Video Games as Media

[Michaël Samyn]

Gamasutra has published my response to Frank Lantz's statement that "games are not media":
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6287/video_games_as_media.php

In essence, I agree with his statement. But in the article I try to explain that there's another way to approach video games, that perhaps it is possible, maybe even desirable, to approach them as media, not as games.

[Jeroen D. Stout]

A very interesting post, interesting to start with 'video game' and 'game' as slightly different subjects. I think the argument was very nicely brought and various death-traps were avoided by making it about medium/game.

I am not so sure 'video games' are that different from 'games' on a principle level, though - I know this is something we are prone to disagree on. So while I understand the argument, with the Huizinga/Callois approach 'physical' games can carry a message too. But in their manner 'game' is as little of a medium as 'meal' or 'journey'. They are instantiated versions of certain activities, 'game' is a certain form of 'play', 'meal' of 'eating'. In that way 'a game' can carry a message as long as it describes a form of play which can be argued to transfer a message when performed - and in that way 'watching a film' does not by principle carry a significant message (as you argue). So 'games do not carry a message' I disagree with.

While in this definition I do think 'video game' is just a potential group of 'games' of a specific form (as dull as that may sound), I do agree the form has boundless potential that is not being evoked because it is stuck in a certain type of game - which is not 'gamey', it is often 'competitive' or 'nurturing' (or another fifth taste which ought to be added to Callois' palate). And I do believe that competition is built on abstract systems - Callois even names it as a distilled version of reality, brought back to easily measurable facts.

This whole conundrum of 'games and message' is because 'game' is taken to be a subset of 'game', competition, which has specialized in removing message from the world.

I think your message is right the way I understand it - yes, we must make games which evoke these things. It is just that we are using the same words differently.

Very nice to see Dinner Date in this light as well. Makes me self-conscious in a very pleasing way. Makes it very tempting to make sure the new game will go much further in that direction.

[Michaël Samyn]

I chose two video games that I liked to illustrate my point. Llamasoft's Minotaur Rescue is a very well designed game in all its exuberant chaos. I wish more games were like it, and dropped the baggage of story and meaningfulness. While your Dinner Date is pleasing precisely because it is about something. About something I recognize. And the interaction helps get closer to this content. Content that we share, author and player.

I appreciate your insistence on using the word game in the very wide meaning that it deserves. But I'm afraid Callois and Huizinga will not change the general use of the word. I chose to adopt this use of the word game because it helps make a clear distinction between the two modus operandi involved in (good) video game design: the approach that seeks to express content through interaction (Dinner Date) and the approach that puts a trivial layer of recognition on an amusing set of mechanics (Minotaur Rescue). I believe that video games get better when creators make a clear choice as to which their production will be. We're probably going to continue to call both "game" and your wish will end up being granted, without the need of academics.

Perhaps it's because of my background as an artist, but I find it more inspiring to think of my work as "playful art" rather than "artistic games".

[Thomas]

I like this division and I think it is necessary, since pure computer "games" have gotten so much baggage over the years, that I find it hard to shake it off. In many discussions I have seen go and chess brought up as counter-points, often only confusing the discussion (for example when talking about the negative impact of repetition).

On another point, I think this is probably the best article you have written so far. Not because I found it most enlightening (although I do think it is filled with good stuff), but because it sets up nice base frame for discussion these kind of things. I think this shows in the comments which is actually seem a bit more friendly than usual. I hope it will make more people think more consciously about what kind of game they are really doing.

I also think think this is a good article for non-developers to read as it might help them get into non-gamey games. I like to think that we are building up a public awareness of an alternate way to approach video games, educating them into enjoying a different experience.

This is actually something I have set out as a personal goal when writing articles / blog posts. To foremost talk to the audience and to raise awareness. I think that movie critics have been very helpful in this respect and helped people enjoy movies they would not otherwise had. Reading up a bit on movies and as an example it is mentioned that movie can gain quite a bit in popularity after it has been "explained" by critics or similar. I hope that discussing notgames will have a similar effect.

Regarding this: Have you seen in difference in response to your games over the years? I remember reading a lot of negative reviews on The Path when it came out. But when I finally played it (2 months or so ago), I could not see what the fuzz was about and just found it to be an engaging experience. I wonder if the response would be the same if The Path was release now.

[Michaël Samyn]

Thank you for the compliment. I worked very hard on this article. I initially wanted to write it together with Frank Lantz and he initially agreed. But after reading my first notes, he backed out, preferring for us to be on opposing sides in this discussion. I did have him read the article before publication to make sure that he agreed with my presentation of his points of view.

Anyway, my increased writing is sort of meant for the purpose that you mention. Since we're deep in prototyping phases at the moment at Tale of Tales and it will take another 18-24 months before we will publish a new game, I'm trying to keep the flame alive in the minds of the public through writing. I think our ideas are starting to infect developers.

The audience is another matter. The response to a similarly themed article on The Escapist (read, I assume, mostly by gamers) was far more negative and defensive. There appears to be a lot of work left to do here. And you are right that we should concentrate on enlightening the audience as well.

I also want to find a way to address people outside of the gaming community, to prepare them for the new kinds of non-gamey games that will start appearing more and more. I'm afraid that a lot of our work might be lost on the non-game audience simply because of a (deserved) prejudice against video games. I also want to stimulate other creators to consider video games as a medium for their work. I think it would be wonderful to see games made by film directors, composers, poets, architects, painters, etc.

[Michaël Samyn]

Regarding this: Have you seen in difference in response to your games over the years? I remember reading a lot of negative reviews on The Path when it came out. But when I finally played it (2 months or so ago), I could not see what the fuzz was about and just found it to be an engaging experience. I wonder if the response would be the same if The Path was release now.

Things have definitely changed. And for us, I really think that it was our continuous "ranting" on our blog that made the difference. When we started and had published The Endless Forest, not many people payed attention. We entered it in the IGF and it got rejected. Then when we had made up our mind about creating The Path as a commercial game, we wanted to increase the attention people gave our work. It was for this reason that we started our blog. And apparently it worked. The two subsequent games we entered in the IGF (The Path and The Graveyard) were selected.

By the time The Path was published, a lot of this was already established. And it is probably in part because of this that most reviewers were quite positive about the game. There were really only a few really negative reviews that were so emotional that it was hard to take them seriously.

A lot of journalists still had a hard time really recommending The Path to their readership. Despite of their personal liking of the game, many journalists started their review warning that The Path "was not really a game". And this was often reflected in the score they gave.

I think this has changed a bit in the mean time (it's been almost 2 years). I think journalists are less surprised now when they find that a game "isn't really a game" and they are better equipped to really enjoy an experience for its own sake.

But ultimately, we're still stuck with the "review mentality" which belongs more in consumer electronics press than in art criticism. I haven't seen a lot of change here. Even the most supposedly enlightened writers still feel the need to score a game, or evaluate it in terms of its price, etc. I wish this would change already. Because, as you say, good critics really help the audience.

[Thomas]

So started to read more comments and more and more negative seem to be coming in. I find it interesting that some people can actually be upset by what you have written, but it really seems that way! I mean, you are not even saying that games suck or anything, just that more games should explore the non-gamey end of the spectra. Still some people get very personal about it.

I find this kinda interesting, as I wonder where the problem really is. I guess some people just ehm ...trolls... but there are still way more discussion than your average Gamasutra article. From what I can tell it still seem that some people are actually threatened by this, thinking that it somehow will dumb down and destroy games. Or just that non-gamey-games should not really be lumped with videogames.

The comments suggesting that there already are proper words to use for this is something I find a bit strange. I mean, this is not science It is not like you are misusing the term "energy" or something. I cannot understand how starting call our work "interactive simulations" solves anything. I mean, how is does videogames not fit into that category as well

While I think it is neither interesting nor fruitful to debate these people, the interesting point is what draws them away. This might be interesting to know when to communicate how to play our games for potential users. If we know what kind of bias this people have, perhaps it gives an indicator on what hurdles other people could face before enjoying it. I am not saying we can ever get these people to change their mind, but that it might helps us understand our audience.

Or perhaps I am just wrong on this, and should just ignore certain viewpoints

[Michaël Samyn]

So started to read more comments and more and more negative seem to be coming in.

Auriea's theory: "The Americans are waking up." 

[Michaël Samyn]

I mean, you are not even saying that games suck or anything, just that more games should explore the non-gamey end of the spectra.

Plus I encourage the other games to explore the non-media end of the spectrum more thoroughly too!
It's basically an article against the uncomfortable compromises that make notably AAA games both bad games and bad media.

[Michaël Samyn]

From what I can tell it still seem that some people are actually threatened by this, thinking that it somehow will dumb down and destroy games.

I see that too. And I don't understand this either.

There's a certain group of people that is extremely defensive about games. You can't say anything negative about games without infuriating them. Even if it's entirely irrelevant. You can't say that games are not, say blue dolphins, without them making an argument for games being blue dolphins and ultimately saying that it doesn't matter whether they are or not but you still shouldn't say that they are not.

So I'm guessing that they found something in my article they can construct as a negative thing I said about games.

Maybe the negative thing is that I can imagine other things existing next to games. Things that I and other people may like more than games. Maybe this is heresy in their eyes.

While I think it is neither interesting nor fruitful to debate these people, the interesting point is what draws them away.

Maybe they are afraid of losing what they have.

In a way, we're in an easier situation. We don't like the present very much but we have high hopes for the future. They, on the other hand, are delighted with the present and thus they fear that it may one day come to an end. They love video games so much and perhaps they realize that their lives are supisciously wonderful, with all this attention and money devoted to their hobby. Maybe deep down they feel that it is not really justified for a geek thing to get that much, that they don't really deserve this happiness. So perhaps they perceive the current status as fragile and they attack everything that might disturb the subtle balance.

[Thomas]

Maybe they are afraid of losing what they have.

Thinking about it, have the same kind of discussions not flared up at just about any changes? Horses to cars, theater to cinema, etc. Not sure that notgames will be a big change as those examples (can always hope ), but I think the kind of discussion is the same.

Also, perhaps all these discussions is a good sign? If writing a very non-confrontational still makes people upset, than that might mean we are on the right track? If distancing us from the way games are currently made really is the "next big step", then should we not anticipate this? Perhaps even take this sort of attention by nay-sayers as a very good thing?

[Michaël Samyn]

Yes, it's too be expected that people defend passionately what they love. And that they resist change to a comfortable situation. I just think Notgames are an addition, something entirely new. Unlike games. And this is also the reason why games will not disappear. They are ancient.

[black snoopy]

I see that too. And I don't understand this either.

There's a certain group of people that is extremely defensive about games. You can't say anything negative about games without infuriating them. Even if it's entirely irrelevant. You can't say that games are not, say blue dolphins, without them making an argument for games being blue dolphins and ultimately saying that it doesn't matter whether they are or not but you still shouldn't say that they are not.

[...]

Maybe they are afraid of losing what they have.

In a way, we're in an easier situation. We don't like the present very much but we have high hopes for the future. They, on the other hand, are delighted with the present and thus they fear that it may one day come to an end. They love video games so much and perhaps they realize that their lives are supisciously wonderful, with all this attention and money devoted to their hobby. Maybe deep down they feel that it is not really justified for a geek thing to get that much, that they don't really deserve this happiness. So perhaps they perceive the current status as fragile and they attack everything that might disturb the subtle balance.

I think a lot of it relates to the young age (physical and/or emotional) of a lot of self-described "gamers". I know when I was in my teens, my likes and dislikes basically defined me ... if someone talked shit about something I enjoyed, it was like they were insulting me personally. Or if it was something that slowly became mainstream, I looked upon the newer fans with disdain because "they weren't there at the beginning". And now that I'm getting older, I care less and less about that. My favorite band gets mainstream success? Awesome! The sports-nut guy at work starts playing my favorite video game? Great, now we have some common ground.

So notgames/artgames/etc. are affronts to THEM. Even if we're just using video game technology to create art, by god we're invading their territory and they have to defend it at all costs lest episode 3 of Half-Life 2 ends up being 15 hours of Gordon and Alyx having a conversation about philosophy. In black and white. And with subtitles.

[Michaël Samyn]

(...) episode 3 of Half-Life 2 ends up being 15 hours of Gordon and Alyx having a conversation about philosophy. In black and white. And with subtitles.

Just got shivers over my spine imaging how wonderful this would be! 

[Jeroen D. Stout]

There are really defensive people, but what they are attacking you on is in a sense the weakest element in your rhetoric: semantics. Saying "video games are not games" means something different from what you literary are saying within your writing. So in a sense their vigour is unjust but not what they focus on most.

Perhaps it is really needed to focus even more practically why this is important and distinguish yourself explicitly as an author not interested in words, rather in application? In that sense with this article you really do evoke a far better sense (with me) as to why a distinction is important.

Perhaps the problem is a little bit similar to that of the Escapist article. It poses an interesting point but makes it hard to see, I imagine for many, why this will be better unless they already have thought about this. I once made the error in a discussion to just off-handedly saying it would be interesting to see take lessons from a Bouguereau painting for a game and the other people just said 'sorry, but are you stupid? Paintings and games are not the same thing.'

If you do not know how to think about transferring aspects the discussion is impossible. I think 'medium' to 'game' has the same step problem, and even the constructive angle of wanting to have more thing in them will be met by 'aha I knew you would say immersion'.

Will this Episode 3 be like Habitación en Roma and begin with Alyx lying about being a professional tennis player? Quite a step to do for Valve, non?