A lot of games developers don’t understand trends in gaming that aren’t explicitly gamist. Even as walking sinulators and cozy games have garnered audiences that make those genres viable, many in the industry have refused to actually look at them with an eye to understand who they appeal to, why, and what about them is doing the connecting with their audiences.
I worked on a mobile PvP project that rejected purely aesthetic elements because none of the director, designer, not “monetization specialist” could understand why anyone would want them, even as Fortnite was bursting onto the scene making its money on its emotes and paper doll elements.
Art driven paper doll games were also eating our lunch in the mobile space.
There are clearly some in the industry who understand the appeal, but most of them are not decision makers in development studios. The decision makers got there by coming up in a much more focused, much less casual, much less inclusive era in gaming, and have a pretty fixed idea of what a game “is” or “is supposed to be”.
Because of this,aAs things shift towards more IP licensing deal, the results are going to be a lot of conflicts between tone and gameplay on these projects.
I think one thing that would help the discussion is acknowledging that there are now multiple kinds of interactive media, and not all of them are games.
The terms i personally use are:
Game: an interactive experience with rules, challenges, and the possibility of winning and losing.
Toy: an interactive experience where you are given tools and a space to play in, but which lacks a structured goal. Paper doll falls into this category.
Interactive Story: an interactive experience where you go through a linear or branching narrative, but which avoids mechanical or mental challenges and can’t be lost. Many visual novels would fall into this category.
I think a lot of tension between people who enjoy these different categories would be lessened if we talked about them as equally valid, but different, forms of interactive entertainment.
The boundaries can be blurred of course. There are many examples of mixed experiences that combined all of the above, but i think it’s still a helpful way to look at for me at least. Some people really enjoy toys but don’t like games, and that’s not just OK, it’s a good thing. It broadens the media pool and lets more people in.
The terms are just my own, so i wouldn’t expect them to make sense yet without explanation.
As i said many things blur the lines, just like you point out. The goal of these terms isn’t to put up barriers, but to make it easier to talk about the differences between things. My goal is to point out the core of interactive experiences can be fundamentally different from a game, and using that term as an umbrella for everything can create false expectations. Does that make sense?
Prince of Persia falls solidly into the game definition for me for the record. It has challenges, rules, and while the loss mechanic can be rewound, it’s still a loss mechanic. You don’t have to load a game for something to be a loss, in other words. A loss simply means the player has been given feedback that what they did is incorrect and they can’t succeed at the game or challenge by doing what caused the loss.
After reading two separate reviews, it seems this game is being lauded for what it is by one, and deeply criticized by another. It seems insane to fault this game for doing exactly what is expected of this genre.
A lot of games developers don’t understand trends in gaming that aren’t explicitly gamist. Even as walking sinulators and cozy games have garnered audiences that make those genres viable, many in the industry have refused to actually look at them with an eye to understand who they appeal to, why, and what about them is doing the connecting with their audiences.
I worked on a mobile PvP project that rejected purely aesthetic elements because none of the director, designer, not “monetization specialist” could understand why anyone would want them, even as Fortnite was bursting onto the scene making its money on its emotes and paper doll elements.
Art driven paper doll games were also eating our lunch in the mobile space.
There are clearly some in the industry who understand the appeal, but most of them are not decision makers in development studios. The decision makers got there by coming up in a much more focused, much less casual, much less inclusive era in gaming, and have a pretty fixed idea of what a game “is” or “is supposed to be”.
Because of this,aAs things shift towards more IP licensing deal, the results are going to be a lot of conflicts between tone and gameplay on these projects.
I think one thing that would help the discussion is acknowledging that there are now multiple kinds of interactive media, and not all of them are games.
The terms i personally use are:
Game: an interactive experience with rules, challenges, and the possibility of winning and losing.
Toy: an interactive experience where you are given tools and a space to play in, but which lacks a structured goal. Paper doll falls into this category.
Interactive Story: an interactive experience where you go through a linear or branching narrative, but which avoids mechanical or mental challenges and can’t be lost. Many visual novels would fall into this category.
I think a lot of tension between people who enjoy these different categories would be lessened if we talked about them as equally valid, but different, forms of interactive entertainment.
The boundaries can be blurred of course. There are many examples of mixed experiences that combined all of the above, but i think it’s still a helpful way to look at for me at least. Some people really enjoy toys but don’t like games, and that’s not just OK, it’s a good thing. It broadens the media pool and lets more people in.
deleted by creator
The terms are just my own, so i wouldn’t expect them to make sense yet without explanation.
As i said many things blur the lines, just like you point out. The goal of these terms isn’t to put up barriers, but to make it easier to talk about the differences between things. My goal is to point out the core of interactive experiences can be fundamentally different from a game, and using that term as an umbrella for everything can create false expectations. Does that make sense?
Prince of Persia falls solidly into the game definition for me for the record. It has challenges, rules, and while the loss mechanic can be rewound, it’s still a loss mechanic. You don’t have to load a game for something to be a loss, in other words. A loss simply means the player has been given feedback that what they did is incorrect and they can’t succeed at the game or challenge by doing what caused the loss.
After reading two separate reviews, it seems this game is being lauded for what it is by one, and deeply criticized by another. It seems insane to fault this game for doing exactly what is expected of this genre.