On Games that aren't Games
from a discussion about 3D interactive fiction and the "non-game"
Dear Esther is less of a game than Mario, yes? It’s less useful to call it a game let alone dress it up with game elements it doesn’t need, right? Well … here’s my problem. What are the game elements it has that it doesn’t need? Do they come from it trying too hard to be like a game or from it just not being very good at it’s job regardless of what hat it wears while doing that job? Yahztee of Zero Punctuation wrote a bit bout this recently, comparing The Stanley Parable and Beyond: Two Souls; both are more like 3D interactive fiction than 3D action games but one works and the other doesn’t because one knows when certain things other games do don’t work in a 3D interactive fiction and the other doesn’t have a clue (also the quality of the writing differs enormously).
That’s all well and fine. The Stanley Parable is a good model to follow; why not have 3D virtual interactive fiction with WASD controls? Hell, I think you could have it without branching narrative, too. A virtual audience participation performance art piece or a virtual museum piece. Do we need a separate word for that other than Game? Not yet, in my opinion. Maybe eventually. By time we need one I’m sure we’ll have one. Language tends to do that. :)
You make the case for ambiguity … I don’t see it. Game is already such a uselessly broad category that people know to push for more details if they want information more useful then “requires my input AND runs on some kind of gaming device OR happens on a field with a ball OR happens in an economics study OR happens at a table OR [...]” see the problem with the case for ambiguity? If calling Dear Esther a game is ambiguous … why the heck isn’t calling Mario a game ambiguous? Or Mass Effect? or Solitaire?