Amibguous Cad
Member
Bullshit. The experience of flying around in Flower, for example, might not be high on the triumph of overcoming obstacles that we usually associate with gaming, but it's also not something films are capable of delivering.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Lots of non-games winning GOTY...
- Thread starter Neiteio
- Start date
Bullshit. The experience of flying around in Flower, for example, might not be high on the triumph of overcoming obstacles that we usually associate with gaming, but it's also not something films are capable of delivering.
Uh, flight simulators?
Haha what are those?!
The "Are visual novels games?" debate has been ongoing for quite a while now, and TWD isn't exempt from this crossfire. Even still, framing this topic in a way that implies Journey and TWD are "non-games" is the wrong way to go. You're much better served just (correctly) pointing out that neither of them are very good games.
Or alternatively pointing out how the coopting of film techniques for an interactive medium is an irritating contradiction.
Or alternatively pointing out how the coopting of film techniques for an interactive medium is an irritating contradiction.
Distinguishing between games and experiences is necessary, not to denigrate one or the other, but because they're often at design and marketing cross-purposes. Attempting to force them into a single box simply because they're both on your TV produces experiences bogged down with iffy gaming elements (everything from Dragon's Lair to the modern FPS campaign) and games criticized for not also being experiences.
Tabletop Warhammer is a game, diorama-building is an art. Dungeons and Dragons is a game, improv theatre is, well, theatre. Figure-skating is a sport, the Ice Capades are theatre. Simon Says is a game and mime is performance.
Why can't we apply the same ideas in the digital space, so we can move beyond the current morass of rejecting arcadey games because they're not narratively crunchy enough while shoehorning one or two interactive moments into titles that should be visual novels solely so they're not mistaken for Japanese fetish porn? There will still be grey areas, but there are between every medium.
Tabletop Warhammer is a game, diorama-building is an art. Dungeons and Dragons is a game, improv theatre is, well, theatre. Figure-skating is a sport, the Ice Capades are theatre. Simon Says is a game and mime is performance.
Why can't we apply the same ideas in the digital space, so we can move beyond the current morass of rejecting arcadey games because they're not narratively crunchy enough while shoehorning one or two interactive moments into titles that should be visual novels solely so they're not mistaken for Japanese fetish porn? There will still be grey areas, but there are between every medium.
Amibguous Cad
Member
Flight simulators often do deliver the experience of overcoming adversity and triumphing over obstacles - you may not be stomping on goombas or shooting down other planes, but simply getting from one place to another requires mastery of the game's systems and a good amount of skill. Flower, by contrast, is more or less effortless, and the enjoyment comes from the kinaesthetic experience of freedom in flight. They appeal to different emotional registers, and I think that's why Flower raises people's hackles while Microsoft Flight Simulator doesn't. The issue isn't that MS Flight Simulator more authentically delivers on the interactive nature of the medium than Flower does. The issue is that Flower leverages interactivity to different aims than most games do, and it's so different than many dismiss it out of hand.
It is a decent counterpoint, however, for those who claim that something about getting from point A to point B can't be a "game."
Nocturnowl
Member
If platforming, puzzle solving, item collection and enemy avoidance are the makings of a Mario game then I guess the Uncharted series has been doing a surprisingly stellar job of being Mario games as well. There's some odd angles coming into play here, a few elements seen in platformers being in Journey = A Mario game? that's almost like saying Banjo Tooie has the makings of a great Call of Duty game because there's an FPS multiplayer mode in there, the same game spends most of the time jumping around a 3D environment collecting items, maybe Journey is a Banjo game as well.
Platformers aren't just defined by how Mario does it and how Mario does its platforming is still vastly different to Journey which should come across as pretty obvious i'd think.
Rayman is closer to the Mario style, even then you know i'd call it a Rayman game and not a Mario game, there's a platformer sub genre they both occupy at least, I don't think Journey shares in it, it's very much its own beast entirely.
If Journey is a "Mario game" then well, it's pretty damn awful at it, likewise NSMBU makes for a pretty poor Journey.
Well this shows if anything that we play those games for different reasons, Mario to me encapsulates the idea of being presented with a series of levels to overcome, filled with enemy and environmental hostility and layouts that push the players use of core platforming mechanics in various ways, throw in power ups and other variables to change the way you can tackle a stage entirely and a replay can come out completely differently.
I could draw a few similarities to Journey here beyond the whole "run and jump" aspect but in the end I really don't feel that the two play much alike at all making comparisons completely wishy washy, almost like it's boiling down to some way of delivering a "take that" to people who would call Journey a non game by drawing up similarities to a series renowned mostly for its pure gameplay approach.
Journey does capture the joy of simple movement in a 3D space i'll agree on that much, i'm sure that's also one of the main plus points people like to give SM64 but that's not what i'd define an entire series by, especially one that's spent far more entries as both linear and being in 2D, wouldn't it make more sense to say it's the best 3D platformer you've played in years?
Alternatively you completely lost me with whatever you're saying up there.
:Citizen clap. You too kinggroin.
Would you consider Guitar Hero or Dragon's Lair to be video games? All you do is press the indicated button when it pops up on the screen. My Japanese Coach and certainly Brain Age have vastly more "gameplay" than those.
Are flight simulators a game, or are they something else that provides tools for emergent gaming?
(Are a bat and glove a game, or tools which provide for the games baseball, softball, and catch?)
You want the honest answer?
It's because I find the act of playing a well-designed game a far superior experience to any sort of passive entertainment. I can get engrossed in a good movie or book or song, but I have never even once consumed a piece of passive entertainment that matches the experience of playing my favorite games.
Now, you could say "well then if a game has both, then it's better!" but it's never quite that simple. Excepting "games" that don't actively try to be as such and which I play precisely for its story or whatnot (visual novels, some adventure games and whatnot), I feel that if I'm more engrossed with a game's setting, narrative or "experience" than with its mechanics, design, and challenge, then something went wrong on the developer's end. That doesn't make it a bad game per se, just not something I would even remotely think of putting on any GOTY lists.
Riposte
Member
For most of human existence "art" and "entertainment" were more or less the same thing. Our situation today can be attributed to when this started to happen: http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/Philosophy/ArtScam/artscam.php. Let me quickly correct you when you make it sound like I think "videogames can't be art". I'm more saying nothing can be art, because art doesn't exist (at least using the word "art" in this way is more or less gibberish, which has come to be used as a marketing technique).
Art has become something much like "holiness" or God itself in that it has no real meaning nor can it be sensed or measured. Much like holiness or divinity, it can be used as a powerful, globally-recognized tool despite it being nothing but propped up imagination (one use of such a tool? Add value or even add the most value to ugly, displeasing works, or even lives). Compare this to putting value in what gives us pleasure, something a healthy being cannot deny themselves. It should be clear why I choose to say "pseudo-intellectualism". I'm not saying "these guys are dumb!" (not my style), I see this as a form of trickery.
I guess your idea of art (since there are so many from so many people, heh) is based on "messages"? I haven't really the strength or time right now to spell out my point of view, but everything, even things not manufactured, have messages and we, the viewer, write them (communication between humans is only possible because we form an understanding/agreement on what things (including words) mean). Then there is the matter of the futility of using vague, obscuring means (and what could be more vague and obscuring than a videogame, the strongest and most complex escape from reality?) to tell your message. If you want your message told, then you'd use the channels which make the exchange of ideas most precise and efficient (e.g. I wrote this down instead of making you interpret a random splatter of colors).
Zia your idea of Mario always being a sandbox is beyond odd. How is that not also true for every single 2D and 3D action game with even a little leeway and complexity? You are talking about the world's most famous linear platformer when you talk about the history of Mario.
There honestly should be a different category for games like Flower, Journey and Walking Dead. They are more "interactive experiences" than actual games. It's sort of like how there is a distinction between short films and feature length films.
I don't consider these games "non games" but I feel their distinct lack of game play and worthwhile interaction keeps them away from my GOTY list.
Part of me is glad that these types of games are winning major awards this year (more specifically downloadable games) and it should be a wake up call to the AAA budget game developers. Then again most of them are going to go the Tomb Raider route after this year and start taking away from wholesome game play, depth and interaction.
I don't consider these games "non games" but I feel their distinct lack of game play and worthwhile interaction keeps them away from my GOTY list.
Part of me is glad that these types of games are winning major awards this year (more specifically downloadable games) and it should be a wake up call to the AAA budget game developers. Then again most of them are going to go the Tomb Raider route after this year and start taking away from wholesome game play, depth and interaction.
d00d3n
Member
While calling them "non-games" is probably unfair, and easily disproved with examples from the games, I agree with the general sentiment of the OT. From what I have played of TWD, it does not deserve to be singled out as one of the best games of the year. There is very little game design to it, combined with a semi-impressive delivery of graphics and narrative. I can see how people who are unfamiliar with the adventure game genre (and experiments in other genres) would find the game impressive and even original, but I am not one of those people. Sadly, even among gaming journalists who are familiar with classic adventure games, there is a tendency to overemphasize writing in games. This can lead to confusing situations, such as last year when most people enjoyed Portal 2 for its great puzzles and traversal mechanics, while the gaming press raved about a brilliant "comedy game" which you apparently got to experience if you paid attention to pre loading screen dialogue snippets.
JimmyRustler
Member
I don't know if Journey's better than Bulletstorm but it sure is 10x shorter than it.
Glass Rebel
Member
Well you sure told him with your insightful post!
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I can't tell if you're contesting his definition of gamey-ness or if you accept it but feel that Journey better satisfies the definition than Bulletstorm.
Zombie James
Banned
Bulletstorm's a 20 hour game? Anyways, length is probably the least relevant metric here.
Well, okay. Length means nothing unless you delve into pacing or such, because otherwise it's just a number that merely tells us how long it is, not very useful -- games can be too long (and most are.) Akai Katana Shin is my game of the year and it's only about 30 minutes long or so, give or take.
Well thats the irony so many pointed out in their praise for journey isn't it? That even with its modest length, it provided a better, more fulfilling sense of 'journey' than other several hours long games. Particularly, those released in 2012, but especially friggin bulletstorm.
JimmyRustler
Member
Well, it seems to be less important than sheer art direction because otherwise I don't see how Journey could win GOTY anywhere. Don't get me wrong, it's a beatuiful piece of art but it's not really a game THAT good IMO.
I want a game that is paced like RE4 (20 hours but breezes through because of the design) with TWD level of "hard choices" that makes situations intense with impeccable art and sound design. And of course the game play mechanics and controls are top notch.
Now that is a game worthy of being GOTY. This generation I would say Bioshock came close to that.. IMO that's a worthy GOTY.
Now that is a game worthy of being GOTY. This generation I would say Bioshock came close to that.. IMO that's a worthy GOTY.
Riposte
Member
Now you are insulting the hard choices of TWD and the everything of RE4.
Functionally they're not much different from other mini game compilations. The only real difference is that their mini games were designed with a specific purpose in mind. I've never heard of that Japanese Coach game but I assume it's an edutainment title with mini games, which places it in the same category. Just because you don't like the genre that a game belongs to, doesn't make it any less of a game.
Frankly I have no interest in ever playing Journey, since the gameplay seems to be completely and utterly lacking any sense of depth or challenge, but that doesn't make it a non-game.
oconnomiyaki
Member
My personal metric for "game", versus "interactive experience" (or something equally wanky) has been victory/failure conditions. All games introduce some element of risk as that's what provides a sense of agency and separates them from other forms of media that are entirely vicarious. Consequently, my entire problem with Journey was that I didn't feel like I was driving the experience at all. There was no way to fail or even suck at Journey. The worst that could happen to you was that the flow was broken.
In contrast, The Walking Dead (which I literally just finished -- and WOW!) still had ways to fail and it had ways to alter the outcome of events. Sure, it just plonked you down at the most recent checkpoint, so it was hardly unforgiving, but it still felt like my actions (or inaction) was influencing the game in such a way that I needed to act. I never really felt like that about Journey.
So one I'm happy to say is a video game and the other was more a piece of interactive art. Both were extremely moving in their own way, though.
Not that it matters what they are classified as. What matters is that people are having fun and enjoying themselves. I'd only really say it argues when it comes down to that whole "Can games be art?" thing. Someone recently pointed out the "Can art be games?" approach. I think Journey is a good example of that.
In contrast, The Walking Dead (which I literally just finished -- and WOW!) still had ways to fail and it had ways to alter the outcome of events. Sure, it just plonked you down at the most recent checkpoint, so it was hardly unforgiving, but it still felt like my actions (or inaction) was influencing the game in such a way that I needed to act. I never really felt like that about Journey.
So one I'm happy to say is a video game and the other was more a piece of interactive art. Both were extremely moving in their own way, though.
Not that it matters what they are classified as. What matters is that people are having fun and enjoying themselves. I'd only really say it argues when it comes down to that whole "Can games be art?" thing. Someone recently pointed out the "Can art be games?" approach. I think Journey is a good example of that.
Banana Kid
Member
I think a lot of people are just super impressed to see these games like Walking Dead and Journey finally achieve the emotional reaction that games have struggled to do for so long. That's definitely commendable, but going forward I hope that isn't going to come at the expense of gameplay anymore. Now we've seen it's possible, next someone's gonna have to combine it with a game that's fun to play.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
In general, I think games based heavily around should be examinable for meaning to win GotY and I think The Walking Dead struggles with that. I generally want to analyze meaning or artistry in something heavily story-based and that happens in re-reads or re-watches or replays and I think The Walking Dead's smoke-and-mirrors based choice system really kills any replay value for the game.
This is completely random and has little to do with the topic, but it's something I feel should be part of the criticism and analysis of story-based games with limited interaction, especially if they're in consideration for GotY.
This is completely random and has little to do with the topic, but it's something I feel should be part of the criticism and analysis of story-based games with limited interaction, especially if they're in consideration for GotY.
Glass Rebel
Member
If it had the combat of FEAR, Crysis or RAGE... probably.
In light of this clusterfuck of a thread, how about this: Split Game of the year in to 2 separate categories, gamey-game of the year that's all about mechanical fidelity and buttery-smooth push-pull between the player's inputs and the game's response and interactive experience of the year that's about games like Journey, The Walking Dead, etc where their greatness comes from something other than gameplay like excellent story, emotional scenes and penultimate moments. These two categories will be on the same level of importance and will satisfy a lot more people.
Nocturnowl
Member
I think that would just open things up to even more clusterfuckery as people debate which games should go in which category, plus there's not really enough experience focused games to really fill out the second category at this point, at least not widely known ones.
dragonbane
Member
OP. I get where you are coming from, but what exactly is it that allows Heavy Rain to be on your GOTY list, but not TWD or Journey? Don't get me wrong, I like the game myself and the "gameplay" parts are superior to both TWD and Journey IMO, but still your actions seem to contradict you opinion.
If you don't know what I'm talking about:
If you don't know what I'm talking about:
Neiteio in the 'GOTY 2010 nomination thread' said:
Neiteio in the 'Kara' thread said:
Neiteio said:
Neiteio in the 'Will any games this gen be regarded as all time greats?' thread said:
Glass Rebel
Member
OP is Sony fanboy and threw Journey under the bus for the greater cause.
Gaming's only gonna get more divergent at this point, and having one catch-all GotY category is stifling and pisses too many people off. Least that's how I see it.
evilromero
Member
Certainly not my GOTYs. Dark Souls and MK9 for my 2011 GOTYs. It's too early to say what 2012 will be. I need another year to really let them sink in.
Riposte
Member
That's a complete cop-out. You are essentially giving one set of games freedom from criticism (the process of ranking things). Now many people don't care to really get to the bottom of why they like what games the most, so they might simplify it to this two category solution to make it easy for themselves. That's perfectly fine for them based on their priorities, but you are not adding clarity this way.
It is also naivety to assume they can be on the same level of importance. There will be people actively working to make sure one is ranked higher than the other. Here I'll give you a very basic scenario that I would think would be the most likely one: We call "gamey-games" (lol) "entertainment" and we call "interactive experiences" (which every game is) "art games". This writes its own narrative: one of these categories is akin to what we put in museums and tackle what is "important". Meanwhile "entertainment" is looked as sinful, dumb, shallow, for the masses, etc - as many look at blockbuster films.
Nocturnowl
Member
Despite all of the outcry in threads like this one I do feel that it's more of a vocal minority thing in some respects, GotY awards will always piss some people off, some games more than others for various reasons.
We'll just have to see what direction the industry heads in to see if it gets too divergent and I don't see that happening to the extent that you'd need two separate awards.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
We have people who mistake clunky autocombat that puts them in success states as top shelf quality. I don't see this solving anything.
Risk Breaker
Member
Bulletstorm is, what, 8 hours long? It felt way too long for me, I wanted it to be over. On the other hand I played Journey 4 times, which equals roughly 9 hours, all of them felt awesome. It's not like Journey is not replayable at all.
Yes I'm still depressed that COD didn't win 15 GOTYs and Halo 4 didn't win another 10
(((
Yes I'm still depressed that COD didn't win 15 GOTYs and Halo 4 didn't win another 10
(((