Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 70 of 70
  1. #61
    Activated Node BrothaBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    69
    You know this genre tho not my taste, would be neat as hell with an orwellian twist to it, or a Lovecraft theme.

  2. #62
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus soldant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    4,342
    Quote Originally Posted by deano2099 View Post
    No, the first definition is a correct definition. So is the second one. And the third one. I'm not entirely sure what you point was. You were using the third definition, someone else was using the first definition, they're both valid. They're slightly different things, sure, but they're both defined as a 'game'. You can't say that a potato isn't a vegetable because one of the definitions of vegetable is "a person in a vegetative state" and a potato doesn't fit that.
    In this instance "activity or pastime" does not adequately cover what we're talking about, there is a more specific (and correct) definition. That was my point. The first definition is clearly intended to be a very general overview. We're discussing similar things and demonstrating how they are similar to each other. The third definition more clearly outlines what constitutes a game.

    Quote Originally Posted by deano2099
    It's very different to what we'd traditionally consider a game to be, but y'know, it's the closest word we have right now.

    How about "interactive art"? It'd be bad interactive art, but I'm sure Tale of Tales is already working on on a similar idea if they haven't already seen this and stolen it. Also it'll be $15 on release.

  3. #63
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,427
    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    How about "interactive art"?
    Except that's already a thing. And Dear Esther is closer to what you see as a videogame than it is to an interactive art installation by a long way.

  4. #64
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus soldant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    4,342
    Quote Originally Posted by deano2099 View Post
    Except that's already a thing. And Dear Esther is closer to what you see as a videogame than it is to an interactive art installation by a long way.
    Wait, because something is "already a thing", we can't include something else as part of it? Awesome! Video games are already a thing, therefore Dear Esther isn't a video game. Don't reply to that, it's sarcasm.

    Interactive art requires the "viewer" or whatever to interact with it to appreciate it, or to get across its point. I guess Dear Esther would fit that bill but that'd mean that the interactivity is important, which I don't totally think it is because watching a "Let's Play" is about the same as "playing" Dear Esther. But I guess I'm approaching that from a gameplay perspective, which it lacks. From an interactive art perspective I guess the distinction is less important.

  5. #65
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,427
    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    Wait, because something is "already a thing", we can't include something else as part of it? Awesome! Video games are already a thing, therefore Dear Esther isn't a video game. Don't reply to that, it's sarcasm.
    Video games are a thing. Interactive art is a thing. Dear Esther doesn't fit the traditional definition of either. So we either have to come up with a new word or we use whichever it's closest to. The definition of interactive art would have to be stretched a hell of a lot further to fit it in than that of videogames.

    Watching a "Let's Play" is about the same as "playing" Dear Esther.
    You keep saying that but have you actually tried doing both?

  6. #66
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus soldant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    4,342
    Quote Originally Posted by deano2099 View Post
    The definition of interactive art would have to be stretched a hell of a lot further to fit it in than that of videogames.
    As opposed to what, completely re-imaging the idea of gameplay so that it includes something that clearly isn't gameplay? I think you're just deciding it's easier to call it a game because it's on the PC.

  7. #67
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,427
    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    I think you're just deciding it's easier to call it a game because it's on the PC.
    That's a big factor yes. There's a taxonomy issue here. If we want "game" to be up there as a medium along with "film", "book" and "show" then the definition has to be wider. Because a gritty dramatic film is nothing like a documentary. An autobiography is nothing like a fiction novel.

    Where your definition of game sits is at the level below those mediums: you equate 'game' with 'novel', 'biography', 'documentary', etc.

    I guess we could have 'interactive entertainment' as the broader title, but it's clunky, and everyone seems to want to stick with 'game' anyway.

  8. #68
    Lesser Hivemind Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    888
    The important thing is not whether it's a 'game' or not but if you enjoy it for what it is.

    I bought the game when it came out full price, I enjoyed it a lot and have not regretted buying it. Everything else is irrelevant and/or academic.

  9. #69
    Played it through last night.
    Needs exploding barrels.

    It was great. A poetic experience mixing genres deftly to tell a moving story. I cried a bit.

  10. #70
    Activated Node
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    watching a "Let's Play" is about the same as "playing" Dear Esther. But I guess I'm approaching that from a gameplay perspective, which it lacks.
    I agree that the gameplay is limited to exploration. But I find watching a "Let's Play" and playing Dear Esther to be very different - much like watching a football game is very different from actually playing football.

    In one you're a passive participant, and in the other you're active and interacting. Having control of your exploration makes a difference - you're exploring the mystery yourself rather than watching someone else explore it. For example, my friend had a different experience than I did playing the game - he saw something that I didn't, and I noticed things that he missed.

    And aren't most games interactive art? I mean, they're layers of art upon art, that you're interacting with.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •