I don't know what computational games means, but I was talking about the interactive element of gaming, which is the only significant aspect of the medium. otherwise it's a visual novel or a video. and I was saying the art of nifflas's games is in the way they're experienced, as opposed to most other games, which are more like an amalgamation of verbal, visual and aural mediums with the interactive 'game' element just loosely tying it all together and possibly enhancing the experience. I do think if a game is going to try to be art, the creator should be cognizant of the medium, understanding the concept and importance of controls rather than just unconsciously developing them as some derivation of some other game's controls. gamers are the only ones who fall victim to this
Computational games are games that use programmable computers as a significant element. I should have really defined it because I don't know anyone else who makes the distinction. Sorry 'bout that. I certainly agree with your point - up until very recently, that is exactly what I would have said. That's the reason I brought computation up. Chess is an interactive game, but it's not usually a computational game. A better example would be a pen and paper role-playing game, which cannot feasibly be translated into a computational game - it's run by a brain, which might be a computer but is certainly not programmable. Similarly, Cricket is an interactive game that can't be computational. So if you want to look at computer games then you need to look at how interactive experiences, virtual sports, etc are created through computation. It's a subtlety, but I think it's an important one. Computer games are a much, much more specific subject than interactivity or games in general. What I'm proposing is, I think, an additional point on top of what you said. While interactivity is important to understanding games and game software, it is not just the essential properties of a medium, be they computation or interactivity or paper, that need to be considered, but also the cultural properties in a given context. Both Cricket and Street Fighter are devoid of meaning without the people that engage with them, but in context they're quite interesting. But yeah. Just elaborating because this is a subject of great interest to me.
To put it in context, earlier this year I read a paper by this dude called Henry Jenkins that tried to argue that game design can be seen as what he calls narrative architecture. Everyone thinks they're an architect these days, says my sister. His real thesis is that video games are fundamentally spatial, or at least that that's the way they've become as a medium. I decided to investigate this theory by building the most general mathematical model I could that I thought adequately represented computational game. The input and output devices, update rate, etc are all parameters, so in theory the model includes a game that renders its world by mechanically controlling a fake haunted house and getting input from hidden cameras or a chess board controlled by magnets with an AI inside. It was clear from the start that not everything in the model would create space, so I instead started looking at how space is produced and what creates the illusion of space. The facts of it might be obvious to someone with an architecture background, but I'm new to the line of inquiry so I read a lot of different stuff. A few video games articles and a bit of philosophy, but I didn't get much about how to represent space in my model from the phenomenologists. People have a lot of different ways of looking at spaces, but what struck me most is that (as a whole bunch of people pointed out ages ago, apparently) space is culturally constructed and so are our representations of it. So our representations of space have a lot to do with how spaces are. This is as true, I think, for the spaces that show up in video games as it is for the spaces in real life. I still haven't figured out how to talk about space in my mathematical model. The easy answer would be "using polygons in R^3, silly!" but clearly that misses the point. There's a spot somewhere between abstract space, commodity, are and physical location that's inhabited by all sorts of software entities like irc channels, facebook walls, and forums. I think that interactivity is a good hypothesis as to how this software produces the illusion of spatiality. What I'm trying to come across is how software can produce spatiality in general. Or at least try to catalogue the ways it does in practice. But you could rip off another game's engine ant make a totally fascinating commentary on games. Like I think that Vanit's Final Fantasy 7 remake unintentionally does this. It reveals the nature of the final fantasy 7 engine by perfectly replicating the content in a different technical framework.
In my game making, I am obsessed with controls at the moment so if this nifflas guy is good at them then I will definitely look into him. I think I got NightSky in my indie bundle the other day but idk if it works on Linux yet since meat boy segfaults.
Welcome back Farren!