Life is Strange EP2: Life is Save Scumming

By Shamus Posted Thursday Apr 6, 2017

Filed under: Spoiler Warning 89 comments


Link (YouTube)

To repeat my rant: If you’re a teacher and you make kids stay in your class when they say they’re sick, then you’re an asshole. A villain. Kids are human beings. They have pain and discomfort just like us big people. They also have a lot less coping mechanisms for dealing with discomfort. One stupid class session is not more important than their suffering. Making a kid stay when they ask to be excused is a great way to end up with blood, feces, urine, or vomit in your classroom, which isn’t going to improve anyone’s educational experience. Also, on top of making a kid suffer you’ve also given them an intensely humiliating experience that they will carry around for the rest of their lives.

Moreover, if a kid is trying to get out of class then they have already mentally checked out. You can make them stay, but you can’t make them learn. Refusing to let a kid use the bathroom is all downside. You monster.

Part of my problem was that I was really incompetent socially. There’s a certain performance of body language that we expect from people who are sick. It’s reflected in face, posture, and tone of voice. I don’t know if it’s something we learn from adults or if it just comes naturally for most people, but I apparently never got the memo and didn’t know how to “act” sick, even when I was sick. I’d just walk to the front of the room and state my problem, which would get me flagged as a faker. So once in a while I’d have one of those teachers that decided their dumb bullshit needed to be the center of my life and would send me back to my seat when I asked to be excused.

Well, that’s been bugging me for 35 years. Glad to finally get that off my chest. I feel like we’ve made some good progress here today.

 


From The Archives:
 

89 thoughts on “Life is Strange EP2: Life is Save Scumming

  1. Daemian Lucifer says:

    They werent the first to think of this.Both sands of time and braid did the rewind thing long before.

    1. Syal says:

      You’re forgetting, they all feature time travel. There’s no way of knowing who did it first, and who went back in time to copy the idea.

      1. Mistwraithe says:

        Which of course Shamus won’t add until WordPress 5.2 comes out in 2019. Doh. Time traveling sucks at times.

      2. Groboclown says:

        The secret to any time machine is to be the first to patent it.

  2. Paul Spooner says:

    It’s also good to ask to be excused when you need it, even if you can tough it out. I threw up on the floor in the middle of a test in college. After the test the teacher and several classmates told me what amounted to, “Look, we’re all impressed at your willpower. But next time, just ask to take the test another time!” Looking back on it, the room must have reeked, and I really should have known better… but on the other hand, it’s hard to have good judgement when you’re sick!

    1. Syal says:

      I’m okay with the teacher denying her here, as she’s asking to be excused in the middle of being asked a question, the absolute least believable point to ask to be excused.

    2. Fists says:

      I did this in year 2 or 3, felt sick as a dog but didn’t want to make a fuss. Ended up making a mess so didn’t really pan out.

  3. Spirit Bear says:

    Just thinking back to my Pacific Northwest town it never had any threats of violence. Then I realized this game has only 3 stoners. In reality that number should be much bigger.

  4. Daemian Lucifer says:

    But max is faking it here.

  5. Adding to your comment about teachers not thinking your sick because you don’t act like it, I had my first migraine in 6th grade orchestra. I stopped being able to read the sheet music (I actually could never read sheet music, but that’s besides the point) and when I got up to tell my teacher, I knocked over about half the music stands because I couldn’t see them out of my peripheral vision.

    I had no idea what was happening to me, my arms felt like jello, I literally thought I was dying. When I told my teacher I couldn’t see, she held up 2 fingers on her left hand, and 4 fingers on her right and asked me to count them. When I told her 6, she said stop being silly and sit down. Turns out she was also holding her thumb out, I just couldn’t see it because of my migraine blind spots. I ended up throwing up on the floor and she had to clean it up :)

  6. Syal says:

    In response to Henson’s comment last time, two lines felt unnatural in this episode.

    Keep in mind I’m well out of high school, and had a powerful hatred for children’s bullshit long before I ever got there. So, grain of salt.

    “Wowzer, I’m witnessing a murder!” Pretty self-explanatory I think.

    She looks so hopeful and pretty. I’m not sure exactly what it is about that one, but it’s definitely got to do with immediately going from emotional longing to external fulfillment.

  7. Tizzy says:

    Most adults — teachers included — are only too happy to ignore how disempowered kids are. You never feel in control as a kid, you never 100% know what’s going on either, and being denied basic things like a break when you’re sick is amazingly frustrating.

    1. Zekiel says:

      I agree that its frustrating. But it is part of being children. It is reasonable for children to be subject to rules and discipline from the adult in charge of them – which in a school situation is their teacher.

      I fully agree that you shouldn’t deny 17 year olds who are choosing to attend school/college a break. But what about 12 year olds? Or 7 year olds? Of course they’re human beings, but we don’t treat children as adults because they *aren’t adults*. If you automatically acquiese to any and all requests to leave for sickness without engaging any “might they be faking it?” filter then you have a receipe for an entire class one-by-one deciding to ask to be excused.

      The unfortunate natural result of teachers not being psychic is that you will sometimes get kids who are genuinely sick being forbidden to leave. And if the teacher knows they are sick and refuses them, then sure, that’s villainous behaviour. But if the teacher can’t tell and makes a bad judgment call? I think you should cut them some slack.

      1. Decius says:

        If the teacher can’t tell and harms a kid, we should hold whomever decided to empower someone who couldn’t tell whether denying a person an accommodation would cause harm.

        That said, there’s essentially no marginal actual harm to someone even experiencing migraines. The acute discomfort and inability to function are mostly beyond mitigation.

        That said, the reasonable thing to do is send everyone who doesn’t feel well into a place where people who aren’t well will have minimal discomfort and people who are malingering will experience maximum boredom. Better if an actual healthcare practitioner can help screen out cases that don’t need to result in an urgent call to the guardian (because the child is faking illness and needs an ordinary priority communication, or because the illness is properly treated by methods that don’t require guardian consent (e.g. Dehydration, fatigue due to lack of sleep) and require only ordinary priority communication.

  8. Ninety-Three says:

    Does [signing the “no cameras” petition] have any effect?

    Signing the petition will make it so that at a later date, the teacher has a Telltalesque dialogue snippet saying “Remember that time you did that thing? I remember that time you did that thing, and I am happy about it.”

    So no, it doesn’t have any effect.

    1. Sleeping Dragon says:

      I went with signing the petition but as I was doing it I was half-expecting that somewhere around episode 3 I’d be chased around by a psycho with an axe or gun (especially since I decided to tell on Nathan) and David wouldn’t know* because of the lack of cameras. But all said and done I’m okay with the important choices being mixed up with a bunch of those that don’t have significant consequences, it works on the first playthrough and I tend to play these games once.

      *I very quickly had David pegged as the “only looks villainous” type of character.

      1. Ninety-Three says:

        I actually assumed that the petition’s pass/fail status would be independent of your signature (I was thinking in real-world terms, where petitions rarely fail by one) so I saw it as alternately a roleplaying choice, and a way to make this teacher like you.

        1. Sleeping Dragon says:

          You know, I don’t think I really noticed how playercentric my approach to the petition was. I suppose it would also be unrealistic to expect the cameras to be installed fast enough to affect the game.

  9. Ninety-Three says:

    Shamus, could you elaborate on what about the school reminds you of April Ryan’s school? I’m curious mainly because I am a huge fan of that game with strong associations, and I don’t see the resemblence even now that you mention it. Unless it’s more of a narrative resemblence: they’re both art schools attended by teenage girl protagonists and those are darned rare in videogames.

  10. “I was… 11 years old when the final episode of Daria… aired.”

    Will witty animated shows on MTV all crumble before a generation of Elder Scrolls’ing LARPers? We bring you the truth on Sick Sad World!

    1. methermeneus says:

      As someone who was a junior in high school when the last episode of Daria aired (the Falling into College TV movie; the last regular episode was the summer between sophomore and junior year; thanks, Wikipedia!), I can say that the Daria fandom was actually pretty big once upon a time. The fan authors were particularly prolific, although it’s hard to find a lot of their stories now, since they were in a variety of places (the Sh33p’s Fluff Message Board, Outpost Daria, the Paper Pusher’s Message Board, various personal websites…). Everything eventually collapsed into the PPMB, which I think still exists, and a there’s a zipped snapshot of Outpost Daria’s last update out there, as well. Anyway, yeah, Chris may be the only Daria fan on the cast, but there’s a lot out there in general.

      Also, quite a few are probably closer to Shamus’ age; certainly, the most prolific writers on the PPMB were (Richard Lobinske, Lawndale Stalker, The Angst Guy, etc., if you’re familiar with the fandom.) If that sounds odd to you, I find that there’s a good explanation in an entirely different fandom: Batzugler, who writes Buffy the Vampire Slayer crossover fanfics, once said in his author’s notes something along the lines of, “I’m a fifty-year-old ex-infantryman; you’d think that’d make it hard to put myself into the mindset of a teenage hero, but I just find the character fascinating, and I love thinking of how she’d interact with different situations.” Again, that’s a paraphrase; I’m not reading through his 2.8M words on TTH to find the actual quote.

  11. Izicata says:

    “WOWZERS A MURDER”

    “I hope I have enough time to get to the bathroom”, says the time traveler who can teleport.

    “I don’t think your parents will approve when they find out about this.” When they find out about what? That she was in the bathroom when the fire alarm went off, and looked pale and worried after?

    I like how they throw up a “this action will have consequences” alert after every choice you make even though your choices don’t actually matter. ~95% of the time they’re just lying to you.

    1. Ninety-Three says:

      I like how they throw up a “this action will have consequences” alert after every choice you make even though your choices don't actually matter. ~95% of the time they're just lying to you.

      Never played a Telltale game before huh?

      1. Izicata says:

        No, I’ve never “played” a Telltale “””””””””””game”””””””””””. There’s a word for this sort of thing, and it’s visual novel. Not game.

        1. Izicata says:

          Sorry if that came off as abrasive, but there’s a little pedant inside my head that starts throwing things and screaming every time someone refers to a visual novel as a game.

        2. Daemian Lucifer says:

          You have an inventory.They are video games.Just because you dont like the gameplay in it does not make it a non game.

          Being pedantic is fine only if you are correct.

          1. Izicata says:

            Having an inventory doesn’t make something a game. Please show how Telltale games are any different from CYOA novels packaged with their own music and visuals.

            1. Lachlan the Mad says:

              Considering that CYOA books are also games (of the non-video variety), I don’t see where your analogy starts?

              1. Izicata says:

                No they’re not. Having a branching narrative does not make something a game, and CYOA books are nothing but a branching narrative.

                Games are inherently competitive. You’re competing against other people, or yourself, or an AI. There’s no competition to be found in exploring a branching narrative, except perhaps in terms of speedrunning. Even then, I’d argue that speedrunners are introducing competition to something that does not inherently contain it, making a game out of something that isn’t a game.

                1. tzeneth says:

                  I disagree with the very concept that “games are inherently competitive” and point to tabletop roleplaying games. Depending on how you play or what you play, there may be no real competition involved but you’re still playing a game.

                  1. Izicata says:

                    If tabletop roleplaying does not contain statblocks and character numbers which are compared to other numbers and determine what your character can and cannot do, it’s not a roleplaying game. It’s just roleplaying, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but it can’t be called a game.

                    1. tzeneth says:

                      But here’s the thing, doesn’t competition require intent? If I have Joe Player roll for his character to convince the guy he’s right and neither Joe or I, the GM, care what the roll is and go with where the story takes us, is that really a competition? If there is just token competition that matters not other than whether we take path A or B, does that signify a game? At what point would a visual novel turn into a game? If you can create a character and it rolls a die based on your choice and stats to determine an outcome in the story, does that reach the level of a game? What if there are no stats but still rolls? What if the stats automatically determine whether you succeed or not like the dialogue choices in New Vegas? At what threshold do your choices rise up to the point where you are playing a “game” as you define it?

                    2. Izicata says:

                      If I have Joe Player roll for his character to convince the guy he's right and neither Joe or I, the GM, care what the roll is and go with where the story takes us, is that really a competition?

                      That’s called cheating.

                      I’m not going to respond to the rest of your comment because it’s a Gish Gallop. Please stop doing that. I’ve already given you the criteria for whether something is a game or not; competition against other people, or yourself, or an AI. You can answer all the questions you asked, yourself, by using that criteria.

                    3. Daemian Lucifer says:

                      That's called cheating.

                      So youve never played paranoia then.Or a plethora of games that dont even use dice.

                      Competition against other people, or yourself, or an AI.

                      Well,by that very narrow definition,all of telltale games are games.Because you are competing against the ai,and the designers of the game.So you have proven yourself wrong once again.

                    4. Izicata says:

                      So youve never played paranoia then.Or a plethora of games that dont even use dice.

                      His example was specifically using dicerolls. If you ignore the dicerolls in favour of what you think the narrative should be, that’s cheating.

                      Well,by that very narrow definition,all of telltale games are games.Because you are competing against the ai,and the designers of the game.So you have proven yourself wrong once again.

                      No you’re not. There’s no competition because you can’t lose. There are no loss states. Proof: https://venturebeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/the-walking-dead-graph-by-gamesbeat.jpg?resize=1024%2C5624&strip=all?strip=all

                    5. tzeneth says:

                      I am less doing a Gish Gallop and more doing the Sorites paradox by asking you at what point is something competition. You literally defined a game AS competition with one clarifying factor. If you can’t define what is competition or what you mean by “against other people, yourself, or the AI” then your definition is to a certain extent meaningless. So what is competition by your definition at what point is there enough conflict or context that I’m “competing against other people. yourself, or the AI”?

                      Also, wouldn’t by your definition a visual novel be a game if it has bad ends and you think those are undesirable and therefore you’re competing against the creator (another person) to not get them?

                    6. Daemian Lucifer says:

                      His example was specifically using dicerolls. If you ignore the dicerolls in favour of what you think the narrative should be, that's cheating.

                      Paranoia has dice rolls.And ignoring the dice in order to do whatever you like as the gm is specifically mentioned in the rules.So its not cheating.

                      No you're not. There's no competition because you can't lose. There are no loss states.

                      Yes,there is.There is a death screen in all of the walking deads,for example.In fact,go watch the spoiler warning of walking dead one,and youll see one rather soon.Your “proof” ignores all of the times you can die.

                    7. tzeneth says:

                      Also to clarify my example involving Joe Player and the dice roll. My definition of not caring is that Joe doesn’t care whether he succeeds or fails the roll. He will still suffer the consequences of failing to convince the person but the player thinks that that will be a cool character moment (I can think of a lot of contexts for this). He has still failed but he is fine with failure. The same happen if he succeeds (cool roleplaying moment). It’s hard to say there’s any real competition if no one really cares about the outcome.

                    8. Izicata says:

                      If you can't define what is competition or what you mean by “against other people, yourself, or the AI” then your definition is to a certain extent meaningless.

                      This is a rabbithole of defining definitions of other definitions from which nobody will escape. I’m out.

                2. jawlz says:

                  Interaction fiction is actually a relatively old genre of game. It might not be a genre you prefer, but it has, historically, been classified as a game. You define “game” as something that must be “inherently competitive,” but that’s only one type of game. One of Webster’s actual definitions (the first definition!) of game is “an activity engaged in for diversion or amusement.”

                  Competition isn’t *inherently* a part *all* games, but really only a subset of games. Maybe you prefer that subset, and that’s all well and good. But it’s still a subset.

                  1. Izicata says:

                    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/27/Appeal-to-Definition

                    Appeal to Definition (also known as: appeal to the dictionary)

                    Definition: Using a dictionary's limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. This is a fallacy because dictionaries don't reason; they simply are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term, as determined through argumentation and eventual acceptance. In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean.

                    The dictionary is wrong, and your argument is fallacious for relying on it.

                    1. Daemian Lucifer says:

                      Um,what?Did…did you read that thing that you quoted at all?

                      Using a dictionary's limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning.

                      Thats the exact opposite of what jawlz said.They didnt use the dictionary to narrow down,but rather to show that there are multiple definitions.You,on the other hand,are the one who disregards those other definitions in favor of your own narrow one.If anything,by quoting that fallacy,you have only disproved yourself.

                    2. jawlz says:

                      OK, if we’re going to throw around the ‘your argument is fallacious for looking at the dictionary for a definition’ line, then I’ll bow out, since there’s really not much of a discussion to be had, and to the extent there is, it wouldn’t really fit well with the general tone of Shamus’ commenters to begin with.

                      As I bow out, I’ll just note that your appeal to that ‘fallacy’ isn’t all that solid; I didn’t claim that the term ‘game’ *couldn’t* mean something that involved competition, nor did I limit the meaning of the word to any particular set of characteristics (if I were to attempt this, I *might* suggest that all games have the characteristic of allowing some *structured form of play*, but that’s just transferring the issues you might have with with one definition to another).

                      Anyways, hope you have a good night!

                    3. Izicata says:

                      His entire post is a series of appeals to authority. First to tradition and then to the dictionary.

                    4. Daemian Lucifer says:

                      They're saying the dictionary's meaning conflicts with mine, therefore I am wrong. It's a fallacious appeal to an authority rather than an actual argument.

                      No,in order for it to be a fallacious appeal to authority it needs to be fallacious.You know,ignoring a bunch of definitions in a dictionary in favor of just one you picked as the correct one.The exact same thing you quoted as being a fallacy.The exact same thing you are doing.No matter how you try to spin it,you are doing the exact same thing you posted as a fallacy,jawlz is not.

                    5. Shamus says:

                      Here’s the problem:

                      You’ve decided that competition is a core part for something to be a game. The vast majority of people out there do not use this definition. You’re now going around getting irritated with the whole world because they’re not using your definition, which has no value to them. This means you’re going on a prescriptivist battle over a word, and you don’t have the dictionary or common usage on your side. What argument can you possibly offer the world on why they should change their definition to match yours?

                      By your definition, Secret of Monkey Island is not a game. Monkey Island is in the same category as Telltale games: There are puzzles that block progress, but no hard fail state.

                      So now the world needs to find an alternate word to use for computer games that aren’t competitive enough to qualify as “games”. Are you also going to invent and evangelize that new word?

                      It’s not that your definition is wrong, it’s that this entire argument is doomed. If we couldn’t save the word “literally” from taking on the opposite of its original meaning, then there’s no way you’re going to get the world to embrace a less popular, less useful definition of a ubiquitous word. You’re going to have to get in a lot of arguments. I’ve seen this argument many times since the whole “is this a game” debate popped up a few years ago. In all of those fights, I’ve never seen a single convert.

                      Is this really how you want to spend your time?

                    6. Syal says:

                      Ooh, the “define what ‘game’ means” game again! I love this game! It was so much fun last time and had no downsides whatsoever.

                      Let’s.
                      Get.
                      Definin’!

                      A game is an undertaking following a series of arbitrary rules that hold no real-life consequences for breaking them.

                      Choose Your Own Adventure books are games because they send you off to arbitrary pages. There’s nothing stopping you going to pages that aren’t indicated, except the story will break. Also most of them have fail-states; if you go down one path the character dies and you have to start over.

                    7. Abnaxis says:

                      While I think he’s being a bit abrasive, I agree with Izicata–Telltale-style games aren’t “games,” according to (insert authority here). While he talks about “competition,” however, I think games are more about “rules.”

                      To me, a “game” is a set of rules that exists solely because people like interacting with abstract rules. Basketball isn’t a game because of competition, it’s a game because everyone arbitrarily agrees on how, why, and where they can move a little round ball and try to put it through a hoop. The rules are an end to themselves, designed to create enjoyment in the players and spectators, and the rules of basketball can be critically assessed according to how well everyone enjoys the “game.”

                      In Telltale-ish style games, the gameplay isn’t the primary focus, the story is. The gameplay conceits don’t exist to be enjoyed in their own right, they exist to enhance the narrative threads. In my opinion, that’s where this whole “debate” stems from–some people look at “visual novels,” they see that “gameplay” doesn’t matter so long as the story is served, and they say it “isn’t a game,” often with derogatory or inflammatory language.

                    8. Daemian Lucifer says:

                      What does it matter whats the primary focus?Is spec ops not a video game because its gameplay is not the focus,but rather just a support for its messages?And if spec ops is a game,then what differentiates it from the walking dead?The walking dead has gameplay.It may be minimalist,but its there.

                      You cannot just take a composite medium and say “This one element,this is THE element,and without it the whole composite fails”.Say,a movie.Is it still a movie when the visuals arent the primary?How about blue?If thats a movie,then how is a minimalist game not a game?

                    9. Abnaxis says:

                      The primary focus matters because that’s how we judge and improve the techniques that go into making a work. I think “visual novels” (not a fan of the term, but whatever, you know what I’m talking about) use different techniques and require a different vocabulary to critically dissect them and improve on them. If I’m making a game that has shit mechanics, then I’ve failed in what I tried to do and I deserve to be criticized for it. On the other hand, if I make a visual novel with poor gameplay, but which tells an outstanding story that’s greatly enhanced by the sub-optimal gameplay I stirred in there, I deserve praise.

                      As long as we call them “games” we’re hobbling the creation of visual novels by setting false expectations for them, not to mention fueling an endless debate over semantics.

                      “Blue” is a good example. I wouldn’t call it a movie, because a movie critic who is expert in cinematography and framing and editing will have little to contribute to better understanding what makes Blue work or not work as a piece of art. You’d be much better off asking a book critic (or maybe an audio book critic if such a thing exists…)

                    10. Daemian Lucifer says:

                      On the other hand, if I make a visual novel with poor gameplay, but which tells an outstanding story that's greatly enhanced by the sub-optimal gameplay I stirred in there, I deserve praise.

                      Youve just described the original fallout and planescape:torment.

                      Nothing says that what is good design for one game is automatically a good design for every game.For example,TotalBiscuit is adamant that 60 fps is a must for every modern video game,yet even he says that 30 fps is perfectly acceptable for stuff like turn based strategies,or ccgs.So why not accept visual novels as just another genre of video games?They have different requirements from other video games,true.But platformers have different requirements from first person shooters,that have different requirements from racing games,that have different requirements from turn based strategies,….

                    11. Daemian Lucifer says:

                      Also,there really is no need for this debate.In the forums,we have devised the ultimate definition for what the game is long time ago:

                      Games are active models that allow the user to experience systems that they would otherwise be unable to experience at the time.

                      Just add “using a computer” to that,and you have the ultimate definition of a video game.Youre welcome.

                    12. Abnaxis says:

                      Youve just described the original fallout and planescape:torment.

                      I’m not familiar enough with the original Fallout to speak to it, but PS:T is the poster child for why I think the way I do, and why it is important. PS:T had a great story and a great setting, but it had atrocious gameplay. Even the creators admit that the mechanics outside of the interactive dialogue were a chore to play, a black mark against the work that did nothing to add to the quality of the work.

                      I would posit that this happened because everyone–the developers, the marketers, the audience, the critics, everyone–had an implicit expectation that PS:T was supposed to be a “video game” and as a result the work itself wound up fundamentally flawed. It was conceptualized from the start as an Infinity Engine game with a story attached to it–that’s what the developers set out to make, that’s what the marketers set out to sell, and that’s what the audience expected to experience when they forked over money to buy it.

                      As a consequence, the “game” didn’t sell well. The fault for lackluster sales is largely laid at the feet of the marketing, but I would say everyone was at fault for it, because from the very beginning PS:T should have been built up as a story with gameplay elements, not a game with story elements. Instead, we got an awesome story with a half-assed RPG bolted on to it. Anecdotally I had at least a half-dozen friends who wouldn’t touch PS:T because the gameplay sucked, which meant it could fairly be called a shitty video game.

                      Those same lackluster sales are part of what shuttered Black Isle. The lesson to be taken from this is that definitions matter. Setting proper expectations for the product you’re selling matters. It’s a disservice to those titles that aren’t really games to try and shoehorn them into being referred to as games

                      Games are active models that allow the user to experience systems that they would otherwise be unable to experience at the time.

                      It doesn’t surprise me that this is the “ultimate” definition the forum came up with, because by and large when these discussions come up the fine people on Twenty Sided getting into it usually have a vested interest in legitimizing unstructured roleplay as being a “game,” and that definition does a tidy job of doing that. To be fair, I can see the desire to do this since a lot of times the “this isn’t a game” criticisms come off as dismissive and elitist (or worse, are explicitly dismissive and elitist) and it’s only natural to want to step in and defend the things you enjoy as being valid.

                      The problem with the forum definition is that when you try to apply it to the first thing 90% of the general population thinks of when you mention a “game”–i.e. sports or parlor games–it takes a pretty far stretch to fit them into that definition. What “system that you would normally be able to experience at the time” are you giving a “user” playing baseball? I can pretty much find anything within reach I can swing around or chuck around the room whenever I want. In the same way that I think Izicata is off the mark by requiring competition be inherent in a game, I think the forums are off the mark by requiring some simulation or engagement be inherent to a game.

                      Otherwise, the definition I’m using is pretty close–in the same parlance, I would call a game an “standalone active model designed to elicit an emotional response.” By contrast, I would define a “visual novel” as an “interactive narrative with integrated abstract systems designed to maximize audience engagement with the story.”

                    13. Daemian Lucifer says:

                      .
                      .
                      .
                      The lesson to be taken from this is that definitions matter.

                      Counterpoint:Baldurs gate 1 and 2.First one had a bit of a generic story,but swell characters,and an ok gameplay(though with much room for improvement,as shown by the various mods that fix it,and the enhanced edition).But the second one is lauded as one of the best crpgs of all times,with its story being considered just below torment.

                      The only reason I did not include baldurs gate is because while flawed,its gameplay was not that bad for the time.And,as shown by icewind dale,such gameplay couldve worked fine if given just a few tweaks(for example creating the whole party,instead of just one person).Heck,even the enhanced edition doesnt change much mechanically,rather gives some quality of life improvements to the ui.

                      So to me,the lesson was that they needed better gameplay to suit their story.Also a bigger area for its second act,instead of cramming practically everything in the first one.

                      The problem with that definition is that when you try to apply it to the first thing 90% of the general population thinks of when you mention a “game””“i.e. sports or parlor games”“it takes a pretty far stretch to fit them into that definition.

                      Actually,thats the easiest one,since sports have been defined practically from their invention as (mostly) bloodless simulations of war/fighting.Practically all of sports,single competitor or team ones,fit into this neatly,without any stretch.

                      As Shamus has mentioned,trying to be prescriptivist about this is the wrong way to go,because every definition you think of in this manner would exclude a plethora of outliers.Trying to tackle it from a descriptive stance however,helps you tweak the definition enough to encompass all of the things that people already think of when you mention the word.Which is precisely how we arrived to that definition in the end.It has nothing to do about defending ones hobby,or giving it legitimacy.

                      I can pretty much find anything within reach I can swing around or chuck around the room whenever I want.

                      “Unable” is not the same as “physically can not”.You can be unable to do something simply because you dont have the will to do it at the moment.I guess the redundant “unable or unwilling” would make the distinction clearer,but I prefer the definition as compact as this.

                  2. Daimbert says:

                    Interaction fiction is actually a relatively old genre of game. It might not be a genre you prefer, but it has, historically, been classified as a game.

                    You’d have a stronger argument if you related it directly to visual novels, which are commonly marketed, even today, as games. But then you’d have to accept the larger point that the Telltale games are really more like visual novels, and so count as games in the same way as they do. At that point, quibbling over to what extent those count as games would end up as being pedantic about someone being pedantic [grin].

                    One of Webster's actual definitions (the first definition!) of game is “an activity engaged in for diversion or amusement.”

                    Which would mean that when I read a book for fun, I’m actually playing a game. So, yeah, not a good definition [grin].

                    Competition isn't *inherently* a part *all* games, but really only a subset of games. Maybe you prefer that subset, and that's all well and good. But it's still a subset.

                    I think it fair to suggest that what makes a game a game is that you have some kind or set of specific goals to achieve and you face obstacles to achieving that goal, which would fit into the idea of competition. Pure visual novels wouldn’t fit here because they’re not about achieving anything specific (in general) but about experiencing a story, and a story that changes based on your actions. Of course, we don’t really get “pure” anything.

                    A comparison here might be the standard CYOA books to a series like Time Machine. In the former, even though there might be a canon or ideal ending and there are bad endings, there are multiple endings that would give you a relatively satisfying ending. In Time Machine series, there’s only one ending, and your goal is to achieve that one. I’d be more comfortable, under Izicata’s definition, calling Time Machine books a game and the CYOA books as interactive fiction.

                    1. Viktor says:

                      So is Minecraft a game? Or The Sims? Does Rollercoaster Tycoon change from being a game to not being one depending on whether you’re in scenario or freeplay mode? And what makes, say, Halo’s “kill things until you get to the end, retry if you screw up” more of a goal than a Telltale “make story decisions until you get to the end, retry if you screw up”?

                      Fundamentally, we can probably all agree that Duck Hunt and Life is Strange have basically nothing in common. But you can easily make a continuum of story-based interaction to mechanics-based interaction that goes: LiS>Walking Dead>Dragon Age 2>The Last of Us>Doom>Duck Hunt, and finding a specific point where that chain breaks down into game/not-game is always going to be a judgement call.

                    2. jawlz says:

                      You'd have a stronger argument if you related it directly to visual novels, which are commonly marketed, even today, as games. But then you'd have to accept the larger point that the Telltale games are really more like visual novels, and so count as games in the same way as they do. At that point, quibbling over to what extent those count as games would end up as being pedantic about someone being pedantic [grin].

                      One of Webster's actual definitions (the first definition!) of game is “an activity engaged in for diversion or amusement.”

                      Which would mean that when I read a book for fun, I'm actually playing a game. So, yeah, not a good definition [grin].

                      Oh, sure, I don’t think that that first definition is necessarily complete (like you say, it would leave things like novels, films, and movies open to being classified as games, even though they aren’t commonly accepted as such), but my point in the reference was to note that *competition* isn’t inherently necessary.

                      As far as interaction fiction vs visual novels, I’m thinking of all the old Infocom text adventure games/interaction fiction games when I use the term. Those are all still, in my mind, games, even though they are not visual. They later evolved into things like point-and-click games, which Shamus references above when he talks about “The Secret of Monkey Island.”

                      If I were to attempt to find some platonic definition of games (a set of characteristics exclusive to games and that all games share) I’d probably go back to what I said later in the comments, and speculate all games allow (require?) some structured form of *play*, though I can probably accept definitions that appeal to some set of rules as well (though we also have sets of rules that govern things that certainly aren’t games – laws jump immediately to mind here). And there is more to it than simply a lack of real world consequences, I think – something syal brought up – because there often *are* real world consequences for game players – just ask professional athletes, or someone who tries to count cards while playing blackjack in a Vegas casino!

                      But you’re right again to note that it’s something of a pedantic discussion. To some extent, it comes down to ‘I know a game when I see it,’ and defining what is and isn’t a game isn’t really all that important to begin with.

                    3. jawlz says:

                      So is Minecraft a game? Or The Sims? Does Rollercoaster Tycoon change from being a game to not being one depending on whether you're in scenario or freeplay mode?

                      Your reference to The Sims is interesting, because Will Wright actually used to call Sim City and subsequent ‘Sim-Whatever’ titles ‘software toys,’ as opposed to games. I myself still call them games, but YMMV. I suppose this isn’t a new discussion, at any rate.

                    4. Syal says:

                      Games are active models that allow the user to experience systems that they would otherwise be unable to experience at the time.

                      Works well enough for videogames I suppose, but does Hopscotch count as an active model? How about SlapHand?

                      because there often *are* real world consequences for game players ““ just ask professional athletes, or someone who tries to count cards while playing blackjack in a Vegas casino!

                      Even for career game players, the consequences for breaking the rules in those cases are “you can’t play anymore” (casinos might do worse, but that’s still criminal). The only real-life consequence is upsetting players and losing the ability to make money through the game.

                    5. Daemian Lucifer says:

                      Works well enough for videogames I suppose, but does Hopscotch count as an active model? How about SlapHand?

                      Of course.Figuring out what they are however,requires the knowledge of the origin of those.But random asspull guesses of mine would be “Model of traveling” and “Model of a duel”.

                3. Studoku says:

                  I’m going to stop reading your posts right here and assume that your definition of a game is “what I, Izicata, believe is a game”.

  12. tzeneth says:

    I’m surprised Josh didn’t go with having Rutskarn’s caption for this week’s episodes be Rutskarn: He will remember this. I’m a little sad about that.

    Tzeneth will remember this.

    1. Syal says:

      Syal has already forgotten.

      1. Daimbert says:

        Daimbert didn’t even know what it was in the first place.

    2. Daemian Lucifer says:

      And here are those consequences I talked about.I will remember all of your posts.

  13. Abnaxis says:

    I never had a problem getting excused from class, because I have a chronic health condition and the nurse basically handed down the commandment of “you WILL take this child seriously if they don’t feel well.” Also, one time the condition really snuck up on me (I wound up projectile-puking on the principal) but one of the features of my condition is that I act like I’m totally hammered if it gets really bad, so I was like “no, I’m TOTALLY OK! send me back to class!” which inadvertently convinced the staff that I would never “fake it”

    People would always tell me I was “so lucky” to be able to actually tell someone I wasn’t feeling well and be taken seriously. This annoyed the crap out of me because I would much rather be healthy, but I can see the appeal…

  14. Daemian Lucifer says:

    Heh,the spam filter does not like linking to the twenty sided forum.Thats just too perfect.

    1. The Rocketeer says:

      I mean, can you blame it?

  15. Phantos says:

    Part of my problem was that I was really incompetent socially. There's a certain performance of body language that we expect from people who are sick. It's reflected in face, posture, and tone of voice. I don't know if it's something we learn from adults or if it just comes naturally for most people, but I apparently never got the memo and didn't know how to “act” sick, even when I was sick. I'd just walk to the front of the room and state my problem, which would get me flagged as a faker. So once in a while I'd have one of those teachers that decided their dumb bullshit needed to be the center of my life and would send me back to my seat when I asked to be excused.

    I’m glad I’m not the only one who hates how we’re all judged by body language that might not even be in our control. As if we’re all expected to know a language nobody ever bothers to teach us. I hate how many people try to “read” people based on voluntary or involuntary “cues”. Like how people think that if you avoid eye contact or fidget, then you’re A LYING LIAR WHO LIES.

    And it’s like… they could be Autistic. Or have ADD. You know, things that make it difficult to maintain eye-contact.

    OOPS!

    1. Daemian Lucifer says:

      Reading body language is a skill.Sure,plenty of people have different body languages,but depending on where they grew up,some things will be similar for them(just how children learn the language they hear most often,so do they imitate the body language they see most often).So someone very knowledgeable of people of a certain area can very accurately read most of the people born in that area.The problem comes when people who arent that skillful try to read others.

      As for the special cases you mentioned,psychiatrists are taught(mostly trough experience)to distinguish what various tics refer to.Whether its just general nervousness,lying,or some mental problem.A good psychiatrist can sometimes determine whats wrong with someone even before they speak a single word.

      Good poker players also know stuff like that too.Also,one interesting thing here:Good poker players that play online can learn to distinguish bluffs just by how long it takes for someone to bet and the amount they bet.Its like reading the invisible body language.Of course,this isnt nearly as accurate as seeing someone in person,but still is fascinating.

      1. Phantos says:

        Speaking of poker faces, I vaguely remember a story about Gene Siskel playing poker with people who weren’t that good at poker, and he lost a bunch.

        Because they weren’t good at it, they were basically speaking a different visual language than he was used to with better poker players, so all of his training and experience failed him. He knew how to play the game with people who knew how to play the game.

        Imagine it working like that in sports. Like if some guy who’s never played baseball wins the World Series, because the other team only knew how to play against other major-leaguers.

        1. Shoeboxjeddy says:

          Sounds like Gene outthought himself. An even better poker player would have shifted to a pure probability model when playing against outright novices and cleaned up since they wouldn’t have known how to do even that.

        2. Cybron says:

          The best swordsman in the world doesn’t need to fear the second best swordsman in the world; no, the person for him to be afraid of is some ignorant antagonist who has never had a sword in his hand before; he doesn’t do the thing he ought to do, and so the expert isn’t prepared for him.

          1. Phantos says:

            There’s an episode of Married With Children that uses this. It’s a fantasy where they’re all pirates or something(uh… long story). Al Bundy is a slob fighting a foppy guy, and the guy says: “You’ll never beat me! I had the best sword-fighting training in the land!”

            So Al’s like: “Yeah? Well I learned to fight in the streets!”

            *knee-to-the-crotch*

            *seven hours of applause, because it was Married With Children*

          2. PoignardAzur says:

            Which is why Mixed Martial Arts champions get frequently beaten by untrained drunks [/sarcasm].

    2. Geebs says:

      Or, As was my problem at school, be in the process of becoming shortsighted and not actually able to see the other person’s face.

      Eye contact is highly cultural, though. Some people consider a person who tries too hard to make eye contact to be insincere, for example.

      As for “it’s unfair to expect people to pick up on social cues” – weeeeeeeelll yes, but on the other hand life is tough and your options are either to learn this stuff and win, or fail to learn it and lose. I chose the second option, but that’s really my problem and I have no real right to expect anybody else to give a shit.

  16. Disco Bisco says:

    My name is Max.
    My world is fire
    and blood.

    As the world fell,
    each of us, in our own way,
    was broken.

    It was hard to know
    who was more crazy.
    Me, or everyone else.

    This is gonna be a good season for sure.

    1. Phantos says:

      The way that started, I thought you were about to go into a cow poem.

      1. Viktor says:

        So did I. In fact:

        my name is Max
        and when i late
        or when my lyfe
        is not so great
        i have no fear
        it not a cryme
        i raise my hand
        and turn bak time

  17. Christopher says:

    I ended up feeling at home in Max’ shoes largely because of Chloe and Warren. I also had a girl I liked in high school who was twice my height and fun and cool, but who also had some really obvious issues in her life. Relating to those emotions was easy. On the other hand, I was Warren in High School, or at least I identify with his plights the most, like every other male nerd on the show. I’m a huge cringy nerd and my feelings weren’t returned. I empathize with him, and I’m also super embarrassed to have been like him. In the end, I spent a lot more time trying to make Warren happy than I feel like the game intended, and as a result the relationship with Chloe that the game actually focuses on never felt all that romantic. I like how they introduce Warren, by the way. You hear about that dude a ton before he actually shows up.

    Additionally, I was 100% Daniel, except people were always saying “DRAW ME” instead.

  18. Christopher says:

    Aw, you didn’t get to fly the drone!

  19. mwchase says:

    Thinking about having to talk to Wells got me thinking “What would this game, with the same basic setting and plot, and time rewind, look like if it had been made by Origin before it got bought?”

    Like, you can skip the dialogue with Wells by clipping through a wall in one of the classrooms or something, but this leads to a few glitches, culminating in a softlock after the suicide attempt, so you have to skip that sequence as well, and it turns out it doesn’t trigger unless Kate Marsh explicitly decides to not commit suicide, or hits the ground so you can stop that by piling up some boxes outside the dorm, to mess with the collision detection.

  20. DeadlyDark says:

    I think I’ll politely disagree with Shamus. May be it’s different mentality, since I’m from Russia (probably that’s the case?), but for me, even if you sick it’s your direct responsibility to use all your will to continue to learn things (with exception of extreme cases, of course; but even then – who’ll decide which cases are extreme and which are not? Line is very blurry), and I used that standard on myself all the time in school. School is important, many things that looks useless, could be very useful later, and the only way to differentiate these cases, by only keeping the open mind and learning as much as you can, even if you don’t want to or have manageable sickness. You never know what helps or shapes you into better person, and you can’t judge preemptively, especially if you’re a kid, with no experience. So that shutdown of Max in the episode felt very justified and a little satisfying, now that it was pointed out.

    To be honest, I don’t really envy school teachers. Thankless job, and “everyone” knows better than him/her how to do it.

    P.S. Life is Strange for me, all things considered, probably the best cinematic episodic game, and as interactive fiction has only rival of Heavy Rain. I like that school setting, even if it’s different school from my schools (man, it was 13 years since?), that painted look, and pretty good animations.

    1. Viktor says:

      I’m a grown adult in a company that is understaffed. Even in our busy season, we do not expect people to work sick. We expect them to warn us as early as possible so we can compensate, sure, and if you get sick on a job site we expect you to handle it in a way that doesn’t get Homeland Security called on us, but if you’re sick, go home. It’s not worth it to you to be here and having someone who’s not capable of focusing on the job is bad for us. Why hold actual children to a higher standard than that?

      1. Cybron says:

        Perhaps more importantly, many diseases are communicable. If you stick around you’re endangering our ability to get things done. I actually got mad at a coworker who didn’t go home when sick for getting me and a couple others sick. It’s selfish and short sighted, just go home.

    2. Daemian Lucifer says:

      School is important, many things that looks useless, could be very useful later

      Could be,but they arent.The only actually useful thing that the school taught me,that I didnt pick up on my own before or after it,is how to cheat in various situations.

      1. TheJungerLudendorff says:

        Seconded on that.

        Our school system is almost legendary for never needing 80% of what they teach you.

    3. TheJungerLudendorff says:

      From my personal experience, it’s really tempting to try and tough it out or otherwise brute-force your problems. Because hey, you need to take responsibility for your own condition, and you should keep learning working if you can right? No need to bother other people or create future problems for yourself.

      Then it usually turns out I just made the problems worse by not actually doing anything about it, or by trying to tackle it myself and failing horribly.

      So yeah, if you are sick, i’d say assess if you can still properly function and how bad it will become in the future. If it’s a minor case, you can usually just sit it out, but if it’s bad enough you’re actually better of trying to heal ASAP so you can function properly again, instead of forcing your body and staying sick for much longer than was necessary.

  21. Mormegil says:

    Note on Shamus saying being sick is something we learn – he’s totally correct. “Sick” is a social role we learn the same way we learn other social roles. And it differs from culture to culture with hunter gatherer societies (as one example) encouraging members to ignore being ill as much as possible since the rest of tribe needs you to do your job contrasting with modern industrialised societies wanting people to not come to work because they don’t want your germs.

Thanks for joining the discussion. Be nice, don't post angry, and enjoy yourself. This is supposed to be fun. Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked*

You can enclose spoilers in <strike> tags like so:
<strike>Darth Vader is Luke's father!</strike>

You can make things italics like this:
Can you imagine having Darth Vader as your <i>father</i>?

You can make things bold like this:
I'm <b>very</b> glad Darth Vader isn't my father.

You can make links like this:
I'm reading about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darth_Vader">Darth Vader</a> on Wikipedia!

You can quote someone like this:
Darth Vader said <blockquote>Luke, I am your father.</blockquote>

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.