Anyhoo, I wanted to comment (mainly) about Second Life, as it is definitely NOT the kind of interactive experience that appeals to me or that I think is particularly worthy. Even the name is a bit telling, should we be offering a virtual “life” so people can escape the one they have (however bad it seems). I’m not sure an all-encompassing experience is healthy or desirable. There is a false sense of security in such complete worlds (a la MUDs of the 80s), and from what I can tell, too much opportunity of abuse of power from creators/addicts/first-comers. Maybe it’s in the execution - I can see a lot of good things in Second Life, but I think it suffers from lack of authorship, direction and control - lowest common denominator syndrome, perhaps.

Ok, maybe that makes me sound snobby, but your site got me thinking a bit about the difference between artistic merit and mass appeal, they are not correlated, and “games” seem to have not much of either. I am not interested in seedy user-created islands, where the participants are obsessed with sex and money (again, that’s just the “impression” I get about SL, but what else can I go on?).

I want a rich interactive experience, but I also like plot, and vague goals to achieve, but I don’t want to create everything myself, and I don’t want to necessarily suffer the products of the masses of other people “playing” the game too. But maybe that’s just a community thing.

Ok, so this comment is more of a ramble than I meant, but I thought just saying “I think Second Life is an abomination” might be taken the wrong way :-)

You would say the same thing about a feather, a landscape, a poem or a table if you would judge them as games. But we don’t. We like feathers for their own sake. We sometimes even like them better than games.

So I don’t think I’ll be giving this review any stars. ;)

Actionbutton reviews Elecktroplankton
http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=151

maybe the new games journalists CAN review the new games properly… but perhaps not on sites specifically about reviewing games?

But I think we are probably going round in circles here, I suspsect that you are more interested in an emergent or narrative experience than a ludic challenge. Indeed games are increasingly aspiring to cinematic experiences, which is no bad thing, because as you say this broadens their appeal. Im just interested to see how games can retain elements of challenge, skill and competition and not evolve into punctuated cutscenes or pretty chatrooms. Emergent narrative is a hot topic in game design at the moment and I hope it will allow games to be more narrative/cinematic without losing their ‘gameness’. Its well known through game research that players do not usually make the best storytellers. (everyone has a novel in them but not everyones novel is good)

Anyway I should probably stop ranting now (fun though its been). Its a sign of progress that we are actively discussing such topics (both here and occasionally in the press) and Im looking forward to checking out ‘The Path’

tom: “Im happy to call things games, no matter how removed from traditional gaming they may be. But they have to face up to that tradition in some way in order to position themselves in the territory.”

Which tradition?

Contemporary computer games are a hybrid art form. They draw as much from games as they draw from movies, literature, poetry, painting, sculpture, architecture, etc. In fact, I believe that it is this hybridity that is the major factor to their current succes, not the fact that they are games.

I never said that technology should only be used to make traditional games. Its just one use of technology, and you seem rather dismissive of the actual validity and/or power of traditional games “with goals and rules and all that”.

“The New Games seem to be reaching out, far outside the games audience. They seem to be made for other people than the hardcore gamer group, rather than only a subset of it. For me, this is a sign of maturity.”

Im still not sure where you have got the phrase from, because again Im not sure that there much actually new about these games. Is SimCity included? because thats around 18yrs old, The sims maybe? But yes I agree that these types of games show a maturity that the majority of titles don’t and point towards a broader potential of gaming.

“I don’t mind using the word “games” for all entertaining interactive experiences, even if strictly speaking they are not games. Movies are not recorded on film anymore, yet we still call them that. Comic strips are often neither comical nor strips, but we still use that name. What else should we call it?”

Well I personally think its too unspecific. Especially if you are trying to willfully stretch the exisiting assumptions of a mediums boundaries. Comic strips are rarely called that anymore (unless of course they are funny and strips). Graphic novel is often the term chosen to present a more indpeth/mature/artistic aspect of the medium. Movies arent called movies because of the physcial format, nothing has changed in the production of mainstream movies to need the term altering, they are still ‘moving images’. However we do have arthouse movies, video art and various other subgenres that orbit around the central medium.

Im happy to call things games, no matter how removed from traditional gaming they may be. But they have to face up to that tradition in some way in order to position themselves in the territory.

On the other hand, I think my hope extends to the whole games industry and community. If it is correct that the typical goal-oriented, rules-based gameplay appeals to only a fragment of humanity, much like board games do, e.g. then the industry will stagnate.

You are right that there have been many other types of games in the past. Text-based adventures and CD-Rom experiences were once the mainstream. But currently, it seems like the offer has shrunk. Most big contemporary games are incredibly conservative in their structure and game design. There is a market for this, for sure. But I think this market is getting very close to complete saturation.

And all the while, the large majority of the population does not play games at all. Yet these people enjoy other types of entertainment just fine. I think they would enjoy certain types of interactive experiences too. Just not games. Games are considered childish or nerdy by them.

And lastly, don’t you think it is an incredibly poor use of interactive technology to just make games with them? I mean games in the traditional sense, with goals and rules and all that. There’s so much more that can be done with this technology. It doesn’t even have to be art.

I am aware of the fact that there have been many experiments in the history of computer games. But those have often been even less accessible than the mainstream. The New Games seem to be reaching out, far outside the games audience. They seem to be made for other people than the hardcore gamer group, rather than only a subset of it. For me, this is a sign of maturity.

I don’t mind using the word “games” for all entertaining interactive experiences, even if strictly speaking they are not games. Movies are not recorded on film anymore, yet we still call them that. Comic strips are often neither comical nor strips, but we still use that name. What else should we call it?

Hmm I tend to disagree, the UK newpaper Sunday TImes had an 8 page sepcial on WoW only last weekend. But I think you are right in terms of profile, but even if SL does have a good profile it still has a very small numer of users (gamers or otherwise), and is in my opinion more offputting to non-gamers than WoW. Id say that 50% of the people I know playing WoW have families (who they often play with) and many dont necessarily consider themselves gamers either. SL is newsworthy, but until someone throws money at it properly and gives it decent tools & rules I think it wont crack the mainstream.

Im not sure what you mean by ‘new games’ anyway. Games designers have been writing experimental games along the lines of flow etc for years. I think that there has been a recent crossover from ‘new media’ artists who are now interested in gaming and think that they are somehow expanding the field in a previously unexplored way. Perhaps they are, but its not as if games have previously been limited.

“but in terms of cultural relevance and impact on society, the New Games will reign supreme”

Not at the moment, If you take a look at any info on RMT, Castronovas work or the numerous socialogical reseach texts on MMOs you can see that MMORPGs are promting huge changes in the management of online communities and virtual economics.

“gameplay-centric games” so what is a game if it isnt gameplay-centric? It may be more like art or more of an emotional/ambient experience, but it probably wont be good when judged for its gameplay and therefore why do we need to cling to the idea of ‘game’ for such a project.

The ‘casual games’ scene is really growing right now, as is the ’serious games’ scene. Both of which have some interesting approaches to gaming outside the ‘traditional’ mainstream. I know im being somewhat pf a devils advocate here, but I feel that any practitioner who is becoming involved in an existing medium should research and reference as much as possible from that medium. Its just as easy to say that pop music is badly produced drivel for kids, but we know that that is not exculsively the case.

p.s. enjoying the opportunity to rant :)