this question has come up a lot lately
how do we define game is this really a
game what makes something a game or not
a game we're asked this question all the
time but you know I think it's the wrong
question it's a distraction it does
nothing but limit us it's as if we
started to ask well is this really
poetry when poets moved away from rigid
meter or rhyming couplets if something
adds to our experience let it if
something lets us explore new things
then why does it matter how we define it
especially if the definition doesn't
help us make better art but take for
example the Stanley parable it's
certainly an interactive experience but
is it a game who cares it was something
that added to my life would saying it
does or doesn't qualify as a game make
it any better
do I want to limit people's creativity
by telling them the thing they made
wasn't the game what good would that do
at best it keeps us from getting some
interesting work at worst it stifles
whole avenues of exploration and yes the
focus on this topic bothers me I've seen
hundreds of pages on the internet
devoted to arguing this issue I've seen
thousands of hours of academic
discussion devoted to this problem when
in the end it's the intellectual version
of chasing your own tail in studies of
Zen Buddhism you find that questions can
be answered not only with yes and no but
also with the character mu this
character means the question is wrong
and it's how I feel about this whole
discussion usually the question of what
is a game is used as a smokescreen by
those who are afraid of less traditional
experiences and want to discourage
experiments like device 6 or loneliness
that way does not live progress there's
no gain in the fear of the new there's
no benefit in dividing our community
between real gamers and not real gamers
and yet that's all I see this discussion
really doing most of the time all I see
is this question used by traditional
hardcore players to divide experiences
that don't lie within the realm of what
we traditionally have grown up with to
dismiss experiences where you don't jump
or shoot as not real games but they
aren't the only ones more and more
frequently I've also seen this flipped
around and seen people within our
community of people who make games for a
living people who make experiences to be
played through sneering at me or games
where you just jump and shoot the type
of experience we all grow up with and
you know most of us love artistic
experiences and Triple A blockbusters
will be better for learning from each
other rather
from drawing this artificial divide
that's why I don't like talking about
what is a game I don't feel like it's an
honest discussion I don't think we do it
to make our medium better we just bring
it up time and again to justify a
viewpoint or because we're afraid of
change the heck I don't even use the
term game as much as I used to James
doesn't use the term much at all he's
begun to prefer interactive experiences
because the only criterion for an
interactive experience is that the
interactor has some choice that they get
some volition within the experience
rather than being passively perceptive
because to me that's what's at the core
of the medium that's what separates us
from books and film and television if
there's no volition involved we're just
recreating those other media with
fancier tech and there's no value
judgment there using technology to push
the boundaries of any art as a great and
interesting thing the only reason I even
have that definition at all is because I
think it actually helps us understand
the most powerful aspect of the medium
the thing that allows us to examine the
human experience in ways that other
media may not be able to and to me
volition is simply in the ability to
fundamentally change an experience not
in the depth of its systems or mechanics
loneliness is a great example because it
has very little in terms of deep
mechanical play but I've seen so many
players play that game in different ways
I've seen people charge into crowds
playing the punk rock outcasts who's not
going to put up with people not dealing
with him I've seen people avoiding all
the crowds deciding it's better not to
disturb a world that doesn't want you or
to no longer expose themselves to the
heard of rejection I've seen people
approach groups very slowly thinking
that if they're just gentle enough about
it someone will accept them that's
volition that's an interactive
experience
that's the player fundamentally changing
their character and how the story plays
out even though in terms of mechanical
choice the choices are all very simple
is reality by this definition and
interactive experience yeah absolutely
it's why we can learn so much and make
so much transference from our virtual
interactive experiences I'll bet
everyone watching this has gained some
insight into themselves or how to go
about their life from an interactive
experience they played maybe its
leadership skills or how to work in a
team
maybe it's vocabulary or mathematics
maybe it's something fundamental about
who you are but I'll wager every one of
you has better understood how to
approach some problem or make some
decision through their encounter inside
a virtual interactive experience it's
why we can't limit ourselves with some
divisive definition of game it makes our
art worse it makes our play worse it
splits our community and it makes us
miss just how much overlap there is
between the lives we walk through every
day and our experience isn't some
simulated
there's no reason for that the question
what is a game is disingenuous and
fundamentally flawed it serves mostly as
a way for people to dismiss or argue
away the type of experiences they may
not personally favor it limits us it
keeps us from achieving as much as we
could with this medium so what is a game
whatever you want it to be see you next
week
you