It's striking to me that the discussion so far (correct me if I missed something) ignores what I thought was the more important bit of the article. I quote (emphasis mine):
The central idea remains constant: videogames began with two-player games, experienced through the proxy of a machine. Two or more humans matching their abilities, with victory and failure adjudicated by hard rules, has remained true, from chess to Pong to Battlefield.
There's another way of looking at videogames: how the vast majority are able to entertain when there's no other human being there at all, just you and a machine. The machine just exists to interpret your actions and turn them into a world for you to experience. It exists to entertain you, to take you somewhere else, to give you a place to explore. It is a storyteller. This is a different approach to the idea of 'game', and - interestingly - its core emerged at a similar time to MIT's Space War, as if culture was suddenly ready to reconsider what a 'game' could be.
They claim, in essence, (if I understand correctly) that DnD helped change our very concept of the computer game; of how the computer can be utilized for entertainment. It's not about hitpoints (pong could have hitpoints). It's about the concept of the computer "as storyteller" -- a concept which underlies a vast array of genres in gaming. Now, this is a significant historical assertion. Is it indeed true?
Thanks for filling in this info. I think it doesn't invalidate my thoughts by much, is it? I mean, the situations you mention (getting killed without injuring a single limb) seem in themselves a bit absurd. It was this kind of absurdity that was the catalyst of my thinking about the entire topic of representing imaginative worlds with a bunch of statistics. As I said, I get immersed in these representations as much as anyone, but at times I just feel it starts to fall apart.
Phantasie III on the C64... had that kind of a system. In addition to hit points, your limbs, chest, and head could be "injured" "broken" or "gone", with obvious implications for losing your head or body.
Your description of this game was thought-provoking. It's interesting you report it didn't "add or detract anything significant" from the gameplay. I don't wish to look down on it, but my thoughts were: it's a like an "ad absurdum" for role playing games in general. If the initial idea was to immerse yourself in a living, realistic and "concrete" world by keeping track of its various "statistics", then this game pushes the premise further, to the point where it becomes absurd: you immerse yourself in a bleeding, fractured, aching body, by keeping tabs of the hitpoints of the limbs?!
Hit points are a useful abstraction, for sure. But I'm not sure that mapping them any further (for example, for each limb) would enhance the immersion -- or the realism, for that matter. I don't think the medical condition of the body can be mapped that way. (In that respect, perhaps it would be better to keep hitpoints of the lymphatic system, etc.) But realism isn't the point here. What's more jarring is that you are supposed to sympathize with your avatar, and you (I hope) have a true actual body, that sometimes gets injured. And when you get injured, it's NEVER like keeping tabs on hitpoints. Anyone who had a serious medical conditional can tell that the intense pain is an almost pre-verbal and pre-conscious experience, which loosens your ties with the reality that surrounds you. Why, then, do we think it appropriate to represent this with minute statistical detail? I genuinely wonder. This question goes for traditional RPGs as well (that's the point of the earlier "ad absurdum").
For those who aren't familiar with it, Planescape Torment deserves a better description that "The Poop" of TFA. I got to know this wonderful game because of Ernst Adams, who devoted an entire column to ruminations about it (and its connection with the philosophical theme of Death). Adams' column is still the best introduction to Planescape Torment. Here is a link and a quote.
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/designers_notebo ok/20000519/index.htm
But what's most interesting about Planescape: Torment, and what most deserves our attention as designers, is its setting, its characters and its plot. The phrase "fantasy role-playing game," of course, immediately conjures up images of a group of Tolkienesque characters marching through the forest in search of dragons. Planescape is blessedly free of these stereotypes - I've played for several hours now and there's not an elf or dwarf in sight, nor, for that matter, a forest. The designers of the Planescape universe have at long last abandoned Northern European mythology and devised something perhaps richer, definitely darker, and altogether fresher. If Baldur's Gate is a lager, Planescape is a homemade stout.
The story centers around a nameless, immortal character who is searching for his forgotten past. It uses the hackneyed "amnesia" device to explain why he doesn't seem to know anything about the world he lives in, but I have to say that it's handled at least as well in Planescape: Torment as in any book or game I've seen it in. Our hero is seeking the information that will explain, and then end, his immortality and allow him at last to die permanently. At least that's what I think he's looking for; motives and morals in Planescape are nothing if not ambiguous.
If the technology is ripe, why aren't there virtual reality helmets for everyone?
Mainly: because wearing a helmet makes gaming a SOLITARY experience. Contrast this with Nintendo's recent Wii, which is all the rage because it makes gaming a SOCIAL experience. The social aspect of gaming, which a helmet would destroy -- isn't just playing party games with the Wii; it's even more rudimentary than that. It's being able to call your girlfriend over and have her watch over your shoulder as you play a particularly cool scene, etc.
Moreover, with a helmet you can't look at the keyboard, you can't have a snack or pop a soda, you can't take a quick look at the clock to see what time is it, you can't answer your cell phone quickly, etc. The helmet expects you to cease being a human being while you play.
Perhaps the momentous failure of the VR helmets is a sign that we've misunderstood how the perception of games works, psychologically as well as "phenomenologically". Perhaps it's not about simplistic "immersion" in a virtual (visual & auditory) world; perhaps it's more like the old fashioned kind of immersion you get when you read a book.
With over 1000 comments so far, this probably won't be read let alone modded, but nevertheless:
Why do you talk of "Microsoft hatred"? While the arguments against MS's practices have their place, it is the initial question that should be examined IMHO. I think the term "hate" is the problem. Hatred is a psychological phenomenon. The question "Why A hates B" can be answered in many ways: perhaps B wronged A, and A has never forgiven; or perhaps A has a pathology which makes him hate B for no reason at all. If we ask a psychological question, we get a psychological answer. Maybe there was an objective deed which is the cause of the hatred, but by itself it is never sufficient to explain it. Moreover, "hatred" usually has negative connotations. If I told you "A hates B", you would probably look badly upon A -- more so if I told you that the basis of this hatred is political controversy (like it is in the case of MS). So what is biased here is the question itself.
But if "hatred" is psychological term which (usually) applies between two people, what does it mean to say that a person (or a group of people) hates a software company, i.e. a corporation? You could have said that these people "condemn that corporation's practices", for example. But this way we're not talking about the psychological phenomenon of condemning -- but about the content of this act of condemning -- i.e. the moral and political stance which these people take. It is an altogether different question to ask "why do you take this moral/political stance?", than to ask "why do you hate so-and-so".
Moreover: a political stance, a political world-view, is something taken by people as groups -- as political groups, you might say. If you decide to act upon this stance in a democratic country, then you act along with the group: thus it's political action. (e.g. your representatives could pass laws in accord with those views). But how do you act upon "hatred"? (Go to a shrink?) What I mean to say: by speaking of "hatred" in place of ethical and political views, the question dissolves everything social and political in advance, and we are left with a void of "psychologism". In sum, I say, this is simply an offensive case of ad hominem.
My answer to the question is no. Wikipedia's biggest flaw is that the admins simply can not stop a large biased mob of editors trying to keep the article biased. Just look at all the articles related to Ayn Rand. All of them are in some way slanted in favor of Rand and/or her fans because a mob of her fans keep it in perpetual bias. So far, I haven't found one admin who's willing to deal with the problem; all of them have told me that it's too big of a mess for them to handle, or flat out refused to do anything. Knowing that Jimbo is one of Rand's cult followers, I've gotten suspicious of whether or not he's got a hand in this.
Over here, in my country, such Rand-cult-following is simply unheard of; Thus your insightful comment rings strangely in my ears, because I can't imagine why someone would slant in article about a subject so bland. But then again, If the foreigner -- that is, myself -- is not even AWARE the topic is controversial, then unlike you I can't even defend myself against the bias of the articles! The problem is therefore not only that there is some bias, but also of informing the reader that something IS or could be biased in the first place -- marking it as probably biased, that is.
Is it all BS? Is Christopher Alexander bullshit?
on
Slashdot's Vastu
·
· Score: 0
Penn and Teller had a decent show on Feng Shui, and I agree with with their conclusion.
It's all bullshit! Just like the subject of this news post.
Posts like this +5 informative one, or the ones preceding it ("it's one big ripoff") are the most predictable on Slashdot. I used to have such a rationalist, skeptical contempt for Feng Shui and the like; until I read Christopher Alexander. Now, I won't argue there are no charlatans toting bogus wisdom in exchange for hefty sums of money. But these old traditional ways of building, insofar they're genuinely traditional, do have their merit. Look, designing a home or a tool or a website isn't a banal task; there is no magic formula or process. It is the result of factoring in many forces which act in different directions, taking into account the way actual people use and live through this home or object. Alexander, before he was appropriated by software developers, actually talked about building homes which are good for actual people to use. He talks about such homes as having the "timeless quality", one which cannot be named, but achieved through the process he calls a "pattern language", shared by memebers of the community. Buildings and homes are consecutively made of such patterns, and nothing else but those patterns.
Alexander notes that in modern times the "timeless quality" is gone -- due to monstrous architectural ambitions, and the lack of personal involvement of the homeowner with the building of his own home. I believe that these traditions, such as feng shui, are in essence a collective pattern language. They are a way of preserving those patterns which make a home good to live in. They are indeed phrased using mystical terms, such as the 4 elements and the like, but what they're saying through these terms essentially sums up to something like Alexander says. So I agree with the insightful anonymous of some comments ago, saying it's "common sense" -- only it's a bit more than common sense -- it's the collective common sense of whole communities gathered for years of collective living in homes and building them.
The question remains if this applies to websites. I believe it is not.
If you think these responses came straight from him your are fooling yourself. They were most likely filtered through spin doctors and approved by a marketing exec before release to Slashdot.
The previous reply to you appears to be from Dean himself, and he denies your charge. Still, marketing dept lingers in the background -- figuratively speaking if not literally. This interview simply doesn't seem to be with a living and breathing person. (If there ever was such a thing.) It is an interview with a professional, poker-faced diplomat, trained as much in marketing as in software development, and as such, it is of no real interest -- it could as well have been a marketing pamphlet. The bits about his browsing at people's blogs may be true enough, but they function in just the same way -- call it a personal pamphlet. Given his high position, this is, of course, to be expected. He could have done nothing else.
Top 10 lists are fun, but in the case of bad games the real fun is reading the reviews they get. I think it's somewhat of a tradition in game journalism that if a game is really bad, the reviewer gets to trash it as creatively as he/she can, unleashing at it all sorts of bizzare adjectives and puns. (I suppose this is to make people read a review about a game they already know they won't buy). Some movie reviews are that way too.
Here are a few highlights from Gamespot.
NeverEnd
Genre: Role-Playing | Posted Oct 13, 2006 - got 3.3, bad
Thankfully, this RPG only feels like it never ends.
The Good: Once you get past the suffering, you'll have a lot of laughs (at the game's expense).
The Bad: Visuals straight out of a late-'90s golf game; unbalanced monster encounters; dated, ineffective turn-based combat engine; ludicrous dialogue and voice acting.
Alliance: Future Combat
Genre: Sci-Fi Real-Time Strategy | Posted Oct 11, 2006, 2.3, terrible
Alliance: Future Combat is less a look at the future and more a history lesson on what not to do when making a real-time strategy game.
The Good: Some value as comic relief.
The Bad: Ridiculous plot with vague mission instructions and loads of grammatical errors; fog of war hides enemies until you stumble right into them; terrible pathfinding makes it virtually impossible to coordinate attacks; exit bug brings down windows on a regular basis.
Outlaw Chopper 2.4, terrible Jul 26, 2006
This god-awful Grand Theft Auto clone looks, sounds, and plays like it cost even less to make than it will cost you to buy it.
The Good: The uninstall client is fully functional.
The Bad: Awkward, poorly conceived combat mechanics that make some missions atrociously frustrating; your bike handles as if its tires have been dunked in crisco; terrible graphics; missions are consistently dull and half-baked in design; lack of a retry option or a halfway-decent map system makes missions even more frustrating.
You beg the question. Perhaps it is "pseudo-intellectual, 100% content-free babble". Perhaps it is not. My point was that in order to judge, you must have some familiarity with the subject. If you know nothing of the subject, who are you to decide WHETHER it is "content-free babble" or not? And moreover, decide whether those who listen to (or "spout") these texts are wasting their time or not?
Circularity coupled with ad hominem can't be regarded a virtue, in my opinion. You can (and should) criticise postmodernism, gravely. But that criticism should stand on firm ground, and should show respect to the interlocutors.
I don't want to stretch this discussion much further, but I agree with all of your points. Nonetheless:
No doubt the article's statements "Post-modernism cannot be defined except by saying what it is not. It is not modern; it is what came after the Enlightenment" is outright ridiculous.
However, my point was not to argue that a definition for justice CAN'T be given (by Nozick or Rawls or others); The mere fact that we ARGUE about it, means we have some understanding of it prior to trying to define it ("explication" is the technical philosophical term, I believe). My point was that in our everyday life, me, you and lots of others use and understand words which WE can't define, even some remote expert may try to provide a definition for them. I know many religious people who use the word "Religion" perfectly well althuogh THEY would be pressed if asked for definition, and may even argue it can't be given IN PRINCIPLE. The idea that if you can't define something you don't understand it, or that if something can't (in principle) be defined it's bogus, seems to me like typical fallacious "slashdotism" which occurs in many +5 insightful comments I read here.
As regards to Hobbes, it's a whole different issue, because of his nominalism: his thesis that because definitions are given by us arbitrarily, and because all truths depend on definitions, truths are arbitrary. This thesis is in fact a precedent to current postmodernist thought.
I believe this is the output of the Postmodernism Generator, which, in a fit of recursive postmodern irony, is virtually indistinguishable from the output of genuine postmodernists.
Indistinguishable to whom? To someone who never learned any of the thinkers in question, who never heard a single lecture on the subject, who never even read a single actual "postmodern" article? Is such a person really in a suitable position to enjoy the "postmodern irony" (whatever that means) that occurs because the text generator produced a text which was grammatically correct but to him indistinguishble from what "genuine postmodernists" produce?
Now I also don't have much sympathy to "postmodern" babbling, but I equally shun that strange form of snobbery some people harbor towards them, that is, the snobbery of ditching an entire field of studies without really being acquainted with it, just because the jargon sounds alien, and because they can't understand straight away an article on a subject they never learned, because that article "looks just like this computer output".
It's not that postmodernism can't be criticised, but this sort of "critique" is fallacious. That said, the parent's parent is funny nonetheless, and thanks for pointing out its origin. I get (and enjoy) the humor. It's the reasoning behind it that seems fishy to me.
If you cannot define something, you do not understand it. But feel free to claim that technologies are "post modern" because it masks the fact that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Although this maybe applies to TFA, I beg to differ on your general point. There are plenty of words and concepts which you understand and use perfectly but are incapable of "defining". Words like "Ethics", "Justice", "Religion" and "Morals" are important in our language and in our everyday behavior, but most would be pressed if asked to "define" them. The early Socratic dialogues of Plato (in which such a definition for such concepts was sought in vain) only illustrate this point. The same goes for almost any philosophical movement, not just postmodernism. It's hard to define what "Hegelianism" or even "Logical Positivism" is. The case of postmodernism is special only because its disciples say upfront that they shun any definition of their occupation. But again, this does not mean they do nothing, say nothing, or mean nothing. It may be the case that they do, but you are in no position to judge, just because they shunned a holy "definition".
On the other hand, I do know one thinker who would agree with your exact wordings of the demand for definition, and that would be Leibniz. His ideal was indeed that every concept would have an exact, almost mathematical definition. When in dispute, we would simply say "let us calculate", and resolve any conflicts by analyzing the definitions of concepts. Which could have simplified a lot of Slashdot. But even Leibniz was more pragmatic than that in real life, you know.
There's a great scene in Lucasarts' Grim Fandango where Manny Calavera, protagonist and reaper, travels to the realm of the living to collect the souls of recently poisoned fast food patrons, and the real world is quite a ridiculous caricature that is completely alien through the eyes of residents of the land of the dead.
Your insight is interesting. What you point to in Grim Fandango and in Katamari is similar to what is called in literary criticism "estrangement" or "de-automatization". Estrangement happens when the literary work takes a familiar object, scene or event from everyday life, and presents it through such a new perspective that it makes you look at it anew. What was familiar to you has suddenly become strange. What you perceived automatically, without thinking, without even noticing, you now perceive as new, unknown, and baffling. The classic example is Tolstoy's story Kholstomer, which consists of a horse's naive look at everyday life, which makes them seem alien, sometimes even absurd. The effects of this device can be social criticism, but are not limited to this.
The concept of enstrangement was invented by the Russian Formalists and was later adopted by other schools of literary critique, sometimes even hailed as the hallmark of literature. It seems unsurprising that you should enjoy games that bring about this effect.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for filling in this info. I think it doesn't invalidate my thoughts by much, is it? I mean, the situations you mention (getting killed without injuring a single limb) seem in themselves a bit absurd. It was this kind of absurdity that was the catalyst of my thinking about the entire topic of representing imaginative worlds with a bunch of statistics. As I said, I get immersed in these representations as much as anyone, but at times I just feel it starts to fall apart.
Hit points are a useful abstraction, for sure. But I'm not sure that mapping them any further (for example, for each limb) would enhance the immersion -- or the realism, for that matter. I don't think the medical condition of the body can be mapped that way. (In that respect, perhaps it would be better to keep hitpoints of the lymphatic system, etc.) But realism isn't the point here. What's more jarring is that you are supposed to sympathize with your avatar, and you (I hope) have a true actual body, that sometimes gets injured. And when you get injured, it's NEVER like keeping tabs on hitpoints. Anyone who had a serious medical conditional can tell that the intense pain is an almost pre-verbal and pre-conscious experience, which loosens your ties with the reality that surrounds you. Why, then, do we think it appropriate to represent this with minute statistical detail? I genuinely wonder. This question goes for traditional RPGs as well (that's the point of the earlier "ad absurdum").
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/designers_noteb
But what's most interesting about Planescape: Torment, and what most deserves our attention as designers, is its setting, its characters and its plot. The phrase "fantasy role-playing game," of course, immediately conjures up images of a group of Tolkienesque characters marching through the forest in search of dragons. Planescape is blessedly free of these stereotypes - I've played for several hours now and there's not an elf or dwarf in sight, nor, for that matter, a forest. The designers of the Planescape universe have at long last abandoned Northern European mythology and devised something perhaps richer, definitely darker, and altogether fresher. If Baldur's Gate is a lager, Planescape is a homemade stout.
The story centers around a nameless, immortal character who is searching for his forgotten past. It uses the hackneyed "amnesia" device to explain why he doesn't seem to know anything about the world he lives in, but I have to say that it's handled at least as well in Planescape: Torment as in any book or game I've seen it in. Our hero is seeking the information that will explain, and then end, his immortality and allow him at last to die permanently. At least that's what I think he's looking for; motives and morals in Planescape are nothing if not ambiguous.
If the technology is ripe, why aren't there virtual reality helmets for everyone?
Mainly: because wearing a helmet makes gaming a SOLITARY experience. Contrast this with Nintendo's recent Wii, which is all the rage because it makes gaming a SOCIAL experience. The social aspect of gaming, which a helmet would destroy -- isn't just playing party games with the Wii; it's even more rudimentary than that. It's being able to call your girlfriend over and have her watch over your shoulder as you play a particularly cool scene, etc.
Moreover, with a helmet you can't look at the keyboard, you can't have a snack or pop a soda, you can't take a quick look at the clock to see what time is it, you can't answer your cell phone quickly, etc. The helmet expects you to cease being a human being while you play.
Perhaps the momentous failure of the VR helmets is a sign that we've misunderstood how the perception of games works, psychologically as well as "phenomenologically". Perhaps it's not about simplistic "immersion" in a virtual (visual & auditory) world; perhaps it's more like the old fashioned kind of immersion you get when you read a book.
With over 1000 comments so far, this probably won't be read let alone modded, but nevertheless:
Why do you talk of "Microsoft hatred"? While the arguments against MS's practices have their place, it is the initial question that should be examined IMHO. I think the term "hate" is the problem. Hatred is a psychological phenomenon. The question "Why A hates B" can be answered in many ways: perhaps B wronged A, and A has never forgiven; or perhaps A has a pathology which makes him hate B for no reason at all. If we ask a psychological question, we get a psychological answer. Maybe there was an objective deed which is the cause of the hatred, but by itself it is never sufficient to explain it. Moreover, "hatred" usually has negative connotations. If I told you "A hates B", you would probably look badly upon A -- more so if I told you that the basis of this hatred is political controversy (like it is in the case of MS). So what is biased here is the question itself.
But if "hatred" is psychological term which (usually) applies between two people, what does it mean to say that a person (or a group of people) hates a software company, i.e. a corporation? You could have said that these people "condemn that corporation's practices", for example. But this way we're not talking about the psychological phenomenon of condemning -- but about the content of this act of condemning -- i.e. the moral and political stance which these people take. It is an altogether different question to ask "why do you take this moral/political stance?", than to ask "why do you hate so-and-so".
Moreover: a political stance, a political world-view, is something taken by people as groups -- as political groups, you might say. If you decide to act upon this stance in a democratic country, then you act along with the group: thus it's political action. (e.g. your representatives could pass laws in accord with those views). But how do you act upon "hatred"? (Go to a shrink?) What I mean to say: by speaking of "hatred" in place of ethical and political views, the question dissolves everything social and political in advance, and we are left with a void of "psychologism". In sum, I say, this is simply an offensive case of ad hominem.
Alexander notes that in modern times the "timeless quality" is gone -- due to monstrous architectural ambitions, and the lack of personal involvement of the homeowner with the building of his own home. I believe that these traditions, such as feng shui, are in essence a collective pattern language. They are a way of preserving those patterns which make a home good to live in. They are indeed phrased using mystical terms, such as the 4 elements and the like, but what they're saying through these terms essentially sums up to something like Alexander says. So I agree with the insightful anonymous of some comments ago, saying it's "common sense" -- only it's a bit more than common sense -- it's the collective common sense of whole communities gathered for years of collective living in homes and building them.
The question remains if this applies to websites. I believe it is not.
Here are a few highlights from Gamespot.
You beg the question. Perhaps it is "pseudo-intellectual, 100% content-free babble". Perhaps it is not. My point was that in order to judge, you must have some familiarity with the subject. If you know nothing of the subject, who are you to decide WHETHER it is "content-free babble" or not? And moreover, decide whether those who listen to (or "spout") these texts are wasting their time or not?
Circularity coupled with ad hominem can't be regarded a virtue, in my opinion. You can (and should) criticise postmodernism, gravely. But that criticism should stand on firm ground, and should show respect to the interlocutors.
I don't want to stretch this discussion much further, but I agree with all of your points. Nonetheless:
No doubt the article's statements "Post-modernism cannot be defined except by saying what it is not. It is not modern; it is what came after the Enlightenment" is outright ridiculous.
However, my point was not to argue that a definition for justice CAN'T be given (by Nozick or Rawls or others); The mere fact that we ARGUE about it, means we have some understanding of it prior to trying to define it ("explication" is the technical philosophical term, I believe). My point was that in our everyday life, me, you and lots of others use and understand words which WE can't define, even some remote expert may try to provide a definition for them. I know many religious people who use the word "Religion" perfectly well althuogh THEY would be pressed if asked for definition, and may even argue it can't be given IN PRINCIPLE. The idea that if you can't define something you don't understand it, or that if something can't (in principle) be defined it's bogus, seems to me like typical fallacious "slashdotism" which occurs in many +5 insightful comments I read here.
As regards to Hobbes, it's a whole different issue, because of his nominalism: his thesis that because definitions are given by us arbitrarily, and because all truths depend on definitions, truths are arbitrary. This thesis is in fact a precedent to current postmodernist thought.
Indistinguishable to whom? To someone who never learned any of the thinkers in question, who never heard a single lecture on the subject, who never even read a single actual "postmodern" article? Is such a person really in a suitable position to enjoy the "postmodern irony" (whatever that means) that occurs because the text generator produced a text which was grammatically correct but to him indistinguishble from what "genuine postmodernists" produce?
Now I also don't have much sympathy to "postmodern" babbling, but I equally shun that strange form of snobbery some people harbor towards them, that is, the snobbery of ditching an entire field of studies without really being acquainted with it, just because the jargon sounds alien, and because they can't understand straight away an article on a subject they never learned, because that article "looks just like this computer output".
It's not that postmodernism can't be criticised, but this sort of "critique" is fallacious. That said, the parent's parent is funny nonetheless, and thanks for pointing out its origin. I get (and enjoy) the humor. It's the reasoning behind it that seems fishy to me.
Although this maybe applies to TFA, I beg to differ on your general point. There are plenty of words and concepts which you understand and use perfectly but are incapable of "defining". Words like "Ethics", "Justice", "Religion" and "Morals" are important in our language and in our everyday behavior, but most would be pressed if asked to "define" them. The early Socratic dialogues of Plato (in which such a definition for such concepts was sought in vain) only illustrate this point. The same goes for almost any philosophical movement, not just postmodernism. It's hard to define what "Hegelianism" or even "Logical Positivism" is. The case of postmodernism is special only because its disciples say upfront that they shun any definition of their occupation. But again, this does not mean they do nothing, say nothing, or mean nothing. It may be the case that they do, but you are in no position to judge, just because they shunned a holy "definition".
On the other hand, I do know one thinker who would agree with your exact wordings of the demand for definition, and that would be Leibniz. His ideal was indeed that every concept would have an exact, almost mathematical definition. When in dispute, we would simply say "let us calculate", and resolve any conflicts by analyzing the definitions of concepts. Which could have simplified a lot of Slashdot. But even Leibniz was more pragmatic than that in real life, you know.
Your insight is interesting. What you point to in Grim Fandango and in Katamari is similar to what is called in literary criticism "estrangement" or "de-automatization". Estrangement happens when the literary work takes a familiar object, scene or event from everyday life, and presents it through such a new perspective that it makes you look at it anew. What was familiar to you has suddenly become strange. What you perceived automatically, without thinking, without even noticing, you now perceive as new, unknown, and baffling. The classic example is Tolstoy's story Kholstomer, which consists of a horse's naive look at everyday life, which makes them seem alien, sometimes even absurd. The effects of this device can be social criticism, but are not limited to this.
The concept of enstrangement was invented by the Russian Formalists and was later adopted by other schools of literary critique, sometimes even hailed as the hallmark of literature. It seems unsurprising that you should enjoy games that bring about this effect.