So I agree it’s a difficult problem for game studies but it’s also what, in my eyes, makes it an art.

However we still disagree on your use of unstructured, “paidian” play as being devoid of rules: when your daughters decides to be a tiger, she still has to deal with the rules of her own body to represent that tiger and you accept the rule that she can be a tiger if she says so.

There is no game without rules, just like there is no game without form and both of these should aim to shape the player’s subjective experience without which there is no game either.

In a perfect game, all these spaces are semantically aligned and balanced.

Here’s what i think : if we want to deploy a knowledge about games, we need objective components that we describe, analyze, and so on. If we look at games this way, as you say, we can choose between the substantial aspects of the game (the rules, the algorithm) behind the representation or the superficial aspect of the game (what we can see on screen).

It is true that we can have the same games (aka the same rules or the same game-play) with only slight modifications in sounds or graphics. Think about all the clone games that once existed in the arcades. The same games with only superficial modifications at the iconic level.
Nevertheless the graphical or narrative components of the game can’t be ignored now. Even if we take all the clones in the arcade, they usually share some properties, being games about agression, aliens, shooting and things like that. So it is clear that most games work integrating both the system of rules and the representation. Then, as you say, both approaches are correct. One cannot eliminate the other.

But we can go one step further. Is this objective description of the games components (rules, representation) satisfactory ? For sure it focuses on things that we can describe with objectivity.
But what remains hidden in those descriptions of the rules or the representational side of games is precisely the subjective part of the experience. What is it to play a game or a videogame ?

I do totally agree with the idea that games are “the subjective experience they induce in the player”.
It happens that in french, we have only one word “le jeu” for two words in english “play” and “game”. Play leans toward the subjective part, the activity, the experience, game toward the objective part, the rule set.

As a consequence i disagree with a sentence like “If you don’t like rules or winning and losing that’s fine, and if you don’t like games that’s also fine, but then why are you at a conference about games?” Ok, games may always have rules, but play don’t. When I play with my daughter, she can decide to be a tiger, and a few minutes later another animal and so on. Where are the rules ? We change them on the fly, as the play goes. And it is play, and it is fun. It is “un jeu”. Remember the paida vs ludus in the Caillois model. Caillois is right recognizing the importance of the paida, non formal play.

Maybe videogames do always have rules. But they must not be considered outside the realm of play. Because we play them, and that’s where the experience is.

More over, we all know that the experience of the game cannot be reduced to the gameplay or iconic component. Think about the very different ways players can find satisfaction in the same game. The experience of play is what a player builds with the game, but cannot be reduced to its objective components.

So we have a real issue here. Building an objective theory of games, we tend naturally to focus on objectively describable aspects of games and to forget about the essential aspect – the subjective side of play, the very diverse ways players connect with the game.
And how can we successfully describe those experiences of play ? It is not as easy as analyzing the system of rules or the events on screen. We need to rely on introspection, which is not a method at all.

So what is a theory of games that does not forget the essential ?

Sorry if I have mis-represented your position: it was not my intent and I’ll readily admit it can sometimes be hard to understand what the argument exactly is among all of the posturing and confusion. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that your camp was trying to make games without form but simply that it’s of so little importance to them as to be almost irrelevant. By pushing the logic to its extreme I might have caricatured your stance, just like I did with the formalist’s side: I’m not convinced ToT really want to free themselves of all rules. If you take away the rhetoric and posturing to only look at their work, it appears they only want to free themselves of a certain set of rules while focusing strongly on aesthetics. After all, The Path has those golden flowery things to collect, movement and ending conditions. Vanitas has unlockable stars. Everything they did so far had rules of some fashion.

So if rules are the precondition to games why would your side insist that what they are doing is “something else” (thus pushing them into the clever and absurd Notgames stance they took at AHoG)? I suspect it’s because you go beyond that and argue that games must have a specific subset of rules in order to be games: you are narrowing down the definition to suit your belief. For instance, I wouldn’t be surprised if you felt that a game needs challenge to be a game. And I’m afraid that’s where the confusion between “what is a game” and “what is a good game” begins…

Both are interesting discussions but we can’t hope to answer them properly if we start by restricting the field of inquiry to whatever we fancy. We need to be more open minded than that.

So in the end, the question is not so much about whether you enjoy some formal elements in some games (you do) or if ToT is really making games without rules (they’re not). The question is how do we define games? This is where the real battle is taking place. To me both sides are trying to pigeonhole games into a narrow definition that suits whatever they are most interested in. Mostly substance on one side (and a very specific definition of substance at that), mostly form on the other side.

Games have changed a lot with the advent of computers and the internet and I can’t help but think it is premature to lock down their definition so tightly. I believe the field would be richer if everyone could experiment without fear of being cast as “ungames” by a given faction.

Maybe Vanitas falls short because it lacks winning conditions and maybe vvvvvv falls short because it doesn’t appeal to the senses. Maybe. But both are games and the more different the things we try, the more we will learn collectively.

Make games, not war. What can I say: I am an eternal utopian! ;)

The argument with the ‘other side’, the ‘formalists’ as you call them, isn’t so much whether the substance or the form of games is more important. You described their position as wanting to “rid games of their gameness” and end the “tyranny of rules”, and I think that’s more the point of friction. If you don’t like rules or winning and losing that’s fine, and if you don’t like games that’s also fine, but then why are you at a conference about games? Showing up and saying that games shouldn’t have rules is like going to a symphony and complaining that orchestras have violins. It’s okay to not like violins but if you take them out of the orchestra then you’re not making it into something better, you’re making it into something different!

The point is, if you don’t like orchestras then don’t go to the symphony.

I agree with your definition! This system/form subjective balance or sweet spot seems to be the thing to achieve. I think I would emphasize more the system today than form (I’d never go the 8 bit way though). But maybe it would be the opposite in three years! And it would be okay.

The AAA industry is way too busy to add more to the uber classic teenager fantasy form while keeping players in with simple rules and artificial challenges. It works a few weeks in the charts, with massive marketing. The sustainability of this business model is showing serious signs of fatigue :-)

Ce n’est pas par snobisme ou par honte du français que ce blog est en majoritairement en anglais mais tout simplement parce que, qu’on le veuille ou non, l’anglais est la lingua franca de l’internet. C’est par respect et pour pouvoir communiquer avec tous ceux qui ne parlent pas notre langue que je m’efforce de tenir ce blog en anglais. J’aimerai avoir l’énergie de tout écrire dans les deux languages mais ce n’est malheureusement pas le cas. Maintenant si quelqu’un se propose pour tout traduire… :)

Ouais, honteux ! :)
T’imagines si tout le monde faisait comme toi ?
On aurait des studios franglais, des conventions, des syndicats et autres associations affublés de noms en anglais ! On aurait des blogs de chef de petite société (localisées en France) écrits en anglais, et les sites Internet officiels de ces mêmes sociétés seraient uniquement rédigés en anglais.
Clair, trop la honte. C’est grave trop naze le français.
Et puis c’est sûr, Bulles d’Esprit ou Bulles Spirituelles ça fait pédé, de toute évidence. Pour le coup, ces nationalo-fascistes de Japonais (bouh les méchants) on leur excusera ce Awatamatchoum de circonstance. :D De toute façon kawai-otaku-sushi c’est trop bien. Vive Sakura.

Ace game by the way!

@Nicolas : Oui, en tout cas en ce qui me concerne je trouve que les “genres” n’aident pas vraiment à penser le jeu vidéo et encore moins à libérer la créativité. Au contraire…