
The Cargo Cult of Game Mechanics - baoyu
http://acko.net/blog/the-cargo-cult-of-game-mechanics/
======
lmm
The author seems to have completely missed the biggest gaming sensation of
recent years - Minecraft is exactly the kind of game he's talking about (so is
Kerbal Space Program). That list of "classics" also seems very parochial -
more like "the best games when I was growing up" than any kind of "all time
greats".

Freedom and choices can be used as artistic elements. I'd cite e.g. _Saya no
Uta_ or _Phantom of Inferno_ as the purest form of this - the interactivity of
these "games" is absolutely minimal from a conventional "gaming" point of
view, but it's vital to the narrative. You couldn't make these as movies,
because the whole point is to make you complicit in what's happening, because
the outcome is a result of your choices.

But not every story has to be about such things. Many of the best-loved gaming
classics - Ocarina of Time, or even FF7 - are those cinematic games, that
maybe have puzzles (almost minigames, really), but where the overarching
narrative is purely linear.

If you can take a movie, or a movie-like narrative, and by sprinkling a few
puzzles or quicktime events turn it into something more engaging, a better way
to tell your story - why the hell not? Why is that not a perfectly valid form?
Criticizing a game for being cinematic seems as pointless as criticizing a
sculpture because it could have been done as a painting.

~~~
nitrogen
I was with you until you mentioned quick time events. I will quit playing any
game that thinks it's more engaging to ask me to break my
keyboard/mouse/controller by rapidly mashing a button for no reason other than
the game designer's laziness. Just say no to quick time.

~~~
gresrun
Quick-time events are just a "Simon Says" mini-game. It is supremely lazy
game-making; not a single gamer I know likes QTEs and I would venture to say
that not a single copy of any game ever was sold because "Oh! This game has
awesome quick-time events; I'm going to buy this game right now!".

~~~
wingerlang
Isn't guitar hero (etc) basically giant QTE games?

~~~
scrollaway
Guitar Hero is a form of twitch-based game
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitch_gameplay](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitch_gameplay)).
Where a QTE would be "hit the F key as many times as you can in 5 seconds",
guitar hero is "hit the F key exactly when it needs to be hit".

I'm generalizing though. Some QTEs are a form of twitch gameplay (in which
they require the player to hit at the perfect time), but twitch gameplay is
not a form of QTE. What does set QTEs apart is that they are not, in fact, the
whole game but are a sudden change of gameplay style which is gone as fast as
it arrived.

------
voyou
The article advocates "building a game that's meant to be played rather than
just reacted to." That sounds right, but, then, it's sufficiently general that
I'm not sure who would disagree with it.

The last paragraph of the article seems to equate "a game that's meant to be
played" with "real sandbox simulation, autonomous agents and language-capable
AI", and that seems like a narrow idea of what "playing" means, one which
equates interactivity (which is the distinguishing feature of games) with
choice or nonlinearity. Providing players with lasting choices is one way in
which you can use interactivity to structure an experience, but it's not the
only one. There's some interesting comments on this in a review by Emily Short
of the IF game "Howling Dogs": [http://emshort.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/if-
comp-2012-howling...](http://emshort.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/if-
comp-2012-howling-dogs-porpentine/)

"Howling Dogs" is something of a masterclass in the different ways games can
use interaction, and I'd recommend people check it out as a supplement to the
vision of gaming put forward in this article.

~~~
DaFranker
Your analysis of the last paragraph of the article seems pretty spot on.
Kudos!

But I'm nitpicky; the distinguishing feature of games isn't interactivity,
otherwise every fun activity with interactivity would be a game, and I'm not
sure conversations are normally included when we speak of "games" in this way.
Games have rules, and often some kind of goal, and other things. The Art of
Game Design (a book by Jesse Schell) kind of roughly approximates it by
describing games as a kind of activity involving problem-solving and fun. If
I'm not taking actions specifically chosen towards achieving a result
("problem-solving"), then I don't feel like I'm playing a game, even if
there's some interactivity.

So I'd say that the key towards quality game experiences lies more in the
region of providing options to the player (actions they can take) that have an
effect on the game world (resulting conversation, successful quicktime scene,
dead goblin, shiny new sword, whatever!) where which option is taken lands the
player in a different distance from various desirable goals ("solution" being
what the player did to get there).

But there's still a lot of fuzzyness, and it's still very hard to even judge
what parts of what games are quality experiences for who and when, and
especially why. You have it completely right that we can't just say it's "real
sandbox simulation, autonomous agents and language-capable AI", and that
lasting choices aren't the One True Way.

------
jules
For me there are 4 properties that make a game great.

Number 1: breadth of options. Games like rollercoaster tycoon are fun because
you have an incredible range of options. There is no linear progression from
start to finish with only a few choice points in between that have little
impact. There are choices everywhere. The opposite is a game like mario, where
there are almost no choices.

Number 2: reflexes. Games like pong and mario are fun because they require
actions at the right timing. Turn based games do not have that.

Number 3: collection. You collect items or upgrades or in game currency that
help you later. Although I have never played it myself, an example is World of
Warcraft. You collect items, money and levels. There is something satisfying
about this. Game designers often exploit it to make a game addictive.

Number 4: human adversaries. Playing against AI or against some in game metric
(e.g. get X amount of people in your rollercoaster park) is not very fun.
Playing against human opponents is much more fun because they are
unpredictable and intelligent. It's not enough to just compete, there has to
be interaction. If you put 2 games of tetris next to each other where the
players compete for the highest score that's not good enough. First person
shooters have this point right. The decisions of the players influence each
other, rather than only competing via a score. Chess & go are the epitome of
this.

The games that come closest to hitting all these points are real time strategy
games. You have a large amount of options. Not as much as in a sandbox game
like rollercoaster tycoon, but still far more than in the average game. You
need reflexes to react to threats. You collect resources, upgrades and units.
Last but not least, you have human opponents who also have a large amount of
options that you need to react to. Not as strategic as chess, but far more so
than your average game.

Sadly rts appears to be a dying genre...

~~~
ekianjo
> Number 3: collection. You collect items or upgrades or in game currency that
> help you later.

You mean you like hoarding? That's one of the most annoying parts of many
games, managing endless inventories and collecting stuff for the purpose of
having more. It distracts you from whatever goal the game might have.

> Number 4: human adversaries. Playing against AI or against some in game
> metric (e.g. get X amount of people in your rollercoaster park) is not very
> fun. Playing against human opponents is much more fun because they are
> unpredictable and intelligent.

Really ? You have a strange conception of gaming then, because your world of
gaming has basically started only with online games. There's tons of great
solo games out there that require absolutely no one else but you to appreciate
their depth. If you subject the definition of great gaming to human
adversaries, then the issue is that you don't always find worthy opponents to
play against, and the necessity to have people to play with. That's why great
solo games never get old while MMORPGs and online games come and go and
disappear forever.

> Sadly rts appears to be a dying genre...

Well RTS have been about micro-management for far too long, and that's just
grinding when it lasts forever. There's not so much you can do about it unless
you make the genre evolve, and it did not evolve much.

~~~
DanBC
> Really ? You have a strange conception of gaming then, because your world of
> gaming has basically started only with online games.

SNES bomberman was fantastic if you played against other people, especially if
you had the 4-player tap.

MicroMachines (Sega megadrive / genesis was probably best version) was
similarly excellent multiplayer but not online games.

GoldenEye, SnoBow Kids, Mario Party, Mario Kart, etc were all excellent games
when played multiplayer.

~~~
ekianjo
So what? there were not the only games out there. I enjoyed playing
Civilization, Colonization, Dune, Half Life, Ultima for hours and hours
without having the need to play with anyone. Human opponents are not necessary
to have great games.

~~~
knome
I'll agree you do not have to have humans to make an interesting play
experience. However, the addition of human opponents creates almost infinite
replayability. I probably had two, maybe three runthroughs of Half Life, with
as many as two hundred hours of gameplay. It was an excellent game, superior
to any other FPS I had played upto that point, and I enjoyed it greatly.
However, I am not sure I would even want to calculate the amount of time I
spent in the Counterstrike mod during the same period even if I could.
Thousands of servers, millions of unique opponents? It was a daily ritual of
my early twenties, often a few hours a night to relax after work.

Yeah, both were great games. But one was a great game that never seemed to
end.

~~~
tragic
I kind of feel the opposite. Yes, with CS there are thousands of people to
play against and so on, but how different are the bouts from one another
really?

I much prefer linear, narrative-driven single-player games, if they're done
well - on the ninth or tenth play through of HL1, Deus Ex, Vampire: Bloodlines
or whatever, I still feel like I'm noticing new details; the world feels more
'alive' to me without thousands of other normal human beings getting in the
way and ruining the suspension of disbelief. It's like going back to a great
film or novel.

It's a matter of taste, of course, but I in no way feel MMO games and such are
more 'advanced', as some people in this thread seem to think. There's a
particularly grouchy film critic over here who likes to ask, "would Citizen
Kane be better in 3D?" Likewise: would FF7 be better with a million 14 year
olds running around telling people they got pwned?

~~~
glogla
You should try Spec Ops: the Line then. It sounds like it would be game
exactly for you.

------
erikb
The tl;dr to me feels like this: The games when I were young were cooler.

He argues against it and brings good arguments for what made the games of his
youth cool, it's still missing the point. Guys ten years older than him won't
enjoy the 90s titles as much, considering them too fancy etc. They would have
also reasonable arguments why the 80s titles were better. The same goes if you
ask a currently 14 year old child about the games he plays. He probably
ignores most (like we do) and can state why he enjoys the ones that are good
in his eyes.

Imho you can spend all your life being sad about missing the old days and
hoping someone revives them, but instead it make you more happy to learn what
makes the great new games great in their own regard. They won't be great in
the same way Fallout 1 was great. They will be great in other regards, and
discovering these can be as entertaining for a 40 year old as it is for a 14
year old guy.

~~~
adwf
I thought the article was more a complaint about how AAA gaming is turning to
cinematics more and more to wow gamers, rather than gameplay.

From one point of view, gameplay is almost the entire _point_ of gaming. But
from another, it's the games with great storytelling that make up my absolute
favourite games of all time (Planescape, Baldurs Gate, etc.)

I think there's a group of designers who realised that you could try and make
a great story with minimal gameplay, hype it sky-high and it'll sell
regardless. This seems to be the current AAA model. Just look at the steady
dumbing down of the Mass Effect series from game to game, or the horrendous
Dragon Age sequel. Mass Effect 2 had some amazing cinematic set pieces, great
voice acting, but some of the most boring gameplay I've ever experienced.
Linear cover shooter, tediously simple rock/paper/scissors mechanics, overly
simple leveling system, etc.

Saying it's just nostalgia is trying to sweep all these concerns under the rug
a bit too much. There are definite differences in emphasis in what designers
are trying to do with the games, eg. whether it has a cinematic/storytelling
focus or a gameplay focus. I think that a lot of older games got the balance
right, simply because they didn't have the capability back then to make it
"all style and no substance".

The issue is that the large publishers are making money by adopting the
hollywood blockbuster model. But every dollar they spend on _marketing_ a
crappy cinematic game, is a dollar they could be spending on _developing_ an
actual decent game to play. If you had an actual decent game made, it would
sell itself and generate enough reputation to sell all the sequels too - just
look at how long the Call of Duty franchise has lasted off the back of
COD4:MW.

This is why I generally avoid AAA titles nowadays, especially ones that have
been advertised and hyped beyond belief (current example: Destiny). I just
know that a couple of months after the launch, genuine reviews will be coming
out about the game and it'll turn out to be disappointing.

~~~
potatolicious
I agree with the gist of your post but I think the author was making a deeper
point with it.

It's not just that storytelling has taken over at the expense of gameplay,
it's that we haven't even really developed our own storytelling capability.

When games tell stories they stop the action, freeze player agency, and go
into full Hollywood mode. Game studios trip all over themselves to excitedly
tell us about how their new technology will allow them Hollywood-like
cinematic camera angles (see: Mass Effect), movie-quality camera effects.
Hell, a lot of games even letterbox the screen to give it a more film-like
quality.

It's one thing to take storytelling expertise and technique from cinema, it's
another to clone it obsessively and completely fail to develop your own
storytelling medium. Imagine if movies were invented only for "filmmakers" to
simply film a book from top-down and a hand turning the pages!

One game I've been enjoying is Kentucky Route Zero - the story I find is
fairly normal, but the way it's presented takes pretty clear inspiration from
traditional stage plays. This is cool - even if it is still derivative, but at
least it's taking another medium and adapting it appropriately to a game.

------
sergiosgc
I, for one, like the chutes and doors that lock behind me, reducing the search
space when I inevitably get lost after missing an essential key needed to
progress. Yes, there's the Internet and walk-throughs and YouTube, but that
kind of defeats the purpose. It means the game complexity has exceeded the fun
threshold.

And I also disagree that linear level design prevents good story building (not
story telling) by the player. Good examples abound, one of them being Mass
Effect, which the article criticized.

~~~
Mithaldu
You (understandably) skipped over the point he was trying to make:

In System Shock 2 there was no need to lock anything behind you. The world you
were in was built small enough and diverse enough that it remained in your
mind as you traversed it. You weren't just going through anonymous tunnels,
but exploring a space ship where you always had at least a rough idea of where
you were.

Mass Effect 3 has a gigantic world, and has you enter, again and again,
dungeons that simply start out as holes in the ground with little guidance for
the player as to how they're structured, built with repetitive (though high-
detail) 3d assets and textures, thus making it _necessary_ to lock things
behind you, since there cannot be a reasonable expectation for the player to
keep their bearings.

~~~
angersock
This. A thousand times _this_.

Every bad experience with navigating a level is because of _shitty level
design_. Every bad experience with "I don't have enough health, I don't have
enough ammo" is because of _shitty level design_.

Go back and play _Blood_ , or _Duke Nukem_ , or _Doom_ , and pay careful
attention to the way that the levels are made. It's vastly, vastly different
than the funhouse rides created for modern shooters.

~~~
sergiosgc
Duke Nukem? Doom? If your standard for good level design is Duke Nukem, then
the conversation is over, with the conclusion that we have different quality
standards.

I played Duke Nukem as a teen, with truckloads of time on my hands. While fun,
the game requires teen-levels of free time to get unstuck here and there.
Nowadays I would definitely not spend the time I did.

Make a level big enough and people will get lost. Different people will get
lost in different points. So, the solution is to either make smaller levels or
to lock out areas. Even Fallout, a master piece for these games, closes out
areas in critical puzzle points so it can reduce search space.

------
cwyers
I feel like this article suffers a lot from multiple rant syndrome, which is
what happens when you get partway through a rant and are so locked into full-
on rant mode that every time you mention something that pisses you off you go
off on a siderant about it. I'm only about 80% sure which of his rants is the
one that embodies his main point.

------
protonfish
I think the desire to make games "open-ended" is inherently flawed (if you
also want players to enjoy themselves.) The more complex and unpredictable a
game becomes, the more difficult it is to balance. A certain (probably small)
number of paths will be gravitated to leaving most stories unexplored and
ending up equivalent to a linear story line (with a lot more work.) One way to
attempt to fix this is to create multiple balanced paths (essentially a
"choose your own adventure.") This can be brute-forced by adding more and more
optional story lines, but in the end it is just many linear stories which is
functional equivalent to selecting from different games to play.

It is fun to think about creating a virtual world that is as rich and complex
as the real one, but we already live in a reality that often sucks so hard we
want to retreat into fiction. Stories with minor interactive components are a
fine genre (if well done and compelling) as are puzzle and action games. The
fact that they are different than reality is their primary feature, not a
flaw.

~~~
DaFranker
I think you're restricting your thinking to a certain type of games and a
certain subtype of story.

X-Com games are a common example of "open" games. The "story line" is single,
of course, so if you're only talking about story they're very linear. However,
how you get through is much more up to you. It doesn't force you down the
right side of the bunker and require you to throw a grenade inside before you
can proceed in the story; X-Com puts aliens in the world, and gives you some
tools and options to fight them, and whenever something particular happens,
story also happens (for a simple example: you lose all your forces and bases,
the aliens take over the world! Game Over)

The desire to make games that are open is clearly not "inherently flawed";
Risk is a very open-ended game, yet I've never heard of anyone complaining
that the way it divides the story into branching paths just boils it down to
choosing the best two or three storylines.

~~~
protonfish
Your definition of "open-ended" is very, um, open ended? If Risk is an open-
ended game then so are all multiplayer games. X-Com (which are great games by
the way - not criticizing) does not go too far beyond a basic turn-based
strategy game which is basically chess puzzles with upgradable pieces
decorated with an alien invasion theme. It has a decent random level
generator, but I don't believe it is enough to qualify it what I think most
people would term "open-ended."

~~~
angersock
Just to be clear, are you referring to the original XCOM, or the new ones?
There's a lot of difference.

~~~
DaFranker
Ah, context. I used "X-Com" in a deliberate typographical attempt to exclude
"XCOM" from the conversation.

------
eswat
Good article and pretty timely with the release of Destiny, which suffers
greatly from the issues mentioned here: masking addictive random-number-
generator gameplay and lackluster storytelling with great visuals and promises
that this is just the foundation and the game will become much better with
DLC. Many things that Bungie had been famous for doing, such as great story
telling and smart AI, were completely absent with this game.

And they made $500 million on the first day despite this…

------
Cakez0r
> For a while, there was a really good match between the complexity of the
> game world and the way it was represented, and I don't think it's a
> coincidence that this window is where we find many beloved gaming classics.

I thought this point was very insightful, and not one that I'd considered
before.

~~~
mcphage
I don't think it's necessarily true, though. I think the games he lists are
beloved gaming classics because they were the good games out when he was a
child. The games I would list as beloved gaming classics are a few years
older; others may list games older still, or newer. Every period of time had
gaming classics—even now.

------
gabzuka
OT, but the root site ([http://acko.net/](http://acko.net/)) has some great
web animation work

~~~
Jare
He is the author of some of the most beautiful presentations on mathematics
and computer graphics ever created. Explore the entire site and enjoy.

~~~
dvhh
And he's also the master behind the (subjectively) most beautiful winamp
visualizations

~~~
sokoloff
My friends whiled away many an hour with his work projected onto the wall of
my apartment.

I had the chance for that pleasant walk down memory lane because of your
comment, so thanks!

------
Paul_S
I violently agree with the author.

I have something to add specific to competitive FPSs (or any other multiplayer
game with a player results table) like Quake and UT. It's my personal measure
of whether an online FPS is any good and there's a distinct difference and
it's testable (somewhat objectively if you get many people to do this).

1\. Play the game without any prior knowledge - just launch the game and play
(obviously, look up the controls first).

Good FPS: you end up bottom of the table with negative points having killed
almost no one and probably dying from environmental hazards. In team games
your own team is likely to vote-kick you.

Bad FPS: you end up middle of the table and have managed to kill people from
all over the table.

2\. Play the game after putting in an hour.

Good FPS: you started contributing to the team effort and whilst still near
the bottom you get in some kills. You know all the mechanics and none of the
high level strategies.

Bad FPS: you finish the game at random positions of the table, even near the
top. You don't know all the mechanics.

3\. Play the game after putting in 10 hours.

Good FPS: you consistently finish in the middle or higher up - but the point
is your position is stable. People playing for the first time pose no threat
to you.

Bad FPS: you're still all over the place, sometimes at the top other times at
the bottom and you sometimes get killed by people who are playing the game for
the first time.

The reason it ties in to OP is that this used to be the norm in FPS games, now
accessibility is king.

~~~
erikb
And why did you choose such method to measure a good FPS?

~~~
Paul_S
This is my attempt to try and find a common characteristic among fps games I
enjoy and trying to make it testable. A good game rewards skill and has little
randomness to it. A bad game lets you feel awesome regardless of your skill
which means you get less pleasure from getting better. Quake vs Peggle.

~~~
erikb
I argued the same way about 10 years ago! I feel you! Nowadays I have
developed different goals. Because my job and daily life offer enough
opportunity to grind my skills. Therefore games that don't require me to get
better for enjoying them became more interesting to me.

~~~
Paul_S
It's a similar argument to: I have very little time so I can't afford to read
a good book and can only afford the instant gratification of twitter (or
insert your favourite poison here). Also, I'm a grumpy old software engineer,
I'm not you 10 years ago, I'm you in 10 years' time.

~~~
erikb
Is it really a similar argument? To some degree I really go the path you are
describing. When playing a game I really choose the fast gratification on
purpose. Because that's what I decided gaming is for my life. But that's not
really the point I'm trying to make.

I can get better at playing the game, or I can get better at speaking
English/Chinese in the same time slot. A day only has 24 hours. So I decide to
prefer one over the other. It's simply that improving my coding or language
skills is more important to me.

~~~
Paul_S
Or you could help out at a charity.

On one hand you imply that playing games is a waste of time compared to
learning Chinese on the other hand you say you prefer your games shallow.

You can spend the same amount of time playing a good game or a bad game. The
difference is with a good one you have to stick with the same one for longer,
with the shallow ones it's a different one every week which I guess is what
the publisher would've liked too.

Anyway, you like what you like - I feel somewhat stupid for arguing about
preferences - wasn't my intention at the outset. I was just saying this is
something that got lost along the way in the same way as in the genres the
article talks about.

~~~
erikb
As long as you interpret things into my comments that I didn't say we won't
get any further in that discussion.

Maybe it's because the discussion not being about different preference but
about the existence of different preferences. "A good game" is a game with
higher quality than others. A game can be "shallow" and good (at least
according to what I assume would be your definition of shallow)! I'd argue
there is even depth without the requirement for anything but basic skills.
There are even people (I'm not one of them) who consider games like
Counterstrike, Starcraft or LOL shallow because they _only_ focus on skill and
nothing else to offer.

Btw there isn't even a discussion if you just say "I like hard games" instead
of "games are bad if they don't require skill". Quality is not preference. And
we are basically done.

------
Osmium
"but they lack lasting power once you _stop_ playing."

This sounds like a good litmus test for me. If you're still thinking about a
game many months after you finish it, then it's probably something more than a
mere diversion. In this sense, perhaps, the best game reviews should be
retrospective, rather than reactionary on the day of release.

~~~
agentultra
This is the essential difference between amusement and art for me. I may have
read Fahrenheit 451 years ago but it altered the way I think. It gave me new
faculties for relating to and judging new experiences and ideas.

The closest a _game_ has come to that mind-altering experience is _Go_. I've
heard myself relate to and judge new ideas through Go when I say, "... like in
Go..." Or I generate new ideas and ways to express myself by using concepts
developed while playing Go.

We might hear things like, "Life is like that grind in World of Warcraft
except it ends," become common place some day... except with some more
culturally-relevant analog of some future incarnation of what we call an
_MMO_.

But video games are just so darn young as a medium of expression that I don't
think we've reached that level yet.

------
agentultra
Game developers are exploiting game mechanics and human behavior to raise
funds, market, and capitalize on their investments.

Other mediums have had their brush with economy too. Painters once had to
labor under the patronage of certain religious institutions in order to earn
their keep and try to make their art on the side. Writers have always had to
suffer in some level of Dante's hell, specially crafted for writers, in order
to make bread. The poets never made any money and were free.

Can a commercial game developer produce a work of art? Perhaps. We hang those
works of religious patronage in the most esteemed museums in the world today.
Publishers have capitalized on literature before. Music has tried to make it
into a machine. Significant works have been produced even when money has been
involved.

Have video games produced a significant work of art yet? In my opinion, no. A
significant work of art is a psychic program that mutates the human brain that
interprets it. The less variation in the outcome of that mutation amongst a
significant population of individuals the closer it is to expressing some
universal truth of our condition. You can point to a work of Van Gogh, Kafka,
or Mozart and explain its significance. Anyone who has experienced that art
may have some personal interpretation of the experience but the significance
of it remains much the same amongst a very large population of individuals. I
haven't played a _video_ game which has communicated such an idea through my
interaction with it.

Many games have borrowed or stolen ideas from other media in order to express
their authors' intent or idea: but that isn't novel or new to video games as a
medium.

Will video games produce a movement? I think we're seeing some of that. We're
seeing examples of games that show indications that we're developing a
vocabulary capable of expressing ideas and emotions through interaction and
interplay of strategy, choice, and value. However I don't think we've seen our
Mozart or our Kafka -- yet.

Until then... grind on. We just need to keep making them and experimenting.
And I don't think it's valuable to point out that a game is AAA or indie. We
still consider _The Last Supper_ to be a great work of art even though it was
essentially commissioned by the church at the time. The new religion is
Capitalism. In time we may view some of these games today as beautiful.

Though for now it seems like they're mere amusements.

~~~
Pxl_Buzzard
>A significant work of art is a psychic program that mutates the human brain
that interprets it. The less variation in the outcome of that mutation amongst
a significant population of individuals the closer it is to expressing some
universal truth of our condition. You can point to a work of Van Gogh, Kafka,
or Mozart and explain its significance.

I'll make the argument that a large portion of the population experiences the
same mutation because we are far removed from the original works. Society has
come to agree on a set of truths a certain piece portrays. With time being the
primary factor in determining the truth in a work of art, it makes sense why
"classic" games get more attention than modern games. There are likely a
number of significant games that have yet to be labelled and agreed upon as
such.

~~~
agentultra
> There are likely a number of significant games that have yet to be labelled
> and agreed upon as such.

Indeed, I agree! That's why, for me, the indie vs. publisher dichotomy doesn't
make much sense in the long term. I wonder what the artists of the time
thought of commissioned works such as Leonardo's _The Last Supper_. Later
movements were defined by eschewing religious iconography and realism, etc.
Today that painting is revered for various reasons but its significance is
well understood... and perhaps time was the largest contributing factor.

------
verroq
>The role of game mechanics should not be the oppressive tyrant telling you to
fetch and grind and be thankful for your crumbs of XP and DPS as the scenery
blazes past.

That's generally not true at all. It may _seem_ that way, but level systems
are similar to a _proof of work_ scheme. Player puts in some time and receives
some fair reward for his time. Level systems are a way to facilitate this
transaction without invoking pay2win overtones.

~~~
Negitivefrags
That is a pretty cynical view.

Do you think that was the idea when levels were added to classic pen and paper
RPGs like D&D?

Levels are a way to give players choices about how their character develops
over time. The choices they picked as their character levels up make up part
of the story of their character that makes it uniquely yours.

This is why I hate easy respec mechanics that a lot of modern RPGs have. When
you respec your character you destroy it's story. Your level 60 paladin is now
the same as anyone elses level 60 paladin. A blank slate divorced from your
personality. You have broken the illusion that even the very term Role Playing
Game was intended to be about.

In the game I work on, Path of Exile, we have specifically made respec
something that has a cost. The more you want to change your character the more
costly it becomes. Changing your character then becomes part of the story of
how it was created.

~~~
verroq
Maybe I play games differently but I always try and go for the optimal set up
(the min/max)(even if it involves looking it up on the internet).

So theoretically, assuming players are somewhat rational. Then they'd always
go for the optimal set up and most RPG players will end up converging onto the
same optimal stats anyway.

This is where level systems shine, they can make the path to the optimal set
up extremely painful, but players will still grind for it, since it's the
optimal (and players like to be optimal).

~~~
DanBC
That's one way to play a game.

But sometimes people like role playing an actual character, not just grinding
to get 'best' character. As an example there are plenty of suggested SPECIAL
setups for Fallout3.

~~~
JetSpiegel
The first Fallouts had low-Intelligence characters. It makes most responses
"Uhh?", and everyone responds accordingly.

~~~
kazagistar
Except the other low intelligence characters, with whom you have some
extensive and enlightened conversations.

One of my favorite twists on mechanics ever.

~~~
JetSpiegel
I didn't remember that. Time to replay Fallout...

~~~
angersock
Fallout 2, chat with Tor.

------
spydum
I think the indie crowd is actively working against these game mechanics. A
great example:
[http://fullbright.company/gonehome/](http://fullbright.company/gonehome/)

One of the main founders of the company is an incredibly bright guy named
Steve. He made an interesting wager many years ago:
[http://www.fullbrightdesign.com/2008/02/wager.html](http://www.fullbrightdesign.com/2008/02/wager.html)

Seems he's now out to prove it false, and making good progress.

~~~
ekianjo
Gone Home is not really a game, though. And it was not particularly well
received either. Not sure what you are trying to demonstrate here.

~~~
jere
Ah, the perennial _not a game_ argument. In response to an article that claims
that Kickstarter and Twitter are video games.

You're welcome to that first opinion, but not the latter:
[http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/gone-
home](http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/gone-home)

~~~
ekianjo
> You're welcome to that first opinion, but not the latter:
> [http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/gone-
> home](http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/gone-home)

I like it when people directly link something that disapprove their saying.
User Score: 5.4. And yeah, I don't care about "professional game journalists"
in a world where everyone can actually provide their opinion on a game, and
when we know the practices of the people who are paid to do that kind of job.

~~~
jcromartie
I find that user scores are plagued by polarized fanboy mob action. Users will
rally to flood places like Metacritic with bad reviews to punish developers
that they don't like for personal (or herd) reasons.

Virtually all of the negative user reviews for Gone Home demonstrate the "Gone
Home is not a game" meme. These are not reviews from people who think for
themselves and engage in actual criticism. These are the reviews of people who
are mad because the "gamer" milieu tells them they should be mad about Gone
Home.

It's the same thing as when people ding Fez because "Phil Fish is an asshole."
Or they write off Minecraft because "Notch was lucky."

~~~
watwut
Maybe, just maybe those people brought Gone Home expecting a game by the old
definition and were disappointed? The condescension towards actual gamers is
getting more and more irritating. It is not users fault when he does not like
the product.

I found user reviews more useful the professional when deciding what to buy.
Professionals tend not to tell me what I need to know to decide and tend to
like games I do not.

~~~
ohgodgamergate
You might not be aware of this, but (for some reason I don't fully understand)
_Gone Home_ became a target of the gamergate folk. This is definitely a case
where I wouldn't trust user reviews, because there _really was_ an army of
trolls out to get the game.

~~~
watwut
Nonsense. Gone home had user score 5.4 in January[1] 5.3 in February[2] and
then climbed back up to 5.4 and kept it till now. First #gamergate tweet ever
happened in August 28.8.2014 [3].

So, if the gone home is target, #gamergate activity hardly budged its score.

[1]
[http://web.archive.org/web/20140122201259/http://www.metacri...](http://web.archive.org/web/20140122201259/http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/gone-
home)

[2]
[http://web.archive.org/web/20140213065923/http://www.metacri...](http://web.archive.org/web/20140213065923/http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/gone-
home)

[3]
[http://topsy.com/analytics?q1=gamergate&via=Topsy](http://topsy.com/analytics?q1=gamergate&via=Topsy)

------
aniijbod
It seems to me that if there was ever anything in the cannon of collective
behaviour which didn't seem to the participants to be a game, but nonetheless
actually happened to have some of the most uncannily engaging 'game mechanics'
ever to grace a non-game, it is that decidedly odd phenomenon that is the
cargo cult.

------
CmonDev
Making an issue

"...in a market that moves very fast, saturated with product..."

even worse

"...there has been a counterpoint: the wave of DRM-free indies..."

Look at Steam Greenlight.

------
Havvy
Overall good article and food for thought, but the last paragraph is a non-
sequiter compared to the paragraphs that came before it.

------
rwallace
I've seen this article template rerun any number of times over the last couple
of decades.

"Why don't we enjoy the video games of today as much as those we played when
we were twelve years old? It's because the video games of these decadent times
lack [insert whatever the particular author's imagination can come up with by
way of special sauce whose secret has been lost]."

Sorry, no. It's because we're not twelve years old anymore.

