Jimquisition: It's Not A Video Game!

[-Dragmire-]

Forget the video part, I'm trying to think of a traditional game that doesn't have a skill test or failure state of some kind. Hopscotch, skip rope, any sports, any card/board game, none lack those qualities. Mind you, they aren't the only forms of play, you can't lose at playing pretend but at that point I'm not sure you're playing a game as much as performing.

 

[immortalfrieza]

What makes a video game a video game? One word: Challenge, because it's what makes video games unique. Just being interactive is not enough, it needs to require the player to WORK for the content, otherwise it loses what makes it different from any other form of entertainment. Just being interactive alone or on a video screen doesn't make something a game, challenge does. I could write a 100,000 page book that requires the reader to turn the page to read every single next word, or make a movie that requires the viewer to press the play button over and over to advance the frame until they reach the end and both can still be called interactive. With any other entertainment the viewer can take part in all the available content the creators put in with no effort on their part, a reader can turn each page and read the story, with nothing required of them to do so beyond the ability to read, one can watch a TV show or movie just by sitting there and having functioning eyeballs and ears, etc. The reason why a "game" like Dear Ester is NOT a video game is because there's no ability to fail or ability to succeed beyond simply not playing further or reaching the end respectively.

So yes, a "failure state" and subsequently a "win state" is necessary for something to be a video game. However, failure states and win states are not necessarily as simple as getting a "GAME OVER" and "YOU WIN!" respectively. A failure state can be as simple as not succeeding in accomplishing something i.e. not getting as many points as one hoped to. Conversely, a game doesn't have to have a definite end to have a win state i.e. reaching that point threshold the player set for themselves, or a high score.

Most importantly, challenge is what makes people enjoy games. It's the reason why video games as a entertainment medium have lasted as long as it has. Whether anyone even consciously realizes it or not, challenge is the reason people play video games over all the other entertainment they could be doing instead.

"Video Games" like Dear Esther need another label to differentiate them, because calling them video games is very misleading. Visual novel on it's own works well enough for that purpose I suppose.

 

[Kingjackl]

Apparently Jim's being dogpiled on Twitter for saying Gone Home is a game. Supposedly by people under the GamerGate banner, and of course they only appear to take issue with him saying it about Gone Home.

This just further goes to show how insecure the "not a game" argument really is.

 

[Revolutionary]

I entirely disagree. I fall in to the TotalBiscuit camp on this one.

 

[Abnaxis]

To all the people who say "'not a game' is just code for 'a game I don't like,'" please, point me at a single instance in this thread where someone in favor of an exclusive definition of "games" is using it that way. Yes, I know it does happen, but the people who write off the entire discussion like this without listening are really not helping.

snip

I disagree just about 100% with what you say, except for the conclusion the that it's useful and important to define things as "not art" or "not games."

I think the real phenomenon you're describing is, that there is a micro-level definition and a macro-level definition for both "art" and "game"--both are defined in terms of how they affect the audience. On the micro-level, anything can be made into a game. I can count how many traffic lights I go through without stopping while driving to work, and if my score is higher than ten I'll buy myself a candy-bar when I get there. In doing so, I have just gamified my morning commute--for me the drive is now, by virtually any concrete definition, a game.

At the same time, if my colleague calls me while I'm en route, I'm not going to tell him "I'm playing a game." That would be nonsense, he would never understand what I was trying to communicate if I did that, because the general consensus for the word "game" does not include the mandatory daily drive to place of employment. Incidentally, the reverse is also true--with mods, I can automatically summon every NPC from Skyrim in narrative order and watch all the cutscenes take place without any other interaction, and in so doing I will personally be de-gamifying Skyrim. However if I tell someone else "Skyrim is just a movie," they will not understand my meaning.

This is where the macro definition of "game" comes into play--not "what does this work mean to me?" but "what do I imply to the listener when I describe this thing as a game?" Yes, I can entertain myself dicking around with physics objects and running around the yard in Gone Home and I will be gaming. However, it's disingenuous for me to heartily defend describing it as a "game" just because I can come up with a way to make it into one. I can literally make a game out of anything.

Now, for all the "what's the point it's all just semantics?" arguers, this discussion is important, because these definitions guide creators, designers, and audiences in how the work is judged and how the art is improved. For example, if something is a "game," then there is an expectation set for the designers to make it as interactive as possible. In fact, I have seen multiple critics fault a game for using cinematic cutscenes in lieu of environmental storytelling, because they consider a fundamental failure for a game to take the reins away from the player.

This can lead to radically different design decisions and radically different receptions of the same work. For example, let me compare Mass Effect to The Walking Dead. The former is a game, the latter is not. Now, obviously the actual mechanics vary greatly between the two games, but they both follow the general design template of gameplay -> dialog -> gameplay. Now, let's say I want to add a super mega crossbow into the game that shoots flaming bolts into enemies. In ME, this might stretch credibility a bit--space crossbows are a little silly--but if it enhances the mechanics enough as a developer I will shoehorn the crossbows in and utilize the cutscenes to lampshade my new fun, contrived game mechanic. Meanwhile, if I want to add a flaming crossbow to TWD because it's fun to set zombies on fire, as a developer I will quickly abandon the idea because it is contrived and destroys the tone I'm trying to convey through dialogue and cutscenes.

Fundamentally, ME is trying to be fun to interact with, and the story serves a supporting role in crafting compelling mechanics, while TWD is trying to tell a good story, and the mechanics serve a supporting role in crafting a compelling story. Because let's face it: the mechanics in TWD, taken on their own, are not very fun. How many gamers have uttered the words "mechanics are the most important thing about games"? I agree with that statement, and at the same time I think applying this principle to TWD would absolutely destroy the experience.

TWD really is in a different category--different, not lesser--and I think it would behoove us to come up with language that accurately describes things for what they are, instead of writing off all the people who disagree as haters.

 

[motiff]

I regard Portal 1/2 and (the original) Stanley Parable to be key parts of my foray into video games, so as you can see, I haven't been here for very long. Those games are considered pretty special to gaming too, Portal being a largely non-violent first person puzzler and Stanley heavily focused on narrative. I think because of my past experiences, I have not been so picky on what constitutes a video game. Most of the games I like have simpler mechanics and are narrative based, because that's just where my taste and level of skill in video games takes me. I don't think semantics matter too much, and I typically abide by the developer's preference. Most of them love games, and made their game as a video game.

This video was pretty underwhelming compared to Errant Signal's, but still good to hear.

 

[Artolio]

Leveling the accusation against things like Walking Dead is ridiculous since the game has clear express and implied failure states. You can lose, or at least, not win.

Ironically I think Walking Dead would be a better game if they *had* removed the failure states, and the story just kept going. The quick time segments were the worst part of that game.

 

[Abnaxis]

What makes a video game a video game? One word: Challenge, because it's what makes video games unique. Just being interactive is not enough, it needs to require the player to WORK for the content, otherwise it loses what makes it different from any other form of entertainment. Just being interactive alone or on a video screen doesn't make something a game, challenge does. I could write a 100,000 page book that requires the reader to turn the page to read every single next word, or make a movie that requires the viewer to press the play button over and over to advance the frame until they reach the end and both can still be called interactive. With any other entertainment the viewer can take part in all the available content the creators put in with no effort on their part, a reader can turn each page and read the story, with nothing required of them to do so beyond the ability to read, one can watch a TV show or movie just by sitting there and having functioning eyeballs and ears, etc. The reason why a "game" like Dear Ester is NOT a video game is because there's no ability to fail or ability to succeed beyond simply not playing further or reaching the end respectively.

So yes, a "failure state" and subsequently a "win state" is necessary for something to be a video game. However, failure states and win states are not necessarily as simple as getting a "GAME OVER" and "YOU WIN!" respectively. A failure state can be as simple as not succeeding in accomplishing something i.e. not getting as many points as one hoped to. Conversely, a game doesn't have to have a definite end to have a win state i.e. reaching that point threshold the player set for themselves, or a high score.

Most importantly, challenge is what makes people enjoy games. It's the reason why video games as a entertainment medium have lasted as long as it has. Whether anyone even consciously realizes it or not, challenge is the reason people play video games over all the other entertainment they could be doing instead.

"Video Games" like Dear Esther need another label to differentiate them, because calling them video games is very misleading. Visual novel on it's own works well enough for that purpose I suppose.

Real world games that don't involve challenge: dice, roulette, Rock/Paper/Scissors, pretty much any game of pure chance.

Video games that don't involve challenge: electronic versions of the above, video slots, Facebook games.

Maybe those aren't games for you, but historically the real world games have been called "games of chance" for centuries, so you're going to have a hard time justifying it.

 

[Therumancer]

Forget the video part, I'm trying to think of a traditional game that doesn't have a skill test or failure state of some kind. Hopscotch, skip rope, any sports, any card/board game, none lack those qualities. Mind you, they aren't the only forms of play, you can't lose at playing pretend but at that point I'm not sure you're playing a game as much as performing.

Well, that's the gist of the point, and also a big part of why "casuals" are arguably not gamers and so on. The whole thing comes down to the fact that any kind of proper definition becomes exclusionary, and right now society has developed in a way where being exclusionary is one of the worst things you can be. Defining video games in a way that a lot of things claiming to be video games are "kicked out" or shown to be liars, or the term "gamer" so it doesn't include people who want to be considered part of that community is an anathema to a lot of current thought... which isn't a good thing because it creates all kinds of confusion and messes (as pointed out in the Total Biscuit video someone linked).

Think of it this way, Farmville and similar types of browser games have been hugely popular and that is "gaming" to a lot of people who want to be considered "gamers" instead of dismissed as "casuals". That's not really a game though as you don't really do anything with it, as there is no failure state, and no real point to it other than what goals you set for yourself. It's not like if you mismanage your property all the animals will revolt like in "Animal Farm" kill your farmer and force you to restart. Due to things like this and not wanting to be exclusionary the games industry has tried to get into terms like "Hardcore Gamers" and "Core Gamers" and such so as to not alienate what is arguably the largest segment of the market, and perhaps also to try and justify to themselves that they are still making games, even when they transition to that kind of market.

I myself feel that the trick is not so much to just say "your not gamers" but also to bring the new labels with them. For example the old title "Interactive Movie" fits what a lot of non-games, like the works of David Cage are doing, and indeed when these kinds of products first appeared in their infancy that was the title being used for them. Something like "3E" for "Electronic Entertainment Experience" might fit other non-games as a heading for your walking simulators, risk free face book games, and similar things.

Personally I think that to be a game something has to have integral risk and reward in the context of the game, along with the possibility of failure. Meaning you have to be doing something that has meaning within the narrative of the game and ultimately there should be some chance to fail, or at least not achieve optimum results. In games with combat it's pretty easy since dying and needing to eventually win after respawning or you fail to progress works perfectly. In non-combative games puzzles represent the challenge, as a failure to solve the puzzles one way or another leads to being unable to progress and thus you fail by being unable to complete the game. Arguably while "Farmville" would not be a game, nor would things like Dear Esther, your typical Hidden Object game would be because you need to be able to find the objects and use them properly to solve the puzzles or else you simply cannot progress. Difficulty, or things being violent, or whatever else doesn't make something a game or not a game, I mean after all you can have very easy games and still have them be games.

I'd also say that in some cases things like "Gone Home" exist to broadcast a specific message when you figure them out. A term like "Interactive Social Statement" might be accurate to them, after all the end result is a rather clear message whether you agree with it or not, and there really isn't any point to it other than to deliver that message. Compared to something like Dear Esther where the term "Walking Simulator" is accurate because there isn't even really a message, and the developers made that clear to begin with, it's all about what you as the player want to project onto it. ISS would probably be a good definition for a lot of "message" products like Depression Quest and such as well, making it clear that they exist to sell specific ideas, issues, or point of view more than to entertain.

 

[Something Amyss]

Apparently Jim's being dogpiled on Twitter for saying Gone Home is a game. Supposedly by people under the GamerGate banner, and of course they only appear to take issue with him saying it about Gone Home.

This just further goes to show how insecure the "not a game" argument really is.

It is telling that, for a small portion of gamers, they need to insert violent rhetoric and conflict into debates about games with none.

Epic response.

I can't speak to whether it was actually GamerGate advocates[footnote]see folks? It's this easy to not simply assume bad things about the other "side."[/footnote], but some of Jim's responses have been gold.

 

[geizr]

I tend to discern what I consider to be or not to be a game from a perspective similar to game theory. To me, a game is a set of rules, with which one or more players will interact and may allow interaction between the players, that is constructed such to allow the players to make decisions and perform actions, within the bounds of the rule set, such to obtain some set of observable outcomes having some measurement whereby the player(s) determines the degree of optimization in an effort to obtain the most optimal outcome from the player's perspective. I think this definition is very specific regarding what constitutes a game while still allowing vast latitude in how the game could be implemented and presented. There need not be a win-lose condition; only some means by which a player can determine if he is obtaining an optimal outcome and the degree of optimization of that outcome relative to other outcomes. The player will use this measure to determine what he/she considers to be the most optimal outcome, from their own perspective, and to gauge whether a particular series of decisions and actions are leading the player to that outcome. This allows expanding beyond the idea of win-lose conditions. A win-lose condition is only the most simple of such measurements on the optimization of an outcome. It is possible to have an entire gradient of optimization of outcomes. Further, it allows the possibility that the player may not be able to obtain the most absolutely optimal outcome, from their perspective, but can only attain one which is "good enough".

What sets a video game apart from other games, and other media, for that matter, is not just the fact that it is visually based but the fact that the interaction is reciprocating; that is, the game is able to respond to the actions of the player as the player is able to respond to the actions of the game. Other, more traditional games, don't usually have that kind of interaction (though, with some, it can be implemented in a limited sense), but it is endemic to video games and most fully realized in video games. The nature of this interaction, some of its evolutionary development, and the impression left on the player as a result of the interaction are elements that can be controlled and determined, to a degree, by the game design/developer. This is where the artistic aspect of a video game is made manifest. The game has the potential to act on the player and transform the player in some manner, either by design or incidentally.

I think this view gives very broad latitude to what does and does not constitute a game, with video games being a specific kind of visually interactive game, while at the same time being very specific regarding the essential nature that a particular work or construction must evince to be considered a game.

 

[Therumancer]

To all the people who say "'not a game' is just code for 'a game I don't like,'" please, point me at a single instance in this thread where someone in favor of an exclusive definition of "games" is using it that way. Yes, I know it does happen, but the people who write off the entire discussion like this without listening are really not helping.

snip

I disagree just about 100% with what you say, except for the conclusion the that it's useful and important to define things as "not art" or "not games."

I think the real phenomenon you're describing is, that there is a micro-level definition and a macro-level definition for both "art" and "game"--both are defined in terms of how they affect the audience. On the micro-level, anything can be made into a game. I can count how many traffic lights I go through without stopping while driving to work, and if my score is higher than ten I'll buy myself a candy-bar when I get there. In doing so, I have just gamified my morning commute--for me the drive is now, by virtually any concrete definition, a game.

At the same time, if my colleague calls me while I'm en route, I'm not going to tell him "I'm playing a game." That would be nonsense, he would never understand what I was trying to communicate if I did that, because the general consensus for the word "game" does not include the mandatory daily drive to place of employment. Incidentally, the reverse is also true--with mods, I can automatically summon every NPC from Skyrim in narrative order and watch all the cutscenes take place without any other interaction, and in so doing I will personally be de-gamifying Skyrim. However if I tell someone else "Skyrim is just a movie," they will not understand my meaning.

This is where the macro definition of "game" comes into play--not "what does this work mean to me?" but "what do I imply to the listener when I describe this thing as a game?" Yes, I can entertain myself dicking around with physics objects and running around the yard in Gone Home and I will be gaming. However, it's disingenuous for me to heartily defend describing it as a "game" just because I can come up with a way to make it into one. I can literally make a game out of anything.

Now, for all the "what's the point it's all just semantics?" arguers, this discussion is important, because these definitions guide creators, designers, and audiences in how the work is judged and how the art is improved. For example, if something is a "game," then there is an expectation set for the designers to make it as interactive as possible. In fact, I have seen multiple critics fault a game for using cinematic cutscenes in lieu of environmental storytelling, because they consider a fundamental failure for a game to take the reins away from the player.

This can lead to radically different design decisions and radically different receptions of the same work. For example, let me compare Mass Effect to The Walking Dead. The former is a game, the latter is not. Now, obviously the actual mechanics vary greatly between the two games, but they both follow the general design template of gameplay -> dialog -> gameplay. Now, let's say I want to add a super mega crossbow into the game that shoots flaming bolts into enemies. In ME, this might stretch credibility a bit--space crossbows are a little silly--but if it enhances the mechanics enough as a developer I will shoehorn the crossbows in and utilize the cutscenes to lampshade my new fun, contrived game mechanic. Meanwhile, if I want to add a flaming crossbow to TWD because it's fun to set zombies on fire, as a developer I will quickly abandon the idea because it is contrived and destroys the tone I'm trying to convey through dialogue and cutscenes.

Fundamentally, ME is trying to be fun to interact with, and the story serves a supporting role in crafting compelling mechanics, while TWD is trying to tell a good story, and the mechanics serve a supporting role in crafting a compelling story. Because let's face it: the mechanics in TWD, taken on their own, are not very fun. How many gamers have uttered the words "mechanics are the most important thing about games"? I agree with that statement, and at the same time I think applying this principle to TWD would absolutely destroy the experience.

TWD really is in a different category--different, not lesser--and I think it would behoove us to come up with language that accurately describes things for what they are, instead of writing off all the people who disagree as haters.

The thing is your goofing off, not gaming in most of what you say. See, if you want to broaden the definition of game, then anything can be defined as gaming to make the point. I could basically be jerking off and since I'm playing with myself call it gaming, but really that's not accurate. I suppose technically something like counting traffic lights could count as a game of sorts, but only because your setting a goal, and by being distracted or something you could lose count and thus "lose" by failing in the task you set for yourself. What's more we're talking about using the products as intended, not trying to use them as not intended and claiming it can apply to the definition. If I use a game CD as a coaster that doesn't definitively mean it stops being a video game because I've turned it into a coaster. If your going to get that absurd, why even bother to have a discussion?


Understand something can be fun without being a game. Something like "Gone Home" isn't a game, there is no intrinsic risk or challenge, no failure state, and at the end of the day it's not even that interactive when you get down to it. The entire thing is a way of delivering a fairly heavy handed social statement.

There is nothing wrong with entertaining yourself with things that aren't video games, we just shouldn't be calling things like David Cage productions games. Back when they first started making products like that, right around the time CDroms were new, the term was "Interactive Movie" which is pretty accurate. For things that can't be easily defined things like "Electronic Entertainment Experience" works well, as does "Interactive Social Statement" for products that exist specifically to promote a social or political message like "Gone Home". You might have an incredible amounts of fun experiencing these things, but that doesn't make them games, unless you want to get so broad with the definition of games that there is no point to having any defining terms at all. If anything can be a game, anything can be art, etc... those terms might as well might not exist because they fail to designate or differentiate anything anymore.

 

[-Dragmire-]

Spoiler

Forget the video part, I'm trying to think of a traditional game that doesn't have a skill test or failure state of some kind. Hopscotch, skip rope, any sports, any card/board game, none lack those qualities. Mind you, they aren't the only forms of play, you can't lose at playing pretend but at that point I'm not sure you're playing a game as much as performing.

Well, that's the gist of the point, and also a big part of why "casuals" are arguably not gamers and so on. The whole thing comes down to the fact that any kind of proper definition becomes exclusionary, and right now society has developed in a way where being exclusionary is one of the worst things you can be. Defining video games in a way that a lot of things claiming to be video games are "kicked out" or shown to be liars, or the term "gamer" so it doesn't include people who want to be considered part of that community is an anathema to a lot of current thought... which isn't a good thing because it creates all kinds of confusion and messes (as pointed out in the Total Biscuit video someone linked).

Think of it this way, Farmville and similar types of browser games have been hugely popular and that is "gaming" to a lot of people who want to be considered "gamers" instead of dismissed as "casuals". That's not really a game though as you don't really do anything with it, as there is no failure state, and no real point to it other than what goals you set for yourself. It's not like if you mismanage your property all the animals will revolt like in "Animal Farm" kill your farmer and force you to restart. Due to things like this and not wanting to be exclusionary the games industry has tried to get into terms like "Hardcore Gamers" and "Core Gamers" and such so as to not alienate what is arguably the largest segment of the market, and perhaps also to try and justify to themselves that they are still making games, even when they transition to that kind of market.

I myself feel that the trick is not so much to just say "your not gamers" but also to bring the new labels with them. For example the old title "Interactive Movie" fits what a lot of non-games, like the works of David Cage are doing, and indeed when these kinds of products first appeared in their infancy that was the title being used for them. Something like "3E" for "Electronic Entertainment Experience" might fit other non-games as a heading for your walking simulators, risk free face book games, and similar things.

Personally I think that to be a game something has to have integral risk and reward in the context of the game, along with the possibility of failure. Meaning you have to be doing something that has meaning within the narrative of the game and ultimately there should be some chance to fail, or at least not achieve optimum results. In games with combat it's pretty easy since dying and needing to eventually win after respawning or you fail to progress works perfectly. In non-combative games puzzles represent the challenge, as a failure to solve the puzzles one way or another leads to being unable to progress and thus you fail by being unable to complete the game. Arguably while "Farmville" would not be a game, nor would things like Dear Esther, your typical Hidden Object game would be because you need to be able to find the objects and use them properly to solve the puzzles or else you simply cannot progress. Difficulty, or things being violent, or whatever else doesn't make something a game or not a game, I mean after all you can have very easy games and still have them be games.

I'd also say that in some cases things like "Gone Home" exist to broadcast a specific message when you figure them out. A term like "Interactive Social Statement" might be accurate to them, after all the end result is a rather clear message whether you agree with it or not, and there really isn't any point to it other than to deliver that message. Compared to something like Dear Esther where the term "Walking Simulator" is accurate because there isn't even really a message, and the developers made that clear to begin with, it's all about what you as the player want to project onto it. ISS would probably be a good definition for a lot of "message" products like Depression Quest and such as well, making it clear that they exist to sell specific ideas, issues, or point of view more than to entertain.

How do you think Cookie Clicker fits? Seems like a social experiment to me. I think they may have added a failure state though but one that is triggered by the player.

 

[Skatologist]

Apparently Jim's being dogpiled on Twitter for saying Gone Home is a game. Supposedly by people under the GamerGate banner, and of course they only appear to take issue with him saying it about Gone Home.

This just further goes to show how insecure the "not a game" argument really is.

It is telling that, for a small portion of gamers, they need to insert violent rhetoric and conflict into debates about games with none.

Epic response.

I can't speak to whether it was actually GamerGate advocates[footnote]see folks? It's this easy to not simply assume bad things about the other "side."[/footnote], but some of Jim's responses have been gold.

Could it be that they'll somehow use that crutch of "Oh, the developers of the game were really close with games journalists." to legitimatize this poor argument? "How dare you say Gone Home was a game! Did someone have to sleep with you to say that Jim?!" Also, since #IRefuseToBeLimitedBy140CharactersAndThereforDontUseTwitter , can someone link some of these recent comments that are "golden"?

 

[Strazdas]

Look, jim, its quite simple. If there is no way to loose it, its not a game. If there is no player agency, it is not a game. as simple as that. and just because we have gotten to call choose your own adventure books as games now does not in fact make them games.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Real world games that don't involve challenge: dice, roulette, Rock/Paper/Scissors, pretty much any game of pure chance.

Video games that don't involve challenge: electronic versions of the above, video slots, Facebook games.

Maybe those aren't games for you, but historically the real world games have been called "games of chance" for centuries, so you're going to have a hard time justifying it.

Actually, it would be pretty easy to justify. They all have a challenge, and thus a fail state and a win state. All of the games you mentioned require one to use good judgement and some form of strategy, therefore are not completely luck based. The challenge is as Kenny Rogers would say, in "knowing when to hold em, knowing when to fold em". The win state is to win more than you lost and the failure state is to lose more than you won.

What you said was irrelevant to anything I was saying anyway. Those are real world games made electronic, they aren't relevant to video games.

 

[Therumancer]

Spoiler

Forget the video part, I'm trying to think of a traditional game that doesn't have a skill test or failure state of some kind. Hopscotch, skip rope, any sports, any card/board game, none lack those qualities. Mind you, they aren't the only forms of play, you can't lose at playing pretend but at that point I'm not sure you're playing a game as much as performing.

Well, that's the gist of the point, and also a big part of why "casuals" are arguably not gamers and so on. The whole thing comes down to the fact that any kind of proper definition becomes exclusionary, and right now society has developed in a way where being exclusionary is one of the worst things you can be. Defining video games in a way that a lot of things claiming to be video games are "kicked out" or shown to be liars, or the term "gamer" so it doesn't include people who want to be considered part of that community is an anathema to a lot of current thought... which isn't a good thing because it creates all kinds of confusion and messes (as pointed out in the Total Biscuit video someone linked).

Think of it this way, Farmville and similar types of browser games have been hugely popular and that is "gaming" to a lot of people who want to be considered "gamers" instead of dismissed as "casuals". That's not really a game though as you don't really do anything with it, as there is no failure state, and no real point to it other than what goals you set for yourself. It's not like if you mismanage your property all the animals will revolt like in "Animal Farm" kill your farmer and force you to restart. Due to things like this and not wanting to be exclusionary the games industry has tried to get into terms like "Hardcore Gamers" and "Core Gamers" and such so as to not alienate what is arguably the largest segment of the market, and perhaps also to try and justify to themselves that they are still making games, even when they transition to that kind of market.

I myself feel that the trick is not so much to just say "your not gamers" but also to bring the new labels with them. For example the old title "Interactive Movie" fits what a lot of non-games, like the works of David Cage are doing, and indeed when these kinds of products first appeared in their infancy that was the title being used for them. Something like "3E" for "Electronic Entertainment Experience" might fit other non-games as a heading for your walking simulators, risk free face book games, and similar things.

Personally I think that to be a game something has to have integral risk and reward in the context of the game, along with the possibility of failure. Meaning you have to be doing something that has meaning within the narrative of the game and ultimately there should be some chance to fail, or at least not achieve optimum results. In games with combat it's pretty easy since dying and needing to eventually win after respawning or you fail to progress works perfectly. In non-combative games puzzles represent the challenge, as a failure to solve the puzzles one way or another leads to being unable to progress and thus you fail by being unable to complete the game. Arguably while "Farmville" would not be a game, nor would things like Dear Esther, your typical Hidden Object game would be because you need to be able to find the objects and use them properly to solve the puzzles or else you simply cannot progress. Difficulty, or things being violent, or whatever else doesn't make something a game or not a game, I mean after all you can have very easy games and still have them be games.

I'd also say that in some cases things like "Gone Home" exist to broadcast a specific message when you figure them out. A term like "Interactive Social Statement" might be accurate to them, after all the end result is a rather clear message whether you agree with it or not, and there really isn't any point to it other than to deliver that message. Compared to something like Dear Esther where the term "Walking Simulator" is accurate because there isn't even really a message, and the developers made that clear to begin with, it's all about what you as the player want to project onto it. ISS would probably be a good definition for a lot of "message" products like Depression Quest and such as well, making it clear that they exist to sell specific ideas, issues, or point of view more than to entertain.

How do you think Cookie Clicker fits? Seems like a social experiment to me. I think they may have added a failure state though but one that is triggered by the player.

I am not familiar with it, and I just tried to load it up after a search but it says it's not working. From the sound/look of things though I'm guessing it's more of an attempt at humor/game parody than a serious game. Basically if you set around to play around with the definition of game for the lulz or poke fun at trends it's easy to do so. Such aberrations need to sort of be considered their own thing. If you pretty much set out to create some mess that serves no purpose except not to be classified and succeed that might make you clever, but doesn't change anything with the classifications. It's sort of like asking a loaded question like "Could the Ambigiously Gay Duo be considered legitimate super heroes" one could go down a check list of why they are, but the whole thing is a parody setting out to make a huge joke out of aping those tropes, arguably they fit every definition, but the very nature of the work as a parody means your not exactly going to see them showing up as surprise guest stars in Avengers 2 (besides let's be honest, if they had Ace and Gary poor Ultron wouldn't have a chance... they would overload his circuits by making him wonder "are they gay".).

 

[Haru17]

Beyond 2 Souls still a great game. A game with minimal gameplay and a focus on story.

 

[ByzantineEmperorInExile]

This was a great fucking episode.

He brought his A-game to the discussion following up TotalBiscuit's input on the situation, assessed, pondered, and improved on the original proposition almost in an academic way.

Anybody knows if Yahtzee had his say on the topic?

 

[Cidward]

Very interesting episode. I was surprised to see The Walking Dead brought up as a "game that's not a video game," though it's being discussed here by many posters as such, so clearly there's a larger contingent of people who think that than I would've assumed. For me it's as much a video game as the bare-bones and heavily text-based DOS games I played as a kid. Those were among my first exposures to "video games," so I'd never think of them as anything else.