Theory

[another god]

Let's assume that certain games elevate themselves above meaningless distraction. These are games that fit outside that simple minded outlook that games are entertainment, and the more entertainment you can take from the game, the more worthwhile it is. In fact, these games may not even entertain at all. They may make you sad; they may make you curious; but mostly they make you think.

And I guess if you like thinking then you like the game and are entertained by the game - But those games still count as meaningful games outside that simple minded outlook that games are just entertainment.

If I haven't been clear up to this point, I'm sorry. Ask me and I'll try to be more clear. But let's just assume that these games exist.

What would one of these games be like if it were about competition?

I've been playing Metal Gear Solid Online for a bit. It's a little like Counterstrike, and it's a little like Call of Duty 4. But it's slower and more plodding. It feels more deliberate. It plays out with the same pacing that MGS4 has. To me it's a lot like playing MGS. And MGS would definitely be one of my choices for meaningful game.

I'm not sure if MGO is an example of a game focused on competition that manages to transcend the realm of entertainment. And given the arbitrariness of this delineation, I'm inclined to say "no" just because I'm convinced that other games in the future could more readily be put into that cross section (of meaningful and competitive).

Was SFII a meaningful competitive game?

Super Smash Brothers Brawl?

I suppose the answer is all relative. Some people might argue vehemently that their lives were changed by a certain competitive game, and I suppose I can't stop that. But I can't see any games where that kind of affection is more the rule than the exception.

[zinger]

I'm not following here. Any good competitive game is meaningful. Could you give an example of how they would affect your personal life, apart from being extremely time consuming?

[JoshF]

All games need to be competitive to be meaningful, and this includes competing against the game designers in 1P games. I also think 1P games need some sort of skill ranking to be meaningful, otherwise you're basically left with a glorified hedge maze simulator. Examples include 95 percent of modern games. They don't recognize inequality in performance as long as you get to see the ending. But even in these cases, fans of the game can impose their own rules. An example I can think of is SOTN (probably not the best example since it's not exactly modern), a stupid grinding game that requires no skill but you can find some videos of entertaining and skillful performances out there because players are willing to force upon themselves what the designers were too ignorant to implement.

[zinger]

Good point. Any game that doesn't keep track of score or other statistics (like Sim City does, for example) where players attempt speed runs would be a good example, I guess.

[Bradford]

Let's assume that certain games elevate themselves above meaningless distraction. These are games that fit outside that simple minded outlook that games are entertainment, and the more entertainment you can take from the game, the more worthwhile it is. In fact, these games may not even entertain at all. They may make you sad; they may make you curious; but mostly they make you think.

How are you defining "meaningful" in the context of videogames? Don't all games "make you think," strictly speaking? Do you mean that they make you think about something specific, other than how best to defeat your opponent/solve the puzzle/beat the game/etc...?

I can guess at what you're trying to express here, but I'm not at all convinced that it makes any sense. Maybe you could explain how you think that MGS is a "meaningful game" in the first place, so I could get a better idea of how you are using the word "meaningful." I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that it is not just because MGS has a message.

[icycalm]

You guys are awesome. I don't even have to post anything anymore. My work here is done.

[another god]

I'm not surprised at all that this came up here.

Meaning in the realm of art has always been problematic. For the majority of human history art has been delegated as an industry that creates a product - beauty. Artists were craftsmen and their job was simple.

It's not until you reach just after the Renaissance in AH101 that you see artists wondering just what it means to make art. At the time Raphael was the greatest artist producing the most perfectly balanced pieces worshiping the Church and the history of his art (see The Philosophers in the Vatican). He was one of the most well respected and highest paid artists. People at the time knew him.

But today you hear more about Da'Vinci. Art students will acclaim Michaelangelo. Mannerism and the Baroque are far more interesting. In fact, most art after Raphael is considered, technically, less beautiful, less perfect. Why?

Mannerists used awkward colors to spite their predecessors. Baroque art relished in extravagance. Caravaggio, like the Romanticists that followed 200 years after him, would put familiar faces in extraordinary places (Judith Beheading Holofernes depicts a bible story but also his friend murdering her rapist).

That's not to mention modern art, a lot of which I hate, but still has use and meaning outside of beauty. Mondrian's squares bore the shit out of me, but it teaches us something about human psychology and its visual interaction with the physical world. Picasso's art mostly looks like vomit, really. He was just an artist trying to make a place for himself outside of the camera, so he crammed a ton of stuff in a picture. If he had seen what you could do just with Flash his brain might explode. DuChamp, on the other hand, used his art for social commentary. Sending a urinal to snooty art galleries wasn't hot back then, but today we consider him one of the two fathers of art today.

None of these artists is like Raphael at all. To be an artist that creates beautiful things is to be considered a craftsman. A factory worker producing something along a formula. All artists in the annals of art-history-that-we-give-a-fuck-about after Raphael went without that formula. They made their worth specifically avoiding the idea of beauty.

And like beauty in art, entertainment in games isn't going to be interesting forever. Games today are starting to look a lot like each other. 10 years ago would you imagine Resident Evil would look and play a lot like a 3rd person shooter that plays a lot like a 1st person shooter?

I have to go to work. I'm sure this will come up again.

[JoshF]

I thought we were talking about video games.

[Kuzdu]

The examples you give of artists that didn't produce work that is considered 'beautiful', (Modrian, DuChamp, Picasso) were all creating within new conceptual frameworks. Michaelangleo and Da Vinci are famous because their innovations (perspective, depth, etc.) pushed the craft of painting forward.

For the most part we rarely see wholly new frameworks or techniques in game design, especially with video games. Most games are just retoolings or refinements or combinations of established mechanics, ie. MSG4 is a mix of third-person shooter and stealth. This doesn't mean that these derivative games are necessarily bad, they can actually be very good. Sometimes a small refinement can have a huge effect on the experience of a game.

However, I'm likewise confused as to what this has to do with 'meaning' and/or competition.

[Bradford]

I'm not surprised at all that this came up here.

I, too, am rarely surprised by topics that I bring up myself. I must confess that I never took art history in college, so I will take your word for the accuracy of the history lesson. Nevertheless, none of this remotely answers my questions, which were very specifically about videogames, not art.

And like beauty in art, entertainment in games isn't going to be interesting forever. Games today are starting to look a lot like each other. 10 years ago would you imagine Resident Evil would look and play a lot like a 3rd person shooter that plays a lot like a 1st person shooter?

I am happy to give you credit here for at least mentioning videogames, but you couldn't be more wrong when you say that "entertainment in games isn't going to be interesting forever." While there are probably aspects of certain games that will not be interesting forever, "entertainment" certainly will. As evidence, I submit the following list of games which are still entertaining people despite their old age (ages are approximate):

Baseball - 200 years
Golf - 550 years
Chess - 650 years
Mancala - 1300 years
Boxing - at least 2700 years
Go - 2300 to 4300 years
Wrestling - in some form at least 4300 years

None of these games have needed to "transcend" entertainment in order to hold people's interest for hundreds or thousands of years, why should videogames need to?

... and I'm still quite interested in the answers to my original questions.

[kitroebuck]

anothergod, I try to be nice on the internet, but I just joined this forum to say that that art post up there really hurts. I don't think you made one assertion in there that is supported by reality. I thought of picking it apart line by line like icy does, but I don't really want to be a jerk. It's just that I see a lot of sophmoric nonsense like the above said about art in videogame disscusions, and it almost always goes unchallenged. I wish I could convice people that you can't read art history like a comic strip and make up your own story to make the sequence make sense. There are people with degrees in this stuff. I suggest that if you want to use art as an aid to understanding games, you stick to more concrete examples. I mean, you just tried to summarize the entire history of art in order to make a point about Metal Gear.

And since I would probably cause you all just as much irritation if I started talking about videogames, I won't post again. Sorry if I was off the topic. Just had to get that out.

[JoshF]

Why can't video games be video games for once? If someone feels the need to inflate them to something else why would they like them in the first place?

None of these games have needed to "transcend" entertainment in order to hold people's interest for hundreds or thousands of years, why should videogames need to?

Bam.

[another god]

I think we got off all wrong. Here:

Baseball - 200 years
Golf - 550 years
Chess - 650 years
Mancala - 1300 years
Boxing - at least 2700 years
Go - 2300 to 4300 years
Wrestling - in some form at least 4300 years

This is exactly what I'm talking about. While some of this list is questionable (Mancala? really?), others are totally valuable competitive games. I totally agree that competition can be valuable. I mean, shit, I just spent the last hour playing chess. (I can also value watching an hour of SportsCenter).

But what exactly about competition makes it valuable? And where's the video game that's competitive and worth while? If one came out already, I'd like to know what it is. If one hasn't, I'd like to know what's not right with the ones we have now.

Also, please note that anyone who seriously plays any of those above sports, or any sports in general, doesn't always "enjoy" the game. A lot of energy goes into these sports/games that is purely for something other than entertainment - whether its excellence or curiosity or something else altogether. And this is really at the heart of what I'm looking for.

And yeah it's easy to say, "fuck you, games don't need to be meaningful," but that's bullshit. Every time a new multi-player FPS comes out gamers will decide whether or not its worth their time to learn the nuances of the game or not. What makes a competitive game more worthwhile than another, and for what purpose.

[zinger]

Maybe you should start by asking yourself "what's the meaning of life"?

[icycalm]

The reason this thread is going nowhere is because another god has posed a nonsensical question. I am not trying to be mean or anything -- that's just how it is. If you can't define EVERY SINGLE term in your proposition then that proposition is nonsensical. Until another god manages to nail down 100% clearly what he means by "meaningful" this thread will remain meaningless.

Note that the question here is NOT to define what is meaningful, period (because in reality nothing is meaningful -- meaning is a quality which human beings invest the world with -- in other words, human beings invent meaning -- without us nothing in the universe has meaning) -- the question here is to define WHAT IS MEANINGFUL FOR ANOTHER GOD.

So. We are waiting.

[icycalm]

Also, might as well clear some things up while we wait for the definition:

While some of this list is questionable (Mancala? really?), others are totally valuable competitive games.

To some people, maybe. To those who enjoy them. To those who don't they are a waste of time.

I totally agree that competition can be valuable.

It CAN be valuable. But valuable in respect to a specific goal -- not just generally "valuable". No activity is generally "valuable". If, for example, my goal is to become an accomplished botanologist, clearly competitive BMX racing is not valuable. Etc. etc.

But what exactly about competition makes it valuable?

Direct competition pushes you to get more out of yourself than you otherwise would. That's why competition IN GENERAL is valuable. As for the relative value of competition IN PARTICULAR ACTIVITIES, that depends on the goal you want to accomplish. See previous point.

And where's the video game that's competitive and worth while?

We've already said that all videogames are in a sense competitive -- all games in fact. As for worthwhile, again, universal values do not exist. Different things/activities/etc. have different values for different people, depending on their situations, their needs, their desires, their physiological and psychological makeup.

If one came out already, I'd like to know what it is. If one hasn't, I'd like to know what's not right with the ones we have now.

Following from the previous point, ALL games we already have are worthwhile in one way or another to one person or another. (Yes, even the worst ones.)

Also, please note that anyone who seriously plays any of those above sports, or any sports in general, doesn't always "enjoy" the game.

If you are training competitively for something there will always be bad moments, even bad times. But they are part of the game, and therefore also part of the enjoyment.

A lot of energy goes into these sports/games that is purely for something other than entertainment - whether its excellence or curiosity or something else altogether. And this is really at the heart of what I'm looking for.

There IS nothing other than entertainment. Entertainment is the Alpha and the Omega of our humanity. You seem to regard entertainment as something second-rate. That's a huge mistake.

What makes a competitive game more worthwhile than another, and for what purpose.

This is a synthetic question, all parts of which I've already answered. But I'll put them all together again here for you:

In order to judge whether one competitive game is "more worthwhile" than another, you must first establish what is worthwhile for you. I.e. you must first establish a "purpose". Say your purpose is to become physically strong. Then in that case swimming is more worthwhile than chess. Etc. etc.

So it all depends on who you are and what you are trying to achieve. Once you have these two things down, "worth", "purpose" and "meaning" automatically follow.

[icycalm]

A lot of energy goes into these sports/games that is purely for something other than entertainment - whether its excellence or curiosity or something else altogether. And this is really at the heart of what I'm looking for.

There IS nothing other than entertainment. Entertainment is the Alpha and the Omega of our humanity. You seem to regard entertainment as something second-rate. That's a huge mistake.

Can't resist quoting Nietzsche again:

Mature manhood: that means to have rediscovered the seriousness one had as a child at play.

[walrusdawg]

wow icy, I'm impressed. I've seen you act way meaner over less stupid things.

If videogames are "transcending" anything, then they are transcending dull mathematics and becoming entertainment. After all, video games are little more than algorithms: You input some numbers, you get some numbers back. Unless you're a numerologist how can you say that is "meaningful"?

Unfortunately the answer is because "meaningful" really means "has a good story" (which really means "has a complicated story"). Or maybe it means "melodramatic music". Fight Club Dan Brown Anecdotes Ayn Rand Gonzo Journalism Look At Me I'm Smart Playing Games Karamazov With A Teenage Shemale Art Motherfuckers.

It's pseudointellectual bullshit by some insecure dipshits who took the whole "games are for kids" mantra personally and think they have something to prove.

In line with Nietzsche, here one from Ray of the brilliant Achewood comic:

"Look, dude. If you can't have fun playin' with a toy truck, then it's time to reevaluate your life."

[another god]

lol, nice job with this forum. Very impressive.

I'm getting a clearer picture of something I probably should've seen before. I'm still having a problem with the hedonist or objectivist or whatever point of view you present, but that's pretty much unique to me.

Also, I still think the solution fails the intent of the thread. I'm curious what kind of games will stand the test of time, and it's really hard to come up with that given how subjective the answer is. Whether or not that's intentional, I don't know, but it confuses me about what aspects in particular of competitive games make them interesting in terms of survivability.

[Bradford]

but it confuses me about what aspects in particular of competitive games make them interesting in terms of survivability.

This part at least I can clear up, and conveniently enough, I can jump on the quote train in the process:

"The greatest joy a man can know is to conquer his enemies and drive them before him." - Genghis Khan

Competitive games have longevity not because they "transcend their entertainment value" (whatever that means), nor because people become enthralled by their graphics, backstory, or cutscenes. Human beings are hard-wired to enjoy competition, or rather, to enjoy defeating an opponent.

For a specific competitve game (video or otherwise) to have longevity, it has to appear fair to the participants (in the sense that it appears to take skill, not luck or cheating, to win), and have a large enough possibility space between the masters and the initiates (See On Complexity, Depth, and Skill). The sense of difference between, and therefore dominance over, a less skilled player by a vastly more skilled player can be intoxicating.

If I have missed the mark here, please let me know, anyone.

[JoshF]

I'm curious what kind of games will stand the test of time

Simple, the really good ones.

[icycalm]

[icycalm]

This is now the official "meaning" thread.

http://insomnia.ac/essays/on_nihilism/

Perhaps I will explain some things about this essay later on. Specifically, I might give an interpretation of the last two paragraphs, which will otherwise remain incomprehensible because of dear Jean's love of obscurantism.

[icycalm]

So here is the thing: one might try to take this essay and analyze it sentence for sentence -- and that would certainly be a valid approach. But given how fragmentary, self-contradictory and generally obfuscating Baudrillard's writing is, it would be a collosal enterprise: you'd end up producing an entire essay for every single one of his sentences. And you still wouldn't be sure if you got everything right.

So fuck that.

What I will do, however, is re-write the last two paragraphs (which contain the conclusion) so that they will make perfect sense, and I will do this by simply replacing two of his terms with the proper ones.

The bolded parts are the ones where I've made a substitution.

There is no more hope for meaning. And without a doubt this is a good thing: meaning is mortal. But that on which it has imposed its ephemeral reign, what it hoped to liquidate in order to impose the reign of the Enlightenment, that is, appearances, they, are immortal, invulnerable to the nihilism of meaning or of non-meaning itself.

This is where seduction begins.

There is no more hope for transcendental meaning. And without a doubt this is a good thing: transcendental meaning is mortal. But that on which it has imposed its ephemeral reign, what it hoped to liquidate in order to impose the reign of the Enlightenment, that is, appearances, they, are immortal, invulnerable to the nihilism of transcendental meaning or of non-meaning itself.

This is where will to power begins.

I have your number, dear Jean. You can't hide from me -- no one can.

He basically took Nietzsche's philosophy, changed a few terms, muddled them around a little bit so that no one would notice, and then used his philosophy to debunk all the tenets of our modernity -- of politics and sociology, morality and humanitarianism, etc. -- all the naiveties of the uneducated and miseducated rabble. -- And for that we are grateful. But the false-coinage is still contemptible, and it is the reason not only for the fact that large tracts of his writings are basically unintelligible, but also, and most crucially, for the many mistakes he makes. These are the payment truth extracts from him for his deception. I give a pretty flagrant example:

http://insomnia.ac/essays/the_blowback_of_duality/

There is no point deploring this -- nor exalting it for that matter. These are quite simply the rules of the game.

Said by someone who never bothered with games, whether of the physical or electronic variety, and who therefore understood very little about them.

There IS a point in exalting the rules of the game, dear Jean. That is how you become a better player.

[icycalm]

Might as well use this thread since we have it:

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/videogame ... e_preface/

It's an old thread, and most of the ideas in this preface I did not even suspect when I was writing the replies above, but you can see by reading them again after having read the preface that my head had been in the right place all along.

You can also see how typical, and typically misplaced, the OP's comments are, looking for "meaningful videogames" (and automatically debasing the artform's history in the process) instead of the meaning of videogames -- that is to say the higher meaning, beyond the lower one of actually playing specific games.