Jimquisition: It's Not A Video Game!

[Suicidal Zebra]

This feels oddly tautological to me. I wonder if in the formative years of printing critics argued over whether everything printed should be considered 'a book' or whether they were happy with delineations based on format, content and cost.

For what it's worth, I'm happy with 'interactive experiences' being the umbrella term for 'video games' and 'walking simulators'. Both can be critiqued within their sphere of interest, the only downside being (if it is one) that the makers of the walking simulators don't get a whole lot of coverage in mass-market gaming press.

And if gaming publications aren't able or willing to transcend their content production into critiquing all 'interactive experiences' perhaps the problem is that non-games are just *dull*, rather than upholding an unfair definition of 'game'.

 

[Guffe]

What am I doing wrong?
I can't watch the episode, there's only a 5 minute whiskey ad and then nothing happens :O
I mean I like whiskey, but I want Jim at the moment!

 

[Xaryn Mar]

And heres the problem i have with your definition of modern games: all a game needs to be to be considered to be a game... is to be a game.

The very first sentence you explain to us what you think a game is you say "The modern definition of a game is simply an electronic game..."

But wheres the "game" in pieces like gone home? How do you game in something like dear esther?

Would you honestly call a bordgame where no one can loose and the only things you do is move your playpiece forward field by field and then have to draw a correspondant card for each field with story exposition on it a game?

Heck "choose your own adventure" books have considerably more gameplay elements then these pieces of barely interactable fiction yet no one calls them games.

You could actually call your boardgame example for a rudimentary roleplaying game. So yes it is a game, it might require more imagination than monopoly but still a game (just like the choose your own adventure books are a game).

 

[disappointed]

I disagree, for the most part. I don't think "walking simulators" qualify as games, because games already have a definition. According to Google:

game
noun
1.a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.

game

noun
1. a form of competitive activity or sport played according to rules.

2. an activity that one engages in for amusement.
"a computer game"

See also:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/game
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/game

If, as you say, the dictionary definition decides this argument, then any old pastime can be a game.

 

[Thorn14]

Eh, to me Gameplay is king, and if a game is lacking at that, I have trouble calling it a well...game.

I don't call Visual Novels a game for example, and games like Gone Home are only barely games because of puzzle solving.

Dear Esther on the other hand ,I don't recall doing anything but walking, and I was bored so quickly because all I did was hold W and look at things.

I can do the same thing with google streets.

So I GUESS you can call them games but when they're so lacking in the...gameplay...I struggle to do so.

 

[maffgibson]

Just a thought - last time I played a Pokemon game it wasn't possible to get game over. The worst that happened was you black out and have to walk to the person who beat you up to try again. Does this mean the whole Pokemon series doesn't count?

Blacking out like that is a failure state. You lose money and progress is stalled every time you black out.

"Failure state" doesn't mean "Game Over". It means "You are denied something".

But this definition has further problems: if I am playing a walking simulator, and walk into a wall consistently rather than the narrowly-defined corridor, I will not be able to access any of the content later on. I will have failed to walk correctly, and be denied content as a result. The task in question is easy, sure, but you can't really say that something isn't a game because it is too easy: otherwise you might define something as a game on "hard mode", but not a game on "easy mode".

So yeah, subjectivity is the problem here. Even if "fail-states" were agreed upon as a valid measure, what constitutes failure is pretty subjective.

 

[Karadalis]

(So yeah, you do need to draw a line somewhere.)

Why?

Because they are deserving to be its own thing?

The idea behind these pieces of interactive fiction are deserving of its own place seperated for games.

You dont have something like gone home competeting with minecraft for example in terms of "best gameplay"

By labeling it a "game" you can simply dismiss them as pieces of entertainment when they could be their own thing

But this definition has further problems: if I am playing a walking simulator, and walk into a wall consistently rather than the narrowly-defined corridor, I will not be able to access any of the content later on. I will have failed to walk correctly, and be denied content as a result. The task in question is easy, sure, but you can't really say that something isn't a game because it is too easy: otherwise you might define something as a game on "hard mode", but not a game on "easy mode".

So yeah, subjectivity is the problem here. Even if "fail-states" were agreed upon as a valid measure, what constitutes failure is pretty subjective.

Apples and oranges.

In pokemons case you lost due to gameplay mechanics

In a walking simulator you cant progress because youre an idiot (you yourselfe arent, its the "you" in the example you have given just to clarify)

Its not the walking simulator preventing you from progressing by giving you a challange that you can overcome... youre simply walking into a wall.

There is no "easy" in a walking simulator, theres only one way. And if you dont take that way then its not the simulators fault. I mean smashing a book against your head is also not the way you use a book now is it?

 

[Agayek]

If, as you say, the dictionary definition decides this argument, then any old pastime can be a game.

Sure, if you want to use that definition, then it fits the definition of a game. But then, using that same definition, what doesn't qualify as a game? I literally can't think of anything that wouldn't qualify for at least one person out there.

And once a definition gets that broad, it loses a lot of actual meaning.

 

[Pregnant Orc]

Animal Crossing is full of failure states, just not of the game over kind. You can fail in a number of contests in the game and fail to receive the prizes, you can fail to catch fishes or bugs, you can fail to make friends with your villagers, fail to give them good presents for their birthdays, fail to find all bugs, fish etc.
They are repeatable but some have a very long wait time to try again but each failure denies some form of progression.
Animal crossing has both win and fail states but no finite win or fail state or even a main progression path yet it still follows the rules and awards progression for accomplishments and denies it for failures. What it does do is offer you so many that each individual win/loss does not result in a road block until you are in the 80+ percent of everything category gaming.

 

[EyeReaper]

The whole "This is/is not" a game argument has been a long and hard battle I've fought for years. It's really gotten to the point where I dislike telling people about VN's because I'm so sick of being told "Katawa/Hatoful/Fate Stay Night/Clannad/Magical Diary/Ace Attorney isn't a real game! It's just sprites and text!"

The worst part is, most Dating Sims do have failure states. There are game overs and Bad endings. I mean, obviously. I don't even know why they keep being brought up here
Walking simulators, on the otherhand, I can't speak for. I've never played one, and I don't plan on it. I won't debate their credibility as games, but they just don't look entertaining.

Thank God for a tv that look like an apple

 

[jdogtwodolla]

Remember when Wii Fit came out? That was the first game in the "not a game" trend that's been going on still to this day. That was followed by point n clicks of all types, which really shows how bullshit people wanting to use this undefined label can be.

Trying to define it is useless and it does nothing good for games. It barely does anything at all seeing how it's moved from genre to genre, but never anything good.

 

[K12]

It's Not A Video Game!

Addressing a common criticism leveled at certain types of video games, and explaining why they are, contrary to the criticism, still video games.

Watch Video

Good episode. After listening to TB's in defense of definition I kind of found some merit in the "not a game" claims, even if it was often abused. Now I'm a little more muddled on the subject. You covered it a little bit but any specific thoughts on TB's view on the matter, since it seems to be the strongest counter opinion to yours on the matter?

The simplest thing about this (which both TB and JS agree on) is that "it's not a game" is a fairly useless comment when it comes to criticism or making a claim about quality.

However when it comes to advertising I think there may be some point to make. I think arguing too much over the specific word "game" is nitpicking but emphasising that a programme emphasises creativity (like Minecraft's creativity mode)or exploration and story (like "Dear Esther" rather than "gameplay" or "challenge").

Does Dear Esther have an implicit failure state because it is possible to not discover all of the content (genuine question, I haven't played it)

I thing having fuzzy definitions is pretty inevitable but advertising should make clear what the actual "game" is like rather than hiding behind vague terms. I'm totally ok with totalbiscuit using specific definitions that he explains but I don't think this is necessary to get your point across. Also it will never be the case that everyone will accept and use those definitions consistently.

 

[Thorn14]

The whole "This is/is not" a game argument has been a long and hard battle I've fought for years. It's really gotten to the point where I dislike telling people about VN's because I'm so sick of being told "Katawa/Hatoful/Fate Stay Night/Clannad/Magical Diary/Ace Attorney isn't a real game! It's just sprites and text!"

The worst part is, most Dating Sims do have failure states. There are game overs and Bad endings. I mean, obviously. I don't even know why they keep being brought up here
Walking simulators, on the otherhand, I can't speak for. I've never played one, and I don't plan on it. I won't debate their credibility as games, but they just don't look entertaining.

Thank God for a tv that look like an apple

Whats wrong with Visual Novels not actually being games? (Ace Attorney is a game though because of puzzle solving and such)

That doesn't diminish them in anyway.

 

[K12]

It's Not A Video Game!

Addressing a common criticism leveled at certain types of video games, and explaining why they are, contrary to the criticism, still video games.

Watch Video

Good episode. After listening to TB's in defense of definition I kind of found some merit in the "not a game" claims, even if it was often abused. Now I'm a little more muddled on the subject. You covered it a little bit but any specific thoughts on TB's view on the matter, since it seems to be the strongest counter opinion to yours on the matter?

The simplest thing about this (which both TB and JS agree on) is that "it's not a game" is a fairly useless comment when it comes to criticism or making a claim about quality.

However when it comes to advertising I think there may be some point to make. I think arguing too much over the specific word "game" is nitpicking but arguing for good accurate information for the consumer is a very good idea. Developers should be clearly emphasising that their "game" emphasises creativity (like Minecraft's creativity mode)or exploration and story (like "Dear Esther" rather than "gameplay" or "challenge").

Does Dear Esther have an implicit failure state because it is possible to not discover all of the content (genuine question, I haven't played it)

I thing having fuzzy definitions is pretty inevitable but advertising should make clear what the actual "game" is like rather than hiding behind vague terms. I'm totally ok with totalbiscuit using specific definitions that he explains but I don't think this is necessary to get your point across. Also it will never be the case that everyone will accept and use those definitions consistently.

 

[maffgibson]

By the definition in this video, the Steam store, the menus on my phone, and the digital clock on the dashboard of my car are all video games.

I am pretty sure that you are missing the point: Jim is talking about forms of digital entertainment, and whether they can be defined as "video games": "game" in this case referring either to a competitive activity or an activity engaged in for leisure. None of those things that you list are designed as entertainment. To put this in perspective: Google is not a video game, but a particular interactive doodle might be.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Now now Jim.

Time you spent having fun was not time wasted. ;D

It is odd that when someone calls some game "not a game" they normally also mention they don't like it, or are trying to defend it from criticism as a game. Plus, as you pointed out by those limitations a good amount of pretty good games (older and newer) would be kicked out of the medium.

Also, good last jab at Dear Ester at the end there, Jim.
Thank God for you.

 

[baconmaster]

Agreed. I despise Dear Esther, but not because it's "not a game." It sucks because it IS a game that feels like it desperately doesn't want to be one. It has all the disadvantages of a game and none of the advantages. Whereas The Stanley Parable takes similar gameplay but actually engages the player in a totally unique way, making it a good game

 

[Pogilrup]

Remember when Wii Fit came out? That was the first game in the "not a game" trend that's been going on still to this day. That was followed by point n clicks of all types, which really shows how bullshit people wanting to use this undefined label can be.

Trying to define it is useless and it does nothing good for games. It barely does anything at all seeing how it's moved from genre to genre, but never anything good.

Well in the case of Wii Fit, the challenge is more or less beat your highscore.

IMO one of the simplest ways to ensure that a work meets the more traditional definitions of a game is a score of some sort.

And sorry if this makes me sound like an asshole, but how does one measure feels?

 

[Agayek]

But this definition has further problems: if I am playing a walking simulator, and walk into a wall consistently rather than the narrowly-defined corridor, I will not be able to access any of the content later on. I will have failed to walk correctly, and be denied content as a result. The task in question is easy, sure, but you can't really say that something isn't a game because it is too easy: otherwise you might define something as a game on "hard mode", but not a game on "easy mode".

So yeah, subjectivity is the problem here. Even if "fail-states" were agreed upon as a valid measure, what constitutes failure is pretty subjective.

Check out TotalBiscuit's video about defending specific definitions [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm-3GJsr8Xw] for a very good rundown on what I mean by "failure state" and the like. I agree pretty strongly with his take on it.

In short, it's not about difficulty. It's about competition and the possibility of losing that competition that defines a game, which introduces failure states that can arise from interacting with the software.