4'33 of Uniqueness: Game or not a game?

[dislekcia]

http://www.kloonigames.com/blog/games/4mins33secs

Is this a game? Is it art? Is it something else entirely?

I'm interested to hear what you all think about this idea and what it could mean for games, or if we should just ignore it as noise and worry about more important things...

[Kensei]

Wow, I am always keen on games that are also art - so in this instance I would say that it is both. It shows the quality of a game (you can win or lose) but at the same time, it provokes thought, like art.

Interesting concept, pity you cannot really build on it - it is a once off thing that likely would be spoilt if you expanded too much on it.

Evoked the same thoughts as when I played Passage. I'll give it some more thought when my brain is functioning properly

[Gazza_N]

I wouldn't say it's a real game, since you don't actually PLAY it. Your success or failure is based purely on blind luck. It has absolutely no bearing on your own skill, thought or input.

However, it is an interesting idea. It's a sign that someone somewhere is thinking oddly enough to come up with something like this, and it could send those little creative dominoes a-fallin' for people to come up with actual games in the same odd vein. In that, it's valuable. It says "looky what you COULD do".

[HolyMackerel]

Quote:

Wow, I am always keen on games that are also art - so in this instance I would say that it is both. It shows the quality of a game (you can win or lose) but at the same time, it provokes thought, like art.

I agree on that. Good concept, first of its kind I've ever seen.

[Evolution]

I WON

By evolution at 2009-02-26

Electronic game definition "any interactive game operated by computer circuitry", that game is definitely not interactive. If you call a white progress bar art then I don't know. It's definitely something different, but not in a good way.

[01DT!m3r]

I think its quite cool, in the fact that its "unique" (like the player) :)

Quote:

Electronic game definition "any interactive game operated by computer circuitry", that game is definitely not interactive. If you call a white progress bar art then I don't know. It's definitely something different, but not in a good way.

well then niether is black jack or D&D for that matter ,although they have more control ,the fun of playing still lies in the randomness that is present.

[dislekcia]

I think it's a rewarding experience... I'm still not sure about the game/not game angle.

What about games like progress quest? All you do there is look at a progress bar and laugh at the funny things that happen ;)

[Gazza_N]

Well, in my oppinionion(tm), anything deserving to be called a "game" needs to be mostly player-driven. Anything passive (or mostly-passive like Progress Quest), doesn't qualify, because you don't do much as a player other than launch the program. Glee. Sure, it can be entertaining, but you might as well watch TV for all the involvement you have in it.

[Squid]

For something to qualify as a game I think there needs to be some kind of gameplay. The player has to be able to have some kind of effect on the feedback the game gives back to him.

Otherwise things such as flash movies are games.

[BlackShipsFillt]

I'm voting for "It's a game". There is a game... but it's not within the program. The game is to try win by finding a time when no-one else is running the progress bar.

Watching the progress bar is not a game, it's just an animation.

The gameplay therefore takes place outside of the game, in the operating system, explorer, finder etcetera, when you click on the executable you're busy playing against other players all around the world.

This brings me to a broader topic (of interest mostly to me I suppose) :

Could browsing online, finding cheats and walkthroughs or hacking save games be considered part of playing serious games (like warcraft or diablo)... when does the playing end? could any activity that contributes to the gameplay (like acquiring a helpful hint that allows you to progress) be considered part of playing the game?

[Evolution]

That was a definition for electronic games not games in general, so don't bring in board games. I think this program is just about scraping what we view as a game. You won't see a person playing this game for hours on end, unless they have a gambling problem. Better hope this game doesn't become popular, then you will never reach the end of that progress bar. The idea is original but it's not practical. The ideas behind Little Big Planet, ZUMA, and Tetris are practical. These are just my opinions so don't take it personal.

[BlackShipsFillt]

It is also art. To be fair. Though art has a much easier definition : Anything viewed as art is art. Or to be more accurate : Anything which through it's viewing, or because of the environment in which it is viewed, arouses the viewer to contemplate the meanings of the symbols of which the object is comprised is art.

A videogame can be both a game and art. Though I'm not sure if it can be both at the same time. (in that art is viewed - ie passive involvement, whereas a game is played - ie active involvement)

[dINGLE]

I'm on the "Is a game" side

As far as I understand, it is interactive, as you can influence if someone else wins or loses, based on when you start playing.

[BlackShipsFillt]

What about, for competition 22, have the task to be to create a "meta-videogame".

I don't know if this is the right term for it. a meta-videogame might be quite different from what I'm thinking, but I want to define it thusly :

A videogame where all or a portion of the gameplay does not reside within the videogame itself.

4'33 of Uniqueness is an example, part of the gameplay is opening up the game in explorer.

How about a game that reads in the level from bitmap files, these bitmaps can be updated in realtime by someone editing them in Paint, or perhaps not in real time, and the videogame outputs a level that then the player must edit so as to pass it.

Or the levels work like tennis, you can email the edited level back and forth between players, editing it a little bit each time, and the object is to be the last person to be able to complete the level.

Or a game that takes strings of text edited in notepad, perhaps the player types in an action and the game gives a reaction and by the end of it you have a long story.

Or a video game where part of the game is on a website, the game can only be played by accessing information there.

Or a game where the object is to make all your friends play it, it, or a database saves a pyrimid of who has already played and all the people below you add their score to yours...

I'm sure there are millions of possibilities, especially when things get hi-tech... games that use google-earth etc...

Though of course these games aren't necessarily as rewarding to play as Diablo, still, one of our games could turn out to be a popular novelty like 4'33

[BlackShipsFillt]

Or a game that is so ridiculously hard that you have to hack your save games to complete.

Or a game with multiple executable files, each one runs the same game but with differences that allow for different tasks to be completed. The puzzle is then to run the right game. There could be multiple endings... The executables could also work against each other... for instance if each one meant you controlled a different pet then the others might suffer if you favour one.

Come to think of it, Tamagotchis are this type of game. Part of the game is returning to play the game often enough to keep your pet alive - ie the game requires real-world actions for you to win. (although I don't think Tamagotchis had win conditions, but it would be easy enough to include one)

etc etc

[Gazza_N]

Quote:

These are just my opinions so don't take it personal.

Relaaaaaaaaaaaaax... This is friendly territory. If people are going to take offense over musings about something like this, they've got bigger problems. ;)

Quote:

As far as I understand, it is interactive, as you can influence if someone else wins or loses, based on when you start playing.

I don't know... "Imma gonna run this now and hope nobody else is," isn't really much of a game, is it? It certainly has a competitive aspect, and a goal, but I'd argue that the player just has far too little influence over their success/failure for it to be considered a game. It's on par with two people rolling dice just to see who gets the biggest number. I'm not saying that randomness is bad, but surely a game based on nothing but randomness is just an exercise in probability, rather than something you can actively engage in?

But meh, I'm just musing here. It occurs to me that some people may enjoy the supposed challenge of just so happening to run the program at exactly the right time to win. It doesn't feel very exciting or fulfilling to me, but that's purely subjective.

[BlackShipsFillt]

Quote:

It certainly has a competitive aspect, and a goal, but I'd argue that the player just has far too little influence over their success/failure for it to be considered a game. It's on par with two people rolling dice just to see who gets the biggest number.

You may be right, a game is something that you can interact with in order to produce a winning/failing condition. Though 4'33 meets these requirements, in reality it is just a gamble, like rolling a dice. One doesn't know enough about ones opponents to make your interaction with them meaningful.

I change my vote. Though I still think it's awesome (as an experiment, I don't think it's fun), and I still want to make a game with gameplay outside of the game itself.

[Nandrew]

I've always considered the debate of "art vs game" to be rather trivial -- in the end, it's just an effort to apply labels and I would hazard that in a case like this, it'll have no realistic effect on how this game progresses or gets marketed.

What DOES interest me is that some self-proclaimed "art games" have the tendency to go meta, like BlackShips mentioned. I love those little buggers, and it's fun when the concepts are particularly original.

I would dearly love to see more games which think out of the box. Not to promote a "message", or become "art", but simply to explore the medium and offer players new -- and unique -- experiences. A lot of meta-games build entirely new skillsets because they're not what typical gamers expect.

[Miktar]

I don't agree that a game needs interacting from the player. Of course, then the fine line between simulation/entertainment gets walked on, but that's another matter.

Passive gaming, where the game plays /you/, is still a game to me.

[Nandrew]

In Soviet Russia,

Originally Posted by Miktar

game plays /you/

Oh snap.