Notgames Forum

So I already posted over here after Axcho pointed me to this forum, but wanted to take the time to introduce myself in a stiff, formal manner

My name is Jordan, I've been playing computer games for about 20 years, I guess, and making them for about 13. I've gone through various stages of loving and loathing games, being intensely engaged, and thinking that they were completely boring.

I've been involved (on-and-off) in the indie gaming scene for a while (I founded TIGSource.com back in 2005, which some of you might be familiar with), and have enjoyed the surge of independent spirit and experimentalism that has come with it.

For some time I have believed that videogames can be more than games: that they have the potential to change the way people think, express emotion, etc. However, progress towards this goal has seemed to be very slow, even within the indie scene (the commercial sector is pure molasses). Playing Jason Rohrer's Passage a while back was something of a breakthrough for me, as it was the first game I played that stood out to me as really being more than a game, or different from a game: an interactive experience that was entirely about expressing some truth about life (and that, for me, really succeeded). Looking back on that experience now, I realize that Passage was not a game at all, but a notgame.

I feel like a lot of things are converging for me right now, in my thinking about interactive art, and finding this website has been a real boon. I'm excited to be here, and discuss notgames with all of you.

Best wishes to all!


P.S. If you want to know a bit more about me, you can check out my bio at http://www.necessarygames.com/about

P.P.S. I've actually been making notgames for a while, without using the term. Here's a micro example I made for Ludum Dare a few days ago: http://www.ludumdare.com/compo/ludum-dare-17/?action=rate&uid=1382

Awesome, glad you found your way here!

I had no idea you starts TIGSource. Imagine notgames getting that big... 

I'm starting to think of Passage, and also Train, as border cases. I think they are works of art that use the games structure to make their point, but mostly by subverting their quality as games. In a way, they become most powerful at the moment when the game-as-game is broken. In that sense, they are not too different from other works of art made with found objects. I don't consider them art games as much as I would consider them art made with games.

This is definitely a viable option for any artist. But I think we can go further. I think we do not need to destroy the medium, or pervert it. Or equate the medium with sets of rules, for that matter. I think there's plenty of interesting things in the medium of videogames that can be used for the creation of art. Our art does not need to be about games, which, in a sense, both Passage and Train are (again, this fits within a long modernist tradition of artists exposing their medium as part of the content of a piece). We can can make art about anything.

I guess I'm suggesting we should make the videogame equivalent of auteur cinema rather that the videogame equivalent of video art.

Hi! This forum seems to be filling up with awesome indie games people

Thanks for the warm welcomes

@Michaël:

It's interesting to me that you view Passage as a "border case." Can you expand a bit more on what you mean there? It seems to me that you're saying it's a "border case" of a notgame... because it's not enough like a game?? Or rather, because it "perverts" the medium of games (in the style of found object art), and is thus more "about" games than it is about its cover themes of life and death. Am I reading you right, there? If so, I would have to contest. Passage doesn't seem "broken" at all to me, nor do I feel that it is about perverting the medium of games. To me, it is a short interactive experience that is simply not concerned with being a game... ie, an exemplary notgame. It seems to me that people read it as a sort of "found object" / "commentary on games as a medium" simply because it is so unconcernedwith gameplay... not because it is pervertinggameplay.

I haven't played Train, but I have read up on it, and that seems like it might be a better example of a "perverting" / deconstructing kind of game that is as much about the expectations of gameplay as it is about death camps. A game that I think fits really well in this category is SCMRPG: a work that is indeed filled with traditional gameplay components, and expectations, but whose entire existence and message is based on the undermining of those rules and expectations... a sort of "anti-game" more than a notgame. Other examples would be the Karoshi games, or the bunnies game I made a little while back. Those games are all "found object-like", in that they are about the idea of gameplay as much as they are about Columbine, Suicide, or Genocide, respectively. Passage, on the other hand, is, to me, a pure memento mori.

Maybe I'm reading you all wrong here. Or maybe we just had different experiences with Passage (quite likely). In any case, I'm keen to hear more about what you think on this.

To me, Passage feels like a contemplation of "life as a game". It seems to say "life is a game" or "life is like a game" or "imagine for a moment, that life is a game". And that's why the game format is suitable. It uses the game format as a metaphor for life.
If it doesn't, and I read it as "a notgame" (in the sense that its form was created to express its content), then it reduces life to a game. And that is something I would object to. Not because it would be bad art but because I reject its "message". I dislike cynicism and oversimplification in art.
Maybe in the end, Passage is simply a bit rough, a bit "primitive", art brut?

Very interesting thoughts Michaël; I'm still not quite seeing it, but bear with me. The problem I have with Passage saying "imagine life as a game" is that it isn't a game--is it? I mean, it's lacking in most of characteristics we would typically think of a game as having. It's not fun or intended to be fun, it lacks any explicit (and arguably even implicit) goals or challenges, and the "rules" are thus more like physical constraints than "playful" or "gamelike" constraints. How, then, can it be telling us to imagine life as a game, or reducing life to a game?

The thing is metaphorical for sure. It's saying "take this narrow passage to be life, for a moment," but in that regard it is hardly different from any borderline-abstract artwork, from any medium. It's just using the word "game" to describe it (as opposed to "notgame"), that I don't understand.

Could you give some examples of works that you would hold up as examples of notgames (realizing, of course, that notgames is not a category )?

This is not a semantic discussion for me. I hate semantic discussions.
Maybe I misunderstand Passage. Or videogames for that matter.
I see an interactive application where you direct a character through an environment. You can choose where to go. You can interact with some items. You can collect things. You get points. It begins and it ends. Add all this together and you have a very barebones game. Almost all videogames could be described like this. But more than that, in Passage, the reference to videogames is required for the the symbolism to work. You need to know about avatar control, about interaction, about choices, about collecting, about scores, etc, to understand what it is saying about life. It uses those typical videogame elements as symbols.
The fact that it is not fun, is where it subverts the game format. But without the audience understanding that game format, Passage would not make sense.

In a way, the Notgames Initiative is about trying to achieve the opposite: about trying to express something through interactivity and procedurality while explicitly rejecting typical game elements.

In my mind, Notgames, so far, is only an idea. And it might remain so. That's fine. As long as it helps us think creatively about this medium.
As far as I can tell, not a single pure "notgame" exists yet.
Unless you go back in time. Then perhaps some CD Roms and net.art from the 1990s could be considered "proto-notgames". But that feels a bit silly to me. Because those things were created completely outside of any reference to videogames as a medium. They can be very inspiring, however!

Thanks for your continued thoughts Michaël! I'm still not sure I agree with you completely on Passage, but I think I understand what you're getting at. I'll have to sit and ponder for a wile longer



P.S. Do forgive me if I go dragging semantics into things (and feel free to punch me in the nose): I'm not a huge fan myself. At the same time, it seems impossible to avoid some level of semantic discussion when trying to communicate

The loneliness piece. I liked the subtle background and minimalism. Plus, I have a thing for black and white imagery. There is no sense of closure but that my be part of your concept. I think it could benefit from some sound. Thanks for sharing and welcome!

Thanks ghostwheel! I like your meme.... or is it meant to be taken ironically? 

It's serious. Irony is the great cop-out of modern art.

!