That Dragon, Cancer Review

The father, son, and the holy spirit.

Spoiler warning: This review discusses plot elements that may be considered spoilers.

There’s a section of That Dragon Cancer where Amy and Ryan Green, the game’s creators and lead characters, have to tell their two older sons exactly what’s happening to their baby brother Joel. The most straightforward answer to that question is one no child--really no parent--should ever have to hear: Joel is diagnosed at a year old with a merciless form of brain cancer, and given less than a year to live. This is not the story Amy and Ryan tell their other children.

The tale they tell is a bedtime story, recorded, and given life in That Dragon, Cancer as a pixelated Ghosts n’ Goblins riff; Joel is a brave knight who shoots enemies with spears. At the start, he's bound to succeed in his quest because of divine grace, the light of God helping him out, eventually forced to do battle with a physical manifestation of the titular dragon, cancer incarnate. The battle stops dead, however, when one of the boys mentions a neighbor who also died of cancer, and asks, in that guileless way only children can, where the neighbor’s grace was when that neighbor died. Amy answers that: sometimes, the grace manifests when the brave knight doesn’t have to fight anymore, and they can rest.

More than it is any sort of game with a victory-state, or a satisfying climax, That Dragon, Cancer is Ryan and Amy’s abstract, dream-world document of the continual search for, if not their own grace, then at least respite for themselves and their lost child. As such, it’s hard, bordering on impossible, to judge as a game in the strictest sense, even under looser Gone Home/The Beginner's Guide terms. It has no need or interest to entertain anyone who plays it. The existential terror and disorientation of the experience has no real satisfaction, just the hope that expressing it can let its creators lift the burden. There are no Achievements, no points to be gained. There is only the ability to weave and work abstractly through the pain of its creators as they did, the interactivity of the medium allowing them the freedom to craft often virtual cathedrals to stand in monument of it.

Ryan and Amy struggle to help their other children understand Joel's plight.
Ryan and Amy struggle to help their other children understand Joel's plight.

Crucially, every emotional breakthrough, every new revelation, every gut-stab of a memory in That Dragon, Cancer must be discovered, confronted, and processed, as it undoubtedly had to be in the minds of its creators as it happened. The only tools you have to do so are the ability to look around, and a single button to interact. A single button lets you hear recorded family memories, the narrated, desperate thoughts of the parents. A single button keeps Ryan from drowning in the seas of his depression, to view the endless “thank you” cards at their hospital, to experience even the sheer mundaniaty of life with a loved-one's lethal illness staring you in the eyes. In That Dragon, Cancer, coping is a gameplay mechanic. The fact that it’s difficult to do so is deliberate and appropriate. Even as rudimentary as many of the obstacles are in That Dragon, Cancer, there are still moments where the game prevents the player from moving on without struggling with the decrepit, Myst-like point-and-click-to-move control scheme. In that regard, it actually has more in common with early horror games of the medium than it does any of the “walking simulators” that have cropped up in recent years.

The miracle isn’t that Joel’s tumor goes away. It’s that, for a brief moment, Joel sleeps. The screaming nightmare is over for a night, with the knowledge that it will return. It is terrifying, and more frighteningly, it happens to millions every day.

Joel was expected to not last the year, and lasted four. It’d be so easy to call his defiance of those odds a miracle, but the game has no compunctions of bursting that bubble before it ever inflates. The scene after we hear Amy talk of grace and miracles to her children is a sequence where Joel can’t stop crying because of the pain in his head, to the point of banging his head against the crib to make it end. You have the ability to walk with him around the hospital room, to try and feed him, to give him juice that he promptly vomits up, with Ryan finally resigning to prayer and, ultimately, complete surrender to the fact the crying won’t end. The miracle isn’t that Joel’s tumor goes away. It’s that, for a brief moment, Joel sleeps. The screaming nightmare is over for a night, with the knowledge that it will return. It is terrifying, and more frighteningly, it happens to millions every day. Imagine there’s a disease that causes that level of agony to very real children. There is no physical means of stopping it, and despite Ryan’s constant pleading to God for deliverance, the Lord neither takes Joel away, nor does he give him peace in any sort of timely manner.

That Dragon, Cancer effectively conveys real, complex emotions.
That Dragon, Cancer effectively conveys real, complex emotions.

God plays a huge role in That Dragon, Cancer. This family is in dire need of a savior that won’t come, and it may very well depend on the player’s own relationship with God how one chooses to interpret the fact that, despite that absence, they remain hopeful. That said, there are moments where that faith is questioned, where the dissonance that comes with having faith in something that doesn’t seem to have much faith in you must be sorted out. While Amy’s faith remains true from beginning to end, Ryan’s faith seems to take the biggest hit during the game, particularly during a sequence with the detritus of his tiny life displayed as an inconsequential dot in the middle of a vast ocean, crawling with malignant, throbbing tumors.

The game never flinches from the evil of cancer, which ultimately makes the moments of happiness, as simple as they are, mean the world. The game is constructed to let players find the beaming light in less grandiose moments: finding time, even after a hard doctor’s visit, to get excited for dinner, roadtripping to California, watching Joel feed ducks at a lake, letting him ramble about how loud lions can roar, or watching his favorite cartoon on a tablet. Surrounded by immeasurable pain, the tiny details have lingered in Ryan and Amy, enough to pockmark the darkness inherent in this game with a simple, untouchable joy.

This family is in dire need of a savior that won’t come, and it may very well depend on the player’s own relationship with God how one chooses to interpret the fact that, despite that absence, they remain hopeful.

That Dragon, Cancer ends on a deliberate image; it’s an image that, at first, feels entirely unearned, schmaltzy and cute in ways that, even at its most playful, the rest of the game isn’t. In narrative terms, we see a written ending, showcasing a faith in something beyond all the death and disease that gives us all what we love most in this world. From the side of its creators, it’s a permanent place where a mother and father have distilled everything wonderful about their child. This is the only place where we truly meet Joel. Not his disease, not his limitations. Just the child they got to know, surrounded by everything he loved.

It’s virtually impossible to not bring one’s own biases into That Dragon, Cancer, because death and disease are universal. Just as it’s impossible to quantify whether the exploration of those two heavy topics is worth the time and considerable emotional energy, it’s impossible to truly quantify the immeasurable value of being able to not just forever present the best version of a person to the world, but being able to earn his presence in every way his parents did.

The Good

  • Powerful meditation on life and death
  • Spirituality presented without taking any one side
  • The language of old video games used to wonderfully imaginative effect

The Bad

  • Clunky controls and glitches sometimes get in your way

About the Author

Justin Clark was able to finish That Dragon Cancer in about two hours. He WAS going to make pancakes for breakfast the next morning. Those plans have changed.
856 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for deactivated-5c9c41979056d
deactivated-5c9c41979056d

179

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

This doesn't sound like a game.

We need to get to a point in the industry where digital art pieces don't need to be called "Games". It's an abuse of the language and only serves to confuse and frustrate people.

6 • 
Avatar image for jenovaschilld
jenovaschilld

7744

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@kiddynamo: Is Dragon's Lair(1983) a video game, Is ShaQ Fu 1990's or Micheal Jackson's moonwalker Genesis a video game? Is Guitar Hero 2005 really a video game, what is the objective? Can ICO be considered art and not a video game?

Music to movies to books and I am sure someone 35,000 years ago said those drawings was more of a 'cave painting' the 'rock art'. The the very term 'art' is what ever you think it is, or more importantly whatever you can get someone else to think it is and spend money for it. Same with above, if you enjoy it, then it does not need a label.

Hopefully to many are not confused or frustrated.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Export
Export

125

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

@jenovaschilld: Dragon's lair is a game since you can go many different ways to the end and skill in timing to avoid things . This is up there with Gone home , Its not a game but a scripted movie , At least Telltales GAMES are different paths to reach the end of the game .

Upvote • 
Avatar image for jenovaschilld
jenovaschilld

7744

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By jenovaschilld

@Export: I am not asking if dragon lair is a game or is shaq fu is a game, I meant these are the same questions and labels I heard back then when those games came out. "is this really a game'? it's a question that is asked every generation and about any game that doesn't fit a certain mold.

This could indeed be considered a scripted movie or interactive scripted visual novel. OR maybe a flight simulator but instead of simulating what it is like to fly a plane, one in which you experience what it is like as parents to lose a struggle with a long painful disease of a child.

MY boss, who prints fine artwork,, number one rule is -- ART is.... anything .... you can get someone else to pay for.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5c9c41979056d
deactivated-5c9c41979056d

179

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@jenovaschilld: I'm slightly baffled by your questions. It seems like you are trying to be leading and make a point with the questions, but I'm completely confused as to what that point is supposed to be.

Is Guitar Hero 2005 a game? yes. Absolutely 100%. It's the very definition of a game. Why wouldn't it be? Shaq Fu and Moonwalker? Of course they are games. Are you trying to suggest that they aren't because they have famous people in them or something? Why would that anything to do with them being a game?

A game is a pastime that is embarked upon for fun. It has rules. It has winners and losers. It features a challenge. These have been the rules that games have lived by for thousands of years.

It's only recently that we've started doing bizarre things like "here, I made a game. Stand here and watch this sunset."

Why on earth would watching a sunset be a game? Nobody in their right mind would call watching a sunset a game. is it beautiful? yes. Does it have value? yes. Is it a game? NO. Not a bit of it. So why, when the same thing happens with a control in a person's hand, even if they aren't using it to DO anything, are we calling it a game? It makes no sense.

6 • 
Avatar image for jenovaschilld
jenovaschilld

7744

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By jenovaschilld

@kiddynamo: I guess I was in a hurry and did not type my above post out clearly enough. What I meant by the above examples was not whether those were games or not, but the exact same questions was asked when those games came out. Is this really a game, what is the point of this game, is Shaq really doing this? To me this is the gaming industry naturally evolving and expanding the definition of what video games are. I remember for years people would lambaste non-platform games as not really being a video game. For instance Rocksmith or the learning to type game from the early 80s. Games that teach you how to drive, experience what it is like to run a Zoo, find the joy of running an item shop, or understand the pain of what it is like to lose a child from a long and painful disease. Maybe the above game should be classified as more of a flight simulator, if some needs it to have a label to make sense.

Another thing, as each generation of gaming comes and goes, the shear amount of games that come out is increasing by the hundreds. I could play just about every RPG that came out during the 4th gen of gaming, now there are so many I am spend more time trying to decide what to actually play. With so many more games being developed, and the amount of new people making games, I see the hobby we all love so much stretching the boundary of entertainment itself.

Now I am going to play my Tamagotchi game, the only game from which all others, should be judged.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5c9c41979056d
deactivated-5c9c41979056d

179

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@jenovaschilld: I'm sorry, but to some extent I have to refute your premise. I'm 34 and I've been playing games my entire life. I bought all the games magazines back in the day and I participated in gaming conversations as much as one was able in that era. NOBODY that I ever came across asked whether Shaq Fu or Moonwalker were games. I never encountered ANYBODY asking whether Guitar Hero was a game.

You are absolutely right, though, that there were some software packages back in the 80s that came out on PC that had people asking whether or not they were games. And, of for the most part, we would say they weren't. There was no confusion. People would simply say they were software packages.

I mean, make no mistake about it, this debate over the use of the word "game" is VERY much a political struggle among nerds for validity. People want the hobby of 'games" to be seen as having merit and value. they want it to be seen by the culture at large as being important, and they want to be seen as doing something important when they play games.

I think, for people like me, we just don't CARE. I could absolutely care less if some girl thinks i'm an intellectual because I play video games. My only concern is being able to quickly find games I like, and have developers who are making games that I like be able to quickly find me with their products. For that, I don't NEED to see a bunch of digital art pieces that I have no interest in.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for mogan
mogan

18941

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Edited By mogan  Moderator

@kiddynamo: Even if That Dragon, Cancer was called something other than a game, we'd still have a review on Gamespot, it'd still be for sale on Steam, and gamers would still complain that somebody got chocolate in their peanut butter.

2 • 
Avatar image for Argle
Argle

571

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Mogan: woah woah woah. hold up. since when is getting chocolate in your peanut butter a bad thing?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5c9c41979056d
deactivated-5c9c41979056d

179

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Mogan: Names matter. It's why have them.

The thing about language is that we create words to define things. As you get more and more intelligent and learn more about a thing, you learn more words to talk about something with greater and greater specificity. A laymen knows "arm" and "elbow". A doctor knows hundreds of words to refer to the same thing in greater specificity. It's what allows a doctor to do what a doctor does.

Constantly using the word "video game" to refer to EVERYTHING you do with a controller in your hand is using the world like a caveman's club to knock ideas over the head and carry them back to our caves.

Personally, not calling everything "Games" to me is useful because I don't really CARE about digital art pieces. I like the occasional good one, but for the most part I avoid them. Yet, I've found myself falling for buying Gone Home, Sword and Sworcery, Oxenfree and others just because they were poorly described in reviews as being "games". A reviewer even went so far as to describe Sword and Sworcery as being like Zelda. IT IS NOTHING LIKE ZELDA.

3 • 
Avatar image for mogan
mogan

18941

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

mogan  Moderator

@kiddynamo: I heard much the same thing when Myst came out. Calling something a game isn't useful anymore because games come in so many varied forms anymore. That's why we've got so many different genres and sub-types we try to shoehorn every new game into. If you bought Gone Home and Sword and Sorcery because somebody told you they were good games; you run the risk of buying a 18 wheel semi-truck because someone told you it was a good automobile.

Since That Dragon, Cancer is going to in the gaming culture's eye regardless, I think it's more appropriate to expand what games can be, and then come up with a more useful genre to file it under, than it is to make sure that nobody confuses this piece of interactive software with video games.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for vinion2000
vinion2000

50

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Mogan: I just want to repeat something I said bellow

"I guess my rant is that its all word play. Is a bookstore that sells snacks a restaurant because it has snacks? Is coffee shop a library because it has few books you can read while you sip your coffee? You see what I mean. Just cause you give item a label means we must spend time re-evaluating the label to match the item. That's putting the cart before the horse. Its like calling a whiteboard in a classroom a chalkboard. Do we spend time re-evaluating what makes something a chalkboard? No we have the word chalkboard for a reason and we have whiteboard for another reason. We acknowledge that while both facilitate the very same function they are inherently different objects.

I find it just an exercise in fruition to always redefine gaming when it has a clear definition."

3 • 
Avatar image for mogan
mogan

18941

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Edited By mogan  Moderator

@vinion2000: I don't think that gaming DOES have a clear definition. I mean, we had the same argument 20+ years ago when Myst came out. A bunch of gamers couldn't wrap their heads around a game where all you did was walk around the click on stuff. Now we have Adventure Games. Same thing happened with mobile games.

I figure we can come up with a genre for games like That Dragon, Cancer and gaming can expand. I don't see any profit in insisting that these things aren't games. I mean, who cares? When another Gone Home comes out, we're still going to see it covered and reviewed by sites like Gamespot. It's still going to be on Steam. Where's the point in saying, "Remember now, THIS isn't a game. We're going to treat it like a game, but it's important everyone understand it's not."

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5c9c41979056d
deactivated-5c9c41979056d

179

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Mogan: Nothing you are saying makes any sense.

"If you bought x game because somebody told you to, you're stupid". Er... that's how game reviews work. I obviously cannot PLAY all games, and thusly I rely on other people's writings, and now videos (although that doesn't work well with mobile), to discern whether a game is something I want to pay for. THE ENTIRE GAME REVIEW INDUSTRY OPERATES ON THIS CONCEPT AND HAS FOR 30 YEARS.


"Expanding the definition of what games can be" is the exact inverse of all of established language. Name any other situation where anyone would be proposing that.

"That Dragon Cancer" ISN'T going into "gaming's eye". 90% of the people who play video games will never hear about this game or know that it exists.The only people who care about it are the "games as art' crowd who like the "Indy" scene.

Specialization is the way the world works, because it's intelligent. Do you remember Saturday Morning cartoons? It used to be thing until, at some point, someone realized it made no sense to relegate cartoons to just bizarre off-peak hours on a station that would rather be doing other things. So they made a network dedicated to purely cartoons and it set the industry on fire. The same thing with sports. Remember a world where the only sports coverage happened on saturday afternoons? I do. Then the world sized up and made a channel purely for sports.

It boils down to the simple concept of organization and structure. A person looking for a review on a game shouldn't have to parse out just what a reviewer is talking about when they call something an "adventure game". "Is this an adventure game where I solve puzzles? Or is this an adventure game where I just move the character around the screen and the story plays itself out?".

"is this an "action game" where I actually control my character and press buttons to fight? or do I just press "a" every time a prompt pops up on screen? Because both these products got "10's" and they are nothing alike."

3 • 
Avatar image for noah364
noah364

208

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

@kiddynamo: Well, then what would you call them?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5c9c41979056d
deactivated-5c9c41979056d

179

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@noah364: "Interactive Digital Art", personally. That satisfies the people who so badly want to see the medium be treated as "art", outlines the fact that it is interactive, and strips of the connotations that go along with it being a game.

3 • 
Avatar image for jenovaschilld
jenovaschilld

7744

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@kiddynamo: @noah364: "Interactive Digital Art"..... I personally would put in the category of a flight simulator, or a instruct-able like Rocksmith. There was a very strong argument back in 2001 that ICO could be considered as a form of art.

But to me this seems more of a simlulator in experiencing what it is like to fight, and lose a child to a long to a long painful disease.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for noah364
noah364

208

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

@kiddynamo: Well that's a bit of a mouthful. And then, once you coin that term, doesn't "game" become a subset of "Interactive Digital Art"? So then, how do we decide what is a game, and what is merely "interactive digital art"? In the future, will I go shopping at Interactive-Digital-Art/Gamestop?

Orrr....

We could just call them all games, and realize that semantics really doesn't matter that much. I mean, we use the same word for The Witcher 3 as for pickup sticks, both "games," and people seem to be able to sort it out without much confusion.

It seems like differentiating between "game" and "Interactive Digital Art" would cause more confusion than it would solve.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for kenundrum7
kenundrum7

380

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 49

User Lists: 0

@noah364: You said "In the future, will I go shopping at Interactive-Digital-Art/Gamestop?"

If I can get a movie from Drugmart, does that make the movie a drug?

You said "We could just call them all games, and realize that semantics really doesn't matter that much."

Interesting use of semantics. So, the meaning and logic of a word should have no bearing, and we should lazily use whatever word we want to describe anything?

Hmmm.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for th3soldier
Th3Soldier

105

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

"Interactive movies". Simple, innit?

2 • 
Avatar image for magnusstorm
magnusstorm

451

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@th3soldier: You mean that video game genre, Interactive Movie Video Games? k'
The problem with you people redefining games is that you conveniently ignore existing genre that don't follow your limited view points.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for noah364
noah364

208

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

@th3soldier: We're going to use a six-syllable term to replace a one-syllable term in the interest of preserving the arbitrary integrity of the word "game"? Keep in mind that the word "game", as we use it to mean videogame, is already incredibly far away from the original use of the word game. That is, for things like poker and not for the incredibly complicated multi-million dollar story-driven solo-or-multiplayer experiences. So technically, what we call "games" aren't even games. And because we've already broken the semantics of it, why institute another arbitrary term, especially one as clunky as "interactive movie", instead of continuing to use the already-broken term that we ourselves broke in the first place?

2 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5c9c41979056d
deactivated-5c9c41979056d

179

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@noah364: No. There is no "arbitrary integrity" of the word game. The word game is a WORD. It has a definition.

"a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck."

There is no confusion except that which is being newly generated by people who want to "expand the definition of games".

It's like how the dictionary has updated itself to say that the word "literally" now means "literally or figuratively". They "expanded the definition of the word literally". There WAS no confusion. Now it's not only confusing, it defies any kind of logical sense.

People saying thing like "game's don't need to be challenging, fun, or require participation from the player" are the ones creating confusion.

2 • 
Avatar image for noah364
noah364

208

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

@kiddynamo: Yet your very definition of "game" is ambiguous, and things that do not fit your definition still apply to what we would call a "game". Assuming that "strength" doesn't apply, we're left with skill and luck.

Let's take, for example, Fallout 3. Let's agree that Fallout 3 is a game.

When I played Fallout 3, I used command console prompts to make me invincible, give me a gun that one-shots every enemy in the game, and gave myself unlimited ammo for that gun. I also maxed out all of my stats.

So when I played Fallout 3, it involved no skill. When I played Fallout 3, it also involved no luck. I couldn't die. There was basically nothing in the game I couldn't do. I could complete missions in very little time, and explore and collect at my leisure without worrying about death.

So Fallout 3 required no skill, no strength, and no luck. By your definition, Fallout 3, as I played it, was not a game.

Yet...it obviously was. It still retained numerous elements that we identify as being distinctly "game." It still had structured missions, dialogue options, a HUD, things to buy and collect. Even in it's command-console'd state, there would be few who would argue that Fallout 3 is not a "game."

Furthermore, there is, within your definition, the clear distinction of "especially", yet not "exclusively." This makes the "skill, strength, or luck" section optional to the definition. If it was not intended to be so, the definition would instead read, "a form of play or sport decided by skill, strength, or luck, especially a competitive one played according to rules" and not the other way around.

And how can we be sure that everything following the word "especially" is optional to the definition? Because plenty of games, that is, things we both can agree are games, are not competitive at all. Fallout 3, Skyrim, The Witcher 3, and every other single-player game. If you say that "skill, strength, or luck" is essential to this definition of "game," than you must logically also say that "competitive" is essential to this definition of game, which excludes, well, most videogames.

And then there's another problem. What about the games, which we can agree are games, which don't fall under the definition of "play"? If you simply google the definition of the verb form of play, you get two results:

1) engage in activity for enjoyment and recreation rather than a serious or practical purpose.

2) take part in (a sport)

If you accept the second definition, than you must concede that That Dragon, Cancer is a "game," because you do, indeed, take part in it.

But the first definition is more relevant. However, it is also problematic. What about the games, again, that we can both agree are games, that you don't play for enjoyment or recreation? Those games that are hard to get through, that aren't fun to play, that you play to absorb a serious message rather than to entertain yourself? I'm talking This War of Mine, Shadow of the Colossus, Papers Please. Games that are unpleasant, heart-wrenching experiences that will leave you miserable if you simply sat down to relax after a long day at work. Yet these are all, unarguably, games.

In order to examine the semantics of videogames, we have to look at what videogames originally were. The very first games were basically just barebones digital board games: local multiplayer only. Spacewar, the first videogame, was only two-player. The Magnavox Odyssey was also multiplayer-only (if I recall correctly) and was sold and marketed sort of as that: a digital board game.

When we started getting more single-player stuff, they videogames evolved into, well, simple toys for children. They were meant to be just simply a "game," a little way for kids to entertain themselves in the same way they make "games" out of squishing ants or diverting water or fighting imaginary monsters. As a result, because these digital toys were sold as "games" as well.

What do you do with a game? Well, you play it. So it came to be that digital interactive entertainment was called a videogame (because that's literally all it was, a game/toy on a video screen), which you naturally "play", as you would with any other game.

But that's not what games are anymore. They're not digital boardgames. They're certainly not toys (remember This War of Mine?). The name has just stuck with it, even though many pieces of entertainment that is universally regarded as a "videogame" really isn't much of a game at all. They aren't technically "played" as much as they are interacted with, and they can reasonably require no skill or luck whatsoever and still be called a "game."

So where am I going with this? The word "game" doesn't apply to all that we would consider to be a "videogame." Videogame is it's own separate entity, different from "games" just as movies (moving pictures) are a completely separate area from static photography.

Because the word "videogame" has come to simply mean the sum of interactive digital entertainment, including works that are objectively "videogames" but not at all "games", there is no point in trying to invent a whole new term.

But let's say that you're right. Let's say that it is definitely, for sure, the best option to come up with a new term for things like That Dragon, Cancer. How do you aim to make it stick? "Interactive Digital Art" is a pain to say, type, and remember. How will you move the gaming community to replace a word as simple and easy as "game" with an eight syllable three word term? Even if you were somehow able to prompt such a large colloquial shift, would it be worth the effort?

How many people, honestly, are going to be deceived by calling "That Dragon, Cancer" a "game"? No-one sees that title and thinks, "oh, cancer! This looks like fun."

But what about something like Gone Home, which has no immediate indication from the title that it isn't a fun "game" as you define it?

Well, I sure hope that before you buy a game, you at least see some screenshots or read the description, and don't just go off of "high scores, says "game", will buy." If that's all you do, if you buy games without knowing what they play like or what they're about, then frankly, you deserve to lose your money and be disappointed.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5c9c41979056d
deactivated-5c9c41979056d

179

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@noah364: Again, I disagree and reject absolutely everything you are saying. Your argument that the name "video games" have just stuck with the hobby despite them no longer having anything to do with games is the same as someone defending the world literally no meaning "literally or figuratively" because "language has evolved".

Fallout 3, as you played it, was NOT a game. You cheated. You turned what was a game into a pastime that you enjoyed. Just because you enjoyed something, does not mean it was a game. The Harlem Globetrotters do not play a game of basketball. It LOOKS like Basketball. It has all the trappings of basketball. It may be fun for the audience and fun for the performers, but it's NOT a game. It's a show.

You cheating at Fallout is no different than an athlete playing in a fixed match. It's not a game when one side has been paid to lose. That's basically what you did in Fallout.

2 • 
Avatar image for noah364
noah364

208

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

@kiddynamo:

"Again, I disagree and reject absolutely everything you are saying."

What a great sentence! I applaud your directness.

In regards to what you say about literally, I think you misunderstood my point. I'm saying that he's, language has evolved, so the traditional definition of "game" no longer applies just as "literally" no longer only means "literally."

Let's talk for a second about how language evolves. Language evolves to become shorter and more simple. "Is not, are not, am not" becomes "ain't." Trevor Noah has a great bit on "Do you know what I mean?" reducing itself to "na mean?" Television? No, TV. Videogame? Just "game" will do. If I want to send you a message from my phone to yours, I won't send you a message via short messaging service. I'll just "text" you, even though "text" was originally a noun, not a verb.

And that leads me into the second way that language evolves. Language becomes more broad, not more specific. "Literally" becomes both "literally" and "figuratively." "Awesome" comes to mean anything that is just fairly good, not only something that inspires awe. "Xerox" was originally a term specific to a company and its products. Now it's a verb that is synonymous to "copy."

Your proposed eight-syllable three-word name goes against both of these trends. It is longer, more complicated, and more specific. It is swimming against the linguistic stream. So I again propose to you the question that I asked in my last response that you have failed to answer, how do you propose to even make such a name stick?

Now let's talk about Fallout 3 for a second. Did I really "cheat"? The command console is built into the game. That gun I used. That ammo is used. Those were assets built into the game. I installed no extra mods, and used no outside resources. I simply used the tools the developed provided for me.

This is akin to something like the chicken hat in MGSV. It makes the game far easier, but it is still a developer-included part of the game.

And what about this, exactly, contradicts your definition of "game"?

True, there is very little skill no involved, but I already proved to you in my last response that, under your definition, skill, strength, luck, or competition is not actually necessary to defining something as a "game."

And then, where do you draw the line between "game" and "pastime"? That's not a rhetorical question; I'd like you to answer it.

But I agree with you that the Harlem Globetrotters is not a game, for two reasons. First, the core of basketball is competition. You cannot play a game of basketball with one team, or with one person. The game itself inherently requires competition to be played. The Globetrotters have taken out the core of the game, so it is not longer the game we call "basketball," In fact, I agree with you that it is not a game at all, but a simple show. That's because there is basically zero freedom or unpredictability in a Globetrotters game. Even in a game where you walk in a single direction using a single button, there is a degree of freedom and unpredictability. You could, for example, let go of the button. Then press it again. Then let go of it again. As long as the game responds to your decision and actions in some way, that freedom and unpredictability is preserved.

But the Globetrotters are completely scripted. They rehearse a static series of events that varies onstage only due to the realities of human error. It's a play. It is, as you call it, a show.

So how is m playing of Fallout 3 different from the Globetrotters, and fierce to from a rigged match? In any sporting event, competition is the heart of the game. By disrupting or removing the competition, you are going outside of the rigidly established boundaries of the game, fundamentally changing the game, and, yes, "cheating." But I did not go outside the realm of the game. I stayed in it. I obeyed rules set up by the developer, I just took advantage of legitimate aspects of the game that are more difficult to access. It's not a rigged match, it's a Fosbury Flop.

But honestly, this whole argument about Fallout 3 is more or less irrelevant to the fact that, in my last response, I dismantled your definition of "game" and proved that it cannot possibly apply. You never address the fact that the word "especially" actually makes the definition encompass things that have no skill, strength, luck, or competition.

You also ignored my most important point. That, under your definition of "game," things that can be objectively be considered "games", like Papers Please and This War of Mine, are somehow excluded cause of the definition of "play."

The Fallout 3 example is more or less irrelevant to my overall point. I'll concede it, if you really want; it's not important to my argument, and though it does spawn off an interesting debate about what constitutes "cheating", it doesn't do much other than waste our time.

I look forward to hearing back from you.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Argle
Argle

571

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@noah364: "evolution of language" sounds a lot like simple vernacular and slang. In which case, the new 'definitions' words take on are only temporary. New definitions that aren't simply slang arise to address new technology - case in point, your example of 'text' with 'text messaging'. And yes, what you did in Fallout 3 was cheating.

Back on point, games are art and art is games. 'That Dragon, Cancer', is a game, but it is definitely more art than game.

2 • 
Avatar image for noah364
noah364

208

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

@Argle:"Evolution of language" is indeed, partially at least, vernacular and slang, which, it is implied, only lasts for a generation or so before falling out of use (which is also further evolution). But it is also words that are created and last a longer amount of time, often spanning generations. The "literally" example has been used constantly, so I might as well use it again. I use "literally" as "figuratively", as does my mother, my grandmother, and as did my great-grandmother. It didn't arise as "slang for their generations, but this alternative use permeated society to an extent where all generations where familiar with it and using it making it, unlike slang, unlikely to go away soon.

So saying "evolution of language" does indeed cover a lot of ground.

I know you're not disagreeing with me, so I'm not arguing with you here. I appreciate your expansion of the ideas in this discussion.

And I still maintain I wasn't cheating.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for kenundrum7
kenundrum7

380

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 49

User Lists: 0

@noah364:

You said "language has evolved, so the traditional definition of "game" no longer applies just as "literally" no longer only means "literally."

and

"Literally" becomes both "literally" and "figuratively."

Mine: So your argument is because the word literally can be used in a hyperbolic sense, therefore all bets are off on the actual meaning of words, and we shouldn't try to be at all accurate? Is it your point of view we should all accept the view of the lowest common denominator, or as a society try to improve?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for noah364
noah364

208

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

@kenundrum7: Well, no, that's not what I'm arguing at all. Literally was just an example. I'm saying that that the "accurate" meaning of today is not necessarily the accurate meaning of tomorrow. Word usage naturally changes. Let me re-outline my arguments simply, to allow you to more conveniently form refutations:

1) Your definition of "game" that you presented is rife with problems, and therefore should be disregarded

2) The natural evolution of language has changed the meaning and usage of the word "game" to be widespread enough to encompass art such as That Dragon, Cancer

3) Your proposed alternative to the term "game" defies all trends in linguistic evolution, and is therefore impractical.

The details of these arguments are contained in my above responses.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for kenundrum7
kenundrum7

380

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 49

User Lists: 0

Edited By kenundrum7

@noah364: Thank you for your clarification.

1) The current definition has not evolved yet, so you are jumping the gun. Misusing a word can cause it to evolve, but that is why this debate. It has not yet. But you are trying to force the evolution.

2) Since games can be called art, that does not mean art = game. You argued elsewhere that categories are subjective. Is it your belief that the definitions of words are subjective as well?

3) For lack of a better term, people are calling it a game. Will you embrace ignorance, or accuracy?

You cheated in Fallout 3? Interesting. Can you cheat, or would anyone find it beneficial to cheat in That Dragon Cancer?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for noah364
noah364

208

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

@kenundrum7:

I appreciate how directly how address my responses, however, it should be said that for this argument to continue in any productive way, you simply must address the details of my arguments. This holds most true in my argument about the proposed definition of "game," which is central to my point yet has gone unaddressed in any meaningful way. I'm not saying that my argument is flawless, no argument is, just that I ask that you reread my above responses and directly target the intricacies of my argument in order to bring it down.

Now I will simply respond to the arguments you just presented.

1) The current definition certainly has evolved. This is reviewed as a "game," it is marketed as a "game," basically every article published on this calls it a "game." People in the gaming community buy it from places that are selling it as a "game." Despite your protests (in which you are certainly not alone), the vast majority of the gaming community, gaming journalism, and gaming sales/retail are already calling this a "game" with perfect comfort, and no evidence of any negative effects.

Let's go back to literally for a second: Just because not everyone uses "literally" to also mean "figuratively" does not mean that the word has not evolved to have both meanings. There is still a significant portion of the older generation who still thinks of Google primarily as a number and text as primarily a noun referring to the words in their books. They are using the words in what they consider, and in what "technically" is, the "correct" way. But simply because this subset of the population is not using the words as they have widely come to be used...does not mean that the words have not widely come to be used in another fashion.

The evolution has, more or less, already occurred. There are still those holding out, of course, but because no alternative term was proposed or became integrated on how to describe these alternative artistic experiences until the word "game" was already firmly established as the go-to term for any digital interactive entertainment, well, we know just use "game."

And my number one question is, and this is not rhetorical I'd like you to answer it, what's the harm in that?

2) I actually disagree. I think that every game can be considered art, even the ones we don't usually think of as "artistic." See, here's where we get really subjective. The definition of art. People much smarter than us have written books far longer than these comments struggling with just that question, but for me at least, art is any artificial work created with the express purpose of conveying a specific emotion or feeling, or a specific set of emotions or feelings. Whether or not they are effective in this purpose is irrelevant to their definition as art, and has more to do with the quality of art.

So from this perspective, any degree of separation between what we often call "artistic" games and normal games is technically artificial, because every game, to some degree, is artistic.

That was a quick tangent. But I don't think that was quite your point. Your point, if I understand correctly, was that just because something is art, that doesn't mean it is a game. Obviously, I agree.

Yes, I do believe that some definitions are subjective, such as the definition of art. But I do not necessarily believe ( my opinion is still forming on this, and this argument is actually helping it form) that definitions of artistic genres, music, theatre, painting, are subjective. There could very well be a good objective definition out there.

Unfortunately, none has so far been proposed. KidDynamo up there proposed one, but I spent hundreds of words dismantling it piece by piece. You can either try to defend his definition or find a new one. But either way, right now, we are having an argument about what is and is not a game...without a definition of "game" on the table. I've already expressed my views on this, that the word "game" has come to encompass all that we call "games," but if you want a more solid definition, please go ahead. You may be able to argue this to a draw, but you can never win an argument of this type unless you propose a counter-definition to put on the table. So please, what is your definition of "game"?

3) Under that logic, you could say that we only use any word "for lack of a better term." Obviously, and this applies with everything, we use the best that is available to us, and we do not use something theoretically "better" if that something does not yet exist. For example, we only use cars for lack of better mode of transportation, like teleporters.

Besides, unless you want to start speaking German (sarcastic, of course), you don't simply make up a better term (or what you believe to be a better term) and expect it to be used widespread anyway, when a term already exists, however "inferior", that already serves people's needs.

Let me put it this way. I had an argument with my father recently about whether or not the US should convert to the metric system. He conceded instantly that the metric system was a better system, but he still said that we shouldn't convert. Why? The current system may be inferior, but it's what everyone is using, and, hey, it works. So even if there is, indeed, a "better" option, it doesn't always make sense to try to convert everyone to using it when the term currently being widely used is already, well, working, with few if any ill effects.

Saying "will you embrace ignorance or accuracy" is both a misrepresentation of the argument and an oversimplification of it. Someone is not ignorant if they use a word in the way that it is widely and commonly used. You can use "literally" as "figuratively" and still go to Harvard. And accuracy is very different from specificity. When a word is extremely widely used in a certain way, using it in that way is not really "inaccurate," any more than it is "inaccurate" for me to send you a "text" instead of an SMS. SMS is more specific, yes, but when we're talking about language, it's not really more "accurate."

And I still maintain that I did not cheat in Fallout 3.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just so that we don't end up with two different threads here, I'll respond to your other response to me here.

First, the "Gamestop" thing was sarcastic. I apologize again; I've already explained that this is a problem with me.

Second, you said this:

"So, the meaning and logic of a word should have no bearing, and we should lazily use whatever word we want to describe anything?"

No, that is...not even close. For one, I have no idea what you mean by the "logic of a word." Language is not logical. It never has been, in any culture. In regards to the meaning? I've sort of already covered this. Again, language is not logic. Words are used how people use them. If a word is widely used in a certain way, than that "certain way" has become its "meaning."

Remember, words are meant to convey an idea from one brain to another. If that idea is successfully conveyed, why does the word itself matter? If there is significant confusion, than yes, it matters. But using the word "game" to apply to these interactive art pieces causes little confusion. Using the word "game" still successfully conveys the idea.

Society decides what the meaning of a word is. You don't decide. I don't decide. Dictionaries don't decide. Society decides on how a word is used, and how a word is used constitutes its "meaning." So no, this is not the same thing as "all meaning and logic of a word should have no bearing." If words meant whatever any individual wanted them to mean on the fly, than all of language simply wouldn't work. This isn't random decision making. This is natural usage of words changing gradually over time.

So assuming that we agree on this: most people, journalists, developers, and businesspeople currently call things like That Dragon, Cancer, "game:" then it's too late. No individual can change that. If this causes significant confusion, than, naturally, a new word will arise to fill the void. But it doesn't seem to be causing any problems, so that probably won't happen.

It definitely won't happen with a term like "Interactive Digital Art." Not only does this defy what I just pointed out about how languages evolve; you rarely simply "invent" a term and it catches on, it also defies, as I've written previously, the vary nature of the evolution of language. There is no way, I repeat, no. way. that a cumbersome three word, eight syllable term would ever. ever. take the place of a one-syllable term. Even if we say, for a second, that the word "game" really is too broad, and that something will definitely take its place, that "something" will not be something that sounds like a college training course for software designers.

Language is not about "correct" or "incorrect." It's about "can you convey an idea." The word "game" is conveying all it needs to.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for kenundrum7
kenundrum7

380

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 49

User Lists: 0

Edited By kenundrum7

@noah364:

I generally do not like long winded posts, so my reply will be shorter.

1) You said "The current definition certainly has evolved." If it has, then there would be no debate. While many do call it a game, that is the exact reason why others are objecting to it. The generalized definition, proponents of calling it a game often use as support, could be used for movies, or other forms of entertainment that also are not games.

2) I said "Since games can be called art, that does not mean art = game." You said "I actually disagree." So you believe the Mona Lisa is a game?

 

3) I said "For lack of a better term, people are calling it a game. Will you embrace ignorance, or accuracy?" You said "Under that logic, you could say that we only use any word "for lack of a better term."". The fact is there is no element of a game to this title. While there are a few methods employed that may appear as rudimentary games, they serve to either make a statement, or to occupy the observer while not having a bearing on the outcome. For instance, there was a part that appeared like it could be a puzzle, but it turned out it didn't matter what you did, the story continued regardless.

You said "Obviously, and this applies with everything, we use the best that is available to us, and we do not use something theoretically "better" if that something does not yet exist. For example, we only use cars for lack of better mode of transportation, like teleporters."

I say that is a straw man that you actually set up. More descriptive terms can and do exist. We are not hampered by technology here. Your appeal is because we cannot have a teleporter at present, therefore not being more descriptive for this title is akin to that? I would use a teleporter if I could, and it was proven safe, but I would not call it a car.

You said "And I still maintain that I did not cheat in Fallout 3." Using cheat codes is not cheating? It is as though words have no meaning with your arguments.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for noah364
noah364

208

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

Edited By noah364

@kenundrum7: I will definitely respond to this post, but first I request that you answer some questions, one of which I asked in my previous post that you did not answer:

1) What, very specifically, is your definition of a "game"? When I say "very specifically", I ask that you please define all key terms within the definition. Otherwise, I will attempt to define them for you.

2) What tangible and substantial negative effects have arisen from calling titles of this sort "game" instead of some other more specific term?

3) These "others that are objecting to it", what do they call it instead? What single term are all or most objectioners using in place of "game"? Is this single term (single term, mind you, not multiple terms or variations of a term) catching on or gaining headway in any aspects of the gaming establishment (journalists, developers, or businesspeople)?

4) If there is no single term, what term would you propose that would satisfy your criteria?

This post is not meant to be a continuation of the argument. I simply want answers to these questions so that in my next response, I retread as little ground as possible.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for kenundrum7
kenundrum7

380

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 49

User Lists: 0

Edited By kenundrum7

@noah364:

I believe your numbered points will confuse the 3 numbered points we are currently discussing. So I will refer to your current points correspondingly as A-D.

A) I defined it elsewhere, but will repost it here. I see games as a structured way to play, requiring either, or a combination of skill, strategy, strength, endurance, or perhaps chance. Something that is competitive, even if it is against yourself to improve.

B) I believe KidDynamo mentioned the negative effects. Without a clarifing explaination, it misleads people as to what it actually is.

C-D) Combined because they are pretty much the same point. I do not object to any of the reasonable ideas put forth. KidDynamo said "interactive digial art", someone said "interactive movie", I said "interactive story". A short catagory that directly tells you what it is without misleading.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for noah364
noah364

208

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

Edited By noah364

@kenundrum7: Thank you for responding to my questions, and for your consistently high level of organization.

A) I asked you to define all terms within your definition. You did not, which is fine, but please allow me to define at least one key term for you. I encourage you to provide a counter-definition.

I simply googled "play definition." This is what came up for their verb form:

1) engage in activity for enjoyment and recreation rather than a serious or practical purpose

2) take part in (as in "a sport")

Using definition 1, we're faced with some issues. This defines "play" specifically for "enjoyment and recreation" rather than a "serious" purpose. There are plenty of games out there that are neither enjoyable nor recreational, that you play of an entirely serious purpose. Hence the artistic nature of games: they portray serious messages that are often not very much fun to receive.

Examples? Papers, Please, This War of Mine, Cart Life, maybe even Shadow of the Colossus. These are all examples of games (and I apologize; I'm retreading ground from some of my earlier comments) that are often miserable to play. So, then, technically, we don't "play" them at all. So either the definition of "play" must be expanded to something you would likely consider to be inaccurate in order to count these titles as games (and keep in mind that the term "play" was essential to your definition), or we just don't count these titles as games, when they so obviously are. The word "play" makes us run into a lot of trouble when deciding what is and is not a game, because the word play has evolved to mean more than just enjoyment/recreation in the realm of gaming just as the word "game" has.

Let's look at definition number 2. Simply "to take part in." If we go by this definition, then you can "play" anything that is interactive, including something like That Dragon, Cancer.

So pick your poison. Ether you go with definition one, excluding things that are obviously games from the definition of "game", or you go with number two, including things in the definition of "game" that you don't consider to be games. Or you can find a different definition.

Let's look at the rest of your definition. Strength, endurance, those rarely play a factor in everyday gaming anyway, so those are more or less irrelevant to this conversation. Started is self-explanatory, as is chance. And then we come to "skill." Definitions for skill are almost as vague and useless as the concept itself. So what, pray tell, is "skill"? What differentiates a work that requires skill from one that does not? Is it death? Certainly not. You can't really die in Bioshock, yet that's considered a "game." Does it have something to do with how many button you press? I hope not; obviosusly that would be entirely arbitrary.

Your definition runs into the most problems when you come to point-and-click adventure games. you use a mouse and a button. Nothing more. No skill required, no strength required, no endurance, and basically no chance. Yes, you have to solve puzzles, but because not every puzzle entailes "game" (for example, I would hardly call one of those various mathematical logic puzzles a "game"), simply the fact that you have to think about problems seems hardly sufficient to justify something's gaminess. Maybe you could call this "skill" in terms of mental skill, but then again there are plenty of pieces of interactive software that require mental skill to operate yet are not games. So by both using the word "skill" and pairing it with an "or" situation, you accidentally encompass a bunch of non-games into your definition of "game."

But then your last piece comes to the rescue: the part about competition. Against others? Yes, definitely a game. But against yourself, "to improve"? Plenty of games don't fit that parameter. Think of, I dunno, I'lll bring up Bioshock again. I don't know about you, when I played Bioshock, I wasn't competing against myself "to improve." True, I improved simply by virtue of playing the game (just as I would improve at knitting the more I knit), but I didn't play the game to improve. There was no score, I couldn't really die, and I had zero interest in doing better than I did last time, because there often was no last time. It's a straight-shot game, one that doesn't need to be replayed.

In fact that's true for many single-player story games. They don't out you in the same situation twice, so you're not competing against yourself because you're faced with something new every time. They oftentimes don't keep track of any kind of progress, speed, or score, giving you no measure against which to ensure yourself anyway. They often exist purely for the story, and not for any competitive purpose. In fact, many games come with an easy mode that specifies it's for people who only want to enjoy the story.

You can easily, easily have a non-competitive game.

B) Neither KidDynamo nor you seems to have understood exactly what it was I was looking for. Don't tell me what negative effects could be, tell me what they are. You say that "it misleads people." Really? Are you sure? How many people buy a game simply because it's called a "game"? How many people picked up something called That Dragon, Cancer expecting to have fun, or test their skills, or anything else along those lines? Can you name a single person who would buy a game of this type and be at all surprised, feel at all cheated or misled, that it doesn't have all of the "gaminess" they desire?

People are perfectly capable of reading reviews and descriptions. Few people at all buy a game without doing so. And no-one. No-one. Buys a game simply because it is called a "game" without knowing anything else about it. I sincerely doubt that anyone will feel "misled" by calling this a "game."

Besides, I did ask you for something "tangible and substantial." Even if this effect did arise, "some people getting confused for a matter of minutes before they read the game's description" is hardly "tangible and substantial." Can you prove to me that this negative effect is intense enough, is enough of an issue, to try to change the established language of the entirety of the gaming establishment?

Now you may say that the language is not established, simply by the merits of us arguing about it. But look at where we're arguing. This is an argument in the comments section, a comments war, as it is often called. What we say down here is basically irrelevant. Every website calls this a game. Developers, including the developer of TDC, call it a game. Journalists and businesspeople from both inside and outside the gaming industry are calling it a game, as they did with Gone Home, Journey, and Dear Esther before it.

This is being called a game. the vast majority of people with influence in and outside of our industry are calling it a game. "Game" is the language that is, is is is, being used right now in an overwhelming majority.

C-D) And that brings me here. This is the key question, the most important topic of the discussion. Without this, everything else is irrelevant. Implementation is key. For example, I would say that the US would be better if no-one had guns. But do I advocate for that? No. Because creating a US with no guns is basically impossible to implement.

So what is the term that opposes "game"? I asked you for a single term. You gave me three terms from three different people. There is zero unity on your side of the discussion. You (as in your side) can criticize the term "game" all you want, but you can't even come up with a solid answer on what you would call them in its place.

(Sarcastic comment start) This is western foreign policy logic.

"Hey ltheir government is bad. let's topple it!"

"Ok, what will take it's place after you topple it?"

"...

...

...

We'll agree on that after we topple it."

Works every time1

(End sarcastic comment)

And then ther's another problem. You said that there were many reasonable ideas "put forth." They are ineffective simply by virtue of the fact that they were "put forth." They didn't arise naturally. They didn't come about within the natural evolution of language. Someone proposed them. There was a book I read when I was little called "Frindle", in which a single kid starts calling a pen a "Frindle" and it catches on, and pretty soon everyone in the school is calling it a "Frindle" and at the very end "Frindle" ends up in the dictionary. A nice children's story. But that's not how language works in real life. In real life, a person, or even a group of persons, does not simply start calling something by a certain name and it magically catches on, especially not something like "frindle" which already has the widely used name of "pen." If you put it forth, if you and to consciously come up with a term, than that term will not catch on.

So even if your side could actually agree on an alternative term, the artificial nature of the term ensures that it wouldn't catch on. As I've outlined numerous times in the past, that's just not how language works.

But I'm not quite done.

You said that you want a "short category." All of the options you;be proposed are not a "short category." They are long categories. As soon as you use the word "interactive," you've already extended the status quo by two syllables, much less adding another word on top of that. As I've explained many, many times before, language gets shorter, not longer. There is no possibility that any of these terms, no matter how direct, no matter how accurate, will catch on. Again, as I've explained many, many times before, the evolution of language greatly favors convenience over accuracy or precision. And all of these proposed names are awkward and inconvenient next to a simple one-word one-syllable term: "game."

So even if your side did agree on a term, and even if that term had not been proposed but had somehow naturally arisen, it still wouldn't be able to spread simply because it's swimming against the linguistic current.

Everything else doesn't matter. This is the core of the debate. If I concede everything, literally (not figuratively) everything else, then it doesn't matter next to this one point. Whether or not it is a game, is there anything out there that can plausibly take the place of the word "game"? That can satisfy the criteria I've outlined above? If it's not agreed upon by everyone on your side, than you've already failed. If it's longer than one syllable /one word, then you've already failed. And if you are somehow able to think of an appropriate term and "put it forth", then simply by virtue of the fact that you had to put it forth, it has already failed.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for kenundrum7
kenundrum7

380

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 49

User Lists: 0

Edited By kenundrum7

@noah364: Forgive me, but I really do not like long posts. From what I read in the first part, your argument dissects my definition down to one word I used, play, and appears to attempt to hornswoggle what I actually said with what you prefer I said. It is like you are having a debate with yourself over the word "play". And from what I saw, I could be wrong and it could be hidden somewhere in there, you totally ignored the "structured" part of my definition which would indicate the rules. We are not on the same page here, as you are creating your own debate topics that I have no interest in.

While I accept your questions, I do not accept your shackles. Like to define every term in my definition(A), or to give only one unified term for the category(C-D). That is silly in my opinion, and fodder for philosophy. I believe this is why we are not on the same page here, and why KidDynamo categorically denies "everything" you said in a previous post.

I am not here for a philosophical exchange, but for a reasonable, logical debate. The shear size of your post, and the philosophical nature denies that.

Your philosophical nature also explains how you can use cheat codes for Fallout 3, yet not consider that cheating.

When a famous person was cornered, his reply was "that depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.". Who would think that was reasonable and not a desperate ploy?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for noah364
noah364

208

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

@kenundrum7: Forgive me. By nature, I write extremely long winded posts. Because of my "philosophical nature" (which you are entirely correct in assessing), I highly recommend that you not get in an argument with me about the purpose of religion in society. Last time that happened, my post was so long that I had to email the person who ran the site and ask them to increase the 25,000 word (not 2,500, 25,000) limit so that my post would fit.

I attacked your definition because your definition was full of ambiguous terms that do little to actually specify what "game" means. For example, you meant "structured" as in having rules. I thought of it as "not chaotic, finite." So with your point of view, structured does not include Dragon. From my point of view, it does. Terms withing the definition are just as important, if not more important, than the definition itself.

You're right. Clearly we are not on the same page. Simply put, there is no way my responses will get shorter. I like to address every detail of my opponent's argument specifically, to make sure nothing goes unaddressed. This is a bad habit that comes from competitive debate, where if any detail is left unaddressed, it is assumed that you agree. Obviously I search for opponents that will argue in the same way. Nothing please me more than when I find an opponent that doesn't just not accept my "shackles," but explains specifically why my shackles are unreasonable or illogical rather than just calling them "silly" (which you are entitled to do).

I wouldn't say that I am creating new topics, but I do go sufficiently in detail so that new sub-topics do arise. And I can see how this would become annoying. It leads to structurally complex debates that end up being hard to follow for both parties.

Sorry about my long response time for this; I've been quickly running out of free time recently. Look, clearly we're both beating our heads against a wall here. I write too much for you to bother to argue with it all, and you write to little to address my argument in a way that I see as defeating them. Because of my rapidly shrinking free-time, this will be my last response. Thank you for your constant civility throughout this, and I hope to see you around other comments sections.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for kenundrum7
kenundrum7

380

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 49

User Lists: 0

@noah364: About the long response time. No problem brother. Go do important things. This is just messing around.

You remind me of a friend I use to have. He had a philosophical nature as well. While I can see some benefit to it, I also see it becoming an endless conversation over details. If it was really important, or we were the ones deciding the fate of this category, then I might have had more patience. But my ADD will not let me. Many years of TV has shortened my attention span, and my ability to concentra... Hey look! A quarter! Cool.

By the way, what is the purpose of religion in society?

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Take care noah364.

2 • 
Avatar image for Morphine_OD
Morphine_OD

702

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

Is it a game review or an essay? Ffs, you need a tearful - read some HoNY and go curl up in the corner weeping and full with self-loathing because you're better off than them.

2 • 
Avatar image for xan114
xan114

142

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

Edited By xan114

i feel like this review score is massively inflated because of the theme and story revolving around the game. it's a 7 at best

6 • 
Avatar image for noah364
noah364

208

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

@xan114: I feel like the review score is a simple number that is more or less irrelevant to the content of the review. It's arbitrary at best.

2 • 
Avatar image for Arguyle
Arguyle

436

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

making a game about cancer is an insult to people with cancer.

3 • 
Avatar image for paradingwolves
Paradingwolves

34

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Arguyle: I must have missed something, did the game make light of the fact their child was dying of cancer? Was there a bunch of cancer trolls you could fight off with a sword and end the battle and live happily ever after?

Was Brian's Song an insult to people with cancer? Or is it strictly the fact that it's called a game that makes it insulting?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for mogan
mogan

18941

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

mogan  Moderator

@Arguyle: As a World War II vet I say, Welcome to my world! : p

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Saidrex
Saidrex

1726

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

that feeling when you alone understood it's a sarcasm O.O

Upvote • 
Avatar image for OHGFawx
OHGFawx

101

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@Arguyle: Making a game that serves as both a coping mechanism for the parents and a loving tribute to their son is an insult to no one.

2 • 
Avatar image for xan114
xan114

142

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

@Arguyle: how? the game is made by a set of parents and based on their son who passed away from cancer. it was made to document his battle. how is it insulting to people who have cancer? are you retarded or what?

2 • 
Avatar image for paradingwolves
Paradingwolves

34

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@vackillers: A little research before spouting off like an idiot should have been done, the proceeds are being donated to charities.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5a5f623fa2551
deactivated-5a5f623fa2551

1672

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 0

@vackillers: What would make it a "fitting tribute"? RPG elements? Forty hours of gameplay?

I think $15 is a fine price for a two-hour game, if the two hours are good. And I don't know why people are hung up on the fact that the publishers are charging for this. If they had made a movie or written a book or recorded an album for their son, they probably would have charged for that too. In fact, seeing/buying the 60-90-minute movie/album probably would have cost $10-$15, so...

2 • 
Avatar image for Arguyle
Arguyle

436

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

It's a video GAME, not a book or a movie. This review will disappoint/mislead many gamers.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for paradingwolves
Paradingwolves

34

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Paradingwolves

@Arguyle: Only ones who didn't actually read it like yourself. It clearly says there's not much you can do other than watch and live the story. There's a single action button that does everything. If you read this and thought it was going to be action packed and challenging that's really just an indictment of your education than the sign of a poor review.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5a5f623fa2551
deactivated-5a5f623fa2551

1672

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 0

@Arguyle: You must not remember Dragon's Lair. Games like That Dragon, Cancer have been around for decades. Only the intensely stupid/very young would be disappointed/misled by this review.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for paradingwolves
Paradingwolves

34

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@IceJester45: it's called a GAME there should be wizards and guns and blowing stuff up!

/sarcasm off.

2 • 
Avatar image for mogan
mogan

18941

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

mogan  Moderator

Only things I am familiar and comfortable with can be video games. And only games I enjoy, or have decided I will enjoy based on what platform they're on, can be given high scores.

Otherwise gaming is clearly going down the tubes, this reviewer must be pushing some agenda, and there's obviously a conspiracy going on.

5 • 
Avatar image for noah364
noah364

208

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

@Mogan: Best thing I've read all day.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for sexydadee
sexydadee

32

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

is this a good gift to a friend who's battling cancer?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for randybumgardner
RandyBumGardner

257

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By RandyBumGardner

Video games are art and art doesn't have to be ''entertaining'' it can be grueling and depressing. Can you imagine if every great game had no dark side or struggle at all? That would remove 90 percent of games from existence.

With something as abstract as this it is more important to know how it turned out and was the persons vision successfully realised.

2 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5a5f623fa2551
deactivated-5a5f623fa2551

1672

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 0

Probably plays better than Fallout 4.

2 • 
Avatar image for basiliscus
Basiliscus

23

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

How is this even a video game arent games supposed to be I dont know...fun? Not depressing.

Nothing about this "game" makes it seem like a 9/10 the author is atrributing the score to cosmic forces rather than gameplay that is not a review, another pseudo-activist indie game getting overrated on SJWspot. No wonder few gamers take these sites seriously anymore they are too politicised always trying to push some agenda.

2 • 
Avatar image for X-RS
X-RS

2498

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@basiliscus: Another person who cant respect another critics own opinion, whihc they wrote pages about as opposed to your paragraph >_>

2 • 
Avatar image for zmanbarzel
ZmanBarzel

3141

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@basiliscus: "How is this even a video game"

The same way there are books and movies that are about more than just "fun."

Face it: video games are growing up.

6 • 
Avatar image for black_attack
Black_Attack

118

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@zmanbarzel: Face it, you're not a gamer.

4 • 
Avatar image for zmanbarzel
ZmanBarzel

3141

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@black_attack: Oh, god no. Why would I want to be? As insular as people who call themselves that tend to be, why would I want to claim that label? I'm just like the increasingly vast majority of people that make up the publishers' target: a person who happens to play games.

6 • 
Avatar image for yippeecayer
yippeecayer

6

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@zmanbarzel: I made an account just to voice my support for this comment. Segments of the gamer community have exploded in displays of sweaty id so often that it's turned way off gaming. I only got interested in this game because it seems so at odds with gaming's eternal adolescence.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for basiliscus
Basiliscus

23

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Basiliscus

@zmanbarzel:

Video games are not a book or movie if you want to make an indie movie about cancer than do that what is the point of trying to pass this off as a video game? It's pretentious and moronic.

If this is the future of video games you can count me out.

2 • 
Avatar image for paradingwolves
Paradingwolves

34

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@basiliscus: LOL your post is the definition of pretentious, and I guess Irony.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for noah364
noah364

208

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

@basiliscus: This is the future of videogames. As in any other genre, artistic merit is slowly being prioritized over such arbitrary immaturity as more content, more mechanics, better Graphics-with-a-capital-G, and more things to kill.

So if you don't like the future of videogames, then I think you should count yourself out, if that's what you want. Unfortunately, though, if you want a genre more or less free from artistic merit (what you would call "pretentious and moronic"), then there's not very much space for you to run to. P0rn, maybe?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for X-RS
X-RS

2498

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@basiliscus: That happens with a broadening appeal m8. Nothing you cna do about it, but go ahead and leave/abandon the fun and being potentially introduced to something new. Parties aren't all that bad either =\

Upvote • 
Avatar image for zmanbarzel
ZmanBarzel

3141

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@basiliscus: No, video games are just as much a medium for telling a story as books and movies. It's just only recently in their history that those who've played them all their lives are realizing what the medium is capable of becoming due to its interactivity. Could a similar story be told as a book or movie? Sure, but would it be as impactful as putting you in the very shoes of the mother and father as they lose their son?

"If this is the future of video games you can count me out."

Out of curiosity, what game has this one kept from being made? I'm pretty sure you're still going to get all the ones you want. It's just that those of us who want those, and maybe something more, will be satisfied, too.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for kenundrum7
kenundrum7

380

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 49

User Lists: 0

@zmanbarzel: I agree that video games can be a great medium for telling a story. But there really is no "game" element to this one.

2 • 
Avatar image for basiliscus
Basiliscus

23

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@zmanbarzel:

Except there is very little interactivity in this game it's just pressing X to get to next scene this is essentially an indie movie pretending to be a video game. Interactive story games are one thing but praising this game for "powerful meditation" and "spirituality presented" is nothing but a load of pretentious crap there is no mention of any sort of gameplay in review there is no game in this game.

3 • 
Avatar image for xabbott
xabbott

87

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@basiliscus: So how many button presses do you need before something is considered a game?

2 • 
Avatar image for kenundrum7
kenundrum7

380

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 49

User Lists: 0

Edited By kenundrum7

@xabbott: So if you are watching a movie, but have to press a button to keep it going it becomes a game? Is opening an application on your computer a game?

Is this art? I would think so.

Is it a good story, and gets you to think? I would think so.

Is it a game? Not from what I have seen.

Just because it is software, and minimally interactive to continue the story does not make it a game.

2 • 
Avatar image for vinion2000
vinion2000

50

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@xabbott: Free speech. Love it or hate it. Some part of what basiliscus say is right but its mostly wrong. While games don't need to be fun to be games. They do need to still be games to be called a game. New experiences and gameplay needs room to become expressed and take gamers on great journeys even if the journey is a depressing one but I will be the first to admit a game where you just keeping X to progress isn't a "game". Its more a visual novel. Games always have some form of engagement and mental process and when calling them a "game" should always remain that way. I don't see why this can't still be appreciated as a visual novel but I guess we need to have this so we can say " games can be art". Sigh

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Renunciation
Renunciation

1216

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

Edited By Renunciation

@vinion2000: It should never even need to be said that "games can be art". All games are art, even if the various forms of art within lower-quality games are widely considered primitive or crude when compared to other art forms outside of games.

Musicians are rightfully referred to as "artists"; so are painters. We have literary art, performing art, and martial arts. Yeah, the Mona Lisa is art -- but so are stick figures, as often seen in "cave art".

A simple Google search for "art" reveals the definitions:

- the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power

- the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance

- subjects of study primarily concerned with the processes and products of human creativity and social life, such as languages, literature, and history (as contrasted with scientific or technical subjects

- a skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice

With all of these considered, would video games somehow not be a rather high form of art?

Creating games itself is an art form ("the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination"); the visuals and music within games represent other art forms ("the various branches of creative activity"). Skillfully playing a game can also be considered art ("a skill at doing a specific thing, typically acquired through practice").

Again, all games -- from The Witcher 3 and Destiny to Undertale and That Dragon, Cancer -- are art.

The main question here hardly seems to be about games as art, but about the "interactive" aspects within specific games -- and whether less interactive games should be considered games at all.

And yeah, I'd say that it's a game. There's not a high level of interaction, and that's for a reason: the game's creators wanted people to be able to experience the story without jumping over a lot of hurdles. From a player's perspective, perhaps it would have been good if the game's creators had at least offered optional mini-games with varying difficulty levels that players can play or ignore at their leisure. Or perhaps they felt as though adding such mini-games would detract from the story?

One could certainly ask why That Dragon, Cancer is a game at all instead of the movie it could have been (or essentially is, depending on who you ask). But then, the same question could be applied to any number of games: why are Call of Duty and Bloodborne games instead of being movies? Or alternately, one could ask why movies are being released anymore while the potential for interactive stories (however linear they may be) has never been greater?

The simple answer, and the only answer that truly matters, is: that's what the creators choose from several popular options. There could have been a That Dragon, Cancer movie, book, play, album, or television show. But, no: they made it into a minimally interactive software application instead -- because it's an option that exists.

This is because there's a global $90 billion video gaming industry that rivals the global movie and book industries (both also roughly at $90 billion) -- and as long as the game industry exists, people will use it in their own ways and with varying levels of interaction.

If people don't want to play That Dragon, Cancer, that's fine. Honestly, I haven't played it either -- and I probably won't, because I've had my own "dragons" to deal with in life. But people at least need to deal with the reality that the sheer size and presence of the gaming industry means that there are always going to be some fringe-type "minimally interactive" games popping up every year.

And, so:

TL;DR -- AAA game fans who complain about That Dragon, Cancer are like 5-star restaurant patrons complaining about McDonald's offering a new side salad.

2 • 
Avatar image for noah364
noah364

208

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

@Renunciation: You are my new favorite person.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for vinion2000
vinion2000

50

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Renunciation: Yeah but I guess my rant is that its all word play. Is a bookstore that sells snacks a restaurant because it has snacks? Is coffee shop a library because it has few books you can read while you sip your coffee? You see what I mean. Just cause you give item a label means we must spend time re-evaluating the label to match the item. That's putting the cart before the horse. Its like calling a whiteboard in a classroom a chalkboard. Do we spend time re-evaluating what makes something a chalkboard? No we have the word chalkboard for a reason and we have whiteboard for another reason. We acknowledge that while both facilitate the very same function they are inherently different objects.

I find it just an exercise in fruition to always redefine gaming when it has a clear definition. At least we both agree the purpose of redefinition often has an ulterior motive beyond making something "different".

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Renunciation
Renunciation

1216

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

@vinion2000: "Ah, Dostoevsky -- one of my favorites. ...Would you like fries with that?"

2 •