Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mizhara]

The "game" isn't controversial in the slightest, other than whether or not it can actually be called a game similar to Dear Esther and other such things that straddle the fence between gaming and interactive media. I linked a Forbes article in another thread that should give you an overview of the kerfuffle.

[Kala]

"Hmmm, seems terrible to me to make light of depression by creating it into a game. Unless it can be used as a learning tool to counselors and psychologists learning how to treat depression. I don't think it should be something that the wider public should "play."

It's not made light of.  It's not meant to be amusing.

I think the real point of it, actually, is to show people what depression is like when they have no fucking clue.

And there are a lot of people who have no fucking clue when it comes to depression.  My mother is one of them - I think she just views it as being 'a bit sad' or self-pitying and can therefore not understand why people don't just shake it off.  When someone we know tried to kill himself by setting fire to the family home, she just remarked, "well, that was very selfish of him.  depression is very selfish." and it's like...the point. you missed it. he didn't do that because he was being thoughtless or selfish deliberately.  he did it because he was desperate and not thinking clearly and it was a way out.

Similar to the kind of people who say, why don't you just cheer up, use positive thinking? Well.  Because.  You fucking can't. . 

Which is the single thing, really, that Depression Quest represents as a concept very effectively through a simple mechanic.   

It gives you a set of options and choices (that we're probably familiar with doing in games) that will then have consequences. The obvious options that are 'a good idea' and will 'make your life better' are generally crossed out, they are not available to you.  I think putting someone in that position who has some of the ideas, misunderstandings and preconceptions as my mother may cause them to rethink them. 

 It's very bleak and very grey.  You can mitigate it  (there are levels of severity) through therapy and drugs but you can't ''win the game', so you can argue perhaps the absence of a happy ending is in some way irresponsible and could cause hopelessness.  But again, I don't think the idea is for people with depression to play it and it depress them further, I think it's to show someone what depression is like as a lived experience and to encourage them to empathise and to hopefully address some stigma and misconceptions. (to basically reinforce the fairly basic but sadly often overlooked idea that people with depression need help, not condemnation).

In that sense, I think it's absolutely something the wider public should play.

So it, along with Allie Brosh's Adventures in Depression part 1 and (especially) part 2, have tended to be things I've linked to people who say things like "why can't they just cheer up and be positive?"  Because it gives a real insight into what it's actually like, a human perspective on it. Which I think is important, and something almost entirely missing from just reading around more dry medical literature on the subject if someone wanted to understand.  For example, if they've never suffered from it but have a loved one who does, and can't understand the change in behaviour or why the things they used to love no longer bring them joy. (I actually think she completely nails it in part 2, with her toy analogy).

http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.ca/2011/10/adventures-in-depression.html

http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.ca/2013/05/depression-part-two.html

(For the record, I don't think a comic automatically means making light of it, either.  Though these ones genuinely are very amusing in parts, it's more in the mould of "laughing at my own demons").

The "game" isn't controversial in the slightest, other than whether or not it can actually be called a game similar to Dear Esther and other such things that straddle the fence between gaming and interactive media.

Yes.  Whether it can be called a game or not seems to be a serious issue for some people.  Gaming is interactive media.  What is the benefit of the distinction, here?  And what does that say about what games have to be, to be called games?
(and I'd also ask, if we do want to put forward a limited definition of what a game should constitute, are there any creative implications to this in the gaming industry by doing so?)

[Mizhara]

Defining a game isn't going to limit the media any more than defining a movie or a novel or anything else. It can still be a place of innovation and pushing the envelope. I'd have to go with TotalBiscuit's definition in that it needs to have a success and failure state. A way to win or lose, not simply completion. Everything else around it is up for grabs, within story-telling, mechanics, visuals and so forth. If you're just tapping away from point A through the alphabet to Z without the possibility to fail it's really not anything more than say a book with pretty pictures.

I'm not venturing any opinion on Depression Quest itself as I've barely glanced at it, but I'm somewhat interested in the definition of games as it's somewhat central to my primary spare time interest.

[Lyn Farel]

The "game" isn't controversial in the slightest, other than whether or not it can actually be called a game similar to Dear Esther and other such things that straddle the fence between gaming and interactive media. I linked a Forbes article in another thread that should give you an overview of the kerfuffle.

According to definition of a game, Dear Esther doesn't share the core of what a game is : something at which you can either win, or lose. Thus, it falls into the interactive media category I think.

Edit : meh, ninja'd. Though my definition is not TotalBiscuit's one, it's the one that got handed to me in black on white in my studies, which is the same one. But well, that's all theory and sometimes you have to spin it around it a bit to apply it to reality.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

I don't think that 'something at which you can either win, or lose' is by any stretch a good definition of 'game'. You can win or loose a knife- or gun-fight or even a war. These are no games, though. Interestingly enough Wittgenstein showed that there probably is no definitional 'core' to what it means to be a game.

Anyhow, I think this can be called a game. It's like playing 'pretend you are X' in a way. In the end though, I don't think it matters that much whether we call it a game (of which everyone has his own primary associations which will colour that decision) but whether it is a good tool to educate people about depression.

I think debating whether it is a game or not, instead of taking it as a reason to debate depression, is a deflection against having to reflect on the content that is presented in there. <,<

[Samira Kernher]

Having just gone through it now (and it is a very very accurate and vivid depiction), I definitely can't see it as a game. Or rather, it's a Choose Your Own Adventure branching-path book, where it's a regular story just with some choices for the reader as to the direction it goes. I view that as a book, rather than a game (though that type of book is formally known as a gamebook... so in a sense it is both).

[Lyn Farel]

I don't think that 'something at which you can either win, or lose' is by any stretch a good definition of 'game'. You can win or loose a knife- or gun-fight or even a war. These are no games, though. Interestingly enough Wittgenstein showed that there probably is no definitional 'core' to what it means to be a game.

Anyhow, I think this can be called a game. It's like playing 'pretend you are X' in a way. In the end though, I don't think it matters that much whether we call it a game (of which everyone has his own primary associations which will colour that decision) but whether it is a good tool to educate people about depression.

I think debating whether it is a game or not, instead of taking it as a reason to debate depression, is a deflection against having to reflect on the content that is presented in there. <,<

It is indeed not a necessary and sufficient condition in itself to make the definition work. But that's the key part of what a game is. Without it, it is not anymore, unless of course we want to change the way games are defined. 

In any case it's the same issue than with Dear Esther major critics. The game has seen many negative critics because it was actually presented and sold as a game, whether or not it was the developer's intention, and that on gaming platforms.

Well, I don't agree with those critics because obviously they didn't understand what it was about, but I can understand why they came to that opinion since it's... misleading.

[BloodBird]

this is the thing all this controversy is about, isn't it ?

No, but the game's maker created a lot of controversy, and high-lighted the abundant corruption in gaming journalism. That's where the major source of the controversy lies.

[Kala]

No, but the game's maker created a lot of controversy, and high-lighted the abundant corruption in gaming journalism. That's where the major source of the controversy lies.

Or, arguably, controversy was created about the game's maker by 4chan and her bitter ex-boyfriend, which was then deliberately disseminated into the wider internet and specifically orchestrated on twitter.

https://storify.com/strictmachine/gameovergate

[Nicoletta Mithra]

It is indeed not a necessary and sufficient condition in itself to make the definition work. But that's the key part of what a game is. Without it, it is not anymore, unless of course we want to change the way games are defined. 

If you look up 'game' e.g. on Wikipedia, you will quickly see that there is no one definition of game that people agree upon. There are games that don't fulfil the condition of being win/loose-able. This is especially true for role-playing games, be that childhood toy-shop games or being-a-nurse games or more sophisticated RPGs for adults, where it's not about winning, but telling an interesting story.

It might be a practical definition for the line of work you do, but having that said, I'm quite sure that it's not essential to games to be win/loose-able.

Anyhow. Depression quest does deliver a message about depression and does so in a 'playful' way (similar to nursery- or toy shop-role-play-games deliver messages to children growing up in a playful way).

[Vizage]

Here we go again...

*Grabs Popcorn*

[Lyn Farel]

It is indeed not a necessary and sufficient condition in itself to make the definition work. But that's the key part of what a game is. Without it, it is not anymore, unless of course we want to change the way games are defined. 

If you look up 'game' e.g. on Wikipedia, you will quickly see that there is no one definition of game that people agree upon. There are games that don't fulfil the condition of being win/loose-able. This is especially true for role-playing games, be that childhood toy-shop games or being-a-nurse games or more sophisticated RPGs for adults, where it's not about winning, but telling an interesting story.

It might be a practical definition for the line of work you do, but having that said, I'm quite sure that it's not essential to games to be win/loose-able.

Anyhow. Depression quest does deliver a message about depression and does so in a 'playful' way (similar to nursery- or toy shop-role-play-games deliver messages to children growing up in a playful way).

Not a practical definition either, just a limited view that some devs/players hold I suppose...

[Kala]

I'm not sure how I would define it personally, other than I would want a definition as broad and all-encompassing as possible.

Even 'something you play' doesn't necessarily seem broad enough, as there are many games that seem like chores, that you continue engaging with because there's 'one more thing to do' rather than it being necessarily 'play' (MMO grind, I look at you).

Re: Depression Quest, simulation might be a better fit than game.  It's like a depression simulator.  But then, we have many simulators, flying, transport planning etc that are still considered games.  Why not have a simulation of a mental illness and the difficulties that poses? And does a presenting it digitally, and having you pick the different options rather than presenting it in a physical book form, have some advantages re: how you're engaging with that?

I dunno, personally being in the position where I am picking the choices and choosing my outcome on my screen somehow makes me relate more and provide less separation than if it were presented in a choose your own adventure book, but I can't properly articulate how.  Perhaps it's in creation of a space.  I don't know.  Something for me to reflect on 

It has some pictures and music, but there aren't really graphics to speak of.  But then again, MUDS don't have any graphics, either.

I think maybe, again, how we define games on an individual level may reflect why we play them (e.g what importance we place where).

Sometimes maybe playing games, in the simplest sense, of amusement/pastime or "a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules" doesn't seem to encompass my experience of video games.  But 'exploring and interacting with virtual worlds and spaces' sounds a wee bit more pretentious than 'playing a game.' (as 'virtual world explorer' is more wordy than 'gamer') I think it might be closer to what I'm actually doing most of the time, though.

[Kala]

There's some indie bundles right now that are pretty good if you have an interest in picking them up.

https://www.humblebundle.com/

Humble Bundle 12 lets you pick up  Gone Home, Papers, Please, Prison Architect (and a few others I don't know) for $10.

The RPS one has:
 
https://www.humblebundle.com/weekly dungeons of dredmore and amnesia dark descent for $6 (...and world of goo, audiosurf, and some others I don't know).

Kind of a shame the ones I knew of and wanted I already have, but eh ¬.¬
Downside is they aren't up for very long 

[Lyn Farel]

Same, I already have what I wanted. :/