In the wake of claims on game blogs and Twitter that works like Anna Anthropy’s dys4ia aren’t “really” games, I’ve been thinking lately about contested definitions of the word “game”, and about what it means to say that something doesn’t “count” as a game — that is, to label it a “non-game”.
The claim that something “isn’t a game” is, on its face, a neutral — if not objective — statement. The person making the claim usually has a fairly precise definition of what constitutes a game, whether that includes well-defined objectives and win/loss conditions, player decision-making, or any of a number of criteria that have been developed to distinguish games from not-games. These writers present their definitions as useful frameworks for talking about and understanding games.
I do think these frameworks are “useful”, but I their utility is political rather than interpretive. The label “non-game” (the true meaning of language like “interactive story,” “electronic art,” etc.) legitimates not taking certain game-like works seriously. Game critics are ostensibly interested in games. If a game critic deems something a non-game, it means that it doesn’t merit their attention. After all, we have critics of art and literature already, and the game critic might claim that such works more appropriately fall under their domains.
This is the intended effect of restrictive models that define certain works out of consideration as games. But deploying the label also says a lot about the person doing the labeling. When a critic calls something a non-game, they expose their assumptions about what a game is or should do.
For those of us who grew up with games, our understandings of games have been informed by the games we’ve encountered and experienced. Because games culture has historically been dominated by a very narrow segment of the population (straight white men), this means that in most cases, we’ve formed our understandings of what games are from a very narrow range of all possible authors and stories. The closer a game is to our past experiences of games, the more likely we are to recognize it as such. Conversely, games that fall considerably outside of our experiences in some way may not “feel” as much like games.
So there are two processes at work in the creation of the “non-game” label: first, definitions and understandings of games are informed by experiences, which are informed by the historical straight white maleness of game culture. This leads people to expect certain things out of games, whether they can recognize these expectations or not. Second, definitions are built on these experiences, reproducing expectations of what a game should be. When we consider that for many of us, the games we experienced growing up were produced almost exclusively by the powerful, it becomes clear that formalizing our experiences into definitions only serves to define marginalized authors out of game creation, unless they stick closely to the familiar and avoid putting themselves into their games at all.
So the label “non-game”, far from a neutral classification or harmless matter of definition, is a political weapon that repels nontraditional authors from membership in the community of game makers. It consigns those who wish to bring underrepresented experiences and identities into games to the limbo of “electronic art”. And ultimately, it works against the growth of games as a medium, by reinscribing what has been true of games in the past as what must be, always and everywhere.
“games culture has historically been dominated by a very narrow segment of the population (straight white men)”
I think this point needs clarification. It might feel a little more defensible if you’re specifically talking about video game culture, but I’m not even really comfortable with such a blanket statement even in that case.
one other point! i think your argument relies far too strongly on the identity of the creator and the perception that the creator is being oppressed.
anna anthropy, for example, has been making more traditional games for years and they’ve been well accepted by the “community of game makers”. she’s one of the most well-known and established indie game developers. dys4ia is the least “game like” of her works.
dear esther is another game (or should i say, experience?) that is often in this same situation. however, it was created primarily by straight white males and doesn’t deal with gender at all. same with tale of tale’s works.
i always like to ask ‘so …?’ when someone says something isn’t a game. it’s not a game so … what? it’s not worth talking about? it doesn’t ‘count’ somehow – and what does that mean?
most often the thought hasn’t gone beyond the initial statement. i guess there’s strong precedent for gamers to police the boundaries of the medium for no particular reason.
imo just call everything a game … you (not you, the general you) may have less tedious definition articles to write, but you’ll probably be a lot more chilled out in the process and open to trying a lot of different things.
I see formalist structures in general as blocks to innovation. Sadly, academia seems to fill with grammar pedants. I see the game/not-game debate (esp. Raph Koster’s comments) as a fluid use of the word “game” to describe “set of things to which this structure I’m about to explain applies”. I see where it could be used as a political cleaver, but there are plenty of valid places to make that distinction as an interpretive classification.
Your second point, that our image of these structures are based on a vision that’s primarily straight, white, and male (or straight, Japanese, and male) is true. Let me know when a critic dismisses a game/not-game because of it and we can go toilet paper his staright, white house.
asm: i don’t think its fair to assume that people involved in these arguments about definition are necessarily uptight and closed-minded! someone can play and adore dear esther or dys4ia and still not consider them games!
there’s a great and in-depth discussion around this issue on raph koster’s blog here, which is recommended reading for anyone new to this topic: http://www.raphkoster.com/2012/07/06/two-cultures-and-games/#comments
You got it all wrong.
People who use the word “non-game” are people who desperately try to legitimate these games. See, what’s happening here is that these people don’t like these games at all, whether they are honest about it or not. However, since they don’t want to insult their friends by simply calling these games “utter crap”, they go on to justify this discrepancy by coming up with the idea that these games are a different artform (non-game). This allows them to comfort themselves with “ah, that’s why it’s not my cup of tea!” and “perhaps this artform needs time to develop itself before I can appreciate it!”.
And so, everyone’s happy!
i dunno saying games arent games but they’re still valid is just like OH OKAY YOURE A SECOND CLASS CITIZEN BUT YOURE STILL YOU KNOW.. VALID… EVEN THOUGH YOU’RE NOT ACTUALLY A MAN/WOMAN/PERSON
its a pretty harsh zero sum argument but really the sentiment is the same
@daphny – but… games aren’t people. I can criticize a game without implying any criticism of the creator. Or am I missing something?
As I said above, dys4ia is hardly the only or even the first game involved in this discussion. Dear Esther and the Graveyard, both made by teams dominated by straight white males, are mentioned as often if not more so in these debates. Anna Anthropy’s work as a whole has been embraced by the game development community.
“someone is pushing back against my claim that video game development has historically been dominated by white dudes”
If this was referring to me, I don’t dispute THAT claim. However, I’d asked for clarification because you actually used the term “game culture”, which I took to include players who, as you know, are diverse as all get out!
I just don’t entirely understand why this debate suddenly seems to have become about oppression and identity and descended to such a nasty place. Calling someone a bigot, a racist, a sexist or a gatekeeper is one of the most heinous claims you can make about someone in 2012 and I’m not convinced it’s fair or appropriate in this case.
I’m sorry if this is irritating or if the author is not interested in discussion, so I won’t comment again unless this comment receives a response.
I would add to Pastries’ comments that the formalist, or conservative (if you prefer), approach to defining the word ‘game’ can also be based on finding commonalities with more traditional games like athletics or board games. In that case it’s obvious that those traditions are historically male dominated, but certainly not white or necessarily Western.
Often my issue with the argument for considering ‘non-games’ as ‘games’ is that it tends to simply reduce the meaning of ‘game’ to something pretty indistinguishable from the term ‘software’.
Tale of Tales is not “dominated” by straight white males. It is a two-person team: one white man, one black woman. I guess they are both straight, though.
It seems some people just have this affixation with the word “game” as it has some intrinsic value, a form of rank or title of nobility that, if something is said not to be a “game”, then it has to be a negative comment. Putting some form of emotional (instead of logical) hidden meaning in the word.
Just agree that whatever they’re trying to rank up is a “game” then. This will make them feel worth of… something… it seems… or whatever.