Blips: Defining Doorways

Source: Threshold
Author: Claire Hosking
Site: Claire Hosking

Some really interesting thoughts on how we define "games" from Claire Hosking this week. In a post on her Tumblr page titled "Threshold," she begins by comparing games formalism to art formalism, positing that instead of taking art's approach, that "art" is to a certain degree undefinable, in games, everyone has their own definition of what a game is. While this leads to a nonetheless fractured definition, at the very least it avoids art's elitist mindset of needing to be granted membership into a secret club before being allowed to "get" what art is. Though gaming's gatekeepers could end up similarly halting progress depending on how the lines end up being drawn.

Hosking goes on to then compare this existential debate in games to evolutions in architecture, which in many cases have blurred the lines between "inside" and "outside." In fact, these middleground spaces in architecture are evocative of a similar situation with games where perhaps a game isn't simply inside or outside of an exclusionary criteria, but something that contains various percentages of game-like structures among elements from film, drawing, or any other media. Some would even say this is inherent to games as hybrid structures or logic and expression.

There are many more fascinating ideas in Hosking's full piece, including the consideration that maybe some of the fringe software that gets lumped into the ever-expanding definition of games should actually be thought of as some new category instead. As you might imagine, it's not a simple yes/no answer. My only criticism of Hosking's piece is that when she debunks games as a medium (a really interesting consideration) she's only speaking of video games, referencing the medium of code, instead of considering video games and physical games together. Perhaps physical games can be seen as programs too, just ones with different methods of enforcing rulesets. After reading Hosking's post, I'm extra eager to hear Charles Pratt's formalist defense Thursday at NYU Game Center.

Blips: What It Is

Source: No Alternative, 1
Author: Joel Goodwin
Site: Electron Dance

I really enjoyed this piece on Electron Dance about whether certain game developers creating experiences on the fringes of what we consider "games" actually want their works to be seen as games. The reason this speaks to me is because the answers that developers like Ed Key (Proteus), Dan Pinchbeck (Dear Esther), and the Tale of Tales team are the reason I've returned to games with such fervor and enthusiasm. For me, these kinds of games are both the most interesting games and some of the most interesting contemporary art being produced. Part of this reason is the way games are distributed, and their more accessible nature.

Here's the thing; "art" is a neutering label while "game" remains a bit of a taxonomical battleground. Imagine if Dumb Starbucks was considered a game instead of performance art. There's an earnestness to the "game" label, where "art" applied to the same situation is viewed as a hoax (unless you're talking about ARGs, which are more complicated). Not that "game" couldn't become what "art" is now (it actually feels like it may be headed that way), but at the moment, games are seen to occupy a space that has a more open and honest relationship with those who engage with them. It's an ironic twist that when the artists behind horse_ebooks revealed themselves, they essentially "came clean" by releasing an FMV game. For artists, entering the game space is equivalent to "going legit," in that they're deciding to enter a space that is generally regarded as a front-facing commercial enterprise. Public performance art is the game you play without knowing it, but in "games," players are willing participants. It's no mystery which one has greater potential for generating a healthy relationship between artist and audience across the long-term.

Blips: Still a Game

Source: Dungeon Keeper may be a bad game, but it’s still a game
Author: Mary Hamilton
Site: metamedia

It's a bit strange the way the label "game" has taken on certain qualities of the word "art" considering the two's somewhat tumultuous relationship. But that's what seems to be happening in the case of the new Dungeon Keeper game, which some critics and players have denied the "game" label on grounds of quality. We've all heard this similar accusation made about controversial works of art. "That's not art! It's just a bunch of scribbles!" "That's not art! It's pornography!" That's not art! It's just offensive!" There's a notion with art that a work can be "elevated to the level of art," but if that's the case, what was that work prior to that elevated distinction? Just because a game is rotten with microtransactions or deviates wildly from it's series' roots, doesn't mean it's not a game. This is the conclusion that Mary Hamilton has also drawn in the linked article above.

I see where some of these critics are coming from in the case of Dungeon Keeper though, and they're qualms with the game are on a more formalist grounds. The argument is that you don't really play Dungeon Keeper, but pay currency (virtual or real) to not play it, in a sense. While this argument could hold some water if you're expecting this new Dungeon Keeper to be a simple port of the original game, that's just not the case. This new Dungeon Keeper is simply a different type of game that needs to be played in a different way. I have no real familiarity with that series, but imagine I'd be likewise ticked off if say, a new Zelda game was released with similar mechanics. Instead of working your way through dungeons, Link only has the energy to explore 3 rooms in a 24 hour period, but you can pay minions to do that exploration for you. That sounds like a bad game, and by all accounts, Dungeon Keeper isn't too great either. But it is still a game.

Blips: Redefining Fantasy

Source: "What is Final Fantasy?"
Author: Ethan Gach
Site: Gaming Vulture

Final Fantasy is in crisis, but is it the sort of crisis that precedes the coming of a chosen team of upstart dreamers who set the world right? It seems like the developers at Square-Enix are in desperate need of such heroes for their own company. As someone who got into Final Fantasy at VII, then went on to play and adore VIII, IX, X, X-2, and XII and went back and played VI too, I would love to see the Final Fantasy series continue to thrive. However, the nostalgia mining, the cold reception to XIII, and subsequent doubling and tripling down on it have put me in a position where I haven't played a Final Fantasy game in over 5 years. So, what would a "modern," "successful," Final Fantasy game be?

Ethan Gach asked that very question, and broke down the necessary components in a blog post. He posits that story is king in Final Fantasy games, and that the series has struggled most with adapting to a contemporary mode of storytelling, long reliant on extensive text dialogue, and later with visually impressive, wordless cutscenes. From what I've read about XIII, it sounded like an attempt to bridge the gap, but one that ended up cutting off the expansive, explorable overworld that is another hallmark of the series. The argument was not that games can't be linear or narrowly focused, but that such a design decision runs counter to what Final Fantasy is supposed to be. So, while I agree across the board with Gach here, I'd like to add the overworld/airship component as an essential Final Fantasy characteristic as well.

As Gach notes, Final Fantasy has been a rather amazing game series in the degree to which it reinvents itself with every entry. The battle systems in all of the Final Fantasy games that I've played have been entirely different, so much so that the constant evolution has also become a series staple. Returning to the well with direct sequels comes off as an indulgent commercial cash-in because it goes against the tradition Square-Enix created for themselves. With game development costs soaring higher than ever for flashy, state-of-the-art games, not to mention ones that are expected to last 50+ hours (more than 5 times the average game length these days), the question remains of whether or not it's possible to keep pushing this formula forward.

Though it contains the increasingly stale character designs of Tetsuya Nomura, Final Fantasy XV could have an answer here. The action-RPG combat certainly looks impressive, and here's hoping there's an interesting depth to it as well. That said, people seemed to think XIII's combat was a pretty great system too, once the game finally let you take the reigns for yourself. I foresee linearity continuing to be an issue here, but in fairness, not enough of the game has been showed to offer a substantive judgement. So, I suppose "What is Final Fantasy?" remains a question without a simple answer, but as for "What can Final Fantasy be?," well, that's up to Square-Enix to prove with XV.