Support NeoGAF

[GreyHorace]

Don’t Play the Goose Game

Untitled Goose Game is fun. The problem is, all games are also work.

Like games, geese are notoriously annoying. They’re brusque, clumsy, and territorial. If you are a person and one appears on your country estate, the advice recommends avoiding engagement and then standing your ground if it charges. Show the goose who’s boss. A recent, hugely popular video game, Untitled Goose Game, stages this conflict. For some reason, it turns out to be familiar to everyone, even city slickers who have never seen a goose in person.

The only problem is that you have to play the game to do so. And playing a game is a chore. That’s the big problem with video games: To enjoy them, you have to play them. And playing them requires exerting the effort to operate them. Games are machines, and broken ones at that. The player’s job is to make them work again.

Game-play—the work of working a game—is fundamentally irritating, at least in comparison with other media forms. It’s easy to pass the eyes over the pages of a book, or to bathe in the waves of image and sound at the cinema or in your living room. Moreover, these forms skip over the boring parts by editing them out: You don’t have to watch a character traverse the stairs, sidewalk, subway, and elevator to get from home to work. But in games, you are the character, and thus you must pilot him (or her, but usually him) through every detail that the simulated world demands. Role-playing gamers sometimes talk about “grinding”— completing boring, repetitive tasks to advance their character’s abilities in order to make progress—a term that exactly mirrors the drudgery and toil of labor.

I don't know whether to laugh or be insulted that this idiot finds it laborious to partake in a hobby that is supposed to be about escapism.

 

[Saruhashi]

Don’t Play the Goose Game



I don't know whether to laugh or be insulted that this idiot finds it laborious to partake in a hobby that is supposed to be about escapism.

It's a bit of a stupid article. It's hard to tell if it's supposed to be a joke or not (or if it's just half-joking or something).

Pretty much ANY hobby could be interpreted as "work".
Surely even reading "The Atlantic" takes some kind of effort? I could be sitting doing nothing instead!

Once again it's someone who wants to compare games to movies and TV, for some reason.

Yes, if the medium is interactive then you will have to "work" to get into it and enjoy it.

I feel like this can still apply to movies though if you actually are properly interested in the medium.
It's not like someone who is really into movies just sits there and doesn't even put in the work of paying attention to, and thinking about, the movie?

Pretty standard "let me state the obvious ways that movies and games are not the same" article that seems to have been doing the rounds for years.

 

[GymWolf]

This is one strange article for lack of better insulting words...

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Gamers are dead amirite?

Good thing we have all these extremely well-written adventure games and hidden object clickers to slake my thirst for M E D I A

 

[Madevil]

Haven't read the full article but I'm guessing it's not satirical... And if so, it seems typical of so many similar pieces over the past few years and should be disregarded as more shit spewing by some fart sniffer.

 

[-Arcadia-]

Sounds like somebody’s pseudo-intellectual hot take they couldn’t wait to get out, research optional.

There was a time, when we wouldn’t publish such things, but it’s a pretty good match for the state of today’s media.

 

[The Scrivener]

What's their agenda here? What a seemingly pointless article (from the quotes at least).

My favourite (worst) part is "That’s the big problem with video games: To enjoy them, you have to play them."

Weird.

 

[Typhares]

 

[GreyHorace]

Haven't read the full article but I'm guessing it's not satirical... And if so, it seems typical of so many similar pieces over the past few years and should be disregarded as more shit spewing by some fart sniffer.

Ze fart sniffer in question:

 

[Rean no Kiseki]

Now that video games have become a bigger industry than Hollywood, we'll see more and more of these Jokers.
What led to con artist such as Anita (however you spell her last name) and Her ilk to """""game critique""""" is all the cash that could be made by working as """"" ethics and diversity consultants""""".
The explosion of the" hip" (geek culture) and video games going mainstream and the rise of SJW in games is something i never would've thought to happen when I was a teen playing DoA2:Hardcore on my PS2 and unlocking the CG gallery for the first time .

 

[Stilton Disco]

What a miserable prat.

I can't help but wonder whether this is just that they hate videogames, or if they genuinely don't undersrand how anyone could derive pleasure from putting effort into anything?

Does cooking baffle them, when take aways exist? Can they not comprehend why anyone would play sports when you could just watch professionals do it for money on TV instead? Is the concept of creating arts and crafts, for the simple pleasure of creative expression, alien to them? Does the thought of having to walk to enjoy the great outdoors or a beach fill them with bafflement and horror?

Either way, whether a joyless twat or the laziest sod alive, I'm guessing they're the worst lay in existence.

 

[Petrae]

The Goose game is less work than your typical open world game these days. Those are practically full-time jobs that ask you to work/check in daily and to perform menial tasks (driving, cargo transport, “go here and do this, then report back”)... you have to pay at least $60 for the privilege of being able to do all of this work, and your “pay” is worthless digital trinkets that only apply to that game.

It’s really weird to pick on the Goose game to make this connection when AAA games have been doing this shit for generations now and people have been letting it slide.

 

[Birdo]

This is why these kinds of people always make walking simulators.

They don't understand the medium of games because it's new and alien to them.

 

[Hendrick's]

This is how I feel when I play Ubisoft games.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

When your career is journalism, I guess I can kind of understand the aversion to overcoming a challenge and having to learn new skills to proceed through a task.

 

[Shifty1897]

Your mistake was reading The Atlantic in the first place.

 

[Saruhashi]

What a miserable prat.

I can't help but wonder whether this is just that they hate videogames, or if they genuinely don't undersrand how anyone could derive pleasure from putting effort into anything?

Does cooking baffle them, when take aways exist? Can they not comprehend why anyone would play sports when you could just watch professionals do it for money on TV instead? Is the concept of creating arts and crafts, for the simple pleasure of creative expression, alien to them? Does the thought of having to walk to enjoy the great outdoors or a beach fill them with bafflement and horror?

Either way, whether a joyless twat or the laziest sod alive, I'm guessing they're the worst lay in existence.

I honestly think they just don't understand videogames.
It's amazing to me how many people just have this concept of games as "interactive stories".
Seems to be the main problem here.

To some extent I can kind of understand it.
If you think about school or college they would have given you a book or movie to read/watch and then come back with an essay.
However, Dark Souls is like a 70 hour videogame so it's not quite so easy.

Even Untitled Goose Game is going to be around the 5 to 6 hour mark, I think?
If it were "Untitled Goose Cartoon" then the writer would have no issue cos it's just a funny thing that you can watch and laugh at.

If the starting position is that someone doesn't understand that games aren't just ONLY about "story" then it follows that they are going to think "what the fuck, 6 hours just to find out that the Goose is an asshole?"

"Bogost received his bachelor's in Philosophy and Comparative Literature from the University of Southern California in 1998. He then went on to get his masters in Comparative Literature from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) in 2001, and received his doctorate in Comparative Literature from UCLA in 2004."

That's your problem right there. The guy looks at video games in the context of literature.
However, games are NOT literature.

Yes, sometimes a game does have a story but in general games have a far more prominent (and time consuming) gameplay component.
You can see why a professor of literature would be sitting there wondering why he has to go through all that pesky gameplay.

In the context of this specific game it appears to be designed as a more relaxing and laid back experience where you essentially role-play as a goose. It's not intended to be like a story or a cartoon that you watch. It's a game. Where you "play" at being a Goose.

I don't think these people hate gaming. I think they just don't understand it but also they want to write "deep" and "thoughtful" articles about it.

So you get this really odd "disconnect" where the writer is talking like an expert while getting basic fundamentals completely wrong.

 

[Keihart]

Work is not something you'll want to avoid if it is something you truly enjoy or feel passionate about, all the hardships you conquer are in fact what makes doing it feel meaningful.
So yeah, games can feel like work, but more often than not, like a dream job, since you can choose exactly what game to play unlike jobs.

 

[Rin_Chan]

Found this on Twitter:


What is this guy up to? Is his next article "Video Games are better without Video Games"?

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I honestly think they just don't understand videogames.
It's amazing to me how many people just have this concept of games as "interactive stories".
Seems to be the main problem here.

To some extent I can kind of understand it.
If you think about school or college they would have given you a book or movie to read/watch and then come back with an essay.

Yeah, they are the equivalent of an out-of-touch boomer slapping the side of the TV and exclaiming, "play, game!" without realizing it needs to be plugged in.

Their idea of entertainment is vegetating in front of the TV or computer screen and receiving ego-affirming media that requires little to no input. When the device requires them to... you know... engage with their brain or heaven forbid their reflexes, they freak out. "What's wrong with this game? Why can't I see the next cutscene? Why can't I visit the next level? Dark Souls needs a level select."

 

[joe_zazen]

The atlantic is a neo conservate/cia organ staffed by amoral agents who’d write a hit piece on jesus christ if their handlers told them to.

 

[Durask]

What's their agenda here? What a seemingly pointless article (from the quotes at least).

My favourite (worst) part is "That’s the big problem with video games: To enjoy them, you have to play them."

Weird.

I think it is just intellectual masturbation.

"The big problem with sports: to enjoy them you have to do them."

 

[Saruhashi]

Yeah, they are the equivalent of an out-of-touch boomer slapping the side of the TV and exclaiming, "play, game!" without realizing it needs to be plugged in.

Their idea of entertainment is vegetating in front of the TV or computer screen and receiving ego-affirming media that requires little to no input. When the device requires them to... you know... engage with their brain or heaven forbid their reflexes, they freak out. "What's wrong with this game? Why can't I see the next cutscene? Why can't I visit the next level? Dark Souls needs a level select."

Then of course it has to become "gamers are entitled man babies" when someone calls them out on their bullshit.

He's posted this on Twitter in the last half hour:
"I write frequently about technology and design. I often take controversial positions that people don't like. But I reap a very different crop of responses when I write about games. It's curious. These are ideas for you to take or leave, not judgements of your worth."

Hm.

The crux of his article is:
"The problem is, all games are also work".

Also.

"I really enjoyed playing the goose game. But on reflection, I enjoyed the idea of playing the goose game a lot more than playing it. The mechanical demands of this—and maybe any—game always resist its function as diversion. This is a fundamental problem for game design."

"Television is the most powerful popular medium by far. But even books and magazines reach a different, broader audience than games, and they do so more regularly and with greater diversity. Doesn't that stop you in your tracks?"

Does that stop me in my tracks?
Well. No. Not really.
Games have a narrower appeal. If that's because they need to be "played" then that's fine.

You could say the same about almost anything. Spicy food has a narrower appeal. Science Fiction has a narrower appeal. So on.
I don't think that "have the broadest appeal possible" is a good goal to aspire to if a creator is interested in making something specific.

That just brings me back to thinking this is a guy who, apparently despite his best efforts, doesn't really "get" games and, I think, doesn't see WHY they ought to be different to books, TV etc.

I enjoy running. I am always on the lookout for full and half marathons in interesting locations that I can travel to and do a run and get a souvenir (medal) etc. I try to gradually get better times but as I am getting older I just try to keep up. This takes a lot of time and effort and, excluding alleged health benefits, comes with very little real and tangible reward. It's challenging. I get injured. Etc. Etc.

The point is that I enjoy doing it. I could just as easily not do it. I could just lie in bed and think about my early morning long run on a Saturday. I could smile as I imagine the routine of finding a race, taking time off, booking flights and hotels and planning tourist activities and getting the wife involved and then bringing it all together for an awesome city break. Or I could actually do it.

The problem is that EVERYTHING in life has resistance to some degree or another. Even sitting down and watching a movie depends on getting enough money to have a room and a sofa and a TV and maybe even someone to watch the movie with.

That's the daftest thing here. His problem, sorry, "the" problem, is that games are not movies. Basically.

Imagine a videogame, right, where you switch on your TV and then your PS4 and then you put the game disc in and you press "play". Then you just sit back and enjoy it. Brilliant, right? It doesn't "resist" you or ask you to press buttons or input commands. You just sit and you watch the game. Brilliant.

Imagine being so deep in videogame critique that you end up inventing movies.

A fundamental problem for game design is that the game always resists it's function as a diversion?
OK. It seems to me then that the only way to get around that is to make a movie, TV show or book instead.

If we seriously look at it from a "game design" perspective as he suggests then what are the options?
The game needs to not "resist it's function as a diversion".
So it must be entertaining and a diversion BUT you can't ask the player to do anything.
You need to remove the element of "play" entirely because this is inherently a 2 way street and therefore is requiring you to engage.
So take away the controller and allow the player to just watch as events unfold on screen.

Gameplay is a feature of videogames. Not a bug.
There is no "game design" if your game is just a story playing out on screen. That's a movie.

You could argue that some game design takes the movie experience and turns it into a cinematic, interactive, game (Naughty Dog etc) but doing it the other way and you're really just making movies.

Amazing, really, that this guy legitimately gets paid for this bullshite.
"Guys, the fact that you need to play a game is a big problem for game design".

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Then of course it has to become "gamers are entitled man babies" when someone calls them out on their bullshit.

He's posted this on Twitter in the last half hour:
"I write frequently about technology and design. I often take controversial positions that people don't like. But I reap a very different crop of responses when I write about games. It's curious. These are ideas for you to take or leave, not judgements of your worth."

Ah, the good old "you're saying I'm not allowed to have an opinion? Just starting a conversation".

Funny, does he extend this same leeway to the very people who are replying to him? Does he see their "different crop of responses" as valid opinions too, as valid forms of starting the conversation?

So many modern journalists try to pull this same trick. Rules for thee, not for me.

Hm.

The crux of his article is:
"The problem is, all games are also work".

Also.

"I really enjoyed playing the goose game. But on reflection, I enjoyed the idea of playing the goose game a lot more than playing it. The mechanical demands of this—and maybe any—game always resist its function as diversion. This is a fundamental problem for game design."

"Television is the most powerful popular medium by far. But even books and magazines reach a different, broader audience than games, and they do so more regularly and with greater diversity. Doesn't that stop you in your tracks?"

That just brings me back to thinking this is a guy who, apparently despite his best efforts, doesn't really "get" games and, I think, doesn't see WHY they ought to be different to books, TV etc.

Lol that classic line "I enjoyed the idea of playing more than actually playing it". Is that what your ex said about him when she left him for the bull?

I enjoy running. I am always on the lookout for full and half marathons in interesting locations that I can travel to and do a run and get a souvenir (medal) etc. I try to gradually get better times but as I am getting older I just try to keep up. This takes a lot of time and effort and, excluding alleged health benefits, comes with very little real and tangible reward. It's challenging. I get injured. Etc. Etc.

The point is that I enjoy doing it. I could just as easily not do it. I could just lie in bed and think about my early morning long run on a Saturday. I could smile as I imagine the routine of finding a race, taking time off, booking flights and hotels and planning tourist activities and getting the wife involved and then bringing it all together for an awesome city break. Or I could actually do it.

The problem is that EVERYTHING in life has resistance to some degree or another. Even sitting down and watching a movie depends on getting enough money to have a room and a sofa and a TV and maybe even someone to watch the movie with.

That's the daftest thing here. His problem, sorry, "the" problem, is that games are not movies. Basically.

There are people in every generation who are lazy. This isn't a profound observation. Academia has long been the haven of the intelligent laze-about. Some people get satisfaction from the payoff of "work", and others do not.

Imagine a videogame, right, where you switch on your TV and then your PS4 and then you put the game disc in and you press "play". Then you just sit back and enjoy it. Brilliant, right? It doesn't "resist" you or ask you to press buttons or input commands. You just sit and you watch the game. Brilliant.

Imagine being so deep in videogame critique that you end up inventing movies.

A fundamental problem for game design is that the game always resists it's function as a diversion?
OK. It seems to me then that the only way to get around that is to make a movie, TV show or book instead.

If we seriously look at it from a "game design" perspective as he suggests then what are the options?
The game needs to not "resist it's function as a diversion".
So it must be entertaining and a diversion BUT you can't ask the player to do anything.
You need to remove the element of "play" entirely because this is inherently a 2 way street and therefore is requiring you to engage.
So take away the controller and allow the player to just watch as events unfold on screen.

Gameplay is a feature of videogames. Not a bug.
There is no "game design" if your game is just a story playing out on screen. That's a movie.

You could argue that some game design takes the movie experience and turns it into a cinematic, interactive, game (Naughty Dog etc) but doing it the other way and you're really just making movies.

Amazing, really, that this guy legitimately gets paid for this bullshite.
"Guys, the fat that you need to play a game is a big problem for game design".

Fewer game "journalists" seem to understand the nature of a videogame.

It is to glorify the player. Your score, the flashing accolades, the bright sounds, the friendly characters, the overpowered weapons... all designed to glorify the player. But this requires the player to "earn" it, in the same way that winning at basketball or chess or [insert one of thousands of examples] must be earned. Watching a TV show doesn't have to be earned (other than the material and time cost of watching a movie). Once you sit down, there are no roadblocks preventing the purchaser from enjoying 100% of that movie's content.

 

[Pejo]

I have to believe that this guy saw all the attention and engagement (and clicks) from other bait articles, so he chose to make one himself. I'm not going to give this shlock any more attention than it deserves.

 

[Saruhashi]

Fewer game "journalists" seem to understand the nature of a videogame.

It is to glorify the player. Your score, the flashing accolades, the bright sounds, the friendly characters, the overpowered weapons... all designed to glorify the player. But this requires the player to "earn" it, in the same way that winning at basketball or chess or [insert one of thousands of examples] must be earned. Watching a TV show doesn't have to be earned (other than the material and time cost of watching a movie). Once you sit down, there are no roadblocks preventing the purchaser from enjoying 100% of that movie's content.

The silly thing is that he's using all of this intellectual effort to come to a pretty mundane conclusion.

"Videogames shouldn't really be classed as an entertaining diversion because they need too much interaction to be a true diversion".

OK. So games are just entertaining. Now what?

"Well more people prefer a book or a movie to something that needs more effort or interaction".

OK. So games are entertaining but the audience is smaller than other mediums due to their interactive nature. Now what?

His big "insight" at the end of all his thinking on the subject of games is "games are not like TV and movies and shouldn't be classified as the same".
OK. Great job.

 

[Rest]

This is why these kinds of people always make walking simulators.

They don't understand the medium of games because it's new and alien to them.

What do you mean new to them? Anyone who's about 50 has lived their whole life alongside video games. Anyone who's about 40 has known video games as a major form of entertainment for their entire life.

This douchebag being intentionally obtuse and pretending video games are bad because they aren't movies doesn't mean games are new to him, it just means he's a professional troll and his editor and publisher didn't catch what he's doing.

 

[Fbh]

You must wonder what sort of lifestyle this person has if videogames of all things require "too much effort"

 

[synchronicity]

Congratulations civilization, we've reached a state where our recreation is too hard.

 

[Saruhashi]

What do you mean new to them? Anyone who's about 50 has lived their whole life alongside video games. Anyone who's about 40 has known video games as a major form of entertainment.

This douchebag being intentionally obtuse and pretending video games are bad because they aren't movies doesn't mean games are new to him, it just means he's a professional troll and his editor and publisher didn't catch what he's doing.

I dunno. I don't think we really see a proper comparison between games and movies until the PS2 era.

Metal Gear Solid 2 being a really big one where people can say "it's like a movie". You even get the sense sometimes that Kojima would almost rather be a movie director.

I think it's only in the past 10 years when we've had the indie scene really exploding and AAA games are becoming more and more cinematic.
Yet, the most popular games are still things like CoD, FIFA, Fortnite.

That's an area where games are different from movies and I think it's a source of insecurity for a lot of "journalists".
You can watch a movie and dissect it and discuss it in ways that the average kid (due to inexperience) just can't keep up with.
"Little Timmy" thinks that The Last Jedi was OK but kind of boring while "Film Critic Sulk" scoffs from on high and tells us how it's an expert deconstruction of blah blah.
With games though those kids will trounce you in multiplayer and then call your mom a hoe.

So they are SUPER into the "story" and the "message" of games because little foul mouthed highschool kids can run through Cuphead in 25 minutes and these fuckers are still trying to get past the tutorial.

What's that? Gameplay? Not for me thanks! I'm soooooo over all that.
I just want to explore the world and the story so I don't see the harm in skipping the boss battles. Give me a button to do that! Make the game easier!
Give me options for less effort!

Aren't "gamers" so entitled though?