Comments on: Games are Software

By: So Close! | Mario Games

So Close! | Mario Games — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 02:33:34 +0000

[...] the platforming is likewise fastidious to vow in without the individualist of failure. Chris Dahlen put it best: “I’d feature that its set difficulty is that it looks same Rock Band 2 but plays same Mega Man [...]

By: Defining Video Games - The Quixotic Engineer

Defining Video Games - The Quixotic Engineer — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 06:15:34 +0000

[...] about keyboards and joysticks, this definition introduces an intriguing point about microcomputers. Video games are software, but do they have to be? It’s certainly possible to display images on a video screen without [...]

By: Mapping the Brainysphere: 29 blogs switched-on gamers should read « Subject Navigator

Thu, 01 Jan 2009 09:02:53 +0000

[...] of freelance journalist Chris Dahlen. Chris’ best for the year was his late observation that ‘Games are Software’, though I must also mention his A.V. Club interview with Jonathon Blow as the most infuriating [...]

By: Ben Fritz

Ben Fritz — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 21:17:52 +0000

I guess the difference is that in a book, there’s no excuse to include anything that’s not necessary for the vision (the binding maybe?). In games, there are lots of elements you need no matter what, so we should focus on what’s important and cut slack in other areas.
And that’s exactly the job of the critic, isn’t it? To identify the elements that are most important in a game and base an argument based on those. Any review that doesn’t make an argument for what the vision or purpose of a game is and identify the elements important to the success of that vision/purpose has failed from the outset.

That being said, it’s important to note that the best games do exactly what you’re saying is so difficult: integrate every single element into a unified vision. That’s exactly why “Left 4 Dead,” for instance, is one of the best games of the year. And why “Grand Theft Auto 4,” which is great in so many ways, suffers: because the open world and the narrative are contradictory.

One of the ways “Left 4 Dead” succeeds is by recognizing that not every element has to be original and awesome. The plot and characters, after all, are derivative cliches and purposefully so. But it fits this co-op gameplay experience perfectly and that’s what matters. I much prefer that to, say, “Gears of War 2,” which has a godawful story and characters that significantly detract from the overall experience. A cohesive experience is better than trying to make every element equally awesome.
Perhaps that’s an example of how some developers need to realize they’re not writing a book or making a film.

By: Why ludology? « Subject Navigator

Why ludology? « Subject Navigator — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 17:05:33 +0000

[...] but one limited aspect all the same. Videogames represent the lovechild of play, sport, film, software, architecture, theme parks, riddles and more. I have rarely seen an academic – even the most [...]

By: Clint

Clint — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 23:41:56 +0000

Nice read, Chris. There’s a very unhealthy focus on review scores and technical breakdowns these days to the point where it’s becoming a neurotic obsession. The enthusiast press is in a weird spot these days where it wants to cover games as art but they are also stuck in their traditional rut of treating games as consumer products too, with gaming zines acting as glorified consumer purchase guides.

I for one appreciate any critic who dares to review a video game without assigning a numeric score.

By: Infovore » links for December 2nd

Infovore » links for December 2nd — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 00:00:33 +0000

[...] Games are Software « Save the Robot – Chris Dahlen "I come from a software background, as well as an artsy-fartsy one. I want to see games as art, but they’re also supposed to work as logically-constructed bodies of code. And in a lot of cases, reviewers need to see them as software rather than as art. Here’s why…" I think Steve has some good points here, but I'm not totally swung yet; after all, games might _be_ software, but do we _experience_ them as software? I'm not sure that we do, and that's why we respond to them in the manner we do. (tags: games software criticism review development stevegaynor ) [...]

By: savetherobot

savetherobot — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 04:15:10 +0000

Thanks for all these responses and insights. I don’t really disagree with any of these points. John, you especially call me out on a good point – by pulling us back from a certain perspective on games as art, I risk strangling in the crib what we’ve been working for at places like the Onion, and legitimizing some of the “OMG there’s texture pop” nonsense that affects scores in the enthusiast press.

If anything, I really just want to broaden the idea of what makes a game. Certainly I think that comparing them to movies is less and less useful. But I also think we spend too little time thinking of them as a platform, rather than an object.

Either way, at the end of the day, I’ll always cut them all kinds of slack as long as they rock.

By: Darius K.

Darius K. — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:25:15 +0000

Well said, Chris. Those of us who make games for a living are acutely aware that we work on software, but it’s not so obvious to the players.

By: Daniel Golding

Daniel Golding — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 03:13:12 +0000

That’s a very interesting observation, and one that I’ve been mulling over for some time now. I disagree that games are software, however. I believe instead that games are descendants of software, but have now evolved into something else (which nonetheless has many traits of traditional software). I’ve been long interested in trying to do a ‘pre-history’ of games, a genealogy, even. I think in that, you’d have to include software prominently along with film, novels, sports, architecture, theme parks etc. However, games are not now just software. They have elements of many other media, and therefore we can’t just review them as software. I think an outlet like an IGN or a Gamespot have actually been reviewing them as software for years, by breaking down each individual feature and processing them with good-to-bad ratios.

So as well as realising that playtesting is important, that sequels aren’t bad, and that games can be patched (points I couldn’t agree more with), we need to be able to pull back from the software perspective and look at them holistically, like we would do with a film or other media. Because unlike software, games are about experience, and experience cannot be evaluated through minutiae.