I’m not a huge fan of the excessive use of exclamation points in the writing, and there is also something about the entire thing that strikes me as off. I don’t think this author actually likes video games. Especially as the cited illustrious examples of video game excellence at the end are more art pieces than games, and while there is absolutely nothing wrong with that (I also like that genre) I think there is more to gaming than simply making slightly interactive movies.
A good example is the discussion of Celeste compared to Getting Over It. The author acknowledges that repeatedly performing the gameplay loop in Celeste feels good and is fun, but then immediately dismisses it out of hand as having “no meaning”. Again I think this author is too firmly stuck in purely narrative and artistic media. The operative verb in gaming is “play”. It is closer to dancing in that sense. Why do people dance? It has no meaning either. But it feels good. We enjoy exercising our hand-eye coordination, we enjoy moving to a rhythm, we enjoy learning and executing patterns. These are all elements of gaming too.
There is space in gaming for art, and I think there is something to the suggestion that a game that is purely narrative and/or artistic does not need a gameplay loop. But I think it’s also important to not lose track of the fact that games can exist in a pure “medium is the message” state akin to sports or dancing or whatever else - playing an instrument. We don’t play a pickup game of basketball with our buddies because it has a higher meaning, and we don’t denigrate it for lacking that meaning either.
Gaming is just something we do with our free time. It can have a “higher meaning”, or it can just be the pure dopamine of clicking heads and watching them explode in Doom. Both types of games are valid. Either way we’ll die eventually and that time will have meant just as little whether we played another hour of Doom or spent it reading Dostoevsky.
Honestly, I think there is proper Art in the deep exploration of gameplay mechanics through repetition.
There are so many games that explore this in unique and interesting ways. The exploration of the game mechanic itself is beautiful to me. Examples include Celeste, Braid, Hades, Baba is You, The Witness, Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons, Super Meat Boy, Outer Wilds, Against the Storm… I could go on.
I got the feeling like that person was playing games to finish them. I can understand not liking gameplay loops when that is your goal. There are a lot of story-based games I won’t play again because I can’t be bothered to go through the gameplay again. Mass Effect trilogy is the first that comes to mind. I’d love to do another playthrough where I play with the renegade options but I really can’t be bothered to go through all that combat just to see how good the renegade options could be. I don’t think the combat adds much to the story of Mass effect but it’s such a big part of those games.
But it doesn’t mean I agree with the author. At the end of the day I don’t play to finish games, I play games until I’m finished with them. I can enjoy a good story but for me the story is mostly secondary. If I’ve had my fill and I don’t care enough to “finish” the game I’ll just put it down. An ideal game would have the gameplay and story working together in ludonarrative resonance, but if I had to pick between story and gameplay I’d pick gameplay every day.
Celeste’s gameplay absolutely has narrative meaning as well. You are climbing the mountain of depression. Not the most subtle or complicated metaphor, but it’s there and it is effective.
Not to mention, the meaning to Celeste in question is nearly identical to both Getting Over It and Dark Souls. All of these games are about, mechanically, I’m not even talking about their narratives, overcoming something difficult. But, only one of them is the author unable to understand.
Since I’m here anyway, it really bothered me that the author claims that Space Invaders has meaning because it has highscores, but never explains what that meaning is. I know what it is, of course, but if I’m being real, I don’t think the author does. Look at this quote about Space Invaders:
Even if you’re just playing against yourself, there is a tension of getting farther, doing better, honing your craft and seeing it reflected in concrete terms.
How does this not apply to almost all video games? How does this not apply to Celeste?
This article is not about anything, it is a diary where the author is trying to figure out in real time when it was they lost the spark.
I’m not a huge fan of the excessive use of exclamation points in the writing, and there is also something about the entire thing that strikes me as off. I don’t think this author actually likes video games. Especially as the cited illustrious examples of video game excellence at the end are more art pieces than games, and while there is absolutely nothing wrong with that (I also like that genre) I think there is more to gaming than simply making slightly interactive movies.
A good example is the discussion of Celeste compared to Getting Over It. The author acknowledges that repeatedly performing the gameplay loop in Celeste feels good and is fun, but then immediately dismisses it out of hand as having “no meaning”. Again I think this author is too firmly stuck in purely narrative and artistic media. The operative verb in gaming is “play”. It is closer to dancing in that sense. Why do people dance? It has no meaning either. But it feels good. We enjoy exercising our hand-eye coordination, we enjoy moving to a rhythm, we enjoy learning and executing patterns. These are all elements of gaming too.
There is space in gaming for art, and I think there is something to the suggestion that a game that is purely narrative and/or artistic does not need a gameplay loop. But I think it’s also important to not lose track of the fact that games can exist in a pure “medium is the message” state akin to sports or dancing or whatever else - playing an instrument. We don’t play a pickup game of basketball with our buddies because it has a higher meaning, and we don’t denigrate it for lacking that meaning either.
Gaming is just something we do with our free time. It can have a “higher meaning”, or it can just be the pure dopamine of clicking heads and watching them explode in Doom. Both types of games are valid. Either way we’ll die eventually and that time will have meant just as little whether we played another hour of Doom or spent it reading Dostoevsky.
Honestly, I think there is proper Art in the deep exploration of gameplay mechanics through repetition.
There are so many games that explore this in unique and interesting ways. The exploration of the game mechanic itself is beautiful to me. Examples include Celeste, Braid, Hades, Baba is You, The Witness, Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons, Super Meat Boy, Outer Wilds, Against the Storm… I could go on.
I got the feeling like that person was playing games to finish them. I can understand not liking gameplay loops when that is your goal. There are a lot of story-based games I won’t play again because I can’t be bothered to go through the gameplay again. Mass Effect trilogy is the first that comes to mind. I’d love to do another playthrough where I play with the renegade options but I really can’t be bothered to go through all that combat just to see how good the renegade options could be. I don’t think the combat adds much to the story of Mass effect but it’s such a big part of those games.
But it doesn’t mean I agree with the author. At the end of the day I don’t play to finish games, I play games until I’m finished with them. I can enjoy a good story but for me the story is mostly secondary. If I’ve had my fill and I don’t care enough to “finish” the game I’ll just put it down. An ideal game would have the gameplay and story working together in ludonarrative resonance, but if I had to pick between story and gameplay I’d pick gameplay every day.
Celeste’s gameplay absolutely has narrative meaning as well. You are climbing the mountain of depression. Not the most subtle or complicated metaphor, but it’s there and it is effective.
Not to mention, the meaning to Celeste in question is nearly identical to both Getting Over It and Dark Souls. All of these games are about, mechanically, I’m not even talking about their narratives, overcoming something difficult. But, only one of them is the author unable to understand.
Since I’m here anyway, it really bothered me that the author claims that Space Invaders has meaning because it has highscores, but never explains what that meaning is. I know what it is, of course, but if I’m being real, I don’t think the author does. Look at this quote about Space Invaders:
How does this not apply to almost all video games? How does this not apply to Celeste?
This article is not about anything, it is a diary where the author is trying to figure out in real time when it was they lost the spark.
I think your comment is more well thought out than the article. Very nicely written.