2xDouble said:
Delcast said:
2xDouble said:
Delcast said:
2xDouble said:
hmm, if you want to be technical, strictly speaking, many videogames are no longer "games". The name "video
games" is just a heavily loaded naming tradition that doesn't really define the experience of videogames anymore... Sorry.
...
As I said, many videogames don't fit that definition, even some of the ones you listed are left out ( and by the way, that is a very narrow definition of "game", in fact modern descriptions include much more than that ). In any case, what about single player games? those are not strictly competitive. Even more, what about non competitive activities? what about simply exploration or games such as Proteus, Fez, Journey, Flow, Knytt or Flower, just to name a few of the more modern ones. What about games where you can't lose? What about narrative games? What about simulation games?
Definitions are inaccurate to describe this relatively new medium, today the creativity of the developers shapes the definitions of what can be a game, and not really the other way around. Using a definition to justify the lack of variability in an industry only displays a rather stagnant mentality.
In fact, it is silly to judge a certain digital product as a game because of the degree of obligatory established interactions that we can have with it: Microsoft flight simulator is no more game than pong, and Dear Esther is no less game than any Final Fantasy. The only distinction is what you accomplish within the rule set defined by each respective universe.
You are arguing that the term "game" is identical to "media", or "art work", which are significantly broader terms. Is a book a game because you have to turn the page? or a movie a game because you have to press "play"? No, they are not. They are all art works and media, but they are not games.
Dear Esther simply does not meet the requirements of a game. Every other game you list has at least some element of challenge to it. Even Flower require precise timing and piloting skills and offer the chance to not only explore the world, but to shape it. (Minecraft is the ur-example of that genre, and yet nobody would argue that it is not a game, even in Creative mode. strictly speaking, Minecraft is every game.) But you don't accomplish anything in Dear Esther. You are not a participant in any action, your presence and activity have no bearing on anything surrounding you. That is not, by any definition, a game. That is a movie, or at best, a book.
Maybe you're right. Maybe words having definitions
is too restrictive. In which case: sign cheetah mightily jello stop entirely scissor splashed breaking devour.
You do notice you changed your own definition of game already? and not only that you completely assumed that my definition was "media" which is absolutely and veritably false, since I never said such thing.
I only said that those restrictive definitions ( which you already modified yourself ) only serve to limit and stagnate what games can potentially do as an expressive medium. If we hadn't challenged them we would still be using structures that would limit us even further: "must have points", "must have levels", "must shoot", "must have bosses", "must be open ended", "must be fun", "must be non linear", "must be challenging"... etc etc.
In many ways the only thing Videogames MUST do is set a cohesive set of rules, and provide tools for the completion of a certain goal, that goal can be as specific as, "grind your way through level 99 by taking quests and killing monsters", "attack the enemy base", "throw the bird to crumble the pigs' structure" , or as nebulous as "get to the aerial tower", or "experience the seasons".
Of course you also managed to push your misinterpretation of my argument ad absurdum, and I hate playing the strawman card... but that's a strawman.
You also apparently have not played some of the games I have mentioned, as a few of them are indeed just exploration games, the only challenge or goal here is simply getting to new places, and reaching the ending.
So that you know about Dear Esther particularly, there are a few things under the hood happening that are not displayed to the player, the sequence and your exploration of the game can trigger particular audio sequences, and in different parts of the game you can have various different visions depending on your exploration. Not that this changes the experience completely, but I suppose it adds more traditional gamey components to the game.
Finally, I wonder what sort of authority you have to declare that Dear Esther (or Proteus, or Knytt) dont meet the requirements to be a game. Maybe you find no interest, challenge or engagement in either of them, but that doesn't mean they are void of that, they are just much "easier" mechanically than other games. Intelectually I found that piecing together the narration and the clues in the island of Esther was Way more stimulating, interactive and entertaining than shooting the Nth wave of enemies in Uncharted 3, and that is all a matter of appreciation. If someone has tons of fun exploring every nook and cranny of Dear Esther's island, who are you to tell them HEY that is not a game! In the same way as I can't say that playing the walking dead is not a game because it is in fact a chose your own adventure story book in computer form.
In fact judging games like that doesn't speak of the games in question, but of your narrow mindedness, where games should be X.
In any case, this has gotten extremely off topic, but when asked what game soundtracks are as important as the game itself and enhance the experience, Dear Esther is a very valid answer.