"This War Of Mine" computer game from the point of view of civilian survivors

[dps]

But yeah, games are very much about mechanics and rules, though I think the visual presentation and other "flavour bits" are just as important to the craft.

The "flavor bits" can be important to the "fun" of game-play, too.  EU:Rome is a good example--on initial launch it was the most stable, bug-free game from Paradox (at least up to that point), but a big boor, because it had no flavor.  But OTOH, the lack of flavor wasn't from poor graphic or other artistic choices;  there was just something missing.

[CountDeMoney]

But yeah, games are very much about mechanics and rules, though I think the visual presentation and other "flavour bits" are just as important to the craft.

Mechanics and rules are what you use to win or lose, the visual presentation determines how much you enjoy it. 

[Martinus]

Well, I see games as being a system of mechanics and rules.  You move a piece round a board, you hit a ball with a bat, you drive around a map etc.  A game stands on this, it must have it.  It also must be fun, or people won't play it.  Artistic elements are optional.  Now a computer game can have artistic elements (and usually does), things like a story and graphic design are art, but they stand on their own as well.

Now I think games and sports are a worthy human endeavor by themselves.  Games can invoke feelings and teach the players or audience important stuff.  They are not art, but a separate part of the human condition.

Ah... I see. I use the word problematic somewhat differently than you

I don't object to anything you say there - it makes sense. I disagree, in that I think games are a perfectly valid tool for artistic expression. I don't see them as separate from "art" - but rather that the current thrust of game production is a popular art form primarily concerned with mass appeal and unconcerned with various "high art" concerns. But to me that's down to the priorities of the makers and consumers, rather than down to the form itself. Games are a perfectly suitable medium for expressing profound truths about the human condition or whatever.

It's just that I don't tend to enjoy that stuff, preferring lighter fare aimed at popular taste. That kind of mirrors the situation in film and books as well; much of it is intellectually light-weight stuff intended for entertainment purposes, but they're still perfectly valid media for high theory style stuff. The same is true for image production, in fact - lots of people prefer stuff produced for concerns other than art theory reasons.

But yeah, games are very much about mechanics and rules, though I think the visual presentation and other "flavour bits" are just as important to the craft.

You are right - but I also agree with Raz that a game has to be, first and foremost, playable - and this puts certain requirements on artistic expression and storytelling. It's just an inherent element of a medium - just as film storytelling or book storytelling have their own rules.

Now I am not saying that this applies to "This War of Mine", necessarily, as I haven't played it, but if a game cannot be "won" and does not have any predictable rules (even if some of them are based on random factors), then it runs a risk of being a bad game (or perhaps not a game at all) despite an artistic value or deeper thought put into it.

It may be an extreme analogy, but imagine someone made a highly artistic and profound movie, that consists only of pages of text scrolling across the screen - the message could be very deep and meaningful, but it would make a very shitty movie, nonetheless.

[dps]

But yeah, games are very much about mechanics and rules, though I think the visual presentation and other "flavour bits" are just as important to the craft.

Mechanics and rules are what you use to win or lose, the visual presentation determines how much you enjoy it. 

I don't think that's true, as long as the graphics are functional.  Look at Master of Magic, for example--it had graphics that are frankly pretty shitty, but it had great gameplay.

[CountDeMoney]

Functional graphics are functional, as "Meh" is functional.  Beautiful graphics are beautiful, and make one happy to wake up in the morning.

And no, I won't look at Master of Magic, because you wish it.

[Razgovory]

But yeah, games are very much about mechanics and rules, though I think the visual presentation and other "flavour bits" are just as important to the craft.

Mechanics and rules are what you use to win or lose, the visual presentation determines how much you enjoy it. 

I don't think that's true, as long as the graphics are functional.  Look at Master of Magic, for example--it had graphics that are frankly pretty shitty, but it had great gameplay.

I think of games as slightly more broadly.  Not just computer games but sports, board games etc.  For instance Chess.  A Chess set can be very elaborate and be an objet d'art.  But that isn't actually required.  In fact, Chess can be played without board or pieces, simply in the minds of the two players.  In this way we strip any possible art from the game, and the game still exists. 

[Sheilbh]

For me, generally, yes. The older I get, the less willing I am to watch movies and read books that are depressing etc. (that is why I didn't really enjoy "Brokeback Mountain" or "Philadelphia" and do not really enjoy that trope in gay-themed cinema). My choice of fiction tends towards escapism these days - so suspense/dark fantasy (but not full horror), sci fi and comedies.

In terms of books I find I'm reading classics a lot more as I get older. But I'm also far, far more tolerant of just quitting it if I'm not enjoying it. I think both are a life's too short approach I've unconsciously adopted.

With film I'm an absolute whore.

With TV I try and be picky. I generally only watch a few series now that I either love because they bring me joy - these are accidental discoveries and guilty pleasures say. Or ones that have a really big consensus of quality behind them. I love how good and interesting TV is and I entirely get the whole novel comparison. But again life's short and I don't know how many times I want to effectively watch War and Peace. It's why I love miniseries.

Again I'm quite bad at dropping out of series from sheer inertia.

It may be an extreme analogy, but imagine someone made a highly artistic and profound movie, that consists only of pages of text scrolling across the screen - the message could be very deep and meaningful, but it would make a very shitty movie, nonetheless.

Isn't that because of the expectations you have of a movie? You put that in a cinema, even an arty one and people would probably agree with it. You put it as an installation in an exhibition and people may sit through it and say it's deep and meaningful.

So if you go to a game expecting a game with the possibility of art (that really pretty one on the PS3 springs to mind) then you'll probably have a good experience of that type of game, if you go in thinking it's an arty game so may not work in the way you expect you may also have a good, if different, experience.

[Syt]

Now I am not saying that this applies to "This War of Mine", necessarily, as I haven't played it, but if a game cannot be "won" and does not have any predictable rules (even if some of them are based on random factors), then it runs a risk of being a bad game (or perhaps not a game at all) despite an artistic value or deeper thought put into it.

I haven't played This War of Mine myself, but I've watched a few Let's Plays, and it seems that at its core it's a survival game, not quite unlike Project Zomboid, or Don't Starve (with different mechanics of course). From a game mechanics standpoint it seems pretty standard: gather resources and manage them to your best abilities to mitigate the game's (partially random) events it throws at you. Looking for additional resources has a typical risk/reward decision (going to a more dangerous place has a chance of better loot). There is a win condition (survive till the ceasefire), but you won't know how far off it is.

The game's randomness, while present, is not out of line with other roguelikes or roguelites from what I can see - including the possibility for a very difficult or maybe even unwinnable scenarios.

What makes This War of Mine different is setting and theme, not mechanics. Its closest relative might be Gods Will Be Watching, though I haven't played that one, either.

[Siege]

This game is going to suck..

[Martinus]

It turns out the game has been developed by a Polish company. Between this, Witcher and few others, Poland seems to be carving a niche for itself in gaming.

[Valmy]

Their games reflect the grim and bleak outlook that typified Polish culture from 1795 to 1989.

[Martinus]

Their games reflect the grim and bleak outlook that typified Polish culture from 1795 to 1989.

Yes. Poles (and, more broadly, Eastern Europeans) were emo before everybody did it.

It helps that Witcher is based on best selling books by a really good author.

[Siege]

What about "The last of us"?
Should i buy it?

[CountDeMoney]

What about "The last of us"?
Should i buy it?

Yes.  You would like it.

[DontSayBanana]

I think that there'd be mileage in a game about running a porn actor's/actress's career, especially if you add moral questions and the darker side of the business (abuse, drug use, risk of diseases ...), and you can add poignancy e.g. when a performer's star starts to sink: what are they willing to do to themselves and on camera when the big offers stop coming in? Or when you're a young hopeful and want to impress the producers. How will your personal relationships react? Etc.

Sounds like an excellent idea for a TC mod for that wrestling manager game you've posted AARs about.