I've had enough with ToT

http://tale-of-tales.com/tales/OverGames.html

I can't believe the arrogance, ignorance, and hypocrisy of Tale of Tales. They're reactionary and narrow-minded. Their ideas that science has killed art and that an interactive medium will save the world, among other things, are absolutely insane.

I've been pretty dumb to have bought their philosophy up until this point. Games should simply function to achieve the effect that the artist intended. Sure, this means that games can do with less coin-collecting and boss fights, but this also means that puzzles and challenges be necessary to achieve the same thing (which is what you've been saying all along).

I'm now even realizing that what I've branded as "typical" videogames still have value as well. I've recently been playing Exit Fate, an RPG, and I've never guilty after each play session like I have with most games these days. I guess I've simply forgotten that there are good games and bad games.

I simply don't play games anymore. They usually aren't any fun and even if they are I feel like I've wasted my time (there's no depth, I haven't gained anything by playing it). You're right, there's good games and bad games, but there's no science behind what makes them one or the other. You can follow everything game theory says but still have a dud. Tale of Tales is right (not the science kills art part - science changes art just like internet changes business models): game theory is crap and games today lack depth. Games don't lack depth because of game theory, they lack depth partly because they try to have mass appeal and partly because they're games. Games weren't ever meant to be played by a single person, going back to your "games are about the players" rant, and I think the video game industry forgot that.

Even still, some videogames have value despite being games. For example, although RPGs are about item management and tatical combat, they also allow the player to explore a massive interactive world with interactive characters.
Shadow of the Colossus remains the most emotionally engaging piece of interactive media I've ever played. In addition to invoking more fear than any other game, it also invokes more complex emotions, in this case guilt and sorrow. There are tons of memorable and artistically "legitimate" instances in games such as when Psycho Mantis breaks the third wall in MGS or the first (nonviolent) chapter in HL2. There was even a boss fight in the RPG I just played, Exit Fate, in which I felt remorse for engaging in. Games like Metal Gear Solid and Exit Fate, despite the neck-snapping and spell-casting, still have intellectual and emotional value.

Simply put, its not that its impossible for a videogame to have depth, the problem is that the focus on gameplay detracts from everything else. I still play games from time to time for that reason, although I'm more selective now than I used to be.

http://www.necessarygames.com/reviews/sid-meiers-civilization-iv-game-commercial-mac-os-x-windows-turn-based-strategy-historical
The only intelligent article arguing for the value of games that I've read so far. The most important part of the article is the discussion of natural v. artificial rewards: natural rewards being the depth and value obtained from the experience while the artificial rewards are those of games' "challenge-reward" system. Although games like Tetris only have artificial rewards, many "typical" videogames have both. While TF2 has the artificial rewards such the ubercharge, critical hit, and post-game humiliation round, it can be argued that it has a natural reward through the player's enhanced understanding of teamwork.

This ties in nicely with my rant. The rewards of board games and sports are mostly natural, not artificial. A videogame doesn't necessarily have to be, as ToT calls it, a "notgame" to have value, to provide more natural rewards than artificial ones. Likewise, a "notgame" can consist only of artificial rewards. Still, dropping gameplay usually means dropping artificial rewards.


For comparison, I'm making two games as side projects: an adventure without gameplay, an RPG with gameplay, but as few artificial rewards as possible (I've had time, I haven't been to school for over a week because of snow). I now think that both the "notgame" and the personally rewarding game can be valid paths for the industry to follow.