Note: I plan on writing a full review of this series once all 5 episodes are out. I've played through the first 3 as of this writing.
I've been playing Life is Strange recently, an episodic story-driven game with minimal gameplay in the traditional sense. It's pretty awesome, but it reminds me of a debate among gamers about what these games are. Should these types of games be classified as "video games"? Should they be called something else? It's a grand debate that any human that plays video games will always have....although they fucking shouldn't because it's the dumbest debate of all time.
Here is how dumb this debate is. Regardless of how minimal the gameplay is, the gameplay is still there, so yes, these are video games. End of debate.
Whoa. Shortest blogpost ever. That was easy.
YEAH! Time to celebrate with tons of potassium and water (SCIENCE JOKE).
Okay, I'll explain myself. I have two arrogant points.
Point the first:
This whole debate seemed to arise after TellTale's The Walking Dead won game of the year in many outlets, followed by Gone Home winning game of the year the following year (although The Last of Us may have won in more places). I haven't played either of those games although I know Life is Strange is very similar to TellTale games. These are games that are more interactive than a visual novel, but less so than The Last of Us or Grand Theft Auto 5 which was also released (on consoles) the same year as Gone Home. I can see why the debate is brought up but....why do you care?
Nobody gives a shit about the Grammys, the Golden Globes, the Tonys, or the Oscars. Okay, people SORT OF care about the Oscars but not enough to riot if a black and white silent film wins best picture in one...which almost happened in 2011. Why do gamers care if Gone Home wins Best Game of the Year by whatever publication? It's just another version of these same awards that nobody really cares about and doesn't really mean anything.
What the hell am I looking at?
Is it about money? Sort of, yes, but it's complicated. Movies that win an Oscar have been known to receive a bump, but even then, most of the bump is for whoever worked on an Oscar winning movies' NEXT movie. The Grammy bump has the opposite effect where the bump is there for existing work, but not for the next. Winning a Tony can apparently single-handedly save a Broadway Show, but how often do people see Broadway Shows outside of elitist culture snobs? The Golden Globes however, do fuck all. Video Games lack a single award show that has unanimous approval. Does anybody really want to buy a game solely off of what Geoff Knightley says is really good?
Award shows are pointless. Movies that win Best Picture are rarely the best picture. TV shows that win a Golden Globe are rarely the best. Musicians who win a Grammy are NEVER the best because that award show is ridiculously corrupt. Why does anybody care what game wins a pointless Game of the Year award? Seriously....leave a comment. I don't understand these people.*
*Before I go on to the next point, I only realized this first one when talking with members of the infamous #Gamergate. They seemed weirdly annoyed at Gone Home and thought it shouldn't win a Video Game award because it isn't a video game. I counter that with, who fucking cares? Awards, are, pointless.
Point the Second:
The other issue that is brought up about these video games needing to be called something else is because people get hung up on the "game" part of the title. Doesn't a video game need to have something resembling a fail state, a way to lose so to speak, for it to be a "game"?
I sort of agree with that argument, except that I've always thought the term video game was kind of dumb. A great video game is "just a game" the same as a great movie is "just a movie". Both statements are technically correct even though something feels off about them. Video games feel like they can be more than just a game and I think getting too hung up about being a game can restrict what the medium is capable of.
Like, references and shit. That movie is awful BTW.
In the end, this whole argument boils down to a stupid semantics debate and what the definition of words are and my eyes are glazing over. You know a debate gets good when two sides start debating the philosophical meaning of the word "game". It's the same type of people who would debate whether or not that last sentence was sarcasm.
Life is Strange, the game I've played recently which inspired this blogpost, doesn't have a traditional fail state (although I wouldn't be surprised if one appears near the end of episode 5). Your character, Max, cannot die. However, I have ABSOLUTELY failed in this game, as anybody who has played through the end of episode 2 can attest. Unlike other games, you have to continue on with that failure as a part of the game sort of like real life. You don't just respawn like nothing happened (unless you went back and replayed the scene you coward). Without getting into spoiler territory, the end of episode 2 can significantly change the way you see the rest of the story even if most of the changes in episode 3 are in dialogue only (there is a couple of minor visual changes too).
eeeyyaaa....EEEYYAAA.....AHHHHH *starts sobbing*
As for other frequently accused non-games. I know characters can die in Tell Tale games, even if it's not the main character, due to player choice. Heavy Rain, one of the first games to start this stupid debate, the main character can die if you fail certain quick time events (dumb yes, but still a fail state). The other David Cage game, Beyond:Two Souls might be the best example as it is impossible to die, or at least I think it is from the tiny amount of gameplay and Let's Play footage I've watched. And despite the lack of a fail state, there is still gameplay.....OH SHIT! The "game" word is back!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, dumbest video game debate ever. These types of games are video games until otherwise re-defined. If they are still lumped in with every video game, and video games as a whole are re-defined, that is what they are. If they are separated from video games, and are defined something else, Life is Strange is still a great "interactive game-movie thing visual novel weird dream". Semantics are for whiners. People who persist can get the fuck over it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter so you can tell me how wrong I am.
You can now subscribe by E-mail in the top right because this is Blogspot and I don't want to pay for my fun.