is it "reading." Likewise, pressing a button isn't play, but pressing a button to move a character forward in a virtual space with the intent of seeing what comes next, figuring out what to do to move things forward, interpreting what just happened as you progress through the next scene is playing.

No doubt, TFOL is a game that stretches the definition of "game." And since it was originally framed as a game by its creator and by its space in a market with other games (I bought it in a Humble Bundle), that's the context in which I interacted with it. It sounds like your TFOL experience was different, but in ways only you would know. I think your case is stronger with Dear Esther, which is a short story told in voiceover with illustrations that you walk through, but even then I'm fine with the game label if that's how the designers want to frame it.

However, one pervasive school of thought is that art is what an artist deems to be art (tying back into my point about designers choosing to refer to what they make as games).

You care to cite some pertinent examples of this school of thought? Anyone can produce something and call it Art. Whether others acknowledge it as such is another matter entirely. You don't judge your own work, you are judged by others. This assertion that the creator is the dictator is an act of abdication.

As for "play" and TFOL, I think we've finally arrived at the core of our differing opinions here. I don't think all interaction is play, because there's a mental state associated with play that involves entering into a game mindset (i.e. setting up unnecessary obstacles; "unnecessary" being the operative term here). And it's possible that the context with which one approaches TFOL would lead the interaction to be something other than play, but I definitely played TFOL. I don't think page turning is a game (though you could make it one), nor is it "reading." Likewise, pressing a button isn't play, but pressing a button to move a character forward in a virtual space with the intent of seeing what comes next, figuring out what to do to move things forward, interpreting what just happened as you progress through the next scene is playing.

Then demonstrate the loss.