It's really easy to use game creation technology to make something that isn't a game.
After all, computers let you do anything, but games are about preventing you from doing things. Anything that comes with a game that isn't trying to stop you from experiencing it isn't the game, just some multimedia coming along with it.
The nice thing about multimedia experiences like visual novels or these Twine games is that they're better than the sum of their parts. Or to put it another way, all the individual pieces can be awful but people will still enjoy it as long as it engages all their senses at once.
That's why a text adventure game needs good writing, but nobody cares how bad the actual words in a game story are as long as it has a lot of them.
Is it gaming's loss if great literature aren't games? The majority of Twine games have no interactivity at all, which pretty much removes a fundamental thing that defines a game. Same with most visual novels, they are called games too but really aren't. I know I am in a shrinking minority here, but I don't mind if things can be good but not be called games. Some Twine games have interactivity and some don't. Most are bad because it doesn't matter how simple the tool is to use, it still takes work and skill to write something entertaining. I have played some pretty fun Twine games but they really are just like reading a book with punctuated pacing. The reality is that you can do this with plain old books too (you can for instance break a sentence from one page to the next, surprising the reader with a twist, or just a surprise ending, period) but nobody calls them games. Choose your own adventure books are called choose your own adventure books. They all have more interactivity than most Twine games.
What I find really interesting is that so many of the same people that want games and interactive media criticism to be taken seriously get so massively bent out of shape when you actually, you know, participate in that and criticize what they're asserting (I am talking about critics and game journalists here, there are ludic studies that are academically sound and subject themselves to confrontational challenge.) If you push the issue it turns into a meta argument about who gets to call what a game, which is a legitimate question but at the end of the day a bunch of serious game journalists and game forum moderators call Depression Quest a game and I get shunned for disagreeing so I don't totally take their underdog posturing seriously and consider its invocation to usually be dishonest. Part of being taken seriously is being able to defend claims rather than just attacking the person contradicting you.
Anyway, here is a Twine game that I really enjoyed, it even has an anti-gamergate story: http://storycade.com/twine-quings-quest-vii-death-videogames... It was part of "Ruin Jam 2014", a game jam whose name plays on the claim that "SJWs are trying to ruin gaming."
Your premise requires an invalidation of modes of interactivity as meaningful. To transpose Twine works into a book is actually a considerable adaptation in many cases, because the form of discovery in Twine requires clicking hyperlinks and watching text appear or disappear - not turning pages!
What the critical majority is going for in their understanding of "game" is this idea of "novel interactivity" - that the author is primarily interested in the mode of interactivity, vs. communicating through an established mode like a book or song. The status quo that you're pointing to is "systemic interactivity" - the part of "game" that employs rules, player agency, and simulation. The issue with upholding systemic interactivity is that then you can reason your way into a situation where many video games are not games because on a broad level, they reach predetermined outcomes in the service of a designed story. And then you will say that adventure games are not games, puzzle games are not games, etc. There are some designers who take this kind of stance[0], but as you acknowledge, they're in the minority.
The claim, though false, set off a wave of outrage that eventually escalated into a campaign against all the designers and critics who have argued for making gaming culture more inclusive. At their most articulate, the GamerGate crusaders denounce progressive voices in games (whom they derisively call “S.J.W.s,” or “social justice warriors”), claiming that they have needlessly politicized what should be mere entertainment. At their least articulate, they have carried out sustained and vicious harassment of critics, prompting at least three women to flee their homes in the wake of rape and death threats.
I liked the ability of the writer to paint a picture of the games mentioned in a way that evoked at least a bit of the emotions they are intending to stimualte. However, this pargraph should've been left out. I am no expert on this "Gamegate" stuff and I can only rely on what I've read casually, but the media is not a court of law. The journalist does not know whether the allegations are true or not and the second part really lets her bias shine through. The actions of a few should not condemn the entire group and it's unfortunate that some people are being uncivil in their attacks.
I have gamed from childhood through adulthood and never ONCE have I seen a woman be excluded from our groups or treated as inferior. In fact, when the Wii came out, most of the 'Party-style' group games had a lot of couples playing. When I've been to the Final Fantasy Music concerts, I would say it's at least 30-40% women. These are only my anecdotes and I don't work in the gaming industry.
IMHO, a vocal minority is forming the debate and although this article should be informative, I think the journalist loses some moral authority when she reveals her bias in that paragraph.
"I have gamed from childhood through adulthood and never ONCE have I seen a woman be excluded from our groups or treated as inferior. In fact, when the Wii came out, most of the 'Party-style' group games had a lot of couples playing. When I've been to the Final Fantasy Music concerts, I would say it's at least 30-40% women. These are only my anecdotes and I don't work in the gaming industry." - Shinkei, somebody who's had good experiences gaming
"[In response to the question, 'Can I get my Street Fighter without sexual harrassment?'] You can't. You can't because they're one and the same thing. This is a community that's, you know, 15 or 20 years old, and the sexual harassment is part of a culture, and if you remove that from the fighting game community, it's not the fighting game community—it's StarCraft. There's nothing wrong with StarCraft if you enjoy it, and there's nothing wrong with anything about eSports, but why would you want just one flavor of ice cream, you know? There's eSports for people who like eSports, and there's fighting games for people who like spicy food and like to have fun. There's no reason to turn them into the same thing, you know?" - Aris Bakhtanians, FCG commentator and player, somebody who creates bad experiences gaming.
It's wonderful that you haven't seen it, and I'm very happy for you. But people in video gaming communities say pretty gross things about women, and it's been happening for a while. That particular quote is from 2012. Later in the conversation, somebody asked Aris if shouting "Rape that bitch" is an acceptable thing to do during a tournament. Take a moment to consider how you would answer that question.
Aris's answer was "Look, man. What is unacceptable about that? There's nothing unacceptable about that. These are people, we're in America, man, this isn't North Korea. We can say what we want. People get emotional."
But hey, that's great that your friends don't exclude women from your groups. It's too bad more people aren't like you, that's all.
What sense of moral authority does a journalist need when describing Twine and its influence on game development?
Plus, even in what you've quoted, is there anything you can cite as faulty/wrong? The media doesn't have to be a court of law, and I really don't see anything controversial in what was stated there.
Your anecdotes don't really have any relevance when speaking to documented issues within the video game industry (and the broader tech community).
Back to the main article, I don't know that there's really any way to address what's been happening with Twine without covering the controversial buzz around it. (Not to say that the tool itself is controversial, in fact, it's rather mild, but it's become a symbol of larger things) It's become a powerful tool for expression and community creation in ways which have allowed voices and perspectives which previously haven't had much attention in the medium to flourish. By its nature that brings complexity and controversy in, especially at a time when questions of medium-as-identity are stuck between ideals of calcification and expansion.
So to leave it out would be to do a disservice to the topic. But reporting on it blandly in a "Side A says X, side B says Y" manner also does a disservice to the topic, much as that manner of reporting has been criticized when applied to topics such as anthropogenic climate change and evolution. So in the end, I think this article went about the topic in a wise and sensitive manner, shining a bit of sunlight on the fascinating intersection of technology and humanity.
Plus, even in what you've quoted, is there anything you can cite as faulty/wrong? The media doesn't have to be a court of law, and I really don't see anything controversial in what was stated there.
The entire first sentence I quoted is indefensible.
The claim, though false, set off a wave of outrage that eventually escalated into a campaign against all the designers and critics who have argued for making gaming culture more inclusive.
Link to proof that the claim is false? The fact that the journalist has assumed it is false means they have critically appraised some amount of evidence. For a parallel, imagine if the recent coverage of the Bill Cosby allegations was mentioned as "These claims, though false..." Yeah, it would reveal a bias.
As for the second part of that sentence and rest of the paragraph, the journalist admits they have aligned themselves on the side of the alleged victim but then goes on to state the position of the 'other side' in an unflattering light. This is a 'strawman' debate tactic.
I don't disagree with the ideas stated in the article... again, I really don't understand the controversy because these games sound great and I would love to try them out.
I wish someone from the 'other side of this' could come in here and provide some rationale for why they think inclusivity threatens their gaming culture. If I'm in a group of only men, we all act very differently than at the office. Social interactions are 'normal' only in a given context.
In first-person shooters over network, guys are pretty foul-mouthed (understatement of the century) and yet we might not even know each other's names. Do you believe they should be censored? Or do you think you should just not play those games? Because if you believe they should be censored, you've answered the question as to why they are scared. If you would rather play another game, then there is no controversy.
The push for Twine does come from a specific group of academics who wrote papers about it as a tool for pushing their agenda into gaming. This is documented.
But what's really hilarious is that you will not find a single actual review of Depression Quest on the same sites that gave the product and its creator so much press. For one very simple reason. The 'game' is utter crap. The writing is cringeworthy. Everyone knows the reason it got so much coverage was because of connections, self-inflicted scandal and political ideology. Now they're stuck with having pretended that wasn't the case, so they keep running around in circles about it.
This is a thinly veiled attempt to rope the reader into a one-sided narrative about GamerGate. The author, Laura Hudson, has a history of this already. You can google her and find the Wired article or tweets.
If you really want to learn about Twine, just go here: http://twinery.org
