Dinofarm Podcast Episode 3 – News and Listener Questions

Hey everyone!  It’s time for Episode 3 of the Dinofarm Podcast, where we talk about a few articles that we’ve read and other news items, as well as take some listener questions.  It’s a bit of a shorter episode, at about 41 minutes, due to some technical issues we had at the end.

 

In this episode we talk about:

Jonathan Blow’s recently CBS News bit

Warren Spector’s recent words on Eurogamer

Sebastien Lambottin’s article on Gamasutra about designing “combat” systems

“Craftsmanship Vs. Art – What are Games” on Gamasutra

As well as take quite a few user questions.  Enjoy!

Direct Download Here!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Posted on 08/17/2012 by keithburgun. This entry was posted in Podcast and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Bret

    I’m sure you guys notice that you have to define your use of the word ‘game’ in almost every podcast and/or article. Lots of times, when you don’t define it for everyone – you have to put it in the comments to avoid confusion. I’m not saying that the definition that you guys have isn’t helpful in some way to you, but when you are wondering whether or not someone is using the word ‘game’ in a totally normal and traditional context – then please – don’t wonder. If you are thinking people asking you questions are using your own definitions of ‘game’, then why? I’m not saying people won’t catch on – but no, your definition is not ‘the’ definition. This is a constant frustration with reading your blogs and listening to pod casts.—————Also, I think you guys are underestimating how much people want simulated experiences. I think examples like, “Throwing away 60$ Oblivion for 60$ Skyrim” are irrelevant. You guys can only talk about these kinds of games for so long. Games like Skyrim are only in your purview because you don’t like that people define them as video games. You guys don’t even qualify them as video games when you define them your own terms. You say that Skyrim isn’t a game, and that it ‘is’ a fantasy simulator. And yet, even though it can’t be compared to Auro because it is a different type of thing entirely, it continues to be something to criticize. So why does it even have a bearing on Auro or your definition of ‘game’?

    • Blake

      There is a quote from Keith’s book that sums it up beautifully, and I’ll encourage him to post it for our podcasts, for the sake of clarity.

      That’s a good point about Auro/Skyrim. I guess what I can say is, I would have less criticism towards it if I believed BETHESDA knew what they were doing in terms of what kind of interactive system they were trying to make.

      Traditionally, games should be made in order for players to pursue mastery. The system must be deep enough to be unsolvable, but clear enough so that the pursuit of mastery is clear, but achieving it is theoretically impossible. This is an extremely difficult and delicate art form, and I am personally disgruntled at companies like bethesdas’ complete disregard for my time or intelligence.

      The point is, if bethesda calls their software a game I’m going to judge it based on a useful, practical criteria for the word “game.” As a game, is fails miserably. As a simulator, it’s completely bogged down by the “game-like” elements bethesda threw in there.

      On the other hand, Auro is very, very different in what it’s trying to achieve, but I will say it also knows what it’s trying to achieve, which is more than I can say for Skyrim.

      Thank you very, very much for listening.

    • http://www.dinofarmgames.com keithburgun

      >when you are wondering whether or not someone is using the word ‘game’ in a totally normal and traditional context – then please – don’t wonder

      Boardgamers are almost always using our definition. It’s really just digital gamers who are confused about it, calling things which are obviously toys games, for instance.

      >Also, I think you guys are underestimating how much people want simulated experiences.

      Totally irrelevant. It’s like saying “you guys underestimate how much people want to listen to a show about motorcycle care”. I believe you that people want simulations really, really badly. That simply has nothing to do with our show.

      I don’t think Skyrim “is” a fantasy simulator. I think it’s somewhat fair to judge it as a game because “what it really is” is totally unclear.

      • Bret

        Boardgamers are almost never using your definition. More to the point, the general gaming public is not using your definition.——–Fantasy simulations have been talked about on your show repeatedly. Totally relevant. You guys bring up simulations again and again, because: in trying to make new useful definitions – Skyrim looks more and more like a simulation. Then you guys are constantly talking out of both sides of your mouth saying that it should be judged as a game, but it is not a game. Bethesda describes their own project as a game, because they don’t know about your definitions. You’ve used Skyrim as a whipping boy a lot, but you still say that ‘what it is’ is unclear. It is clearly a simulation.

        • Padi

          You’re right, Bret- no one in the general public or board game world uses their definitions, which is why no one ever raises eyebrows at me when I tell them my favorite board games are 1000 Piece Jigsaw Puzzle of Snoopy, Choose Your Own Adventure Series: Animorphs Edition, Box of K*nex, and A Yo-yo.

        • http://www.dinofarmgames.com keithburgun

          I think Padi adequately stated the flaw in your argument. Everyone except for those in digital entertainment know how to tell a toy from a game, a puzzle from a game, a choose-your-own-adventure book from a game.

          • Bret

            Actually it’s funny, because Padi is basically describing what the regular joe would define game as. But even he is wrong. If you don’t believe me, look up the common definitions of game. You guys keep wondering what the average board gamer, the average digital gamer, or the general public would define game as – but you NEVER bring up the actual dictionary definition. Only people like you and other designers even come close to needing a more elaborate definition. Go ahead and look up wikipedia definitions too – only the intellectuals are proposing similar definitions. But it still stands that the regular joe shmoe would define a game as a pastime, a form of play, or even a form of play with rules. The thing is, i know you have done this before – looked up common definitions to improve your own. You probably question them every day. But why are you thinking that people should naturally ascribe to your definitions when considering the definitions that already exist? For example – I bet that 1000 piece jigsaw-puzzle actually meets most requirements of the traditional definition of game. Because of that, I believe both of your arguments miss the point entirely. My point, still is: don’t assume the general public or even the general board gamer knows your true definition of the word game. You guys really need to reinforce these ‘new philosophies’, by doing exactly what Blake suggested. And I am still looking forward to hearing what quote he was talking about.

            • http://www.dinofarmgames.com keithburgun

              Third definition from here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/game

              “a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators. ”

              Quite close. We are refining a small amount for a specific, productive reason.

              And by the way, we are not saying that people who use the other definition of game are wrong. We are both right. Words have many definitions.

              • Bret

                For the sake of argument I’m going to agree that the third definition is close to yours. I’m saying that the first definition in that list of definitions will be the one that you should expect from the average everyday person. And the reason to keep this in mind is to avoid confusion with your readers.

                • http://www.dinofarmgames.com keithburgun

                  Yes, I’m aware. We’ll work on talking about our definition more in future podcasts.

      • pkt-zer0

        “Boardgamers are almost always using our definition. It’s really just digital gamers who are confused about it, calling things which are obviously toys games, for instance.”

        Ever consider that the fundamental differences between board games and digital games might have something to do with that?

        Also, I play board games as well, and I think your definitions still make very little sense, except in a select few circumstances.

        • Blake

          Could you demonstrate this “fundamental difference” between board games and video games? Is there this same fundamental difference between video games and athletic games like tennis? What about the fundamental difference between call of duty and real life paintball? The fundamental difference between super mario brothers and an obstacle course like in “ninja warrior?” A boxing match vs. street fighter? Puerto Rico the boardgame vs. Puerto rico the digital boardgame?

          To us, design is design. We have useful, practical definitions for what are very different types of interactive systems. Bare interactive systems, puzzles, contests, and games. There are principles which can be applied to these interactive systems regardless of the medium on which they’re made. The principles that make combat on atari a good game are the same principles that make tennis a good game. The same principles that make portal a good puzzle are the same that make a good riddle. The same principles that make a good contest like speed runs work, make guitar hero work.

          Design is design. So I ask again, what is the “fundamental difference” between board games and video games other than one being made of cardboard and the other made of pixels?

        • http://www.dinofarmgames.com keithburgun

          >Ever consider that the fundamental differences between board games and digital games might have something to do with that?

          I assume that in that sentence you mean “games” not in our definition, because with our definition, I don’t think there are any fundamental ones, just practical ones.

          If you aren’t using our definition, then the word you’re using is so broad that we basically have to consider ANY and ALL differences between the two mediums.

        • Nahil

          THAT’S the problem pkt-zer0! why should there exist a fundamental difference between digital games and board games? And if there does exist a fundamental difference, why do we call them both games, and why do we classify them by the tools we use to play the games? digital vs. board? What does that tell me about the games I’m playing? That fundamental difference is exactly what Keith and Blake are trying point out. If we don’t come up with better vocabulary, how will games and simulations get anywhere? Also, I don’t understand how the definitions don’t make sense for the majority of boardgames. Aren’t most board games competitions of ambiguous decision making? Except for kids games, almost all board games fit this definition. What kind of board games do you usually play?

        • pkt-zer0

          Heh, on one hand, there’s no difference, on the other, there are too many. The important part is that you get to avoid saying anything specific either way.

          @Blake: There is zero need to repeat the “design is independent of the medium” point, thanks. It’s obviously false in the absolute sense, and even in practical terms, it’s not hard to come up with counter-examples (I can provide some if you can’t come up with any). By the way, obsessing over abstractions and refusing to deal with concretions is a good way to earn the “idea guy” label instead of “game designer”.

          @Keith: The point was to engage your think-engines and see which of those differences would be relevant. Here’s some examples to help you out: the rules for board games are transparent, and can be processed by human brains. Digital games aren’t restricted by that, the system can be a black box, and work faster with more data than a human can process. This is orthogonal to your taxonomy, doesn’t prevent a game from being a CADEMA (“game” in the “Contest of Ambiguous DEcision MAking” sense), but makes classification harder and more ambiguous (which is how you get to the “game that breaks down into a puzzle” and “half game, half memorization puzzle, half execution puzzle” nonsense, I suppose).

          As a side note, in board gamer circles, I’ve seen “dexterity game” used, “execution puzzle”, not really.

          • Nahil

            Your response to Blake is flat out misguided and wrong. Design is itself its own discipline, and abstraction is a very important tool. If you don’t agree, then our differences may be too deeply rooted to make any progress here.
            Your response to Keith isn’t very meaningful. You described the capabilities of different hardware. What does that have to do with the definition of a game? We already knew there was different hardware involved- the systems themselves don’t have to reflect the full capabilities of the hardware if it doesn’t apply.
            Also, your attitude isn’t actually beneficial to any sort of argument, in case you weren’t aware. Doing your best to piss someone off by being as sarcastic as possible isn’t actually a good strategy.
            Also, Also, CADEMA sounds kinda cool.

          • http://www.dinofarmgames.com keithburgun

            I agree that the actual materials of “digital software” and “cardboard” are different, but the fact that you’re still getting confused between those and “the game” is strange at this point in the conversation.

            Digital software is of course different than cardboard “software”. Digital games, however, are not different than cardboard games, at the fundamental level.

            Are different things possible in digital games because of the software? Yes. But the fundamentals of what a digital game even is are the same. It’s still a contest of ambiguous decision making (or even by the common VG definition, it’s the same).

            • pkt-zer0

              @Keith: I’m not seeing the confusion. How is opacity and processability of the rules a property of the hardware, and not of “the game”?

              @Nahil: My point wasn’t that “abstraction isn’t important”, just that it isn’t your only tool. It doesn’t go infinitely far, and knowing the limits is important.

              “Also, your attitude isn’t actually beneficial to any sort of argument, in case you weren’t aware. Doing your best to piss someone off by being as sarcastic as possible isn’t actually a good strategy.”

              a) I’ve had arguments with Keith in the past, my disgust at his intellectual dishonesty occasionally spills over into current ones, even if it’s unintended.
              b) Don’t underestimate my powers of sarcasm, I could do a lot worse.

              • Nahil

                -With that in mind, I guess I don’t mind your sarcasm QUITE as much, but I still don’t think it’s effective.
                -Opacity and processabilty of rules define what CAN be done with a system. Therefore: hardware. Hardware is what sets the limitations of a system. None of this defines the actual system. The way the system is actually built defines the system.
                -I’d say both Blake and Keith know that they need to go beyond abstraction… they are in the process of making a game after all. If that’s not application, then I don’t know what is.

  • Bret

    I look forward to hearing the quote. You guys are clearly trying to shake things up, so I think it would be good to keep sending that message. Repeat it often. Make sure people get it. Like politicians have their talking points.————-About Bethesda: I’m not sure if it is productive to assume that either of us know what they are trying to make, but I think it’s a stretch to say they don’t know anything at all (spray n’ pray). I think it would be less of a stretch to think they were just tying to make the next best role-playing game. Every thought after that is trying to improve on what they had previously, and I think that is a valid approach.————Let me just use your comment as an example. “Traditionally, games should be made in order for players to pursue mastery. The system must be deep enough to be unsolvable, but clear enough so that the pursuit of mastery is clear, but achieving it is theoretically impossible. This is an extremely difficult and delicate art form, and I am personally disgruntled at companies like Bethesdas’ complete disregard for my time or intelligence.” This comment is assuming a deep and elaborate definition of game, and I would argue that it is not how the general public understands the word ‘game’, much less the term ‘video game’. And the last sentence actually works under your definition of game, but does not work under your definition of simulation. Skyrim values your time by showing you new and awesome things to explore – and the game is often visually beautiful and cathartic. Just because it isn’t getting right to your next ambiguous decision right away doesn’t mean Bethesda is trying to waste your time. Again, that is only a rule under your definition of game. And, I disagree that the ‘game’ elements bog it down. Simulations should be able to use game elements to simulate something that is complex. It’s one of the reasons a ‘combat system’ is so prevalent in today’s RPGs. It’s hard to imagine an RPG without combat (game within simulation) – people simply ‘like’ the idea of medieval combat. Actually, some people just really like combat… period…————I’ll tell you what I don’t like about Skyrim though. The complexity and visual beauty of the environments itself creates a suspension of disbelief that is totally and completely broken by the NPCs. It’s hard to really get into the game because the AI just isn’t up to snuff. (Which is the reason Warren Spector is saying what he is in the article Keith mentioned.) And I think it shows the real problems with RPGs today aren’t going to be solved with better graphics. It’s going to be solved with improved interaction with NPCs (including monsters). Like – how about a monster with the ability to show mercy and let you run away? What about conversations with NPCs that aren’t scripted and are instead based off of simulated wants and needs of the characters? As you can see, the improvements I want out of RPGs aren’t very ‘game like’. That just goes more towards my point, and why I think it helps to separate ‘game’ and ‘simulation’.————Sorry to be devils advocate sometimes. I hope it adds something to the conversation. And I do enjoy the conversation on this website as well as the passion for games. Keep it up guys.

    • http://www.dinofarmgames.com keithburgun

      I think it’s quite fair to assume that Bethesda is working under the series of assumptions that have developed for “What A Video-Game Is” over the last 25 years.

      > This comment is assuming a deep and elaborate definition of game, and I would argue that it is not how the general public understands the word ‘game’, much less the term ‘video game’.

      It’s really just assuming two things: That Bethesda is clear about what they’re trying to do, and that Bethesda respects its players.

      >Skyrim values your time by showing you new and awesome things to explore – and the game is often visually beautiful and cathartic.

      It really doesn’t do this all that often. Much of the world is very sparse and without anything interesting. Watch someone play. 90% of the time will be taken up by them running straight.

      > It’s hard to really get into the game because the AI just isn’t up to snuff.

      It’s not just that, though. What about all the gamey bullshit, such as RPG loot systems and that ridiculous skill tree and achievements and the BIG GREEN ARROW telling you where to go? And the minimap?

      Believe me, if they were ACTUALLY interested in making a *fantasy simulator*, then even me, as a person who’s not really interested in that type of thing, would have huge respect for it.

      A real fantasy simulator would have no minimap and CERTAINLY no magic green arrow, no achievements, and death would be permanent.

  • Tafkaf

    Dudes, your audio quality still is a mess.

    • http://www.dinofarmgames.com keithburgun

      Is it really that bad? It sounds fine to me… can anyone else weigh in on this? If it’s really an issue I can do something about it, but it’s a big pain.

      • http://nachtfischer.wordpress.com Nachtfischer

        I can’t confirm this. Sounds fine, I can understand everything easily. No problems here. Actually there are podcasts out there with much worse sound quality (yet I can still enjoy listening to them).

      • http://www.transparentseas.net Mitchell Bowman

        It sounds fine to me. The guest from podcast #2 obviously had a crappy mic and was hard to understand, but all three of you guys have sounded perfectly fine.

  • Pingback: Superlicious | Superlevel

  • Erik

    Sebastian(combat article) could have used generic terms to describe all the things in that article, but the guy decided to use direct examples ( call of duty, street fighter, mario, halo) to make it more accessible to readers. I don’t think people need terse academic terms to see the basic pattern he was pointing out. I think he was using “combat” because people pick it up easily, if he had tried to be generic it would sound like some really long obtuse sentence: “contest of ambiguous decisions”. I guess he could have named the article something like “design of games inside virtual simulations”, but that is fucking confusing.

    Why would I buy a new madden game? You guys already said that games like tennis and I assume also American Football are “games”, so at least Madden knows what it is. Its trying to be a simulation of that game and the reason to buy it again is that every version attempts to get closer to that game, yes in graphics, but also in the simulation itself.

    Same thing for Oblivion and Skyrim, each version builds upon the last. There are limitations to what we can actually do tech wise still. Maybe its plain wrong to mix games and simulations, However, I don’t see why you guys are so confused about what that whole thing is about; I think its pretty clear for everybody what they are trying to do: let players live out a fantasy adventure, in the vein of the heroes journey. The simulation is the world / environment etc, the heroes journey then becomes the rpg/game stuff layer that tries to simulate someone going from noob to amazing hero while giving people some leeway to customize. And yes I think everybody can see that a “real life” simulation inherently clashes with a “hero life” simulation, but that is the challenge every fictional work faces (books, movies, simulations).

    The Board game people understand defense is getting pretty lame. Board games are more focused on being games because they just cant simulate life at all, so they don’t even try. Video games can do both, so it becomes a constant fight / balance of which one is more important. I think there is a maybe loony ideal in everybody’s mind that we can somehow do both at the same time.

    What the heck is this unifying theory regarding the criteria to measure the resonant value to humanity ? Would be great to have that one down.

    Lets try to piece it together:

    * regarding music: excitement and emotional elevation ( sounds like J. Blows, Insight )

    transcends culture / generations, so if a game is created in a forest and nobody is there to play it, does the game exist?

    Games are about: “Creative discovery in a creative possibility space” this can only achieved by:
    “Tough ambiguous irreversible decisions in high quality and density”. ( density I assume you meant frequency? )

    I’m not sure the first (creative) has anything to do with the second. Maybe you guys can clarify.

    “There is no such philosophy or criteria in games, no one understands” They don’t think that the mechanisms or rules are the main event. People don’t see the beauty / elegance of these systems. Value = looks like a movie.

    I think people do value and see the beauty and elegance of these mechanisms. People bitch and moan about every little balance change in a wow patch, games like starcraft , street figher, counter strike all are games that are played “pro” and seeing some of the pros playing them, emotes the same “art” of playing chess or tennis. All three are types of games and you could remove the thematic elements and they stand their ground ( rts, fighter, fps). LoL versus DODA, both skins of the same “game”, but countless arguments about the smallest details between them… etc…

    Anyway. Done with my own long rant.

    What happened to open range? Auro sure does seem to be turning into 100 Fights ; ) lol just kidding.

    • http://www.dinofarmgames.com keithburgun

      The question was not “why buy a new madden game”. The question was actually, why buy an OLD – even just two or three year-old – madden game.

      >let players live out a fantasy adventure, in the vein of the heroes journey.

      I don’t think that’s clear. What do achievements have to do with the hero’s journey? Does a “hero” really have a bright green arrow telling him where to go his whole life? If it is indeed trying to be a fantasy simulator, there are far too many game/RPG-like weirdnesses to be very successful at that.

      I’ll let Blake respond to some of your other comments.

  • Erik

    “why buy an OLD – even just two or three year-old – madden game”
    Oops I probably remembered that wrong… Now I have to go back and listen to that again. sigh.

    Well I did remember that wrong, but I think the claim you were trying to make here is confusing as hell. Let me try to make sense of it:
    1) Great Designed Games last forever, they don’t need patches, so you can always play them, hence never need to buy again
    2) Simulations can always be better, so new versions will replace the old ones
    3) because #2 you should only play #1

    Well sometimes I enjoy #2 way more than #1 , #1 sometimes gets stale, oooh you can plan 4 moves ahead, your brain is so much better than mine, oh you are so superior to me, you are so smart, I wish I had your brain juices, you are the lord of everything.

    “I don’t think that’s clear. What do achievements have to do with the hero’s journey? Does a “hero” really have a bright green arrow telling him where to go his whole life? If it is indeed trying to be a fantasy simulator, there are far too many game/RPG-like weirdnesses to be very successful at that.”

    Whats your point ? These details are what? Whats not clear ?

    Heroes seem to know where they are going always, its like they are guided by the gods themselves ( green arrow).
    Achievements are meta hero journeys. Also a cheap and easy way of expanding product that relies on assets, again tech limitations.

    Bethesda is in the business of selling these simulations that try to give you that feeling of being a hero in a fantasy book / movie. A straight up simulation is hard pressed to give you that feeling, so they need to push it with some basic rules / systems to give players a challenge / direction.

  • Nahil

    I think you guys should really stop trying to teach people to use your definition of a game. It’s not really getting anyone anywhere. It’s probably better to just come up with a new name for the type of games you guys like and let other people call their interactive systems “games.” Once you seperate your games into their own genre or style, you’ll be able to have much more progressive conversations on game design. Basically, the argument you should be making is, “We think our types of games are very interesting and more people should consider making them, but if our types of games aren’t your cup of tea, please try to figure out exactly what it is you ARE making, so that you can make it as good as possible.” not, “Those things you guys are making aren’t games, THESE are games!”

    • http://www.dinofarmgames.com keithburgun

      > It’s probably better to just come up with a new name for the type of games you guys like

      It has nothing to do with what we “like”, though. Have you listened to our first episode? We go into what we’re actually talking about, which isn’t at all like what you describe.

      We’re talking about developing objective standards for different types of systems. You’re talking about subjective “preferences”. Totally different topics.

      • pkt-zer0

        See, Keith, this type of weasely argumentation is one of the things you should not be doing, if you intend for people to take you seriously.

        The main point was that you should not hijack the word “game” because it only confuses people – and then you go on to address the point that it doesn’t apply only to games you like. That’s… not good. Don’t do that.
        (By the way, your arbitrary, overly abstract theoretical framework with only the vaguest of actual uses does suspiciously resemble some sort of post-hoc rationalization, that is why this criticism comes up so often.)

        • Blake

          We aren’t “hijacking” a word. We’re using a definition that is pretty well understood in all circles except modern video gaming. We’re using the word because we believe it’s the best word to describe this specific kind of system. It’s actually the opposite of “vague,” or “arbitrary.” It’s easier to accuse it of being pedantic, but we have a distinct reason for making these distinctions.

          At the outermost level you have a bare interactive system. This is simply a system of internally consistent rules that one interacts with. This could apply to legos, a sandbox, or even reality, the laws of physics and gravity. This accounts for most toys and simulators.

          At the next level, you have an interactive system which adds a problem to be solved. It’s worth noting that the solution is written in the interest of being solved. This is a puzzle.(portal, jigsaw puzzles, riddles, and less obviously any single player game with no random content like a level of castlevania or mission in FFT.)

          At the next level, you have an interactive system with a problem which adds competition. This is a contest. If it requires agents competing to measure a skill at solving a problem, it’s a contest.(guitar hero, hot dog eating contest, etc.)

          At the final level, you have an interactive system with a problem and with competition which adds ambiguous decision making. This is a game. Examples include the original rules of tetris, tennis, boxing, poker, and street fighter.

          So you see? what we’re saying is very simple, unambiguous, and I daresay uncontrovertial. Some “video games” which account for all interactive software are in fact digital games, and some are simulators and some are digital contests or puzzles. What we’re saying is that there is a lack of understanding of the fundamental differences between these systems, which lead to these gray-goo hybrids. If anything going on is arbitrary, it’s the design of the modern video game, especially single player video games. These are sort of half baked games mixed with half baked simulators mixed with half baked choose your own adventure novels with a few puzzles thrown in.

          we argue that a better understanding of how fundamentally separate these types of systems are will lead to more focused, refined, and elegantly designed pieces of software. There’s nothing wrong with the possibility of a good hybrid between some of these systems, but it’s pretty self evident that that’s not how these developers are seeing things. To them, they are making a “video game” and it should have all the “video gamey stuff” it’s supposed to have. This has gotten us absolutely nowhere in 20 years and we at Dinofarm think that our theory is a useful means of doing something about it. If you disagree, feel free to provide counter argument.

          Games require creative play. A person who designs any interactive system is an artist, and a person who devotes his life to playing a game could be considered one too, because of the creativity involved in playing a game like chess. Puzzles don’t require competition, which is what makes them a distinct interactive system DIFFERENT from a contest or game. Contests don’t require ambiguous decisions, just meeting a requirement to execute the puzzle against other agents more efficiently. As said above, puzzles are designed specifically to be solved, and games are designed specifically NOT to be solved. If your puzzle is unsolvable, it’s a bad puzzle. If your game is solved, it’s broken, and therefore a failed game, which makes the term “puzzle game” utterly stupid. If someone were to say “hey let’s play a game!” and you said “ok,” and he then asked you to arm wrestle, wouldn’t part of you be surprised or confused? Is someone said “let’s play a game!” and then invited you to sit in a sandbox with a shovel and pale, would that not ring strangely to you?

          My point is, before the advent of the modern video game, there was a very clear, inate understanding that these systems were different.

          We’re not hijacking anything. Use whatever word you want to describe “a contest of ambiguous decision making.” We think that is the best, most useful definition for the word game. If you use a different word, what’s important is that you grasp the concept, which, again, is not “vague,” arbitrary,” or even controversial.

          I’ll close by asking, what exactly are you trying to argue here? in what way are we mistaken?

          • pkt-zer0

            It seems you’re just parroting what Keith has already said numerous times, so I’ll just refer you to the threads on the Fantasy Strike forums where literally hundreds of posts have been made on why his usage of the word “game” is confusing and not productive.

            Your choice of examples that are “surprisingly/strangely” non-”games” also miss the point completely (which again, does not seem unintentional). Shoveling sand being an example of a non-”game” isn’t where your definitions become confusing, something like Castlevania is. Do some A/B testing if you wish, try to see how many people are confused by your calling it a “game”, versus a “part game, part memorization puzzle, part execution puzzle”. (which is logically inconsistent even if you use the words as Keith defines them, but hey, that’s not really important, right?)

            • http://www.dinofarmgames.com keithburgun

              Our point is simple: there exists a type of system that is a “contest of ambiguous decision making”.

              Castlevania does not meet this requirement. Tetris does. Therefore, calling them both “games” may be fine for laymen but it is not fine for game designers and others who wish to understand interactive systems on a more useful level.

              I’ve said it before: if you don’t like the use of the word “game”, feel free to use whatever word you want. I think it’s the best word to use.

              • Bret

                Just don’t be surprised when you say Castlevania isn’t a game without any pretext.

                • Blake

                  I did present pretext, which was explaining the definitions of puzzles, contests and games. After providing those definitions, I concluded that Castlevania doesn’t fit our criteria for “game.” Again, perfectly fine term for lay people, but we think this lack of understanding of these systems if precisely WHAT makes castlevania a “failed game.” The designers were thinking “video game” with the 10 years of baggage of heavily themed “completion-based” games which preceded it. If they actually had a prescriptive philosophy and functional theory, castlevania might have turned out very different. It may have come out being score based with random content.

                  • Erik

                    I think the main problem is that the general public(we) have all already appropriated the word “game” to mean something ambiguous ( a layered interactive system that when added together is more than the sum of its parts ) .

                    For example an adventure game ( monkey island etc) is a puzzle right ? But its not ! Its not just a puzzle, its more than that, why ? because not all its systems are about the puzzle. Therefore, we call all these things, “games” or as above a layered interactive system that when added together is more than the sum of its parts.

                    Maybe we are all being idealistic idiots with this word, not formal enough.

                    Then you come along and say, you’re all a bunch of retards, game actually means X. There is no ambiguity here, only cause you are all too lame to see it.

                    People get pissed because:

                    1) Your definition doesn’t provide for another word to explain:
                    ( a layered interactive system that when added together is more than the sum of its parts)

                    2) You stole the word we use for that and keep on saying how simple it is to tell the two apart, and we just keep on shouting back :
                    “NO ITS NOT THAT FREAKING SIMPLE”

                    3) You make other statements that are just goddamn hypocritical, like “No one” is doing x or (in a sneery tone) they just made a game following 20 years of X. FUCK you . There are people doing X and those 20-30 years is what lets you stand there saying what you are saying.

                    Then again maybe I am a retard cause I do feel that Castlevania is more than the sum of its parts, Maybe I am stupid cause I do see ambiguous decisions and play in Castlevania.

                    I for one prefer to keep on being stupid and make dreary puzzles and simulations instead of cold formal theoric “games” like you want.

                    • Nahil

                      This is beginning to get frustrating. What we call these systems isn’t what’s really important. Words are such a bad way of communicating, but humans can’t communicate with concepts alone, so we must resort to words. What I’m trying to say is: *ahem* WHAT WE CALL THESE SYSTEMS DOESN’T ACTUALLY MATTER! What matters is that we understand the differences between different systems so we can make our systems as good as possible.The age of video games has killed the word “game.” Should we keep it as the ambiguous umbrella term it is today, and just move on and come up with specialized names under this umbrella, or should we revert the meaning to something more precise? No matter which we decide, what’s important is the systems themselves. Words are just words. We shouldn’t hold any emotional baggage with words, we should use them to explain important concepts. Right now, people can’t even distinguish a contest of ambiguous decision making from another type of interactive system. The terminology doesn’t even exist.
                      As it stands, the word “game” is currently useless in the field of game design… isn’t that ironic? This is why I’m with Keith on this new definition. It’s actually useful. If anyone can come up with a better name for contests of ambiguous decision making, please present it! As I said before, the problem is that contests of ambiguous decision making don’t have a good name right now, which stops people from understanding what they are. Puzzle Games,Simulation Games, and Interactive Story Games already have useful names- Puzzles, Simulations, and Interactive Stories. The history of the word “game” just lends itself well to contests of ambiguous decision making. Would it be so bad to take the word from these systems that already have alternative names?
                      Side Note- People really need to start understanding the distinction between thematic and mechanical elements. It’s a very large problem.

                    • Nahil

                      Also, I’m very sorry for double posting, but, Erik, there’s a word I use for the “layered interactive systems that are more than the sum of their parts.” I like to call them “Adventure Sims,” and, you know what? I actually enjoy adventure sims. Not as much as I enjoy contests of ambiguous decision making, but adventure sims are fun for me, and I think the term works well.

                    • http://www.dinofarmgames.com keithburgun

                      Yep, Nahil has it correct. Don’t get hung up on the words.

                      And as a side note, if “a layered interactive system that when added together is more than the sum of its parts” is your definition for a game, then a car is a game. Just sayin’.

                    • Erik

                      Who calls them adventure sims? I hear everybody calling them adventure games.

                      If its not about words, then why all the “formality”.

                      Wasn’t the argument about finding words that we can use to communicate better and allegedly be able to make better designs with ?

                      I wasn’t trying to define game, I was trying to point out that the general word usage is ambiguous, its used as a general Taxonomic term more than a definition.

                      Why not use the word “strategy” ?

                      Castlevania and Auro are video games in the general taxonomical sense
                      Castlevanias core system is focused on solving puzzles
                      Auro’s core system is focused on strategic combat

                      That is way more descriptive and understandable than saying

                      Castlevania is a video puzzle ( you miss out on stuff here )
                      Auro is a video game ( this is pretty vague still)

                      but OK, lets say we put words aside, and focus on whats important.

                      I welcome instead more focus on describing the qualities and disadvantages of the systems themselves. Of analyzing choices to see if they are actually ambiguous or not and finding interesting applicable design patterns from that.

                    • Nahil

                      No one calls them adventure sims except me. I was just saying that I think the name fits pretty well. What name fits a contest of ambiguous decision making?

                      “I welcome instead more focus on describing the qualities and disadvantages of the systems themselves. Of analyzing choices to see if they are actually ambiguous or not and finding interesting applicable design patterns from that.”
                      Yeah, Keith and Blake have been encouraging that plenty, but we need to understand what the systems ARE before we can inspect them like that. Without proper terminology, it would be hard for me to explain why Skyrim is a bad game by my definition.

                      “If its not about words, then why all the ‘formality’?”
                      Words aren’t as important as concepts, but they are still useful. What I was trying to say was that you shouldn’t get attached to words, you should allow them to evolve and change to reflect specific concepts, not that they shouldn’t be considered at all. We need to use words to our benefit, not just have them hanging around meaning something because that’s what we’re used to. Words are tools for expressing concepts, nothing more. If it makes logical sense to change terminology, there shouldn’t be backlash just because you’re not used to the new terms and definitions.

                  • Bret

                    I apologize, I totally worded that wrong. I meant: Don’t be surprised if people react negatively when you say Castlevania isn’t a game with no pretext. I’m not even necessarily saying you didn’t have pretext.

              • pkt-zer0

                “Castlevania does not meet this requirement. Tetris does.”

                This is where you get into subjective territory. So, let me check if you’ve come up with an explanation by now: why? Is “randomness” the key change that Castlevania would need?

                “I’ve said it before: if you don’t like the use of the word “game”, feel free to use whatever word you want. I think it’s the best word to use.”

                Never mind all those people telling you otherwise. It’s not like you want to communicate with others or anything. /s

                • Blake

                  Subjective territory? I’m sorry. It’s not. We define a game by being a system built around a contest of ambiguous decision making. Tetris(original) involves creative, ambiguous decisions. Castlevania, by nature of it being “completion based” and having no random content, renders it devoid, as a matter of fact, of ambiguous decision making. It’s about memorizing the right moves at the right times, which, in the case of that system, is solving the puzzle. How is that distinction “subjective?” If you’re mistaking the trial and error phase of a first playthrough an ambiguous decision, that’s not what we’re talking about. Doing the wrong move is simply a failure to meet a prescribed dexterity requirement, or not having memorized where a monster was.

                  Adding random content WOULD qualify castlevania as a game, but not just that. To be a good game, it would have to be rebuilt from the ground up to accommodate being based around a high quality and density of ambiguous decisions.

                  I’m not saying castlevania is a bad piece of software. It’s a perfectly fine execution context/puzzle, but if they were tightly focused on making THAT interactive system, rather than the “game-y, puzzle-y, simulator-y” gray goo “video game,” it might have been a BETTER execution contest like I wanna be boshi. People spend a lot longer playing that before it gets thrown in the garbage bin.

                  What I mean by that is that puzzles are disposable, and are designed that way. We’re interested in games partially because they’re designed to be explored and played forever.

                  • Nahil

                    I 100% support Blake’s comment. Where on Earth did you find subjectivity in Blake’s earlier statement? He’s so incredibly objective it almost hurts.

                  • pkt-zer0

                    Whoops, sorry. Confused you two. I was going by a previous comment of Keith, where the way he made the distinction was saying “it’s random enough for me”. Which is a subjective statement, rather obviously.

  • Blake

    “We think our types of games are very interesting and more people should consider making them, but if our types of games aren’t your cup of tea, please try to figure out exactly what it is you ARE making, so that you can make it as good as possible.”

    we have, in so many words, said this very thing many times. It is absolutely my sentiment.

    • Nahil

      Yeah, you have actually, I should’ve pointed that out. In fact I specifically remember you guys saying that before. The problem is that there isn’t enough emphasis on that and I think a lot of listeners just skip right over it when you say it. How else would you describe all the negative comments you guys get :P. So, what I really meant was that you guys should focus less on the word “game.” It’s got too much baggage at this point.

  • Nahil

    I understand, that was poor word choice on my part, you guys have been creating objective standards this entire time. My main gripe is with trying to define the word game, you can discard the rest of my comment actually. As much as I love your definition of a game, I feel like it causes more conflict than it’s worth. For some reason, people feel like you’re personally attacking their tastes (which you aren’t) and at that point they stop really listening to what you’re really trying to say. It would just probably be best to leave game as an umbrella term and come up with new names for different types of games since we live in a world where most “gamers” are obsessed with thematic simulations. They’ve basically hijacked the word “game” and I feel like it’s too late to take it back.

    • Nahil

      woops, this was supposed to be in reply to Keith

    • Bret

      I agree. I really think this is critical. I do, however, think that with enough reinforcement we can separate what people call ‘fantasy simulation’ and ‘game’. I think that would do a great deal of good. Then people wouldn’t react so negatively when something is said along the lines of, “we think skyrim isn’t a game”.

      • http://www.dinofarmgames.com keithburgun

        Words already have many meanings. Game already had 10 different meanings before any of us were even born. The one we’re giving is very, very close to one of the meanings that game already had. I think that the amount of anger/confusion about it is only coming from video-gamers and it is for reasons that we should not step around

        • Nahil

          I do admire what you’re trying to do Keith, and I share your thoughts on games, but right now you’re the only one in the video game industry trying to head in this direction. All the “inspirational” and “radical” game designers and theorists are all talking about having better thematic elements in their “games”. That’s literally all they talk about. Like Jonathan Blow. As pretentious as he is (and everyone knows he is) people still think he knows what he’s talking about. Even people I believe are really talented struggle so much seperating theme and mechanics. It’s going to take a lot to make people rethink games, and I’m not sure how it’s going to happen, because whenever you guys bring up a valid point, people do nothing but disagree and look at you funny. How do you think we’ll get people to see games in a new (old) light? I’d love to see it happen.

          • Bret

            You have people surrounding you that both admire your work and agree with your philosophies. What I’m trying to do, (and what I suspect Nahil is trying to do) is encourage you to stick with what you are trying to achieve as well as give you constructive criticism. I’m the most critical when it comes to your PR. I want you guys to succeed – not push away customers and sell less copies of Auro. I’d love for people to see games in a new light too.

          • http://www.dinofarmgames.com keithburgun

            Thanks Nahil. It’s good to know that we’re not crazy.

  • Erik

    “there shouldn’t be backlash just because you’re not used to the new terms and definitions.”

    I’m not upset about the term, the only thing that makes me upset is the attitude.

    On the other hand, I’m just not agreeing that the terms are making things clearer, I feel they create more confusion.

    let me propose some other terms how about:

    combat : contests of ambiguous decision making
    game : a specific group of mechanics that when put together form a unique experience that is more than the sum of its individual parts.
    mechanics: logic / rules that explain the results of inputs to an interactive systems
    dynamics: the results or behaviors of the mechanics of an interactive system
    play : the process of interacting with a game and inferring the dynamics produced by the underlying mechanics
    strategy: a plan that drives play leading to a specific wanted goal
    puzzle: a problem that has a definite solution
    contest: a game that involves competition
    emergent dynamics: unplanned dynamics that happen as a result of certain inputs and specific mechanics
    system: a group of mechanics that is highly dependent on each other
    core system: the most often used set of mechanics in a specific game

    • Nahil

      My problem with your definition of a game: it’s basically the definition of a simulation. several mechanisms mixed together so *simulate* an “experience.” The singleplayer videogames being made today mostly have the obvious goal of simulating some fantasy or adventure. So that would make them fantasy/adventure sims.
      Basically, videogames have outgrown their name. They are more than just games now, and that’s ok. People should just understand that and be ok with it. ecstatic even! it’s what they want! The rest of us who want traditional games should be given the term back. It would surely make for better sims AND games.
      P.S. The artsy game community has been looking for a more “sophisticated” name for their “experiences” anyway. As soon as they find it and seperate themselves from games, there will be progress in both areas.

    • Blake

      “combat : contests of ambiguous decision making”
      so chess is “Combat?” That’s LESS confusing to you than game? Tetris is combat? Tennis is combat?

      “game : a specific group of mechanics that when put together form a unique experience that is more than the sum of its individual parts.”

      first of all “better than the sum of its parts” is subjective, unless you’re talking about a specific goal like maximizing number of horsepower in an engine, in which case, synergy can be measured. The modern “video game” is a mush of a mediocre story, mediocre puzzles, and trivial, unchallenging contests. To me, this is a system which is WORSE than the sum of its parts, because if it was focused on one thing, like a story, it could be a great screenplay instead of a mediocre group of things. So is this “not a game?” Or do we just disagree as to whether or not something actually synergizes?

      Second, what if it’s not unique? Does this make the first brawler a game and every subsequent reskin not a game? Or every shooter or racer?

      and what do you mean by “experience?” Does it necessitate competition? Does it even necessitate a problem? Is building an engine a game? Building a house?

      This definition is full of subjective, confusing language. How can it be useful to any game designer? “oh, we have to make something better than the sum of their parts! Why didn’t I think of that?” Including “good” in a definition is always problematic. At what point is something “good?”

      Sorry, I very, very strongly disagree that this definition is even better than the CURRENT definition in modern video games.

      Howabout this?
      Interactive system: a system of internally consistent rules with which agents interact
      Puzzle: Interactive system built with a problem and an intended goal or solution
      Contest: A puzzle wherein agents compete for a goal which cannot be shared
      Game: A contest of ambiguous decision making.

      Video Game: common use word for any interactive entertainment software.

      • Erik

        I didn’t say that tennis is combat, I said tennis is a game whose main focus is combat. Its not that uncommon for people to say that someone is battling or fighting another person(s) in a sport or board game.

        I didn’t say “better” I said “more”. All I was trying to say is that a game is a specific mixture of stuff. Like a recipe. For example what is the game that has these x rules, played in a court with 2 rackets, a bouncy ball etc (tennis). Like I was saying before, Monkey Island is not just a puzzle, its more than that, its what I’m calling a game, because putting the right ingredients together, makes a yummy omelet…or synergy, whatever.

        Here is the attitude that I’m talking about, just because you personally don’t like something doesn’t mean that its “worse”. I hope you at least enjoyed mario, mega man & rpgs when you were a kid, you sad bitter old man.

        How is this useful:

        1) it leaves the current accepted word usage alone
        2) its simple to understand
        3) it immediately puts forward the two things that are interesting: mechanics, and mixing them together to form synergy aka “more than the sum of the parts”

        • Nahil

          I just don’t find that definition of game useful. Simulation seems to fit your description better…

  • Darren GAY LOL

    I have a bit of commentary on the podcast, don’t really feel the need to step into this game of debate that’s going on.

    Whenever Blake says the word “software” you may as well replace it with the word “shit”. There’s this underlying feeling of negativity in the podcast which refuses to be dispelled no matter how many times you say “It’s not a value judgement” or “I don’t know the guy”. As to *why* that perceived negativity is there, I’m not sure.

    I think a lot of listeners (the ones that make buttfurious comments) might not follow your blog at all so this “Everyone else doesn’t know what the fuck they’re doing! Hell, these professional dumbasses don’t even know what video games are!” vibe they’re getting probably stems from that.

    You might get less angry/well crafted debatey comments if the tone of your podcast was more positive. Perhaps talk more about games that you found to be particularly well designed and explain to the listeners why.

    Dedicating an entire episode to why your definition of game is important and how it could benefit game design as a whole might be necessary for some listeners that are unfamiliar with the blog and your philosophies. Maybe after you guys have really hammered out why your definition of games is valuable you might not feel the need to respond to some comments questioning your philosophies.

    Not saying debate is unwelcome, it’s great seeing you guys interacting with listeners. Well, for the most part. That Kayin guy was a genuine dumbass, holy shit.

    • http://www.dinofarmgames.com keithburgun

      I understand the point you’re making, Darren. The problem is that we feel very negatively about most digital interactive software. It’s our opinion that very few people making these kinds of things really know what they’re doing.

      So it’s weird. I generally get that there’s this idea that you should have some balance of positivity and negativity, but sometimes, in reality, one outweighs the other. In our view, in videogames, there’s a lot more to feel negative about than positive about.

      And yeah, Kayin is very very very angry that I basically suggested that his I Want To Be the Guy game is not a game but an execution contest.

  • pkt-zer0

    “And yeah, Kayin is very very very angry that I basically suggested that his I Want To Be the Guy game is not a game but an execution contest.”

    I’m fairly sure the reasons why Kayin is pissed at you are entirely unrelated to your opinion of IWBTG’s classification with respect to an arbitrary framework he deems useless in the given context, actually.
    (For instance, there’s like three arguments you’re trying to weasel your way out of just in this comments section; I would deem that level of bullshittery sufficiently annoying by itself.)

    • http://www.dinofarmgames.com keithburgun

      Well, I was trying to be generous and trying to give Kayin some kind of excuse for his horrible behavior.

      If there are arguments that I’m “trying to weasel my way out of”, I’m totally unaware of them. Can you just name one, specifically, and I’ll address it?