It’s an inflammatory title, but I said what I said. Let’s talk about it (at the end).
As someone who has never had a natural talent for videogames that involve technical or fast-moving mechanics, I have always gravitated towards playing videogames that create what I would consider to be experiences of stronger narratives. I have no personal ill will against a highly technical game like Fortnite or Smash (both are games that my brother plays quite competitively)–it’s just that the increase of my stress level and frustration of not being able to keep pace with opponents or play on remotely the same field makes the game an unenjoyable experience. Could I play with someone my own skill level? You bet, but I don’t really desire it all that often. I just am truly not that interested in games that rely on technical ability as a mechanic, as I don’t really find technical games all that fun in general. My brother is constantly fixated on learning how to move faster and smarter than his opponents. Respectfully, I just want to vibe.
There are many, many games I could pull as examples of narrative games I have enjoyed, but for sake of simplicity I’ll examine two that I find similar: Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door and Pokémon Emerald. I find these games similar on many accounts (immersing the player in a Magic Circle where you explore the world and make a series of choices, leveling up through fighting computer characters (including a series of bosses), adding characters to your team throughout the game, a collect them all attitude (all of the Pokémon (Pokémon) or all of the Crystal Stars (Thousand Year Door)). I find that these elements of the games work to build out the narrative of the worlds within which I am playing, either adding detail that expands my knowledge of the worlds or creating action that impacts the narratives of the games–without a vast reliance on technical mechanics.
The reason I have played both of these games to completion is this: the mechanics of the game allow me to move at my own pace and explore the narrative without a certain technical skill. I find this for two reasons. 1) Both games have relatively simple controls: Thousand Year Door Controls, Pokémon Emerald Controls. 2) There is no constant pressure to execute the controls precisely, quickly, or any other adverb that elaborates on nuanced technical skill. When I think about my experience with the game mechanics in Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door and Pokémon Emerald, despite there being slightly more controls, my recollection is mostly of just using a d-pad/joystick and an A button to create action within the world around me. Take, for example, a battle scene from either game. The player is allowed to take time to choose their attack (with the A button!), and the outcome does not rely on technical excellence, but rather the player’s decision (…sound like Until Dawn to you?).
The draw for me with these games is that I get to explore a new world, a Magic Circle, without having to rely on technical skill as the mechanism to access the full experience. And that is exactly what I experienced when playing Until Dawn, and exactly why I enjoyed it so much. A strict ludologist might say that Until Dawn is not a game, to which I would say: stop gatekeeping, gatekeeper. There are a lot of similar elements of gameplay between Until Dawn and certified-and-not-argued-about-games-that-are-definitely-games Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door and Pokémon Emerald. Let’s look at some.
Exploring The Map
(TrashMan)-29.png&f=1&nofb=1)
Cut Scenes
Interacting with Characters/Objects.
![Hack Series: Pokémon Inclement Emerald: A Decomp Difficulty Hack [Version 1.8] - The PokéCommunity Forums](https://imgur.com/nXRakCV.gif)
Trying to open the gate.
These all seem like honorable game elements to me! Seems to me like Until Dawn is just a less technical game with more of a focus on narrative. How is this not a game?
If the pure ludologist’s argument is that the gameplay of Until Dawn is not technical or complex enough to be considered a game, I have a bone to pick. If Until Dawn is not technical enough to even be considered a game, does that make Thousand Year Door and Pokemon Emerald less worthy games than games like Fortnite and Smash because they are not as technical? I can only follow the logic to this conclusion, and it seems like a real gatekeeper’s perspective to me. I’m curious what others think.
And as a fun bonus, what would a ludologist say of this?
(This doesn’t count for my weekly comment) Just wanted to say that Paper Mario: TTYD is also one of my favorite games and that you should try out Bug Fables if you haven’t already. I haven’t had the chance to try it myself, but have heard it’s an incredible spiritual successor.
Something your argument makes me think about is how everyone has different skills, and some games may feel less like games to someone who doesn’t view the “game aspects” as interactive enough. I tend to agree that this does not discount it’s status as a game. Additionally, on a somewhat of a tangent, there are organizations such as able gamers that create devices that make games more accessible to people with a wide range of disabilities, it’s super cool when game creators take this into account and include modes in their games that help make the game fun and accessible. I was talking with a friend about this topic, and I forgot what the game she brought up was, but she was saying how when they included a god mode in it to allow players to get through the story without all the super technical skill, there was a controversy because many players thought that made it too easy, when it’s like, just don’t use the god mode then, it’s that simple. It was a twitter argument that she was pulling this from, again, sorry I forgot what the game was.
I totally agree that strict requirements for games to be reflex based are gatekeeping… but I don’t think that that necessarily defines strict ludologists. The thing that distinguishes Pokemon and Paper Mario from Until Dawn seems to be present in games like Fortnite and Smash as well: the system is very well defined, and general strategies and skills in the games can still be developed, regardless of how fast the responses need to be.
As an example, in Pokémon, the player strategizes (or at least, plans) to layout their team based on power, tactics, cuteness or just irrational preference. They engage with the system actively at almost all times, picking moves in battle, and searching in the wild grass, and receive specific, direct feedback from the game.
Likewise, in Fortnite, the player strategizes where they will go, which items they will search for, and decides when the best time is to confront other players, and they receive feedback from the game as well.
Chess, for example, is a game no ludologist would disregard. It is “slow” in the same manner as Pokemon, if not slower, and even more sluggish than Until Dawn. Yet, it has direct feedback for the player too, in the form of the changing boardstate.
Until Dawn, on the other hand, lacks feedback for free-form player choice, and lacks forethought in the same way as other games. In fact, it actively is proud of (and rightfully so) of the idea that decisions in the game do not directly respond to the choices made immediately before (the indirect Butterfly Effect.) It is something different, and should be considered as such.
As a final note, having played games with both “technical” segments, and segments closer to the manner of Until Dawn, (for example, the Wonderful 101, or Tomb Raider), even within the same game there is a meaningful distinction between the kinds of play we see jumping over a fence with a jump button, as opposed to a button prompt to do the same thing, even when the same button is pressed. I feel like saying “these mechanics are the same since you go over obstacles by pressing a button” is a drastic oversimplification of the procedures underlying why these buttons are pressed at these times.