Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Review AdventureDex Review: The Magic Circle, an RPG without the "RPG" - or, On Games and "Notgames"

Neanderthal

Arcane
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
3,626
Location
Granbretan
Fantastic fucking editorial, pisses all over most anything i've read on professional sites in ages. That said i'm a thick cunt so I didn't get it all, but what I was reminded of was the steady degeneration of the Legacy of Kain games, the writing remains powerful throughout and holds up the franchise but the gameplay, player interaction and scope of the first game is steadily chipped away in favour of what the devs want to show you. Luckily LoK remains worthy, but there are comparisons I think.

In the beginning they dropped you in a big world, gave you a toolset to find and unlock, and said have fun discovering all the shit we've got hidden away. Later they sat you down on a monorail, strapped you in, and informed you where to look at as you progressed along a corridor.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2013
Messages
1,258
Very well written. Easily the best piece of writing I've read on the Codex main page in a long while and one of the best over all.
 

aratuk

Cipher
Joined
Dec 13, 2013
Messages
466
Now that's an interesting review.

I'm not really convinced there is so strong a distinction to be drawn between "games" and "notgames," as they are called here, but I think I am convinced to buy The Magic Circle. It sounds intriguing enough.

Crooked Bee, have you played DoubleFine's Hack 'n' Slash? It explores a similar gameplay mechanic, at least, of altering the game's code from within the game, if not so much the meta-narrative about game dev itself.
 

Cosmo

Arcane
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
1,387
Project: Eternity
I'm not really convinced there is so strong a distinction to be drawn between "games" and "notgames,"
Yet that's extremely clear : on one hand games that at the core rely on a linear narrative, and where the player is in fact a glorified witness, and on the other games built around gameplay and player agency.
 
Self-Ejected

theSavant

Self-Ejected
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
2,009
There was a time I longed for game delivering psychadelic sick random fuck. This could be TEH game offering it. So I watched a let's play on youtube - and switched off after 5 minutes. No thanks, guess I'm done with random stupid fuck.
 

Crooked Bee

(no longer) a wide-wandering bee
Patron
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
15,048
Location
In quarantine
Codex 2013 Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire MCA Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
Crooked Bee, have you played DoubleFine's Hack 'n' Slash? It explores a similar gameplay mechanic, at least, of altering the game's code from within the game, if not so much the meta-narrative about game dev itself.

Nope, I haven't. After Broken Age I've been keeping my distance from DoubleFine's games. I'll give it a look, though, thanks.
 

set

Cipher
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
940
I can't place the name.
But I know what this game reminds me of. Given its graphics and its allegorical story - it's totally like that one obscure Deus Ex mod that took years to create. What's it called? The game had you playing in some sort of fully realized world based around an internet forum / community (it's as stupid as it sounds). The gameplay is actually pretty good, but the story and characters are obnoxious because they're based around a nebulous conflict involving people and things that only the authors care or know about. I only mention it, because it's a fully realized game with voice actors, multiple plot paths; everything. Similar production values between the two games.
 

sigma1932

Augur
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
119
Discalimer: only skimmed over the review/editorial... I'm sure it's overly verbose and well-crafted, but I just don't really care about the whole "game vs. "notgame"" concept/discussion/whatever.

At the end of the day, the game isn't supposed to have a story that goes anywhere... it's appears it was intended to be a satirical poke at the "games as art" vs. "corporate publisher interference" vs. "giving the retarded public whatever derpy bullshit they think they want" ideological conflict, and tries to show why all of which are wrong in some way.

As for the actual game itself, you play as a deleted game resource that was reactivated (resurrected?) by a sentient glitch (for lack of a better term) that claims to be "trapped" in the code of an unfinished, 20-year-running, eternally-in-development unreleased project. You basically run around fucking with stuff (i.e. taking properties from various creatures/objects in the game and putting them elsewhere, changing enemy alliances/hostilities, restoring portions of the game that were deleted, etc.), eventually getting to a point where you screw over the developers on E3 "E4" presentation day so they open-source the project, after which (IIRC) the masses end up crashing the thing by all trying to mess with it at once, which allows you to take over from the inside. Yeah.

Overall, it's a semi-interesting concept that doesn't look like it's executed very well... early-access aside, the game itself is extremely short... if you want to get a good idea of what it entails, Blitzkriegsler did a 5-part "start to finish" Let's Play (click here) of it that'll give you a solid example of what it is (he missed some large chunks, and a large portion of the full 2.5 hour LP--broken into five 30-ish minute pieces-- is the game's VA'd narrative). Given this is the codex, the first video alone is probably enough to get the point across.
 

Longshanks

Augur
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Messages
897
Location
Australia.
Interactivity is what separates a videogame from other media and it is only through interactivity that games can progress. In that sense the game vs notgame debate has an obvious and inevitable outcome. I don't believe though that "obstacles" are necessary. To me this is limiting games to a far too great extent. Experiential games are absolutely valid and as long as they are heavily interactive are able to progress the medium just as much as games with obstacles and a definitive outcome. And while they offer nothing in taking games forward, walking simulators with strong narratives and little player agency do still have their place (I did enjoy Kentucky Route Zero and The Stanley Parable). The games industry has more tools in its box than any other entertainment medium and it should have the most varied of products. It's great, and necessary, that we have developers who strongly align themselves with particular design goals, but we should never be exclusionary.

The interesting thing to see in coming years is what direction mainstream gaming takes. There will continue to be games and nongames of all types, but will mainstream games become more experiential, eschewing gaminess as well as a strict story? Will they become more gamey in the sense that developers of The Magic Circle would like? Or will they continue to try to be interactive movies with a defined story? I think the first is most likely. Games have too much potential for imagination for the largely on rails experiences we have today to continue to dominate, and gaminess, in the sense of overcoming obstacles, while surely still being a part of most games, is too exclusionary to be the main focus.
 

Crooked Bee

(no longer) a wide-wandering bee
Patron
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
15,048
Location
In quarantine
Codex 2013 Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire MCA Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
I find it a bit hard to respond to your post because of all the assumptions you seem to make (apologies if I'm wrong though). So I guess I'll briefly focus on those.

- No one was saying (certainly not me) that notgames don't have their place or can't be enjoyable. They have their place precisely as deconstructive "experiences", and KRZ is great, for one. However, the question I think The Magic Circle asks and that I find interesting is, where do we go from this zero point? The zero point itself can only be negatively or deconstructively progressive, but what's the next step? Even if you just say "more interactivity," that's already moving away from a pure notgame, unless by interactivity you mean "do I go left or right?" which is extremely limited (and you do object against limitedness) and can only take you so far, design-wise.

- Relatedly, to have interactivity, you must have some means of interaction. In the case of notgames, those are restricted to walking around and/or pressing a button. If these means evolve beyond that, you are moving away from a notgame. If they do not, I fail to see how this kind of interactivity is able to "progress the medium", unless you're thinking of something like further evolution of (the extremely restrictive) Telltale's formula. Which brings me to my next point.

- You speak of what you call "gaminess" as limiting; however, "notgaminess" seems at least as much or even more limiting to me. "Welcoming all," per Samyn's manifesto, is an extremely restrictive thing because it excludes anything that may not be welcoming to all. This is also why The Magic Circle focuses on a player who wants to go beyond the limiting confines of what the developers wanted her to be able to do (what I called the "What does one player matter?" question) - something that, perhaps ironically, notgames cannot offer because they don't give the player any tools in the first place.

- You present a binary opposition between "experiental games" that are (or should be) "heavily interactive" versus "games with obstacles and a definitive outcome" - a binary opposition that seems tailored precisely to leave the Looking Glass design philosophy out of the picture (among other things, by associating "obstacles" with "a definitive outcome"). It is, I believe, possible to focus on interactivity while also not taking the (I believe, all too easy) way out into a "notgame".

- Your final assumption is that someone, somewhere, wants the game industry to be "exclusionary". Now, that may be the case for someone, somewhere, of course, but I don't think it's relevant to the points I was trying to make in the article.

I also believe that a lot of the stronger reactions against notgames are an (over)reaction against some notgame devs as well as game journalists trying to present notgames as an end in itself and the final solution to the industry's perceived problems. Not to mention the ridiculousness of presenting something like Gone Home as an evolution of the LGS approach (in the article, I tried to explain why I believe that is not the case).

I do agree that it will be interesting to see how mainstream games evolve.
 

Longshanks

Augur
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Messages
897
Location
Australia.
I find it a bit hard to respond to your post because of all the assumptions you seem to make (apologies if I'm wrong though). So I guess I'll briefly focus on those.
I may have read more of a "versus" into the "on game and notgame", but there was no intended disagreement to your article in what I wrote.

- No one was saying (certainly not me) that notgames don't have their place or can't be enjoyable. They have their place precisely as deconstructive "experiences", and KRZ is great, for one. However, the question I think The Magic Circle asks and that I find interesting is, where do we go from this zero point? The zero point itself can only be negatively or deconstructively progressive, but what's the next step? Even if you just say "more interactivity," that's already moving away from a pure notgame, unless by interactivity you mean "do I go left or right?" which is extremely limited (and you do object against limitedness) and can only take you so far, design-wise.
As a medium it is definitely by interactivity. Heavily scripted notgames won't take us far with this and it will be other genres which will take games forward. Genuinely interactive or emergent stories or simply "experiences" are all potential notgames (I wouldn't actually label these us such leaving the term for those heavily scripted games without genuine choices) that could still take the industry forward without needing a game's "obstacles" as primary focus. I think this is the most likely direction for games. Players will be given worlds which they can inhabit and do a bunch of cool stuff within, while both story and game aspects take more of a backseat. Bethesda style but increasingly less limited in scope and allowing the player to actually impact on the world.

- Relatedly, to have interactivity, you must have some means of interaction. In the case of notgames, those are restricted to walking around and/or pressing a button. If these means evolve beyond that, you are moving away from a notgame. If they do not, I fail to see how this kind of interactivity is able to "progress the medium", unless you're thinking of something like further evolution of (the extremely restrictive) Telltale's formula. Which brings me to my next point.
In terms of notgames, yes I was thinking of an evolution of story choice, but as I've said I don't think this takes us far.

I think you may be taking the notgame (a game without obstacles) more strictly than I am. There are many ways a player can interact or affect a game world that do not involve any real challenge. Take a world with decent AI that can react to the player's actions and decisions somewhat realistically. This world does not have to have direct challenges or even objectives for the player in the normal game sense, but the player may choose to manipulate events in certain ways and this in itself could be considered a game.

- You speak of what you call "gaminess" as limiting; however, "notgaminess" seems at least as much or even more limiting to me. "Welcoming all," per Samyn's manifesto, is an extremely restrictive thing because it excludes anything that may not be welcoming to all. This is also why The Magic Circle focuses on a player who wants to go beyond the limiting confines of what the developers wanted her to be able to do (what I called the "What does one player matter?" question) - something that, perhaps ironically, notgames cannot offer because they don't give the player any tools in the first place.
It certainly is, they are both limiting in different ways. It wasn't a point against gaminess but against defining "games" as only that. This is not something I felt you were doing, and your earlier comment in this post confirms it, but notgames are often disparaged in this way. For me, notgames in their strictest sense are so limiting that they aren't able to progress the medium in any meaningful way but that does not make them worthless.

- You present a binary opposition between "experiental games" that are (or should be) "heavily interactive" versus "games with obstacles and a definitive outcome" - a binary opposition that seems tailored precisely to leave the Looking Glass design philosophy out of the picture (among other things, by associating "obstacles" with "a definitive outcome"). It is, I believe, possible to focus on interactivity while also not taking the (I believe, all too easy) way out into a "notgame".

This wasn't what I was aiming for at all. My preferred type of game is very much in the LGS vein. When I say that "obstacles are not necessary" I mean only that, not that they aren't useful or desirable or make for better games. Again this was a point against the argument that notgames don't have any worth, not putting forward one against the LGS philosophy. It's my view that mainstream games will head more to "experiences" where players have almost ultimate freedom and that gamey aspects like puzzles, combat, definitive outcomes etc will move further and further into the background. I see the "end goal" as the player living a life in another world. These are games that I currently have no interest in playing, but I could see them evolving into something I would enjoy, it's just not likely to happen in the next 20 years.

The above could be complete rubbish, it's only something I'd thought about in response to your article and attempts to cast many years into the future. I just think once we have AI that is able to respond in a close to human way games are going to be very different to what they are now, they'll be something we want to spend time with rather than always looking to progress.

- Your final assumption is that someone, somewhere, wants the game industry to be "exclusionary". Now, that may be the case for someone, somewhere, of course, but I don't think it's relevant to the points I was trying to make in the article.
That's clear now, and not something I had specifically taken from the article, it was more of a wider point.

I also believe that a lot of the stronger reactions against notgames are an (over)reaction against some notgame devs as well as game journalists trying to present notgames as an end in itself and the final solution to the industry's perceived problems. Not to mention the ridiculousness of presenting something like Gone Home as an evolution of the LGS approach (in the article, I tried to explain why I believe that is not the case).

I do agree that it will be interesting to see how mainstream games evolve.
I definitely agree. Notgames should clearly not be replacing "games", they are not solving existing problems they are answering a different question and both types of game should coexist and be developed by those who strongly believe in them.
 

Crooked Bee

(no longer) a wide-wandering bee
Patron
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
15,048
Location
In quarantine
Codex 2013 Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire MCA Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
Thanks for that. I broadly agree with what you're saying, and I think the problem is that your original post was a bit cursory so I misunderstood some aspects of where you were coming from.

Genuinely interactive or emergent stories or simply "experiences" are all potential notgames (I wouldn't actually label these us such leaving the term for those heavily scripted games without genuine choices)

^ Case in point. I think you're coming from a slightly different perspective because you define notgames in a different way. Elsewhere you also say you wouldn't define them so narrowly. I'm using "notgame" sensu stricto, since it is a technical term employed by Michael Samyn, Adrien Chmielarz et al., so I'm making use of it in the same sense that notgame developers themselves are using it, while also noting that it can be extended to include the AAA side of the industry as well as Telltale's titles. (On the latter, I basically agree with Spector that those are not "games", and I also regard them as a dead-end.)

I also still seem to disagree with you that notgames can take the industry in any fruitful direction (except in the negative or de-constructive sense in which they've already done so), but again, that would perhaps require a separate analysis on what exactly notgame is and where its limits are, as well as what "genuine interactivity" is or what "doing a bunch of cool stuff" could even mean; something I'd love to write but probably won't have the time to. So far, it seems to me we still disagree on at least a few fundamental things, but I may be wrong.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,236
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
Thanks for that. I broadly agree with what you're saying, and I think the problem is that your original post was a bit cursory so I misunderstood some aspects of where you were coming from.



^ Case in point. I think you're coming from a slightly different perspective because you define notgames in a different way. Elsewhere you also say you wouldn't define them so narrowly. I'm using "notgame" sensu stricto, since it is a technical term employed by Michael Samyn, Adrien Chmielarz et al., so I'm making use of it in the same sense that notgame developers themselves are using it, while also noting that it can be extended to include the AAA side of the industry as well as Telltale's titles. (On the latter, I basically agree with Spector that those are not "games", and I also regard them as a dead-end.)

I also still seem to disagree with you that notgames can take the industry in any fruitful direction (except in the negative or de-constructive sense in which they've already done so), but again, that would perhaps require a separate analysis on what exactly notgame is and where its limits are, as well as what "genuine interactivity" is or what "doing a bunch of cool stuff" could even mean; something I'd love to write but probably won't have the time to. So far, it seems to me we still disagree on at least a few fundamental things, but I may be wrong.

If I'm reading him correctly, Longshanks seems to be implying that, basically, Minecraft in Creative mode is a notgame (because it has deep interactivity but no challenge). Or rather, he's implying that he thinks that you think that Minecraft is a notgame. Except that he realizes now that you don't. Uh.
 

Crooked Bee

(no longer) a wide-wandering bee
Patron
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
15,048
Location
In quarantine
Codex 2013 Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire MCA Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
Yeah, that's why I wanted to take "notgame" in the technical sense of a very specific, "all-welcoming" and "deconstructive" design philosophy, as defined by Samyn and others. Otherwise it might get too broad to be meaningful.

I do need to think about the limits of it some more though. It's an interesting issue.
 

omnimoose

Novice
Joined
Mar 22, 2015
Messages
4
Huh, so that's how it's done. An article that manages to use the review as a springboard to discuss the ideas behind the game, and then use that as context for your thoughts on game/notgame and the future of the industry.

Kudos @ the author.
 

tuluse

Arcane
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,400
Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong
Crooked Bee this is a damn fine review and article (almost essay really).

I don't have much to add other than thanks

and I can't believe no has said this: In Magic Circle... *heavy breath* you can ride a turtle
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom