Why Some Games Are "Weird"

If you're a fan of games, then you've either heard it or said it, probably multiple times. Game X is "weird", or system Y within said game is "weird". I mean this on a strictly mechanical level. Something like Jade Empire is weird because of its setting and story, yet the game is fairly familiar at the level of play.

So why then? Why do we think of some games as unusual? Stuff like Ace Attorney, or Jazzpunk. On a very basic level, one could say that it's because they like combat, but that's easily debunked: A game like Amnesia: The Dark Descent is pretty much combat-free, yet it comes across as quite traditional. We've debunked two possibilities at this point: The setting and the lack of combat. I believe that the "weirdness" of a game, at a mechanical level, comes when the designer chooses to ignore something that's at the core of the great majority of games: The conservation of resources.

You see, games are deeply entrenched in the use of conservation of resources to provide failstates, or at least some measure of challenge. Think about it: In a first person shooter, you expend a resource (bullets) to prevent your other resources from draining (usually health, armor and the such). There's obviously more to it than that: Your skill allows you to expend both less bullets, and stop your other resources from draining. It's similar in RPGs, be they action based or not, strategy games, open world sandboxes, fighting games, beat'em'ups... you name any traditional genre of game, and it can eventually be boiled down to you making a less valuable number go down in order to prevent a more valuable number from going down.

This is understandable on both a coding and design levels: Making numbers go up and down is easy, and it's a simple, easily understandable and abstracted way of providing challenge. There's an absolutely off-the-chart number of ways this can provide entertainment: Most games created have used it, it still hasn't gotten old, and I firmly believe there's even more ways of taking advantage of this system we haven't come up with. I applaud its use, and want it to be used for many more years if not decades to come.

However, we may have become too entrenched in this system. It seems we've kind of forgotten that other kind of systems of providing challenge exists. Occasionally, a game comes out that doesn't adhere to this system, and it's widely seen as "strange", "unusual", or, indeed, "weird". Examples of such games include the previously mentioned Ace Attorney series (which, yes, does include a very mild element of resource preservation, though this is very much set aside), Jazzpunk, and things like The Stanley Parable or Journey. These are all very much games that feel strange to play. We've become so accustomed to the resource conservation system that its sole absence marks a game aside.

Now, note what all these games have in common: They're all story-based. It seems that, for some reason, only story-based games have really explored the possibilities that casting aside this sort of system brings with it. I like a lot of the games that have done so, but, unfortunately, story-based gaming isn't the best place to explore mechanics because... well, it's not really focused on mechanics. Mechanically, Ace Attorney or Jazzpunk  are very, very simple, and that's a shame, because I really want to see a fully-fleshed out experience that isn't about bringing a number up or down. How? Hell if I know! Surprise me, game developers! Just imagine all of the absolutely fantastic things we've achieved inside this box. Now imagine all the things gaming as a medium could achieve if it moves out further.

It might be a pipe-dream, and, in fact, it probably is. It's still entertaining to think about. A man can dream.