This is genius.
The interactive part is superflous,
it adds nothing to the game.
The aim of the game section is to create interactivity.
Which should,
according to the quote,
make the game a dialogue,
yet the game is still a monologue.
(Unless you want to get really heady and say that the developer disagrees with this statement and is trying to destroy it, which I think is probably not true)
I’d argue that destroying the statement does create a dialogue. The players contribution to the argument comes in the form of bullets, destroying the stuff the developer made.
I do think most didactic, introspective, critical games, even games describing an experience, almost always do that violence to the player — the designer has a conceit in mind. The game is a veiled piece of rhetoric. As a player, I never instigate the things games make me do; it comes as a surprise (not my own idea) when it turns out finishing the game involves making THIS decision, inhabiting the game’s value system. This is why I still think most art games are more art than, I dunno, a world to inhabit and affect: like books or television shows, they don’t care about your agency any further than it makes their point.
The alternative I can think of is Increparean puzzle games and self-sufficient Unity landscapes, who don’t impose because they don’t care about you at all.
But, rhetoric is in the eye of the audience. If we don’t see rhetoric, this game starts looking like an easy flitter between static and interactive, a denizen of the border where interactivity starts dissolving into the atmosphere, and the interactivity vapour (html as games, platformers with pointed political intent) is what we will throw in the faces of the ‘this is not a game’ crowd.
No, the statement says choosing non-interactivity makes the game a monologue. It doesn’t necessarily imply that choosing interactivity makes the game a dialogue.
This here web browser that I am typing into is *very* interactive, but it isn’t really saying much to me. *You* are, and the browser is assisting with that, but I don’t think that makes the browser into a dialogue.
The argument is invalid since the point of a “game” is to entertain by some means, where as this is simply a bit of interactive “Art” meant to drive conversation.
Same here. The “Fun” argument barely holds when it’s about a serious game about life choices and such, much less when it’s about a fun little thing that surprises you and you get to shoot little bullets at an incoming boss.
Finally, people are making some real games on Twine.
cant tell whether that comment is meant to be ironic
(it was)
i thought the game was going to be just that text without any hyperlinks and i’m not sure which version i’d prefer
This is genius.
The interactive part is superflous,
it adds nothing to the game.
The aim of the game section is to create interactivity.
Which should,
according to the quote,
make the game a dialogue,
yet the game is still a monologue.
(Unless you want to get really heady and say that the developer disagrees with this statement and is trying to destroy it, which I think is probably not true)
I’d argue that destroying the statement does create a dialogue. The players contribution to the argument comes in the form of bullets, destroying the stuff the developer made.
That’s pretty good.
Yet the bullets have been made by the developer… and that’s where the whole debate becomes muddy.
I do think most didactic, introspective, critical games, even games describing an experience, almost always do that violence to the player — the designer has a conceit in mind. The game is a veiled piece of rhetoric. As a player, I never instigate the things games make me do; it comes as a surprise (not my own idea) when it turns out finishing the game involves making THIS decision, inhabiting the game’s value system. This is why I still think most art games are more art than, I dunno, a world to inhabit and affect: like books or television shows, they don’t care about your agency any further than it makes their point.
The alternative I can think of is Increparean puzzle games and self-sufficient Unity landscapes, who don’t impose because they don’t care about you at all.
But, rhetoric is in the eye of the audience. If we don’t see rhetoric, this game starts looking like an easy flitter between static and interactive, a denizen of the border where interactivity starts dissolving into the atmosphere, and the interactivity vapour (html as games, platformers with pointed political intent) is what we will throw in the faces of the ‘this is not a game’ crowd.
No, the statement says choosing non-interactivity makes the game a monologue. It doesn’t necessarily imply that choosing interactivity makes the game a dialogue.
This here web browser that I am typing into is *very* interactive, but it isn’t really saying much to me. *You* are, and the browser is assisting with that, but I don’t think that makes the browser into a dialogue.
The argument is invalid since the point of a “game” is to entertain by some means, where as this is simply a bit of interactive “Art” meant to drive conversation.
Or to put it another way
It fails the “Fun” test.
I thought it was fun and witty
Same here. The “Fun” argument barely holds when it’s about a serious game about life choices and such, much less when it’s about a fun little thing that surprises you and you get to shoot little bullets at an incoming boss.
I don’t know. Does it?
Does choosing non-interactivity
Does choosing
Does
Oh god I love it. But I can’t seem to win…
😆 ❗ ❗ 😯
Awesome