What's in a game?

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Yup. Machine for Pigs is barely interactive.

 

Controlling a character alone is more interactive than a movie.  Unlike Linger in Shadows where you only control the camera which one day may be possible with movies.

[TheMightyEthan]

 

I think that in order for something to qualify as a game it has to have some kind of aspect of competition, whether that's with other players, the AI, or just yourself.  Generally speaking that involves having some kind of goal and the possibility of either failure or at least penalty of some kind, though I'm willing to concede the possibility that things without those qualities could meet my definition.  If so though, I can't think of anything.

 

I had this conversation with a buddy of mine the other day when I posited that there must be some level of challenge (or competition) and goal to a game for it to actually be qualified as such.  Maybe it's because I grew up in the NES era long before the games as art or the big casual game boom.

 

 

I don't buy into "games have to be challenging to be games" argument.  You can have an easy game still be a game.  There just has to be some aspect of competition, even if it's not difficult competition.

[TCP]

I don't think there needs to even be a challenge, Proteus, Gone Home, Dear Esther, etc are still "video games". Video games is an outdate term, but it gets the general point across. Just like how "rock and roll" doesn't always 'rock'. Hell, it barely even rolls these days, but the term rock, rock and roll, rock music, etc still gets the point across. The term "video game" clearly comes from the days of Pong and titles like that, which were clearly games to be played via video. The medium has evolved and so has the definition.

[TheMightyEthan]

I would tend to agree with you, but I think we need to stop using the word that way.  Like the article FDS linked, using the word "game" is inherently limiting because it caries all these other ideas with it, and we should get away from that.  I mean, it's fine to call things that are clearly games "video games", because that's an accurate description, but not everything that people would call a video game is actually a "game" and we need to acknowledge that.

[Saturnine Tenshi]

I propose the term "Digitally Interactive Procrastination".

[toxicitizen]

Which is basically what I've been saying from the beginning. The term is outdated and the definition has changed to be more than just that exclusively.

 

I still think that something like Dear Esther has more in common with video games than it does with anything else, though.

 

A large part of the issue comes down the fact people forget that at the end of the day it's all software, video games have more in common with Excel than they do with other "artforms".

Lol. What? Why? Because they're both written in code and run on a computer? That doesn't even make sense. The inner workings are kind of irrelevant. One is a tool and the other is for entertainment. That's like saying a book has more in common with a wooden hammer because they both come from trees.

[Saturnine Tenshi]

 

 

That's like saying a book has more in common with a wooden hammer because they both come from trees.

 

Some books do!

[deanb]

Or that Lord of the Rings has much in common with a Haynes manual.

You do know what the S in ESRB stands for right? And why it has the E.

[toxicitizen]

 

That's like saying a book has more in common with a wooden hammer because they both come from trees.

 

Some books do!

 

I mean novels, damnit!

 

You do know what the S in ESRB stands for right? And why it has the E.

Yes. And I still think they have very little in common.

Edited September 13, 2013 by FLD

[Hot Heart]

Movies should be called moviesoundies.

[TheMightyEthan]

Movie is still an accurate description though: they're moving pictures.

[Hot Heart]

But they also have sound! And not just music played live over the top!

[TheMightyEthan]

It's not a complete description, but it's an accurate one.  Whereas calling something a "game" when it doesn't have any elements of being a "game" is inaccurate, not just incomplete.

[Hot Heart]

If it has controls, and it requires some kind of input then videogame is accurate enough for me.

 

EDIT: To clarify, I haven't given the subject much thought (not one of those days today), but just throwing out some other things and being my usual silly self.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Hot Heart

[Alex Heat]

 

 

I think that in order for something to qualify as a game it has to have some kind of aspect of competition, whether that's with other players, the AI, or just yourself.  Generally speaking that involves having some kind of goal and the possibility of either failure or at least penalty of some kind, though I'm willing to concede the possibility that things without those qualities could meet my definition.  If so though, I can't think of anything.

 

I had this conversation with a buddy of mine the other day when I posited that there must be some level of challenge (or competition) and goal to a game for it to actually be qualified as such.  Maybe it's because I grew up in the NES era long before the games as art or the big casual game boom.

 

 

I don't buy into "games have to be challenging to be games" argument.  You can have an easy game still be a game.  There just has to be some aspect of competition, even if it's not difficult competition.

 

 

My notion was that without some kind of resistance (even token at best), there really isn't much point to playing anything.  Even Solitaire has the timer and the possibly of putting yourself in a corner.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

 

 

 

I think that in order for something to qualify as a game it has to have some kind of aspect of competition, whether that's with other players, the AI, or just yourself.  Generally speaking that involves having some kind of goal and the possibility of either failure or at least penalty of some kind, though I'm willing to concede the possibility that things without those qualities could meet my definition.  If so though, I can't think of anything.

 

I had this conversation with a buddy of mine the other day when I posited that there must be some level of challenge (or competition) and goal to a game for it to actually be qualified as such.  Maybe it's because I grew up in the NES era long before the games as art or the big casual game boom.

 

 

I don't buy into "games have to be challenging to be games" argument.  You can have an easy game still be a game.  There just has to be some aspect of competition, even if it's not difficult competition.

 

 

My notion was that without some kind of resistance (even token at best), there really isn't much point to playing anything.  Even Solitaire has the timer and the possibly of putting yourself in a corner.

 

 

What an incredibly narrow-minded and ultimately limiting way to look at this medium. Plenty of games have things you just need to see, hear, and experience. People like you will forever be stuck in the past and will be the reason that games will never be considered on the same level as film or novels.

[Alex Heat]

If finding little to no merit in things like Dear Esther, Gone Home or Proteus makes me an archaic thinker, I'll have to find some way to come to terms with it, but it's gonna be tough going.

 

...Waaaaaaait.

[CorgiShinobi]

First off, I'm not in favor of renaming video games to something else. It's not outdated when the basis of video games has stayed the same over decades with the dozen or so genres that are categorized under the medium. I'm not a fan of Dear Esther, but I'm not going to fight tooth and nail over its "game" classification.

 

Rather than trying to reinvent video games, we add a new genre? How about "Narrative?" Typically games are not categorized by the narrative, but when the sole intent is to tell one, then perhaps this can be. Think about it: A genre to tell a narrative with an interactive attribute, whether that is controlling a character, camera, or the direction. Sounds like a video game still to you? Yeah, because it still is, but it takes a different direction. There are already Visual Novel games, and even something like a Dating Simulator is heavily narative based. Sure there are challenges, but I'm not going to be striving for "AAA Rank," a faster time, or other more challenge oriented attributes.

 

Video games have been around for a long time, but as technology and ideas evolve, why can't we add something new? Rather than going into a raging froth over the interpretation of video games, clashing with different prespectives and expectations of what each user wants out of their video game, we realize that there's not going to be a singular view or preference. Much like gamers/users have different tastes in genres, there's going to be different ideas and direction of where video games have been and where they should go.

 

I stand by that video games can be art. Thing is, I find video games that I interpret to be art are ones that didn't have the sole intent to become art. I think it's a horrendous mistake when your intent is to try and mimic another medium when you have to come to the realization that video games (or another) are their own. There's no "same level," especially when it comes to the differences of movies and novels. Otherwise we wouldn't have adaptations between the two and the discussions of which was better. Actually, include television in that, or you know, add video games too. We have adaptions of video games into movies, or into novels. We have television adaptions of novels and movies, and then there are novel adaptions of movies.

 

Oh, wait, there's also comic books. Well, we have adaptions into... I probably don't need to go on, right? Good, now maybe I can find a good Choose Your Own Adventure book. Not like those went out of style.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Atomsk88

[TheMightyEthan]

 

 

 

I think that in order for something to qualify as a game it has to have some kind of aspect of competition, whether that's with other players, the AI, or just yourself.  Generally speaking that involves having some kind of goal and the possibility of either failure or at least penalty of some kind, though I'm willing to concede the possibility that things without those qualities could meet my definition.  If so though, I can't think of anything.

 

I had this conversation with a buddy of mine the other day when I posited that there must be some level of challenge (or competition) and goal to a game for it to actually be qualified as such.  Maybe it's because I grew up in the NES era long before the games as art or the big casual game boom.

 

 

I don't buy into "games have to be challenging to be games" argument.  You can have an easy game still be a game.  There just has to be some aspect of competition, even if it's not difficult competition.

 

 

My notion was that without some kind of resistance (even token at best), there really isn't much point to playing anything.  Even Solitaire has the timer and the possibly of putting yourself in a corner.

 

 

I would agree that without token resistance it's not a game, but that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile.  Taken to extremes, there's absolutely no resistance to finishing a movie (unless the movie's bad), but that doesn't mean that no movie is worth watching.

[Alex Heat]

For movies, the resistance would all be experienced vicariously through the cast (if you chose to view it that way).  That's a whole different ball game though.

[TheMightyEthan]

The point is the person consuming the media need not experience resistance in finishing the media for the media to be worthwhile.  Just because something is interactive doesn't mean it has to have a competitive aspect to be worthwhile.  It has to have a competitive aspect to be a game, but I can't believe you would seriously say that nothing interactive is worthwhile unless it's a game.

[Alex Heat]

It has to have a competitive aspect to be a game, but I can't believe you would seriously say that nothing interactive is worthwhile unless it's a game.

 

Oh!  Oh no, not at all.  If that's how it came across, it was definitely not my intention.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

 

 

 

 

I think that in order for something to qualify as a game it has to have some kind of aspect of competition, whether that's with other players, the AI, or just yourself.  Generally speaking that involves having some kind of goal and the possibility of either failure or at least penalty of some kind, though I'm willing to concede the possibility that things without those qualities could meet my definition.  If so though, I can't think of anything.

 

I had this conversation with a buddy of mine the other day when I posited that there must be some level of challenge (or competition) and goal to a game for it to actually be qualified as such.  Maybe it's because I grew up in the NES era long before the games as art or the big casual game boom.

 

 

I don't buy into "games have to be challenging to be games" argument.  You can have an easy game still be a game.  There just has to be some aspect of competition, even if it's not difficult competition.

 

 

My notion was that without some kind of resistance (even token at best), there really isn't much point to playing anything.  Even Solitaire has the timer and the possibly of putting yourself in a corner.

 

 

I would agree that without token resistance it's not a game, but that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile.  Taken to extremes, there's absolutely no resistance to finishing a movie (unless the movie's bad), but that doesn't mean that no movie is worth watching.

 

 

Exactly why we need a better term. "Movie" still works but "game" doesn't describe what we're talking about at this point.

[NeoStarr]

Nailed it. Same argument pops up in film theory anytime there's a new format. In the thirties it had to do with whether heavily edited films could really be called film compared to the long-take, realistic shit; the more modern variation is whether digital cinema can be called film since there's no physical footprint. It's a repetitive, mostly bullshit argument that always ends in a similar way; film is more about the interaction between screen and viewer then the mechanisms that establish that.

With video games, it's pretty easy to make the same argument since the interaction is physical rather then mental. Are you holding a controller? Are you using it to interact with consumable media (as in, not your PVR menu)? It's a video game. Night Trap, for instance, is absolutely not a movie so much as it is a video game.

Also; emphasis on the 'video game' part, rather then just use 'game', which should imply competition. And there needs to be a distinction since the medium has evolved to the point where people are realizing they can use it for more artistic than competitive purposes. I think this argument largely stems from the naming of the media. If they'd been called Vidja's or something since the beginning the argument about whether or not they should be challenging or competitive would probably be moot.

 

And now just to start some shit "create discussion", I'll leave this here... http://progressquest.com/

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Nailed it. Same argument pops up in film theory anytime there's a new format. In the thirties it had to do with whether heavily edited films could really be called film compared to the long-take, realistic shit; the more modern variation is whether digital cinema can be called film since there's no physical footprint. It's a repetitive, mostly bullshit argument that always ends in a similar way; film is more about the interaction between screen and viewer then the mechanisms that establish that.

 

With video games, it's pretty easy to make the same argument since the interaction is physical rather then mental. Are you holding a controller? Are you using it to interact with consumable media (as in, not your PVR menu)? It's a video game. Night Trap, for instance, is absolutely not a movie so much as it is a video game.

 

Also; emphasis on the 'video game' part, rather then just use 'game', which should imply competition. And there needs to be a distinction since the medium has evolved to the point where people are realizing they can use it for more artistic than competitive purposes. I think this argument largely stems from the naming of the media. If they'd been called Vidja's or something since the beginning the argument about whether or not they should be challenging or competitive would probably be moot.

 

And now just to start some shit "create discussion", I'll leave this here... http://progressquest.com/

We wouldn't be in this mess if someone just called them "interactive video entertainment" to begin with.