I see the whole discussion as a non-issue. But I like that people get upset and I hope that it will bring some more discussion to the subject of what videogames need and can be. At least it might be inspiration for some more people to make games with greater emotional impact, and not just about killing and jumping chasms.

[essence]

Michaël:
I have probably a too strict definition of meaning then and I agree that essence should probably be better then. However, I also kinda see meaning as an answer to the question: "why?". Do you think this fits how you see the meaning of the word? I mean, is speaking of "why" you made a work same as speaking of the meaning? Or is this really separate to you? Is meaning the sum of process and an audience experiencing the work?

Okay, if narrative means structure to you then it might be a bad word altogether? Because I have heard people stating that narrative does not have to be specific plot point at all. So perhaps narrativeis best avoided?

[Meaning]

I agree Dagda's descriptions. However I would having it start at an even lower level:

Meaning: This is what you want to express with the game. It should sort of be the essence of the experience.

After that one starts tailoring the experience to express the meaning and go on as Dagda described. At least that is the way I think it

The story would then be a sort of basic part of the experience, it could be (as experience does not need a story) a summary of what the experience would be about.

Michaël:
I feel like narrative is something that is created when you play. So after (or during) a playsession you can tell someone about that session and this retelling is the narrative. It is one person's subjective experience about the game. Does this retelling need to have strict cause and effect? I think not.

There are too many borderline-cases in any definition to take 'challenge' and point it out as the defining factor.

This is how where I think "videogame needs challenge" especially fails, because challenge is such a loose term. For example: Reading a book with sticky pages is challenging. Is reading this book suddenly a game? There are more cases like this and any sort of separation gets very hard.

I agree get that "videogame" is not the ultimate term, since it easily conjures up thoughts of chess and other classic games. But I do not think it is possible to change, so we might as well just widen its meaning

From my experience a surprising (?) large portion of game developers don't play games regularly. In fact, a majority probably is more passionate about their creative pastime ( writing / composing / photography etc. ) then consuming video-games.

Are these designers? I mean people that are responsible for what gets into the game. I know a lot of programmers and artists that fall into this category, but from after reading at Gamasutra, it seems to me like many designers are hardcore. Or to be more, fair, enjoy hardcore games the best.

Perhaps I am wrong though and that these people do not play hardcore games, but like the design in these. Or perhaps the people at Gamasutra is not a good place to draw any conclusions from?

I was just surprised by the amount of "Games must have a challenge" type of responses. So I am searching for an explanation

[Story]

So in this thread the aim is to define or at least discuss various terms that are used. This should be of some help among us on the forum, but also a way of causing the least misunderstanding among others. Because of the second reason, I think it is important that we do not invent terms unless needed, use existing terminology (if any) and apply them it a way that fits what most people think about these.

Gonna start of with a few storytelling related:

Story
What the videogame is about and a sort of summary of the space of events in the work. In order to have a story the videogame can not be pure abstractions, but must have some kind of symbolism. Example, Tetris has no story but Galaga does (space pilot fights aliens).

Narrative
A chain of events/emotions after they have unfolded. This is basically the sum of the player's experience. A more personal version of story.

Plot
A finite number of, by a designer, preplanned event/emotions. A videogame can have a narrative without plot, but the plot sets up a frame work for how the narrative will unfold. The more free a game is, the less plot it has.

Lore/Background/???
This is sort of the framework for the story, in Galaga this would be "Aliens attack earth" or similar. It serves as background information for the player, but does not have to take an active part in the game. The reason I add this here, is because I want to differentiate it from story, which is much more general.

Please comment and disagree!

Has anyone ever pointed out that you use the term "game" in a really ambiguous manner?

I think I am guilty of that at least
Sometimes with game I mean "videogames", other times just "normal" games and finally sometimes mechanics that that mimic those of traditional games (card games, boardgames, etc) that are about winning/losing.

I am now trying to use videogames, whenever I can, since there is a vast difference between these and traditional games. I am not sure what use for "traditional game rules" though, gameplay seems a bit too broad and "traditional game rules" perhaps to narrow.

Perhaps a terminology thread would be good? In which we not only talk what words we on this forum shall use, but what kind of words can be used when discussing these things with others and cause the least confusion.

On the flip side, knowing how time is left can also be valuable. It means that you know there is an end to the experience and this can be valuable in many works. But I totally agree that unknowable length (or even unlimited length) of games can be used to great advantage.


Side note: There is a great passage in "Gödel, Escher, Bach" where two character discuss this problem of knowing the pages left in books. A suggestion is to include lots of blank pages, but since that is easy to check they also have the idea of totally breaking the flow or contradicting something of the story to show the ending. Then only one who has read the entire novel will understand where the end is. The passage then ends by the police suddenly enters and accuses one of the characters for counterfeiting. It is not meant to be serious, but I just had to share

I think that there is a lot be learned from many games and it is well worth studying them.

The most important thing is interface and not only are many people accustomed to these, they have also evolved over a long period. For example, if one wants to make something where several agents are move around at the same time, then one can learn a lot from RTS:s.

In other cases, it might be best to not be too influenced by games (with views such as "the must be a challenge",etc). But I think it is wrong to not see what people have come up with and learn from.

I have had some clever people giving me pointers on how the simulation could be simplified to make it more manageable. This could involve running a less accurate version of the physics in far off places in the world, for example.

I don't want the game to work that way though. For me, a huge part of the experience is knowing that everything is "for real." In Blueberry Garden the tree falls in the forest even if no one hears it.

That really stuck to me. I can totally agree with that, and even though it is not something that would be fitting for all simulated environments (sometimes it would be impossible), I really like the intent of a non-player centered world. In a way, most videogames today are pretty much solipsistic and I just like the idea of a game world that does not care about the player. Sure, the player can interact and make a difference, but is just a part of the world. And while faster, less simulating, versions could be made of the game, that was impossible to tell apart for the full simulation, I still feel it is a really nice statement.

I first kinda a annoyed at the high requirements (my system is too poor to play it) and I wondered why he could not have added some tricks. But having read the above, I totally understand and can "forgive" Erik for making the choice

It seems like very simple interaction (2d physics objects only) and would be fun to see more "advanced" stuff. Great idea though.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4322/creating_blueberry_garden.php

I thought it was quite interesting read! Good job Erik!

Perhaps I should had suspected it, but I never knew that the concept of trial and error was held to dearly by developers. I honestly thought that people would all agree that it is not very good for immersive games, but instead I have gotten the opposite response at Gamasutra. Granted that I was a bit over-dramatic and introduction, but still.

The thread can be found here and is also linked to in the first post.

Some quotes:

In the absence of the possibility of failure, success has no value to the player, and therefore the game has no value either.

Failure is part of risk, and risk is part of gaming for centuries. If you want to push for something new that doesn't have failure, go for it, but don't call it a game. Remove the chance to fail, and you can call it a movie. Good luck with that.

If the player can ALWAYS complete a sequence no matter what course of action he takes, he has no incentive to use his brain. He's just experiencing whatever is thrown at him.

Making people that hate games make them is not such a bad idea after all

I think they are.

Well at least after response to some of my posts on gamasutra. I have posted two kinda notgamish post on gamastura and the response on them compared to our own blog is quite different. Sure, people who read our blog are usually fans our games, but I still believe we have a quite diverse group of followers. Also the Gamasutra are not all professionals, but all are involved in gamedeving in some way (hobby, pro, etc)

Anyway, here are two posts to compare:

Post 1 (on meaning in games):
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/ThomasGrip/20100215/4417/Exploring_Deeper_Meaning_In_Games.php
http://frictionalgames.blogspot.com/2010/02/exploring-deeper-meaning-in-games.html

Post 2 (on trial and error):
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/ThomasGrip/20100412/4905/Why_Trial_and_Error_will_Doom_Games.php
http://frictionalgames.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-trial-and-error-will-doom-games.html


What does everybody else make of this?

I am glad you disagree! Discussions are more interesting that way!

First, of all I might have come of a bit too negative, there is bound to be certain stories that are very well matched with certain kind of game elements. Now with game, I am using it here to mean mechanics with goals to be beaten, like solving a puzzle or overcoming some platforming part. If the story is about solving these kinds of events, that story and game will blend very well. However:

1) Not all stories have this property and will need to be compromised in order to fit in the game.

2) In games like Another World where the story (escape alien world) is heavily connected to the game parts, is the story part really the best it can be? This of course impossible to say for a game like AW and is highly subjective, but it is very evident when making a game. I always feel that I have to make compromises between the two, in order to create the best possible symbiosis.

What is it about the game parts that make them so essential to you? Note that I would not consider actions that have consequences and the like "game", but rather just interaction. Perhaps you simple feel game-parts include this too?

I am aware this discussion is somewhat muddled by how we define words, but I am very interested what it is with the game parts that is so attractive?