This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Is Gone Home a Game?

Is "Gone Home" a Game?
PAX Australia


Rym presented "Losing" at PAX Australia 2014. This is an excerpt from that lecture concerning the definition of the word game. Particularly, I consider "Gome Home" and the widespread "debate" over whether or not it is a game. (Spoilers: Gone Home is a game).

Source Link
«1

Comments

  • Boo Rym, just post the whole thing ^_~
  • edited December 2014
    I've landed on the definition of a game being simply "something you play"* with play being defined as "not work" (ie, something you do for its own sake, as opposed to something you do to accomplish some other purpose). By this definition, Gone Home more than qualifies. Basically any piece of entertainment software qualifies. Anyone who wants to quibble is just wrong.

    *I mostly lifted this from Mark Rolands "Tennis with Plato"

    The additional granularity provided by the "idio-" and "ortho-" prefixes is great.
    Post edited by DevilUknow on
  • I've landed on the definition of a game being simply "something you play"* with play being defined as "not work" (ie, something you do for its sake, as opposed to something you do to accomplish some other purpose).

    Careful. By that definition, watching a movie, masturbating, and sleeping are all "play." ;^)

    In mammals, play also has a definition involving the simulation of required and necessary behaviors in a non-deadly environment for learning purposes as well.

  • The only time it really comes up is when someone is dead set on playing gatekeeper.

    I find context smooths out the rough edges :P

    At least I hope it does. I might accidentally had had some pretty embarrassing conversations otherwise.
  • Careful. By that definition, watching a movie, masturbating, and sleeping are all "play." ;^)
    I would totally consider masturbation "play". :-D. Heck, it's called playing with oneself.
  • Starfox said:

    Boo Rym, just post the whole thing ^_~

    Sure thing.


    That's the entire "single player game" segment.
  • edited December 2014
    I would probably call it a Simulation if anything. If Eye Spy is a game then Gone Home is one as well. It sucks that people only argue about weather it's a game or not and tend to ignore the rather disturbing story: a relationship with unwanted sexual advances and accusations about women in the military. I always wondered if Lonnie was a man would the response to the game have been the same.
    Post edited by HalfmoonHex on
  • I would probably call it a Simulation if anything. If Eye Spy is a game then Gone Home is one as well. It sucks that people only argue about weather it's a game or not and tend to ignore the rather disturbing story: a relationship with unwanted sexual advances and accusations about women in the military. I always wondered if Sam was a man would the response to the game have been the same.

    Are you for seriouses? Can you not tell the difference between portraying controversial or disturbing subjects and advocating them? Are you incapable of understanding that media can tackle things with nuance and present ideas outside of black-and-white moral values?

    (Also did you miss the bit where the game addresses child abuse with a male victim? There's a lot going on in there...)

    Of course if Sam was a man the story would be different! It's a game centered around queer issues! There is this thing called context, you mighta heard about it.
  • Why is there some wrong with me for wanting to discuss this?
  • I would probably call it a Simulation if anything. If Eye Spy is a game then Gone Home is one as well. It sucks that people only argue about weather it's a game or not and tend to ignore the rather disturbing story: a relationship with unwanted sexual advances and accusations about women in the military. I always wondered if Lonnie was a man would the response to the game have been the same.

    ... the FUCK is wrong with you.

  • I didn't get 'unwanted sexual advances', unless you're talking about dad's story (admittedly took a few plays to see that one through to its conclusion...)

    If Lonnie was a man, probably not. Most of the story beats would have to be rewritten, queer stories in games are rare, especially ones that are put together so well.
  • Why is there some wrong with me for wanting to discuss this?

    Because it's not something that should need to be discussed!

    You're basically saying "Why is there something wrong with me for wanting to discuss the idea that 1+1 = 3 ?"

    There's nothing to discuss. It's 2. You're flat out wrong. You're just too ignorant to realize it and unwilling to change your mind. It's not our job to educate you. We have our own lives to live. You're not worth our time.

    Normally someone would feel pity for someone so ignorant that they can't even understand basic arithmetic. That's because someone being so bad at math is only a harm to themselves.

    The difference here is that you aren't wrong about something that is only a harm to yourself. You're wrong about things in such a way that you are harmful to society. The way you think and the things you believe makes the world a worse place to live in. Thus, people who want to make the world a better place are going to fight against you. Just like we would fight against a climate change denier, a cultist, or a racist. The world would be a better place if people did not think the ideas you think. That makes you a bad person.

    Also, I thought it was about ethics in game journalism, why are you saying misogynist things like "I always wondered if Lonnie was a man would the response to the game have been the same."?

    Oh, right, because you're a misogynist.
  • edited December 2014
    Yeah like... there actually is a lot to discuss about Gone Home. A lot of themes to tease out, a lot of meaning in there. Could people have a real discussion about the justifications, motives and morality of, say, Lonnie and Sam stripping the house of electronics on the way out the door? Sure. That's a thing rational human beings could discuss.

    But we're not morons. You don't want to have a discussion, you just can't tell the difference between attacking a thing and discussing the issues within it. You perceive people using a critical eye as an attack on stuff you like, and thus am to attack this darling of progressive critics by emulating the form factor of critical discussion. It's blatantly transparent, and it won't fly in this particular ivory tower.
    Post edited by open_sketchbook on
  • As someone who knows basically nothing about Gone Home, I'm super confused right now.
  • Ikatono said:

    As someone who knows basically nothing about Gone Home, I'm super confused right now.

  • edited December 2014
    In Gone Home you play the daughter of a family that recently moved while you were on an extended graduation trip through europe. You come home to an unfamiliar house which is also empty for no immediately apparent reason. By collecting clues throughout the house you piece together the backstory of all your family members, their relationships with each other and also why nobody is home when you arrive.

    One of the stories involve the younger sister experiencing her first intimate relationships, which are homosexual in nature.

    However, you guys should just play it. It is relatively cheap and very good. Or you could just go to Wikipedia and read the plot summary, but I think you would rob yourself of a pretty good experience.
    Post edited by chaosof99 on
  • Get the DLC which adds the chaingun and nazi zombies to the house, though. Otherwise, really, it's barely a game.
  • Apreche said:


    Also, I thought it was about ethics in game journalism, why are you saying misogynist things like "I always wondered if Lonnie was a man would the response to the game have been the same."?

    Oh, right, because you're a misogynist.

    How is that misogynist though? The game doesn't automatically get a pass on gender issues just because it's got a lesbian couple.
    Here's a good quote from the discussion on the Escapist:
    Rape Culture
    There's a torn out, crumpled up diary page hidden in the house. In it, Sam details the time Lonnie forced herself on her in the middle of the night while Sam was sleeping. Lonnie is 18/19 in the game, but Sam is only 17. Age of consent in Oregon was, and still is, 18 years.

    That's rape. Rape is wrong, but this fact seems lost on both the developers and Gone Homes lunatic fan-base.
    That's what I want to argue, is Lonnie and Sam's first time consensual or not?
  • ...

    Well, alright, you've never played the game, so I really shouldn't even engage but...

    On the note in question, a note which, it must be said, is hidden from view after a few seconds so you don't even get to read it during normal play, listed immediately after the events, which you really gotta reach to interpret as rape, is a goddamn pro-con list that Sam has written about where her and her girlfriend can fuck without getting noticed. Yeah, she sounds really shaken up by the experience.

    But, whatever, you don't actually care. You're just looking to stir up shit.
  • I'm actually talking about this note about their first time:



    I have watched multiple playthroughs of the game. That should be good enough in a game where you physically have no control over the events. For whatever reason you judge me for having differing opinions that yours, without knowing anything about me. What have I done to make you assume I'm a horrible person who wants to harm things you like?
  • edited December 2014
    Yeah, you guys really need to back right the fuck off.

    Dude here doesn't agree with us about gamergate. That does not give you a mandate to go shouting the dude down or hurling insults when he's asking a legitimate question.

    If you can't answer the question, then say so, don't just flip out and start screaming like a child. If you can answer the question, then answer it, or at least say why you won't.

    What, you think you're clever, and you know better? Then bloody well teach him, don't just act like indignant shits. Lift someone up, rather than punching down.

    Yeah, she sounds really shaken up by the experience

    Sketch, that's super offensive to boot and you should bloody well know better. It's like a backwards-talking version of "It's not rape if she enjoyed it." Rape victims are not required to conform to your notion of what a rape victim should be like. Nor do rapists need to conform to your idea of what they're like, either.

    In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the makers of Gone home were trying to touch on a serious issue there - according to the 2005 CALCASA report, one in three lesbians have been sexually assaulted by other women, and that's just looking at reported cases - Female-on-Female sexual violence is far more likely to go unreported than Male-on-Female.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • I seriously doubt they were going for that angle. Like... this is still fiction. Sam isn't a real person with real experiences. This note was written by a writer, and said note is not placed in the game in a context that would even allow the player to ruminate on the particulars of the contents. It is present as a) a confirmation that Sam and Lonnie's relationship was physical, sexual, and b) as a joke. The note and your character's reaction to it is probably the funniest moment in the game. It beggers belief that the creators would use that moment to slip in that kind of commentary.

    But even if you go all death of the author, I still think its hella reaching to look at that note and think "Welp, that's a depiction of rape." Could it be? I mean, I guess, sure. It's probably not a great depiction of consent, we can even break out the word "problematic." Still, I think throwing "rape" at it is reaching, I think the context around it is intended to come off as sweet instead of sinister.

    And, yeah, I probably overreacted; that probably is a discussion reasonable people can have. I mean, we're having it right now because you know exactly how to guilt me into having it. :P But I've had enough of these kinds of discussions with Gambergat people as to not really want to humour it. It's not about seriously discussing consent in a queer framework or what the game is advocating, it's just a gotcha argument, and its miserable to deal with.
  • edited December 2014

    And, yeah, I probably overreacted; that probably is a discussion reasonable people can have. I mean, we're having it right now because you know exactly how to guilt me into having it. :P

    Hey man, I grew up Irish Catholic, I guilt because I love.

    To be clear, I'm not taking a position on what it may or may not be - just that I wouldn't be surprised(and why), not that I think that's what's going on.

    But I've had enough of these kinds of discussions with Gambergat people as to not really want to humour it. It's not about seriously discussing consent in a queer framework or what the game is advocating, it's just a gotcha argument, and its miserable to deal with.

    I see where you're coming from on that. Honestly pretty bloody sick of it myself.
    But I'll give Hex a bit of credit, I think he's shown so far that he's not the type for that whole leading question/gotcha argument thing. I certainly might be wrong, but benefit of the doubt and looking at what we've seen of him so far, I think that he's being genuine in asking the questions and wanting to know, both what we all think and about the overall situation.

    Sure, he might have a funny way of asking, but maybe he doesn't have the same experience with discussing these matters as we do. We all have to start somewhere.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • RymRym
    edited December 2014
    Considering the people who made Gone Home, I am deeply suspect of attributing any glorification of rape (or even approaching that one aspect of the game as rape).

    And for the record, I've rarely seen any serious discussion of this being a rape outside of discussions about feminism and feminists by people who usually appear to have a bone to pick...

    In fact, the line of reasoning that amounts to questioning whether the game would have gotten the same attention if the character was a man is basically ALWAYS the first thing they bring up when they bring this bit up. They're always brought up by the same person at the same time, usually not in any direct context to the game itself, and almost always in an attempt to lead the discussion toward the "double standard" of feminism or some other bollocks.

    The original poster usually tries to bait someone else into saying it wasn't rape, or that a situation like that is fine even if it is rape or something like that. Then screenshots and a giant flamewar.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • God, I just found two separate posts (one in a forum and one on a G+) that are basically copy pasta of this:
    because feminist are hailing this game as a "game of the year, women-centric, female empowering, jesus wept masterpiece". But they overlook the part where a girl is being raped(by feminists own definition: No clear consent). But if it had been a guy instead, feminists would be trying to get this game pulled from existence, protest the creators, publisher, etc.
    This one appears in some form almost all of the threads I've found:
    If it was a guy feminists would be calling it rape. But feminists seem to love this "game".
    So far, every discussion where this comes up is the same playbook:

    "blah blah blah, but the game has a RAPE! Would the game be as popular (among women) if that character was a man? TALK ABOUT YOUR DOUBLE STANDARD"

  • Rym said:

    Considering the people who made Gone Home, I am deeply suspect of attributing any glorification of rape (or even approaching that one aspect of the game as rape).

    I'm not saying it was done on purpose. The line was pretty clearly a throw away and not even intended to be read. But knowing the group who made it I think they could have done a better job at forming the girl's relationship without it being problematic.

    My friend explained a similar event in Young Avengers where a they introduced a male couple and then explained it away as a magical curse later.

    The other problem is Lonnie's running away from the military. People had this debate for real around the time the game came out. There was an argument if women are to emotional for combat. Lonnie is one of the only female members of the US armed services in a video game and she runs away because of a romance.

    You can't just settle for any form of representation just because it's representation. Gone Home as a queer story, is a bit like Sonic Boom as Sonic game. You run, you jump, and you platform but it doesn't fulfill my Sonic relate needs and it's got issues. Gone Home has issues.

    That's a bit of an exaggerated comparison but I hope that makes sense.
  • It beggers belief that the creators would use that moment to slip in that kind of commentary.

    It's possible they noticed the problem with the note that's why they made it so the player character would throw it away instead of read it? It might have been better for them to rewrite or cut it if that was the case.
    Still, I think throwing "rape" at it is reaching, I think the context around it is intended to come off as sweet instead of sinister.
    Well I started by calling it an unwanted sexual advance. The only time it's called a rape is in my copy pastas. That's still my argument, the girl was sleeping and a minor. The way the law works in most states is that if one party's a minor and the other is about 3 years apart it's not considered statutory unless the parents want to press charges. It's also clear
    they eventually had a very happy sexual relationship after this. It's still a disturbing way to start a relationship.
  • This thread is crazy. It's a glimpse into the world I didn't expect. Wow.
Sign In or Register to comment.