For School: What Games for a Games as Lit. Class?

[KalosCast]

I'm just going to say that any "Games as Literature" class without Planescape Torment is not one that I would take seriously.

For immersion/atmosphere (or First-Person) Half-Life 2 and its expansions, as well as Left 4 Dead (the first one more than the second) are great examples of using the world to both direct player behavior and tell a story.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Isn't that completely subjective?

Yeah.

Suffice it to say it uses similar principles in its gameplay as visual novels and other adventure games in generalizing the controls, allowing them to do more things than if each button constantly did one specific action. It also separated story choices from gameplay entirely, allowing the player's choices to be based entirely on the resulting story turns.

It's not a matter of control scheme, the reason Heavy Rain isn't an adventure game is because the puzzles are nonexistant and the exploration is heavily restricted. It has story decisions and FMV quick timer events, which makes it more similar to Time Gal than any real adventure game.

I suppose "direct control" is not the best term. Rather, not "full" control. In that most games have one button swing your sword arm, another button make your character jump, another button push buttons, etc. This means that these games can only really do what those buttons allow.

Nope.

RTS: click building, click unit, click enemy unit, click resource, click formation option, click behavior option, click upgrade option ect.

Diablo-clone: click enemy, click NPC, click ally, click object lying on the floor, click inventory, click spell, click level up option, click equip option ect.

TBS with Civilazation level complexity: click click click click ect (there's a reason nobody has trierd to put the recent Civilization game on a console.)

How about JRPG's: pick an option and press O, which is a more cumbersome version of the same thing.

And how about I-phone games, in those touching things is all you ever do.

In PC centric genre's there will always be a lot you can do just by clicking on things. There are hotkey buttons but adventure games have those too. Text adventures are particularly reliant on hot keys. The fact that adventure games let you use most of your options with only the mouse buttons just makes them typical for non-action PC games.

This is the connection with games like Heavy Rain and Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy; the buttons pressed have a sort of basic logic to them, but each button could mean something completely different based on context.

In light of how common this control scheme is, this is a tenuous connection.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Visual novels accomplish the same thing by, rather than generalizing, minimizing the gameplay, disconnecting the choices from gameplay entirely and simply making them occasional story-important choices. It is a different approach, but it allows the exact same thing as the gameplay generalization of adventure games; interactivity can now play a part in the story without leading to gameplay unwisely applied to a situation it cannot emulate well.

That's just a complicated way of saying you select from a couple of choices. Lot's of games have that. What set Visual Novels apart is their presentation.

That is not the way I have seen anyone define "immersive" in games. I wonder if this is an actual disagreement or just a confusion of terms. When I say "immersive," I am talking about the effect caused by fitting music, detailed environment, realistic touches, whatever it is that makes the game feel like a complete and whole experience. To use an oft-used (possibly overused, but for good reason) example, Bioshock is immersive because its music is fitting, its story is told through the environment and slowly-revealing backstory, and the world of Rapture is detailed both in what it was (you can tell that each place used to have a particular function and was a working part of the society) and what it is (rubble, trash, the small touches like brown sink water and occasional leaks). It is more than simply getting "sucked in," it's a matter of actually feeling like you are part of what is going on. Tetris bombards you with a series of intense challenges, but that does not mean it's "immersive," simply that it is well-designed and challenging.

http://insomnia.ac/reviews/xbox/tekki/ That game is potentially the most immersive game of all time. It doesn't have to do with how fitting the music is or the game being a complete and whole experience. You can feel like you are part of what's going because the game will destroy you if you aren't paying attention, so it acheives immersion quite nicely.

I only brought up those game because I thought gleaming meaning from them was too easy since it's been done on every dumb game site a million times. It's more challenging to and results in a more entertaining writing when you are instead trying to interpret symbolism in Pong.

 

[WayOutThere]

Note: No spoiler tags added as this is a fairly old game.

First-Person Storytelling - Games from the first-person perspective that are worth studying from a literary perspective.

Immersion - A study of immersion and atmosphere, the effect that all elements of an interactive artwork combine to create.

While I may be in a minority position on this, I believe the game Fear excels in terms of both immersion and first person story telling. Or, at the very least, it provides clear direction in how games can go about executing these things.

Fear is often derided for heavily being an FPS. While it certainly is an FPS, the thinking that it must be inferior to say, Silent Hill because of this is too simplistic. Most certainly, having a character that is not super human or super armored or super what-have-you in a horror game is a good thing. It, however, is not required for good horror. What people overlook in regard to Fear is that while the Point Man is well able to defend against replica soldiers he is not so well prepared for the supernatural threats of the games, that is, those threats that are meant to comprise the horror elements. While there are ghosts that attack you at the end of the game which you can destroy by gunshot, these enemies often come at you from all directions and, further, their contrast from the other enemies you've fast makes them genuinely scary. Also note there is no reason to believe your shooting Alma at the end of the game is what stopped her, seeing as how no visible damage was left. She more likely stopped because of whatever twisted thing went on in her mind. Most importantly of all note what happens to the other marines and the start of the game, we witness Alma's horrifying power and, again, have to reason to believe were any more invulnerable to her than they were. To dismiss this game as a bad horror experience simply because of its FPS gameplay to ignore the games depth.

To speak of depth, Fear has quite a deep story. Seeing as how the game takes place entirely within the first-person perspective this means it must being doing a good job at first-person story telling. First, there are the phone recordings. These are actually the weaker aspect of Fear's storytelling. Although, they do successfully tell the story while remaining in the first-person perspective. The problem is that you must remain in about the same location to hear them which limits you, detracting from interactivity. Further, the specific messages do not go into enough depth, which is understandable considering these people where talking to other people already in the know but never the less they could have been more revealing. Personally, it took me a second playthrough to fully appreciate them. Elsewhere, the story telling is stronger. Events such as Wade shooting Mapes only to get himself killed by opening the vault- out of this deep remorse for what he did to his daughter- are viewed through your own eyes just like they would be if you were really there. At the end of the game it is you who kill Fettel and then have that heart pounding moment where you realize the soldiers standing in front you really have been "turned off". The best sequence of the game is probably when Fettel confronts you and asks you questions you know you don't have an answer to. It is a strong sequence because in addition involving you in the plot it keeps up the horror element during meaning it is hitting you both mentally and physically, making you confused and frantic. The ultimate story that emerges is powerful in how you feel Alma?s paint and Wade?s remorse which are communicated, again, through interactivity.

Finally, there is the immersion. Fear is the most immersive game I've played to date. What Fear does well is it keeps up active means of scarring without resorting the shallowness of just yelling "BOO!? One good example is when you?re mounting a ladder and look forward to see Alma standing in front of you. This may seem one but it is more than merely a boo scare. It is effective because it sets the mood that Alma is watching you, she is everywhere and anywhere and you are at her mercy. Why she doesn't just kill you is one of the best means by which the game remains scary and immersive. You don't know if she's just toying with you or if she'll change her mind and seriously come after you or what she wants from you. What you know is that she's scary. Most of the horror in Fear comes from the game throwing things at you that it hadn't before. This kept me, for one, in the experience because I was constantly alert to what was happening around me. Best were the horror sequences in which I had no idea what was happening, no idea what was about to happen, and constantly kept on the lookout as a result. Contrast this with other horror games that rely and nothing but music, a creepy environment, and the occasional monster. These are passive methods of horror and they are not enough in themselves. For me to be immersed, a game must DEMAND my attention. This is what Fear did.

Thaius, I hope you will consider what I've said here. Fear, as a horror experience, is under-appreciated which frustrates me. I would love to see it examined in your course.

Edit:

First-Person Storytelling FEAR

You're awesome.

-FEAR 1

You're awesome too.

It's been mentioned twice in this thread already. Perhaps my conception of Fear as being under-appreciated is wrong. Hopefully so.

 

[Thaius]

Suffice it to say it uses similar principles in its gameplay as visual novels and other adventure games in generalizing the controls, allowing them to do more things than if each button constantly did one specific action. It also separated story choices from gameplay entirely, allowing the player's choices to be based entirely on the resulting story turns.

It's not a matter of control scheme, the reason Heavy Rain isn't an adventure game is because the puzzles are nonexistant and the exploration is heavily restricted. It has story decisions and FMV quick timer events, which makes it more similar to Time Gal than any real adventure game.

Not once did I say the games played the same. I said the gameplay is similar in how it tells the story. Though you shot that down too, which continues to teach me, as our conversations usually do, that my phrasing could use some work.

I suppose "direct control" is not the best term. Rather, not "full" control. In that most games have one button swing your sword arm, another button make your character jump, another button push buttons, etc. This means that these games can only really do what those buttons allow.

Nope.

RTS: click building, click unit, click enemy unit, click resource, click formation option, click behavior option, click upgrade option ect.

Diablo-clone: click enemy, click NPC, click ally, click object lying on the floor, click inventory, click spell, click level up option, click equip option ect.

TBS with Civilazation level complexity: click click click click ect (there's a reason nobody has trierd to put the recent Civilization game on a console.)

How about JRPG's: pick an option and press O, which is a more cumbersome version of the same thing.

And how about I-phone games, in those touching things is all you ever do.

In PC centric genre's there will always be a lot you can do just by clicking on things. There are hotkey buttons but adventure games have those too. Text adventures are particularly reliant on hot keys. The fact that adventure games let you use most of your options with only the mouse buttons just makes them typical for non-action PC games.

Let me say first that my conversations with you are usually simultaneously the most frustrating and some of the most helpful. While I cannot begin to comprehend how you could hold some of the ideas that you do (namely regarding storytelling and immersion), you tend to take everything I say in every direction except that which it was intended to go. It's a lot easier to tighten my theories when you're here to pump water through the leaks. Thanks.

Anyway, regarding the last point. First I should specify, I suppose, that I am talking about the direct actions of a single person. At a time, at least. Strategy and simulation games like the ones you mentioned are a matter of commanding many different things over a large space, not the specific motions and choices of a single person (unless you interpret each click as a spoken command by a higher power or superior officer, I suppose). Such meta concepts obviously use this principle, but games in which you control one person doing specific things rarely do.

As for menu-based battle systems, I said this concept of gameplay generalization had been used before. What makes adventure games and visual novels different is that it's all they do. Anything you ever do in the gameplay is either based on a constantly-shifting, context-sensitive control scheme or, in the case of visual novels, the occasional story choice that comprises the entirety of the gameplay. There is nothing else. This is what allows the stories of these games to transcend the need for violent gameplay.

As for games like Diablo and iOS games, while similar button presses can do multiple things, there are specific, constant contexts for all of them. iOS games still assign certain, specific meanings to certain gestures or locations on the touch screen. Diablo, while you use the left button for many things, still makes it plain that clicking on an enemy will attack, clicking on an open space will move you to it, and clicking on an inventory space will select what is in it. Though the same physical button is used, each use of it means very specific, constant things depending on what you click on. That's very different from a game like a point-and-click adventure game, where clicking on something may pick it up, talk about it, trigger conversation, etc., and different from Heavy Rain, where the same button used to change a baby's diaper could later be used to punch a man in the face.

Visual novels accomplish the same thing by, rather than generalizing, minimizing the gameplay, disconnecting the choices from gameplay entirely and simply making them occasional story-important choices. It is a different approach, but it allows the exact same thing as the gameplay generalization of adventure games; interactivity can now play a part in the story without leading to gameplay unwisely applied to a situation it cannot emulate well.

That's just a complicated way of saying you select from a couple of choices. Lot's of games have that. What set Visual Novels apart is their presentation.

Many game lets you select from a couple of choices, but visual novels reduce the entirety of the gameplay to those choices. There is nothing else. This, aside from their presentation, is what sets them apart, and that's what allows them to tell stories differently form most other genres.

That is not the way I have seen anyone define "immersive" in games. I wonder if this is an actual disagreement or just a confusion of terms. When I say "immersive," I am talking about the effect caused by fitting music, detailed environment, realistic touches, whatever it is that makes the game feel like a complete and whole experience. To use an oft-used (possibly overused, but for good reason) example, Bioshock is immersive because its music is fitting, its story is told through the environment and slowly-revealing backstory, and the world of Rapture is detailed both in what it was (you can tell that each place used to have a particular function and was a working part of the society) and what it is (rubble, trash, the small touches like brown sink water and occasional leaks). It is more than simply getting "sucked in," it's a matter of actually feeling like you are part of what is going on. Tetris bombards you with a series of intense challenges, but that does not mean it's "immersive," simply that it is well-designed and challenging.

http://insomnia.ac/reviews/xbox/tekki/ That game is potentially the most immersive game of all time. It doesn't have to do with how fitting the music is or the game being a complete and whole experience. You can feel like you are part of what's going because the game will destroy you if you aren't paying attention, so it acheives immersion quite nicely.

While I will not deny the immersive quality of that game (from what I understand at least; I unfortunately have not yet been able to play it), I still think you are confusing immersion with a desire and drive to stay focused and keep playing. They are not the same thing, at least by the way immersion is most commonly defined. I see value in the principle you are talking about (with the glaring exception of the idea that any interruption to constant challenge makes for a bad game, that I think is crap), but it is not what one is referring to with the term "immersion." So argue that all you want, but I'm using the word based on how most people define it.

I only brought up those game because I thought gleaming meaning from them was too easy since it's been done on every dumb game site a million times. It's more challenging to and results in a more entertaining writing when you are instead trying to interpret symbolism in Pong.

While deriving symbolism from Pong would be quite interesting, it would also be a waste of time from a literary standpoint. It could help develop the ability to find symbolism and meaning in artworks, but the problem is that there is no intended symbolism in Pong. Meaning that all students would learn how to do is cram meaning into something that has none; they would not be interpreting symbolism in Pong, they would be making up symbolism in Pong. While that may have some benefits, it is not a good skill. It simply leads to interpretive problems and complete misunderstandings of artworks.

 

[Plurralbles]

First-Person Storytelling - Games from the first-person perspective that are worth studying from a literary perspective.
Bioshock
Myst
The Legend of Zelda Majora's Mask

RPG Study - Broken up into JRPG and WRPG sections, to compare the styles of gameplay and storytelling from both cultures, since both are critically important to gaming's narrative identity but very, very different.
Final Fantasy IV


Adventure/Visual Novel - A study of games from point-and-click adventure games to Japanese visual novels, studying the ways in which these specialized genres tell their stories and overcome gaming's need for violence and conflict.
Nethack
Myst
Oregon Trail

Indie Games - A study of what makes small-budget and independently-developed games different, how they are important, and the place that "art games" have in the medium.
Minecraft
PlainSight
Darwinia
That one flower "game" on the PSN


Immersion - A study of immersion and atmosphere, the effect that all elements of an interactive artwork combine to create.
Amnesia: THe Dark Descent
The Sims
Shadow of the Colossus
Mount and Blade Warband



I think those games have been either extremely popular or have done very well for themselves and have pushed the medium forward and deserve a spot in a course.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Not once did I say the [Heavy Rain and adventure games] played the same.

Hence Heavy Rain can't be considered an adventure game.

Anyway, regarding the last point. First I should specify, I suppose, that I am talking about the direct actions of a single person. At a time, at least. Strategy and simulation games like the ones you mentioned are a matter of commanding many different things over a large space, not the specific motions and choices of a single person (unless you interpret each click as a spoken command by a higher power or superior officer, I suppose). Such meta concepts obviously use this principle, but games in which you control one person doing specific things rarely do.

I think if you have to make these sort of qualifications then it means that your point is weak.

As for menu-based battle systems, I said this concept of gameplay generalization had been used before. What makes adventure games and visual novels different is that it's all they do.

But tons of genres do use nothing but menu navigation context sensetive commands. Final Fantasy has just about two buttons, select and go back/cancel, and I can say the same for pretty much any console rpg of that era. Nor is it true that adventure games use only context sensetive commands, most of them have plenty of key commands that can be used in different situations. Sam and Max, for example, has using your gun, driving your car and teleporting and mind reading in the recent one, none of these things are context sensetive in the slightest.

As Though the same physical button is used, each use of it means very specific, constant things depending on what you click on. That's very different from a game like a point-and-click adventure game, where clicking on something may pick it up, talk about it, trigger conversation, etc.

It isn't very different, it's the same thing.If you click on an object that only exists for examination, you'll examine it, if you click on a treasure chest you'll open it, if you click on a shop keeper you might buy something from him this is true for both types of game. You'll see ARPGs games that more heavily use context sensetive caommands (Kingdom Hearts where the commands 100 percent of the time vary on what you're standing next to) and you'll see some that use less, in that sense they are exactly like adventure games.

I feel like we've veered off topic. The point I want to make is that adventure games have as much to do with this study as a ton of other random genres. They are not more story centric, non violent or comparable to a VN than a random action-puzzle or skateboarding game.

there is no intended symbolism in Pong. Meaning that all students would learn how to do is cram meaning into something that has none; they would not be interpreting symbolism in Pong, they would be making up symbolism in Pong. While that may have some benefits, it is not a good skill. It simply leads to interpretive problems and complete misunderstandings of artworks.

Looking for intent in analysis of something is a waste of time. Unless you have some sort of telepathic ability, the intent behind something will always be impossible to determine. Litererary analysis has always been nothing but inventing meaning because nobody will ever know what intent the author had in mind, most of the time that even includes the author himself.

 

[Thaius]

Not once did I say the [Heavy Rain and adventure games] played the same.

Hence Heavy Rain can't be considered an adventure game.

Perhaps not. But the point still stands that its control scheme has a similar effect on how the story is told. In a class about interactive narrative, that is the entire point.

Anyway, regarding the last point. First I should specify, I suppose, that I am talking about the direct actions of a single person. At a time, at least. Strategy and simulation games like the ones you mentioned are a matter of commanding many different things over a large space, not the specific motions and choices of a single person (unless you interpret each click as a spoken command by a higher power or superior officer, I suppose). Such meta concepts obviously use this principle, but games in which you control one person doing specific things rarely do.

I think if you have to make these sort of qualifications then it means that your point is weak.

No, it means the point is specific. I admit I hadn't thought of strategy/sim games in that way, and they do not apply in the same way, nor are they similar games in most other ways, really.

As for menu-based battle systems, I said this concept of gameplay generalization had been used before. What makes adventure games and visual novels different is that it's all they do.

But tons of genres do use nothing but menu navigation context sensetive commands. Final Fantasy has just about two buttons, select and go back/cancel, and I can say the same for pretty much any console rpg of that era. Nor is it true that adventure games use only context sensetive commands, most of them have plenty of key commands that can be used in different situations. Sam and Max, for example, has using your gun, driving your car and teleporting and mind reading in the recent one, none of these things are context sensetive in the slightest.

I'm just going to ignore the Final Fantasy comment, as it's simply not true. That may be all you do in battle, but not in the entire game. At all. As for adventure games having specific, button-mapped commands, I haven't played Sam and Max but I would like to point out that every rule has an exception, especially in any art form. In no way am I making an assertion that every single game ever in x group has y element. In the adventure games I've played, it's always a matter of clicking on one thing and applying it to another or simply clicking on something and having something happen. Perhaps it's a lack of experience or something, but I've found this to be the case with all the adventure games I've played.

I feel like we've veered off topic. The point I want to make is that adventure games have as much to do with this study as a ton of other random genres. They are not more story centric, non violent or comparable to a VN than a random action-puzzle or skateboarding game.

Perhaps. But as much as you can point out flaws in the exact reasoning (I admit I'll need to think a bit more about exactly how it all works), the point still stands that the way adventure games generally use controls and interaction, as well as the way visual novels generally use controls and interaction, allow them to use gameplay that is not centered around combat, and do it much more easily than most other genres. I don't see how this can be denied, and there has to be some reason for it.

there is no intended symbolism in Pong. Meaning that all students would learn how to do is cram meaning into something that has none; they would not be interpreting symbolism in Pong, they would be making up symbolism in Pong. While that may have some benefits, it is not a good skill. It simply leads to interpretive problems and complete misunderstandings of artworks.

Looking for intent in analysis of something is a waste of time. Unless you have some sort of telepathic ability, the intent behind something will always be impossible to determine. Litererary analysis has always been nothing but inventing meaning because nobody will ever know what intent the author had in mind, most of the time that even includes the author himself.

I never said we have to look for intent, I said there has to be intent. Way I see it, at least. Perhaps in more complex artworks this is not the case, but in such a simple game as Pong we would be doing nothing but making up strained analogies. It is not necessarily that we have to uncover the originally intended meaning of the creator (though I hardly see as little value in that pursuit as you do, but authorial intent is one of those issues), but if the creator had no particular intent it is rare that the artwork will be worth analyzing.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

I'm just going to ignore the Final Fantasy comment, as it's simply not true. That may be all you do in battle, but not in the entire game. Do you mean that the game also has wandering around the world map? I was taking that for grant it considering that adventure games do that too. I was being literal when I said the game only had two button. The direction pad navigates the menu, A chooses, B cancels and start and select only activate outside of a menu and have the function of bringing up a menu.

But if you want to discuss a completely modern JRPG, how about the most recent JRPG to have a demo released on XBOX live (the name is in Katakana.) It's basically pure Menu navigation and visual novel style NPC interactions along with a small amount of exploration.

In the adventure games I've played, it's always a matter of clicking on one thing and applying it to another or simply clicking on something and having something happen. Perhaps it's a lack of experience or something, but I've found this to be the case with all the adventure games I've played.

I don't really have much experience with adventure games either. I think we could definitely use some one with a more expert opinion on adventure games, but judging from the suggestions you've been getting in this category I don't think many people here can help you.

I never said we have to look for intent, I said there has to be intent. Way I see it, at least. Perhaps in more complex artworks this is not the case, but in such a simple game as Pong we would be doing nothing but making up strained analogies. It is not necessarily that we have to uncover the originally intended meaning of the creator (though I hardly see as little value in that pursuit as you do, but authorial intent is one of those issues), but if the creator had no particular intent it is rare that the artwork will be worth analyzing.

And it's impossible for their to be NO intent. "Here's my little Newgrounds flash game, my intent is trolling people with a pointless game."

 

[tlozoot]

Bioshock a thousand times.

Critique of Objectivist philosophy is relayed through the environment and through exploration.
Deconstruction of linear story-telling.

I did an exam essay on Bioshock a few years ago which went over very well.

 

[Srrrh]

Probably mentioned (at least I hope so) but Silent Hill 2 has the best storyline of any video game I have yet to encounter. It could be worth doing a whole section on the Silent Hill series (or at least the original three) as you then see the story with the Cult's involvement with Harry (Harry's involvement in the Cult?) and then later on, how Heather plays into it all.

However, Silent Hill 2 stands out as the best storyline because although you have your protagonist, James, you can be equally invested in Eddie's and Angela's stories. So I don't know if it would quite come into First-Person Storytelling but it has to come in somewhere!

As for Immersion, I get quite completely immersed in Prince of Persia: Sands of Time. However I would say that's less about the plot itself (it's not a great plot) but how the game plays out. So at first glance, I'm advocating this because the gameplay is fun and therefore has no place here, right? I disagree. If you're reading a book, sometimes the plot can be boring but the writing itself keeps you engaged. So similarly, with a game, the plot can be boring but the gameplay itself keeps you engaged. However, I suppose if you go too far down this road you'll start getting games like CoD included just because they're immersive, so maybe PoP isn't such a great idea.

I hope this helps

 

[Thaius]

I'm just going to ignore the Final Fantasy comment, as it's simply not true. That may be all you do in battle, but not in the entire game. Do you mean that the game also has wandering around the world map? I was taking that for grant it considering that adventure games do that too. I was being literal when I said the game only had two button. The direction pad navigates the menu, A chooses, B cancels and start and select only activate outside of a menu and have the function of bringing up a menu.

But if you want to discuss a completely modern JRPG, how about the most recent JRPG to have a demo released on XBOX live (the name is in Katakana.) It's basically pure Menu navigation and visual novel style NPC interactions along with a small amount of exploration.

Man, you consistently misinterpret so many things I say on so many levels I literally cannot explain what I actually mean here. It would take far too long. You're severely misunderstanding the levels of activity in games. It's not a matter of how many buttons you push, it's what they mean. Final Fantasy games have menu systems that allow for complex gameplay. The true gameplay of a Final Fantasy game is not in pressing two buttons on a battle screen, it's in customizing your characters and abilities outside of battle and effectively using them in combat. Just because only two buttons are used does not mean it is as simple as only ever clicking dialogue choices. You're comparing them in a way that makes me think you would boil down the entirely of Basketball to "throwing a ball," or chess to "moving a piece of plastic."

I never said we have to look for intent, I said there has to be intent. Way I see it, at least. Perhaps in more complex artworks this is not the case, but in such a simple game as Pong we would be doing nothing but making up strained analogies. It is not necessarily that we have to uncover the originally intended meaning of the creator (though I hardly see as little value in that pursuit as you do, but authorial intent is one of those issues), but if the creator had no particular intent it is rare that the artwork will be worth analyzing.

And it's impossible for their to be NO intent. "Here's my little Newgrounds flash game, my intent is trolling people with a pointless game."

Again with taking what I say every way except that which I mean it. It's like you look for interpretations of what I say that will most effectively make me look like an idiot. Let me specify: artistic intent. If someone is not trying to make a work of art, it is debatable whether it is actually art or not in the first place, but regardless, there will rarely be anything artistic worth looking into. Pong was developed as nothing more than a simple game, with no intended artistic meaning whatsoever. Finding symbolism in Pong would be an exercise in futility and taking things out of context. Perhaps we cannot know the author's intent for a work, but it is extremely dangerous to take things entirely out of context when analyzing an artwork. An exercise made entirely of that activity? No thank you.

 

[KingofMadCows]

Legacy of Kain series - Immersion, First Person Storytelling
Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines - Immersion, First Person Storytelling, and RPG study
Planescape: Torment - Immersion, First Person Storytelling, and RPG study
Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer - Immersion, First Person Storytelling, and RPG study

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Man, you consistently misinterpret so many things I say on so many levels I literally cannot explain what I actually mean here. It would take far too long. You're severely misunderstanding the levels of activity in games. It's not a matter of how many buttons you push, it's what they mean. Final Fantasy games have menu systems that allow for complex gameplay. The true gameplay of a Final Fantasy game is not in pressing two buttons on a battle screen, it's in customizing your characters and abilities outside of battle and effectively using them in combat.

Did you lose track of the conversation? Here you said:

As for menu-based battle systems, I said this concept of gameplay generalization had been used before. What makes adventure games and visual novels different is that it's all they do.

...

Your argument was that only Adventure games and visual novels rely on menu based interaction.
And later you said:

But tons of genres do use nothing but menu navigation context sensetive commands. Final Fantasy has just about two buttons, select and go back/cancel, and I can say the same for pretty much any console rpg of that era...

I'm just going to ignore the Final Fantasy comment, as it's simply not true. That may be all you do in battle, but not in the entire game. At all.

So how is what you do at the equip screen so different from what you do in battle that it doesn't deserve to be called a menu naigation system?

Just because only two buttons are used does not mean it is as simple as only ever clicking dialogue choices. You're comparing them in a way that makes me think you would boil down the entirely of Basketball to "throwing a ball," or chess to "moving a piece of plastic."

Have you forgotten the entire point of this conversation? The entire point of which is to demonstrate that the use of context sensative commands and menus is a tenuous reasoning to link genres together. You are arguing against your own point and you haven't even realized it.

Pong was developed as nothing more than a simple game, with no intended artistic meaning whatsoever.

And how do you know this?

 

[Pakkie]

Portal 2.

 

[Thaius]

The entire point of which is to demonstrate that the use of context sensative commands and menus is a tenuous reasoning to link genres together.

Perhaps this is where the problem is coming from. I am not arguing that just because two genres use context sensitive commands and menus means they are linked. Heck, Legend of Zelda has been using context-sensitive commands to an extent for ages; many games do. I'm saying certain genres (namely, visual novels and adventure games) tend to use them in such a way that violence is not an integral aspect of the gameplay. This results in vastly different storytelling from the vast majority of other games. Final Fantasy may be entirely menu-based, but it differs from visual novels in that, while any menu navigation in a visual novel is simply story choice (outside of many menu and game settings), menu navigation in Final Fantasy is a complex set of rules and settings that all go toward customizing and organizing one's battle tactics, which are then implemented in battles. While adventure games are a bit more complex than visual novels, they follow a similar pattern; their actions are about applying things, talking to people, giving people things; the context-sensitive commands are used in such a way that violence is not a part of the gameplay. I know this is not true of every game in the genre, but this is an art form; not everything will fall neatly into genre definitions. Nothing ever does.

What I am linking together are genres that use context-sensitive commands to a huge, if not complete, extent in a way that eliminates violence as a necessary part of gameplay. Violence allows concrete game structure (which is necessary to a game: live to win, die to lose, clear-cut criteria for winning and losing) to a story, where structure should not be known to the one experiencing the work. This is harder to do for stories not involving violence because "winning" is a much more abstract concept. Visual novels and adventure games generalize or minimize the controls in such a way that their stories are capable of more variance. I think that's worth studying.

Pong was developed as nothing more than a simple game, with no intended artistic meaning whatsoever.

And how do you know this?

I suppose I can't quote a source that says, "Pong was not developed as a work of art," but I bet you anything that's because no one has ever thought something so absurd. I bet you even more you will never find anything saying the creators of Pong had any artistic vision for it. When games were that simple, who was thinking about art? You could barely put five pixels on the screen; it simply was not a concern. It was still amazing that user input could have such an effect on onscreen actions. It was akin to when movie theaters just showed video of a running horse for five minutes; no one filmed that because it meant something powerful, they filmed it because cool, moving pony! Same goes for Pong, and I highly doubt you'll find anything that contradicts that.