[MoriartyL]

I just wrote up the foundations for a unified theory of art under videogames on my blog. I'd be curious to hear what you guys, who for the most part are considerably saner than I, think of it. See, I am reasonably certain that a refutation of this theory so good that I can't possibly avoid trashing the whole thing is only a matter of time. Naturally, I'd like to speed it up, so I'll need your help there. Just to clarify, I'm not looking for a simple "I don't agree with that.". I know no one would ever agree, so that wouldn't tell me anything. What I'm hoping for is more of a "Your theory contradicts itself 74 times, makes a mockery of all that is holy, and makes it apparent that you are a complete fool." See, with a reasoned argument like that, I might actually figure out what the problem is. So thanks in advance for your help. The original post is on my blog, but I've copied it below. I hope it's not too confusing outside the original context.




Gamism is, in its ideal state, the whole of entertainment, plus the whole of art, presented in a digital medium. (See Semantics, Semantics, Part 2) In the remainder of this post, I will be referring to this absolute gamism, and not the current sad state of affairs, when I talk about "gamism". In other words, this new system of classification aims to be applicable to all Forms, and not only those currently considered by the general public to be "videogames".

But first: What is a Form? A Form is a discipline used for the creation of individual works. Each Form contains native design elements, which are the units the game is made out of. The recognition of particular design elements is subjective, and is usually open to interpretation. For example, if a platformer asks the player to jump from one platform to one of two others, it can be seen as containing nothing more than animation and input, or it can be seen as containing a "risk/reward cycle", or it can be seen as a small part of the world design, or the decision of which platform to jump to can be seen as a puzzle. Very often, isolated design elements can be seen as individual works themselves, and analyzed accordingly. For instance, world design and puzzle design are both Forms in their own right, yet each can be contained within a larger work as nothing more than a single element of the design.

I will discuss several separations between different types of Forms(The most famous is the divide between "forms of art" and "forms of entertainment", but I won't get into that here.), but the first distinction I must make is between "simple Forms" and "complex Forms". A simple Form's design elements contain one "dominant element", with all the rest being "subordinate elements" which serve the dominant element. For example, the exploration Form's dominant element is world design, and any other elements, such as puzzles, music, or interface all (in theory) serve the world design. Therefore, exploration is a simple Form. A complex Form is one which has not one dominant element, but several which complement each other. For example, film contains both video and audio as design elements, but they complement each other by each providing an aspect of the experience which the other could not.

A single work is said to have "primary content" and "supportive content" where its Form has dominant and subordinate elements, respectively. This is the practical application of the abstract concepts the Form provides. Every game has one design element which contains the primary content, whether or not its Form contains exactly one dominant element. The primary content is the core of the game; A game's quality often depends (especially if it is of a simple Form) on the quality of its primary content and the degree to which its supportive content serves the primary content. If the Form is complex, then the game's primary content is story for lack of any other thread holding the game together.

Sometimes a game contains secondary content (and with it a second set of priorities), in addition to the primary content inherited from its Form. Almost always, such a game can be expressed as "a X serving the purpose of a Y". For example, The Sims is a simulation serving the purpose of a dollhouse. It follows all the traditional rules of the simulation Form (a simple Form) including the prioritization of addictiveness as dominant design element, but it also inherits the dollhouse's dominant element, which is the reflection of day-to-day life. So its primary content is its addictive micromanagement, and its secondary content is its depiction of ordinary life using doll-like characters. When a complex Form, such as the RPG, follows this model, the foreign dominant design element takes the place of primary content, since there is no native dominant element to take precedence. For example: Pokémon is an RPG serving the purpose of a collectible series such as sports cards. Normally, an RPG's primary element would be story, since as a complex Form there is no single dominant element. But in this case, there is a foreign element to take precedence; Therefore, Pokémon's primary content is its set of collectable monsters.

How does it help to know which content is primary?

The primary content (and secondary content, if there is any) is the main source of the game's identity in the mind of the player. As such, it is usually best to focus artistic efforts on the primary content more so than the supportive content so that the game stands out and creates an identity for itself. This knowledge can also help in the creation of sequels; the primary content is the only part of the game which must change from original to sequel so that it does not become redundant.

Additional laws and terminology

Some Forms are fully contained in larger Forms. For instance, as Rayman 2 proved, the platformer is part of a more general Form (which I have no name for) which includes such games as Ball Revamped. The larger Form is called a "parent Form", and the smaller one a "sub-Form". It is valid, though pointless, to view all of gamism as one parent Form with a tremendous number of sub-Forms.
The term "Form" should not be mistaken with "genre", which is the classification of the style of a game's primary content.

A "strong Form" is one whose dominant design element is flexible enough to allow for many different genres, while a "weak Form" is one whose dominant element isn't. The terms should generally be used to deal with small sub-Forms, since almost every reasonably large Form is strong.

If one segment of supportive content is a short interactive game, and it is not native to the Form of the containing work, then it can be called a "minigame". A noninteractive segment, under exactly the same circumstances, is called a "cutscene" or "transition". I don't know why such a silly distinction is made, but it is, and this issue is too trivial to be worth fighting over, so I accept this terminology. A minigame/transition has no impact whatsoever on its container's classification.

Forms evolve over time, gaining new rules and breaking old ones. Occasionally, the dominant elements of a complex Form evolve to the point where they can be isolated and expanded upon as new Forms, separated from both their original Form and the container's Form. This new Form can be called a "derivative" of the complex Form it broke off from. For example, the exploration segments of the RPG evolved until there were clear traditions for the specific exploration of towns (as opposed to other areas). This design element broke off into the "communication-game" Form with Animal Crossing. We can say that the communication-game Form is an RPG-derivative.

A "hybrid" is the result of combining the design elements of two separate Forms. For example, David Cage's Fahrenheit is an adventure-film hybrid, since it takes elements from both the adventure (heavy level of scripting activated by player input, interactive dialogue trees, object selection, etc.) and film (acting, choreography, camera movement).

[MoriartyL]

Thank you for that enlightened criticism; that's exactly what I was looking for.

[sigh]

[Starflux]

I will read this, Moriarty, as soon as I find a speck of free time. As with all more in-depth posts, people need time to go and sit for it.

[insane_cobra]

I'm sorry, I'd read it, but I've noticed I tend to disagree with your views and I don't feel like arguing right now.

[Starflux]

It was a tough but interesting read. I'm not sure how you can always assume that when there's a complex form; story is immediately the primary focus? Surely one can make a complex game with numerous elements with only a flimsy story? I don't really see why the one automatically indicates the other.

I'm also in mild disagreeing about an 'alien' element in the design of a form automatically taking the lead. In Pokémon it was pretty obvious, but that was specifically designed to be so. However, I'm sure there are many similar examples (in this case in Japanese RPG's) where there are unique attributes to the game/form that are only complimentary instead of usurping the game. For instance in Tales of Phantasia which I played at Nintendo's yesterday, there's a cooking aspect to make potions. This extends beyond a mere mini-game because it is embedded into the game completely (with collecting ingredients and making things that are useful in battles), but it's most definitely not overshadowing the 'normal' form.

[artwking4]

I haven't read it, but it looks like there's a lot of words and analysis of games. Most likely, reading it will suck all of the fun out of games. Like dissecting frogs. Nobody likes it, and the frog dies as a result.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by Flux

It was a tough but interesting read. I'm not sure how you can always assume that when there's a complex form; story is immediately the primary focus? Surely one can make a complex game with numerous elements with only a flimsy story? I don't really see why the one automatically indicates the other.

It's a long shot, and I'm actually hoping to find some proof that this is not the case. But so far, to my puzzlement, every argument I've thrown against this assumption falls down.

My first impulse, upon coming up with this ludicrous idea, was to shoot it down using the RPG. After all, RPGs tend to focus on lots of little minutiae, often more so than the story. "Primary content" is what holds the game's identity. And none of these subordinate elements (turn-based battles, world design, etc.) truly hold the identity of a single RPG. There may be a slight variation on the battles, but that's not what makes RPG X RPG X. A battle system is always generic; it can be reused as many times as wanted. World design is more unique, but even this can be reused from game to sequel. There is only one type of content in an RPG which is so integral to the game's identity that it can never be reused (without gamers getting very angry): the story. So even if the story doesn't get as much attention as other parts of the game, it is still the primary content of the game.

After RPGs failed to prove me wrong, I tried to think of other complex games. Metal Gear Solid is the poster child for complex gamism: three different Forms, each functioning as a dominant element, with the three complementing each other perfectly. Is story the primary content? Heck yes. Let's try another: Beyond Good & Evil, which switches between many different Forms, using them all as dominant elements which complement each other. Is story the primary content? Absolutely. I tried to use The Legend of Zelda, then, since what gives each game its unique personality is not so much the conventional plot so much as the emotional journey it brings the player on. But then it occurred to me that series of emotions, with clear progression between them, is also a story, though not a traditional one. Almost all movies are focused on story; one notable exception is Fantasia, but in that case we see clearly that the complementary relationship between types of content has been severed: The music stands on its own, and the animation serves it. This is no longer complex! Comicbooks are read mainly for their stories, much as great artists like to deny it.

By this point, I ran out of arguments and gave up. I would be delighted if you could give me some specific evidence I've overlooked.

I'm also in mild disagreeing about an 'alien' element in the design of a form automatically taking the lead. In Pokémon it was pretty obvious, but that was specifically designed to be so. However, I'm sure there are many similar examples (in this case in Japanese RPG's) where there are unique attributes to the game/form that are only complimentary instead of usurping the game. For instance in Tales of Phantasia which I played at Nintendo's yesterday, there's a cooking aspect to make potions. This extends beyond a mere mini-game because it is embedded into the game completely (with collecting ingredients and making things that are useful in battles), but it's most definitely not overshadowing the 'normal' form.

Maybe I should have been more clear here. "Secondary content" is the term I take only in cases which can be expressed as "a X serving the purpose of a Y", or cases in which it could have been expressed in such a way, had a strong Form Y existed. From your description, it does not sound like Tales of Phantasia can be expressed as "an RPG serving the purpose of a cooking game", so much as "an RPG with a cooking game as supportive content". Had the game been invented to serve the purpose of a cooking game, naturally the battles themselves would have been replaced with a mixing game (with leveling-up, of course), with the town exploration replaced with walking around in the kitchen and the dungeon exploration replaced with a trip to the store to buy ingredients, etc. Likely the word "secondary" isn't good enough- any suggestions to replace it? I'm talking about cases in which an individual game deviates from its Form's general purpose, not cases where a little extra was added in. If it is only complementary, then it is "supportive content" and not "secondary content".

I do actually feel uneasy about this part of the theory, as if there's something really stupid waiting to be pointed out, but I can't put my finger on it.

[Starflux]

Well, I think that it's not a good idea in any respect to try to pin down complex things as games with a series of tules or statements. There will always be exceptions, and more exceptions, and even more. Even though I can't think of clear examples at this point, I'm sure there are games that are complex without a story being the only defining feature (in the case you mentioned, I would strongly argue that the story is JUST AS MUCH copied from game to game as are the backdrops, the fighting systems etc. Come on, if any of the elements of the game; stories are the most cliched and hackneyed around. Almost every single Japanese RPG features the lonely boy who saw his village burned down going on a quest to stop an evil ruler. How can you say this is any different than evere JRPG taking a slight variation of a fighting system? It's exactly the same!).

That doesn't mean the thing you do doesn't have merit, for from. But there are endless considerations and in the end I don't think you can pin down the semiotics of 'gamism' if you take it as a whole. Genre-wise would be much easier a task. But when you talk about every single game, that's a spectrum ranging far, far beyond what for instances movies could bring, which have a far more predictable form.

Regardless, ahem

[RLacey]

Aaaaarrrgggh. This post was being written before the previous two appeared. So I haven't read them yet, and what I have written in this post may not reflect the current state of the conversation.

A couple of comments from me, now that I've sat down and read that:

I'm curious as to what games you can name, other than old arcade games or so-called "casual" games, that actually contain a simple form. I'm not saying that they definitely don't exist, but the vast majority of games aspire to something far bigger than simply involving one game type. I'm also not sure that your "exploration form" does focus solely around world design; character interaction is just as big a part of exploration, surely, as is the exploration of ideas?

Some Forms are fully contained in larger Forms. For instance, as Rayman 2 proved, the platformer is part of a more general Form (which I have no name for) which includes such games as Ball Revamped. The larger Form is called a "parent Form", and the smaller one a "sub-Form". It is valid, though pointless, to view all of gamism as one parent Form with a tremendous number of sub-Forms.
The term "Form" should not be mistaken with "genre", which is the classification of the style of a game's primary content.

I'm struggling to understand what you're trying to get at here; I genuinely don't see how Ball Revamped and Rayman 2 are in any way related, and certainly how they are more related than, say, Deus Ex and Pong. Without a name and description of this "parent form" I'm just being asked to take your word for the two being part of some greater category, and that's not really suitable for a discussion.

The primary content (and secondary content, if there is any) is the main source of the game's identity in the mind of the player. As such, it is usually best to focus artistic efforts on the primary content more so than the supportive content so that the game stands out and creates an identity for itself. This knowledge can also help in the creation of sequels; the primary content is the only part of the game which must change from original to sequel so that it does not become redundant.

I disagree entirely with this point, on the grounds that changing the primary content in a sequel would involve changing the "game's identity", as you've put it. I'd argue that if you did that the game wouldn't really be a sequel; equally, you're going to have a hard time selling a sequel to someone if the game is an entirely different beast from its predecessor. Instead, I would suggest, the primary form of the game is the only aspect of the game that under no circumstances should be changed, because if it is then the games would lose their relation.

I'm also not entirely happy with your use of the term "form". If there is such a thing as a "complex form", how can it also be the "primary form", given that a complex form will not have a single, distinct part to it that can form the identity of the game?

Finally, the term "Gamism". While I can appreciate your frustration with the commonly used terms bandied about in the games industry, invention of new terms merely clouds the issues that you're trying to deal with. If you're trying to make - potentially valid - points about the state of modern game development the last thing you want to do is alienate your potential readership by forcing them to read through a number of other articles in order to understand what the hell you're on about. Of course, I'm generally biased against the invention of these kind of terms on the grounds that I believe in actually making academic literature approachable, but I feel that my point is a valid one.

[RLacey]

Regarding the story being the primary focus of complex forms: haven't you yourself argued against this in your statement that the majority of people play Pokémon for its story...

[samIamsad]

I'm one of these form follows function advocators, so I'm not sure what I'm doing here. Interesting read, but once again: What you call a viable form is what I call a rip-off of somebody else's great ideas. Not that there's anything wrong with that. (It's happening all the time anyway).

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by RLacey

I'm curious as to what games you can name, other than old arcade games or so-called "casual" games, that actually contain a simple form. I'm not saying that they definitely don't exist, but the vast majority of games aspire to something far bigger than simply involving one game type.

"Form" = "form of art or entertainment". I've used this capitalized term in the past; sorry if it caused confusion. The Form is the abstract model for a type of game; it is this and not any particular game which I split into "simple"/"complex". Many Forms are simple, which as I defined it means that they have one, and only one, dominant element. Since, as I pointed out, "the recognition of particular design elements is subjective", there probably should never be agreement on how to interpret each Form. However, in my opinion, examples of simple Forms include the platformer (which is a sub-Form of another Form which I wish I had a name for), the shmup, the walkie (or "exploration game"), the communication game, the simulation, the strategy game, and more.

I'm also not sure that your "exploration form" does focus solely around world design; character interaction is just as big a part of exploration, surely, as is the exploration of ideas?

There are many ways to interpret any Form. I believe that the majority of a walkie's identity comes from the world design; I have no problem with you or anyone else disagreeing. What I am putting up for criticism here is not so much my personal positions as these methods for thinking about positions. If I have done my job well, then anyone, with any views on what constitutes an adventure or an exploration game or whatever, should be able to use these guidelines to examine the larger world of games from his own perspective. If I have not done my job properly, and these rules are only applicable to my own views, then I would like to know about it so that I can correct the mistake.

I'm struggling to understand what you're trying to get at here; I genuinely don't see how Ball Revamped and Rayman 2 are in any way related, and certainly how they are more related than, say, Deus Ex and Pong. Without a name and description of this "parent form" I'm just being asked to take your word for the two being part of some greater category, and that's not really suitable for a discussion.

It's not the point of the discussion, as I just said. But since you bring it up, I think Ball Revamped (and those cave games on cell phones and PDAs) and platformers are related because they both consist of movement which is fundamentally similar (moving side to side and the constant presence of gravity are in both; jumping is similar to pushing the avatar up in these games), and both have control as their dominant element. It is just a tiny step to get from Ball Revamped to a platformer. (Just add platforms you can rest on, and you're already there.) So I see a connection there. Rayman 2 is the proof of this connection because of the way it moves back and forth between platformer and that type of game by just adding and removing very small rules. If you disagree with this, then you can see the platformer as a sub-Form only to gamism itself.

I disagree entirely with this point, on the grounds that changing the primary content in a sequel would involve changing the "game's identity", as you've put it. I'd argue that if you did that the game wouldn't really be a sequel; equally, you're going to have a hard time selling a sequel to someone if the game is an entirely different beast from its predecessor. Instead, I would suggest, the primary form of the game is the only aspect of the game that under no circumstances should be changed, because if it is then the games would lose their relation.

Interesting point. It seems to me that if you keep the supportive content intact, everyone will recognize the game as a sequel. But then, some of the best sequels are games which are more or less exactly the same as their predecessors but for enhancements (Super Mario Bros. 3, for instance).

Wait, now that I think about it SMB3 actually did change primary content from SMB, by adding new types of control. (Control is the primary content of platformers, in my opinion.) So a better example would be... hm. Maybe Metroid: Zero Mission (sorry that my experience is mostly limited to Nintendo); that game actually rehashed the world design from Metroid! Come to think of it, though, Zero Mission was more about action and less about exploration than the rest of the series, using the player's familiarity with the world design to speed ahead from action scene to action scene. I don't think the world design was the primary content there, so it's not an exploration game. Okay, new example. Ummm... I can't think of anything. Could you give a specific example of a sequel which in your opinion kept the primary content of the original (based on whatever you think the dominant element of that Form is), and didn't feel uncomfortably like it was more of the same?

I'm also not entirely happy with your use of the term "form". If there is such a thing as a "complex form", how can it also be the "primary form", given that a complex form will not have a single, distinct part to it that can form the identity of the game?

I've been using the term "primary content", never "primary Form".

Finally, the term "Gamism". While I can appreciate your frustration with the commonly used terms bandied about in the games industry, invention of new terms merely clouds the issues that you're trying to deal with. If you're trying to make - potentially valid - points about the state of modern game development the last thing you want to do is alienate your potential readership by forcing them to read through a number of other articles in order to understand what the hell you're on about. Of course, I'm generally biased against the invention of these kind of terms on the grounds that I believe in actually making academic literature approachable, but I feel that my point is a valid one.

I agree. I should not be using these made-up terms, indeed I have no authority with which to invent such words in the first place. I'll continue to use them regardless because I feel that I have no other choice. Give me a widely-approved set of terminology that actually makes sense to me, and I'll abandon all my homemade words in an instant. Without these words, I feel like I am unable to express myself. This may be acceptable for the rest of the world, since I will not cloud the issues, but it is not acceptable to me. I need to think about these things; I need them to make sense to me. All this was born out of necessity, and if I had any other choice, believe me that I would not be wasting anyone's time with all this terminology.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by Flux

Well, I think that it's not a good idea in any respect to try to pin down complex things as games with a series of tules or statements. There will always be exceptions, and more exceptions, and even more. Even though I can't think of clear examples at this point, I'm sure there are games that are complex without a story being the only defining feature (in the case you mentioned, I would strongly argue that the story is JUST AS MUCH copied from game to game as are the backdrops, the fighting systems etc. Come on, if any of the elements of the game; stories are the most cliched and hackneyed around. Almost every single Japanese RPG features the lonely boy who saw his village burned down going on a quest to stop an evil ruler. How can you say this is any different than evere JRPG taking a slight variation of a fighting system? It's exactly the same!).

When I said that the primary content should be changed from game to game, this was of course a matter of my personal values. The fact that there are so many RPGs on the market with cookie-cutter stories doesn't make stories any less primary: it just makes the current philosophy of JRPGs rather tragic. I see no problem whatsoever in reusing a battle system, or an art style, or world design, or characters, or control from one RPG to the next. But when I see that the story is being rehashed, I stop playing. I don't know whether anyone else will agree with me here; as always, I can only speak for myself and from my own experience.

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

It's a long shot, and I'm actually hoping to find some proof that this is not the case. But so far, to my puzzlement, every argument I've thrown against this assumption falls down.

Have you read RLacey's post #10? You yourself said that a primary content can be replaced with a "foreign dominant design element", and gave an example of Pokémon.

But, regardless of specific games, your method is un-scientific here. The inability to provide a counterexample shouldn't be enough to accept something as true. Especially as you start with a disclaimer that...

In the remainder of this post, I will be referring to this absolute gamism, and not the current sad state of affairs, when I talk about "gamism". In other words, this new system of classification aims to be applicable to all Forms, and not only those currently considered by the general public to be "videogames".

...so it's absolutely possible that all complex forms could focus on story today, yet have a theoretical potential to contain a different primary content altogether.

That said, I can't grasp a difference between the triads "simple form - dominant element - subordinate elements" and "complex form - primary content - supportive content", so maybe that's where the confusion comes from.

Almost all movies are focused on story

Not to get too much off-topic, but I'd say this is a very bold statement as well.

[MoriartyL]

Well, thank you for your time and for not laughing at me. I'm very sorry to have brought this to you; the more I think about it, the less I remember why I did so. This is based on nothing but a bunch of gut feelings- naturally there's no way you could help me with it, since you no doubt don't agree with any of them. I wrote this for myself, really, and shouldn't have put it out in the public. So... um, I'm sorry. You can ignore this thread now. Thanks.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

Well, thank you for your time and for not laughing at me. I'm very sorry to have brought this to you; the more I think about it, the less I remember why I did so. This is based on nothing but a bunch of gut feelings- naturally there's no way you could help me with it, since you no doubt don't agree with any of them. I wrote this for myself, really, and shouldn't have put it out in the public. So... um, I'm sorry. You can ignore this thread now. Thanks.

No, really, thank you for sharing your ideas with us. Just because we disagree with them doesn't mean that they didn't get people to think .

So, um, yeah, go with your gut feeling and all that clichéd stuff .