Support NeoGAF

[John Rabbit]

I agree we have it good, and again, I like Journey, TWD, etc, as experiences (and TWD will probably still chart on my list), but in terms of overall GOTY, I'd just rather see it go to something that fully explores the constant presence of the player in the game -- something Journey and TWD only minimally do.

sounds like your issue is one of semantics. would it be okay if these outlets were awarding Experience of the Year to Walking Dead?

 

[Wanda/Wander]

It's weak as a game.

How do you define a game?

 

[Raonak]

lol.... non-games.


reminds me of the old people saying electronic music isn't "real music"

 

[Emitan]

I can see where OP is coming from. Journey and TWD are both light on actual gameplay. Depending on what you feel are defining features of a video game, perhaps they don't truly merit being GOTY.

How is Journey light on gameplay? Being easy doesn't mean you aren't doing anything.

 

[Afrocious]

I can see where OP is coming from. Journey and TWD are both light on actual gameplay. Depending on what you feel are defining features of a video game, perhaps they don't truly merit being GOTY.

Considering your avatar, would you say VLR is light on actual gameplay too? Or simply has a different kind of gameplay?

See, the thing is that I don't understand why playing a game means having some character run around and jump on things or attack things all the time.

 

[VeryGooster]

My game of the year choices are based in the experiences I take away from said choices, no matter how much interactivity I might have with them. Being a "non-game" has nothing to do with it. For me, there's a lot more to discuss with TWD, which I think does gameplay and narrative integration spectacularly, versus my number two choice Sleeping Dogs, which emphasizes gun/melee/driving mechanics.

In fact that there's interactivity at all in TWD an Journey automatically disqualifies them as "non-games," whatever that even means.

 

[xJavonta]

How do you define a game?

Shoot bang

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

They offered a compelling experience, but not in the game sense. I think that's what the OP is trying to get across, and I personally think he's absolutely right. I am one of those gamers who usually will forgive a game for a lot of their downfalls if the story is great. Gameplay can be shitty for all I care, if I had a good experience. However, I will not deny that actually playing the game should be a big reason for winning an award like GAME of the year. Journey I felt was seriously overrated, because I didn't feel anything other than thinking it was a pretty game when it was all done. It was not fun in the gameplay sense, it was just a pretty easy diversion for 1-2 hours, and that was it. Journey was like watching an indie art movie where you happen to be holding a controller in your hand.

If you wanna talk about compelling, and different as an actual game that involves the player, I'd think Fez is more deserving of something like GOTY, because that was a game that truly was more then meets the eye.

No, what he´s trying to get crossed is that he´s a narrow minded individual who wants to impose the definition of gaming on other. Journey and TWD are as much much of games as Mario, or any kind of party game, sports game or any other genre.

 

[B.O.O.M]

No, that's not what matters the most for everybody. Those compelling experiences can be achieved through interactive movies or books. It doesn't necessarily needs to use the gaming medium. But this is a debate without end imo. Some prefer the experience, others the challenge a game offers. The problem lies in how this medium is called.

They offered a compelling experience, but not in the game sense. I think that's what the OP is trying to get across, and I personally think he's absolutely right. I am one of those gamers who usually will forgive a game for a lot of their downfalls if the story is great. Gameplay can be shitty for all I care, if I had a good experience. However, I will not deny that actually playing the game should be a big reason for winning an award like GAME of the year. Journey I felt was seriously overrated, because I didn't feel anything other than thinking it was a pretty game when it was all done. It was not fun in the gameplay sense, it was just a pretty easy diversion for 1-2 hours, and that was it. Journey was like watching an indie art movie where you happen to be holding a controller in your hand.

If you wanna talk about compelling, and different as an actual game that involves the player, I'd think Fez is more deserving of something like GOTY, because that was a game that truly was more then meets the eye.

First off I should make it clear that I really couldn't care less about these GOTY awards. I am disappointed with gaming media in general and at the end of the day what's important to me is my personal goty contenders.

BUT I really don't want to argue with you two about what's a game and what is not a game. If I interact with it...and if it's on a piece of electronic hardware....it's a video game to me. I think it's utterly useless to label one as a game and another as a non-game. Personal views on what a proper game should be aside, these are all games. If developers want to expand and try new things then they should do it. They should not be constrained by what some would define a game to be.

Frankly such 'non-gaming' and other terms are down right insulting to the developers and what they have achieved with games like Journey and TWD.

I don't think we need to pick one single aspect, may it be the challenge, the experience, story etc. We will all have our preferences on what's most important. But let's not stretch that to an overall general definition of what gaming should be.

 

[RagnarokX]

I think what trips a lot of people up is that something can give you the most joy and still not be the best representative example of the medium. I mean you aren't going to make an exception and nominate a movie or book for game of the year just because it gave you more pleasure than any game you played that year and those media share most of the same components as games, that would be ridiculous. So the "there's nothing that defines what a game is" argument goes right out the window.

Journey is a game; there is no denying that. It features the components that make games distinct from books and movies. However, those components are very weakly presented. And for a category such as game of the year gameplay should not be so weakly represented.

 

[Tonguer]

I see what you're getting at, OP, but I disagree. I think games appeal to different people in different ways. I would not characterize any of the games you mentioned as 'non-games' by any stretch. It sounds fair to say that neither game appealed to you.

Journey gave me one of my most memorable gaming experiences. I've just started playing The Walking Dead, and one of the choices I made already haunts me. I loved Journey, and suspect I'll say the same of The Walking Dead by the end.

 

[phosphor112]

Shoot bang

One ups and goombas. I don't see how people can say Journey is a non-game, when Pong was one of the "original" games and it involved two moving paddles a ball and NO end game.

 

[Doctor Decimate]

maybe that speaks more to how lackluster the experiences offered by "real" games have been by comparison

 

[Neiteio]

Exactly. I'm honestly tired of this.

This "non-game" bullshit comments are from people that haven't even played the games.

I've played Journey and TWD, and if you actually read the OP, you'd see I enjoyed them, too. But I'm arguing that for overall GOTY, the interactive element -- that which defines a game -- should be emphasized above all else.

How do you define a game?

See above.

All this "Not a game" bullshit should be bannable. You can live in your parents basement and sit there raging while your favorite JRPG doesn't get props all you want but all this kind of conversation does is fragment a media that is already heavily criticised for its artistic merits. I'm glad people like you don't have any kind of voice because you are clearly wrong. 23 GOTY awards for The Walking Dead so far so plenty of outlets consider it a game.

Please calm down, good sir. And no, I don't think gaming "journalism" validates these games as delivering on the full potential of the medium like you think they do. Nor am I "raging" about any particular game getting shafted because of them. I just think the wrong aspects are being appreciated. I think that when it comes to Game of the Year, the interactive element is paramount.

 

[Kazerei]

Considering your avatar, would you say VLR is light on actual gameplay too? Or simply has a different kind of gameplay?

See, the thing is that I don't understand why playing a game means having some character run around and jump on things or attack things all the time.

Yes, I would say VLR is light on actual gameplay too. Certainly meets the definition of a video game though. But I can understand OP's viewpoint of wanting GOTY winners to have more "meat" in them.

 

[vareon]

Not talking about someone im GAF in particular, but I do sometimes get the impression that if one can't tell who's playing better, then it doesn't qualify as a game.

Case in point, I was playing Monkey Island when someone saw me and said "So you just move the guy and click things and talk to people? Is this even a game?"

I think there's nothing wrong in calling these experiences a game. It's not like we're on a crusade to protect the purest definition of game anyway.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

I can see where OP is coming from. Journey and TWD are both light on actual gameplay. Depending on what you feel are defining features of a video game, perhaps they don't truly merit being GOTY.

And? All you do in Mario games is moving forward and jumping yet people say they are a bliss of gameplay blah blah. Mario is not different than Journey or TWD with regards what defines a game.

 

[xenist]

The premise of the thread is bad. If I see an actual member of the gaming press argue from that perspective I will instantly stop regarding their opinions as valid.

 

[Danneee]

So its only a game if its hard?

The feeling I get from the OP too.

Journey is absolutely my GOTY, such an awesome experience. Haven't really started TWD yet.

 

[xJavonta]

I've played Journey and TWD, and if you actually read the OP, you'd see I enjoyed them, too. But I'm arguing that for overall GOTY, the interactive element -- that which defines a game -- should be emphasized above all else.

The interactive element in TWD is perfectly fine. You're not constantly mashing controls, but the interactive bits work for the type of game it is. It's essentially like saying Monkey Island isn't a game or hell, even Putt Putt isn't a game because all you do it point and click. (TWD also has QTEs, so by your logic it's "more" of a game I suppose.)

 

[Neiteio]

And? All you do in Mario games is moving forward and jumping yet people say they are a bliss of gameplay blah blah. Mario is not different than Journey or TWD with regards what defines a game.

Wait, are you suggesting that Journey and TWD have as much moment-to-moment involvement -- a.k.a. interaction, the defining feaure of games -- as a Mario title? Really?

 

[phosphor112]

I've played Journey and TWD, and if you actually read the OP, you'd see I enjoyed them, too. But I'm arguing that for overall GOTY, the interactive element -- that which defines a game -- should be emphasized above all else.

I read the OP, and I'm not necessarily talking of you.

 

[VeryGooster]

Not all interactivity is created equal. In fact, I played a game with more interactivity than TWD and Journey combined, Assassin's Creed 3, and I think it's absolute garbage.

 

[SteeloDMZ]

And? All you do in Mario games is moving forward and jumping yet people say they are a bliss of gameplay blah blah. Mario is not different than Journey or TWD with regards what defines a game.

Is Mario Land for Gameboy the only Mario game you ever played?

 

[Afrocious]

I think what trips a lot of people up is that something can give you the most joy and still not be the best representative example of the medium. I mean you aren't going to make an exception and nominate a movie or book for game of the year just because it gave you more pleasure than any game you played that year and those media share most of the same components as games. Journey is a game; there is no denying that. It features the components that make games distinct from books and movies. However, those components are very weakly presented. And for a category such as game of the year gameplay should not be so weakly represented.

I'm forgetting the actual term here, but movies and books tell stories that are strictly linear. Also, the audience has to sit down and watch/read the stories, and learn the plot in the order of sequences with exposition determined by the director/author.

Games engage the player by providing a space to interact in. How the games are made to have the player interact in them depends on the game. Also, games tend to have an element of consequence, which can be as simple as getting a game over for not making a jump or kicking a ball and watching it roll somewhere.

That's how I look at it at least.

 

[cloudyy]

So its only a game if its hard?

It's a game if you can get better at it by playing it. Doesn't necessarily mean it has to be hard.

 

[xJavonta]

Is Mario Land for Gameboy the only Mario game you ever played?

Is Mario Land a game?

 

[Zen_Arcade]

It's a game if you can get better at it by playing it. Doesn't necessarily mean it has to be hard.

You can get better at Journey.

 

[phosphor112]

Is Mario Land for Gameboy the only Mario game you ever played?

Bad guys, running, jumping, powerups(upgrades), and an end goal are features in both Journey and Mario.

What's the difference? The level of difficulty? Does that make Journey a less of a game?

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

Not talking about someone im GAF in particular, but I do sometimes get the impression that if one can't tell who's playing better, then it doesn't qualify as a game.

Case in point, I was playing Monkey Island when someone saw me and said "So you just move the guy and click things and talk to people? Is this even a game?"

I think there's nothing wrong in calling these experiences a game. It's not like we're on a crusade to protect the purest definition of game anyway.

That´s because they are games.

Wait, are you suggesting that Journey and TWD have as much moment-to-moment involvement -- a.k.a. interaction, the defining feaure of games -- as a Mario title? Really?

Yeah i am, and it´s not up to you to define what ´s a game and what´s not. All you do in Mario is jump. All you do in party games is sing, dance whatever, and these are considered games. As far as i´m concern Mario is as much of a game as Farmville, since you do the same thing over and over again.

 

[Open Source]

Pretty much any interactive software with either goals or rewards is called a game these days. Not sure I agree with that, but on the other hand, it's not often terribly useful to differentiate among interactive bubble-wrap, interactive stories, and actual games.

 

[Neiteio]

Not all interactivity is created equal. In fact, I played a game with more interactivity than TWD and Journey combined, Assassin's Creed 3, and I think it's absolute garbage.

OP here, and I agree, and people may recall I absolutely adored 999. But even if I had played that game the year it originally came out, I would've hesitated to champion it as overall GOTY, simply because I think that games are, first and foremost, defined by their interactive elements. Yes, 999, TWD and Journey are all games, technically -- and of those, I'd say 999 is superb, and TWD great, and Journey a decent time-waster -- but by "non-game" vs. "game" I'm not offering an exact definition so much as getting at varying levels of interaction, with more interaction -- well-done interaction -- being what should be given the nod for -Game- of the Year. That's all.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I haven't played Journey, but I tend to agree with regards to TWD. It's like Heavy Rain lite (I loathe Heavy Rain, in case you can't tell), not a true point-and-click adventure at all, mostly just a bunch of scripted events with QTEs and barely any puzzle solving. It's a game all right, but that it'd win GotY is grotesque and a testament to the downward spiral of modern gaming.

 

[Emitan]

It's a game if you can get better at it by playing it. Doesn't necessarily mean it has to be hard.

I'm fairly confident I can beat you in a Journey 100% race.

 

[Lime]

This is a terrible thread and trying to separate games like Journey or TWD from other games is completely bonkers. Their "ontological" properties share many, many, many affinities with what OP would consider a regular game, so setting up necessary conditions for a definition of a game while excluding Journey/TWD is meaningless and contradictory.

 

[SteeloDMZ]

Bad guys, running, jumping, powerups(upgrades), and an end goal are features in both Journey and Mario.

What's the difference? The level of difficulty? Does that make Journey a less of a game?

The difference of the games is in the quality of the game's mechanics combined with the level design.

 

[Neiteio]

I would also like to emphasize, that in evaluating something as -Game- of the Year, it's not just the inclusion of interactive elements to put it in the running, but the strength of those elements alone as much as with the rest of the package. A Mario title would still be just as fun without all of the cutesy sugar and rainbows, but would Journey's interactive elements be as fun without the sparkling sands and soaring music? Because that interactive stuff is the game portion, the part you play.

 

[Radec]

Dude, your GOTY last year was Bulletstorm. No wonder you disagree on Walking Dead or Journey winning gotys.

lol.

But whatever, to each his own.

 

[phosphor112]

The difference of the games is in the quality of the game's mechanics combined with the level design.

And how do you determine that? Please enlighten me.

 

[SteeloDMZ]

Dude, your GOTY last year was Bulletstorm. No wonder you disagree on Walking Dead or Journey winning gotys.

lol.

But whatever, to each his own.

Bulletstorm had great gameplay.

 

[Lime]

And the marker "interactive" is completely meaningless. Is pressing the light switch in my room interactice? Is pressing my TV remote interactive? I exert physical effort to change the state of these things, so we might as well call these things games, if one is using a watered-down and over-used term like "interactivity".

 

[Neiteio]

Dude, your GOTY last year was Bulletstorm. No wonder you disagree on Walking Dead or Journey winning gotys.

lol.

But whatever, to each his own.

It's the first game I've liked that's even remotely "dudebro." Did you also read the part right after that where I shower love on Catherine and Nintendo Land?

And how do you determine that? Please enlighten me.

Would Journey's gameplay portions -- the GAME part -- be fun without the music and graphics?

Mario's would. Journey's would not.

 

[Afrocious]

I would also like to emphasize, that in evaluating something as -Game- of the Year, it's not just the inclusion of interactive elements to put it in the running, but the strength of those elements alone as much as with the rest of the package. A Mario title would still be just as fun without all of the cutesy sugar and rainbows, but would Journey's interactive elements be as fun without the sparkling sands and soaring music? Because that interactive stuff is the game portion, the part you play.

I'm willing to argue that a Mario title would be nowhere as enjoyable if it was a black and white pixelated mess with squares for characters with no music or any kind of sound.

 

[Neiteio]

I'm willing to argue that a Mario title would be nowhere as enjoyable if it was a black and white pixelated mess with squares for characters with no music or any kind of sound.

I'm willing to argue Mario -would- still be fun without its art or music -- unlike Journey. Skillfully threading your way in and out of moving enemies and obstacles across various types of platforms with the delicate momentum and pinpoint-precise air control and traction of Mario would still make the act of blazing through a level just as thrilling with lame graphics as it would with good graphics. (And frankly, some people would argue the audiovisual already sucks as of the NSMB series)

Again, what you PLAY is paramount.

 

[SteeloDMZ]

I'm willing to argue that a Mario title would be nowhere as enjoyable if it was a black and white pixelated mess with squares for characters with no music or any kind of sound.

Playing Super Mario Bros. 1985 on a black and white TV with the mute option on is still fun I'd say

 

[AppleMIX]

Games are not just about gameplay, its about the experience.

 

[Lime]

I would also like to emphasize, that in evaluating something as -Game- of the Year, it's not just the inclusion of interactive elements to put it in the running, but the strength of those elements alone as much as with the rest of the package. A Mario title would still be just as fun without all of the cutesy sugar and rainbows, but would Journey's interactive elements be as fun without the sparkling sands and soaring music? Because that interactive stuff is the game portion, the part you play.

This is reductionistic as fuck. The semiotic layer of a game has meaning and importance, even in regards to game mechanics. The colors of the enemies in Mario indicate danger, the carpets in Journey indicate flight, etc. Changing up the audio-visual characteristics have a massive impact on how you understand and interpret the game and its mechanics, so changing them up would result in a completely different game. Even Mario.

 

[Guevara]

I hate this trend too.

Some gaming sites should honest-to-god add a "Best Gameplay" category to their year end lists.

 

[RagnarokX]

I'm forgetting the actual term here, but movies and books tell stories that are strictly linear. Also, the audience has to sit down and watch/read the stories, and learn the plot in the order of sequences with exposition determined by the director/author.

Games engage the player by providing a space to interact in. How the games are made to have the player interact in them depends on the game. Also, games tend to have an element of consequence, which can be as simple as getting a game over for not making a jump or kicking a ball and watching it roll somewhere.

That's how I look at it at least.

Books also engage the reader by providing a space to interact. Readers are free to fill in their own details and imagine how vaguely described things happen. Readers can also determine how fast they progress the story. In fact, you can make books and movies that have gameplay. Games like Journey take the gaming component of the gaming medium to a minimum where the line between media blurs; where the medium almost doesn't matter at all. That is why it's not a good example of the medium. Not that it isn't enjoyable, but that it doesn't sufficiently represent the defining component of the medium. It's like nominating a slideshow for best movie.

 

[Chuck Norris]

Journey and TWD may not engage your reflexes in the way a Mario game does, but it is Completely arbitrary to assert that you can strike it off the list of being a Mae for that reason. Just as arbitrary as if I were to argue that Mario is not a game because it doesn't engage my mind, it doesn't engage me with moral and critical decision making, therefore it leaves out a fundamental part of the interactive medium which is the concept of offering choice.