They're games. You can very much make the argument that they are life simulators, visual spectacles, or virtual novels, but they are videogames nonetheless first, defining traits and genre second.
Jimquisition: It's Not A Video Game!
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There's a funny view permeating gaming at the moment that any and all visual media with user interaction is a game. I honestly can't understand why, or even why it's desirable to be seen as making a game when all you're doing is telling a story. I think this broad oversimplification does more to hurt these stories that to help them. Instead, I propose we use the widely accepted definition from the study of game theory itself: a system in which you make strategic decisions. This is muddy, but helps narrow the pool a bit. Using this, is Gone Home a game? No, because whilst there is some amount of decision making, there is no strategy involved. You can add some, such as speed running, but then the speed run is the game, merely facilitated by the potential to interact. Think of it like a book: you can make a book into a game by drawing on its pages, or using it as a code, but the book itself is not inherently a game despite having a plot and the need for interaction with the paper to continue. There is no shame in this; it is what it is. Dear Esther and The Stanley Parable are a little fuzzier; is it strategic to not walk into something and die? Arguably, but it's certainly very shallow. They might technically count, but in the same way that a short gif might be called a film: not wrong, but not what springs to mind using the term. You could just as easily argue that, as the failure states in these games are effectively meaningless, avoiding them is not necessarily strategically valuable in the same way that dying to an enemy in Kirby is; the latter delays progression, whereas the former actually adds to the plot. It's muddy, but still better than simply broad stroking all interactivity with the term "game". It's also more intuitive for most people, as it clearly separates a game from a DVD menu: not pressing play is not strategic, it's just a choice to watch or not. The capacity to pause is not strategic, as it is not a failure in and of itself. Again, these COULD be games: if you wanted to watch the film and someone was hiding the remote, it would be a game to resume, but that is then facilitation rather than the menu inherently being designated as a game.
This doesn't require failure states, nor does it include many silly things which fall into jim's definition like pause/play buttons. It's also simple, intuitive and not demeaning if something is or isn't a game. I don't see why we'd even want to include things like gone home in the category of games: regardless of how you feel about it, it's very similar in style to a book in that you go through a plot, which is largely done in a sequence. It's an interesting way of telling a story, but has nothing which people would call gameplay or failure. I would like to see it defined as its own format and allowed to grow separately, as we now have several similar concepts which people enjoy, yet feel aren't games. It just seems like it's logical to borrow from maths when this groundwork and discussion had already been done.
Something to consider anyway.
This doesn't require failure states, nor does it include many silly things which fall into jim's definition like pause/play buttons. It's also simple, intuitive and not demeaning if something is or isn't a game. I don't see why we'd even want to include things like gone home in the category of games: regardless of how you feel about it, it's very similar in style to a book in that you go through a plot, which is largely done in a sequence. It's an interesting way of telling a story, but has nothing which people would call gameplay or failure. I would like to see it defined as its own format and allowed to grow separately, as we now have several similar concepts which people enjoy, yet feel aren't games. It just seems like it's logical to borrow from maths when this groundwork and discussion had already been done.
Something to consider anyway.
Zachary Amaranth said:
Funny... the only people who are raging and are "pissed off" and insult everyone on one side of the argument in this thread happen to be the "yeah it is a game... you idiot" type of persons. (thought the majority seems fine to simply discuss the matter without falling back on good ol SJW tactics)
I havent really seen anyone who says "its not a game" in this thread fall into that category of behavior.
I see you've watch Errant Signal recently, eh Jim? Anyhow, as a huge fan of "walking simulators", my beliefs are pretty set in stone. The visual novel style of gaming has been popular for a very long time now, and if you tried to make the separation between visual novel and game in some circles you would be laughed at (Japan for example). Yes, Dear Esther is more minimalistic, but visual novels are mentioned because they clearly have no real fail state (often), minimal interaction, no competition. Hell, only a few even have the concepts of boosting stats, and you do that by clicking one button. So you have a choice of either separating them from video games, which seems silly considering their pedigree, or moving away from a weird mechanical definition of videogame.
To me it's a little too far for the video game definition to push away hint systems. I think we have to clarify when a hint system is too invasive. I can tell what you might mean by a hypothetical tell's the whole game hint system. However, even the most talkative and hintiest of games like Zelda: Skyward Sword are still games. They may give you some answers or make them really easy to figure out, but you still have to... figure them out. And Skyward Sword, for instance, doesn't give you all of the answers. I still had to learn my way around temples and solve puzzle's without you know who's help. Despite how brain-dead it might feel to us, it's enough interactive/problem solving stimulus for some. Did I enjoy the game? Not really, but it still has enough qualities to be a game. We just have to be very careful about which instances clearly define this "non-game" vs. "game".Karadalis said:
Yeah this is very good philosophical and literary debate. We'll just have to mull through it. And consider all the possible points.gargantual said:
See, this is how I feel about this. I mean hell, your Xbox/PS's "dashboard" main menu or my DVD player's menu or the start menu on ANY DVD is a video game under Jim and some other people's definition. Because I mean hey... it's played on an electronic medium. It's just not enough information to conclude something a video game reasonably.Therumancer said:
I actually don't believe video games are inherently art either. It seems to me that there can be art "inside" of the game, but the game itself isn't art. See art doesn't serve an actual function. Art isn't built for the purpose of working for others. Art by some people's definition, mine included, cannot be hindered in it's creator's image if we attain to call it art.
Video games are too consumer and money-driven, just like movies. They are too influenced. They have too many different opinion's on the development level that are involved in shaping that game. There isn't an actual PURE artistic vision. See, the intent behind the art is just as important, if not more, as the supposed "art" itself if we wish to define it. There are muddled visions of multiple writers, designers and programmers in video games. The "function" of art as we know it is by all intents and purposes not to be inhibited by others. But in video games it clearly is. Game's won't be made, not if there isn't enough money to make it (which can be attributed to art), but if their isn't enough profit to made from making it (which most artist's themselves will admit is troubling, since the value of your art isn't intrinsic anymore but extrinsic/monetarily valued, ie. your vision isn't as important as your money).
My brother makes masks out of various materials. He makes them for no real-world functional purpose. You can't even wear all of them. The intent behind them is to convey feelings that he has about certain places and aspects of people's lives. No one hinders this vision. It is wholly his own. It isn't there to be claimed as art, or to be looked at, or to be sold. These things are what makes it art.
Seeing as the whole episode is talking how "video games" are defined, defining words is a pretty basic step of the process. Sure, it is a loose definition, but also one found in the dictionary:Nion said:
If you want to introduce a definition of your own and argue its merits, go ahead: maybe an interesting discussion will come of it. But Jim is clearly talking about things that are designed as entertainment. Your original post deliberately ignores this, and therefore misses the point.disappointed said:
You are incorrect. "Knowing when to hold them and when to hold them" refers to poker, a game where competing players are each given a set of random cards, and each player will wager based on the strength of their cards, other's players' betting behavior, and other players' physical dispositions. There is a great amount of skill and strategy involved. This is why national poker championships exist.immortalfrieza said:
There is no skill involved in any game I listed. In each instance, a player pays money and random numbers are generated--if the numbers turn up favorably, the play wins more money, otherwise they lose. There is no strategy involved in (say) roulette, and in fact it is a mathematical fact that if a player's goal is to make as much money as possible, the winning strategy is not to play. This is why national roulette championships do not exist.
Also, how are real world games made electronic not video games? Would you say a paintball simulator or a racing simulator is not a "video game" because those activities exist in real life?
What makes you think that the attempt of gamers to distinguish between traditional games and these narrative and non-competitive/skill/intellect based titles isn't itself linguistic drift? If there's no competition, no chance of failure, and maybe even no "fun" (bear in mind that fun is also a highly subjective term and some games aren't necessarily fun so much as a necessary experience to have), then it could easily fail to meet the criteria of being a game for some people so much as something else that we haven't yet created a name for.LoneWolf83 said:
While I've enjoyed these titles and as such consider them to be games, I can at least understand the need to differentiate titles that drastically pull and twist the medium. Otherwise all painted art would just be painted art and we wouldn't have still life art, cubism, and any other form of modern art. The need to categorize for distinguishing things is a pretty human endeavor. To call it "dumb" when people start trying to redefine things is expressing arrogance at best, maliced superiority at worst. Oh, no, people disagree with you on how to categorize things, better call them dumb for doing so...
Look, we're lucky enough to be alive during the evolution of this form of media. There are two ways to be on the wrong side of history when you look back at it ten years from now. Saying that it's not a game therefore it doesn't deserve to exist is the "dumb" part. People said that about various types of movies, types of literature (like forms of poetry) and forms of art that are standard today. That ends up being just a difference in taste. Jim didn't like Dear Esther, I did. But Jim isn't saying it should exist, so it's a valid criticism that can move forward.
But the second way to be on the wrong side of history is to not acknowledge that a use of the media is different enough to warrant special classification. Demanding that it be viewed like all games before it have been viewed is yours to demand. Dear Esther is something else. I don't know what to call it, it won't be something offensive when we get the term. Or maybe it will be offensive to the people who hate it like "modern art" is to so many people. I don't know. But to merely stop at calling games like Dear Esther a "Video Game" is too broad a description. Maybe we won't even get one term for all these types of non-failure state games. Maybe they'll fracture into diverse subcategories according to types. I don't know and frankly we're not in charge of it.
If you would read my post closely, you will note that I am arguing against broadening the definition of "game" in common language. Also, the examples I brought up aren't just "fun." They are a set of arbitrary rules that serve no purpose other than being "fun." Jacking off by itself, while it may be enjoyable, isn't a game. However, as soon as you invent rules for it that don't directly facilitate jacking off, it becomes one. For example, in one fraternity at the college I went to, the initiation rites allegedly involved a group of inductees standing around a piece of food and jacking off onto it. Whichever participant was the last to ejaculate had to eat the food. If the rumor was true, then they turned jacking off into a PVP game. THAT'S what I mean when I say everything can be made into a game.Therumancer said:
The problem is, the above definition of game, while true, doesn't do any good when it comes to actual discussion of the medium. While anything (and I do mean ANYTHING) can be made into a game if the participants want it to be one, we need to separate that individual definition from what we're actually talking about, which is a common understanding of what is meant when the word "game" is used to identify an object. I can make a game out of kicking a can as far as possible, but if you ask me to give you a game for Christmas and I give you a twelve pack of Mountain Dew, you're going to be rightfully pissed, because the cans aren't games without user input. This might seem pedantic, but arguments based on "you can shoehorn [Gone Home/Dear Ester/etc.] to fit your definition of game" abound in this thread.
Fundamentally, a game is a set of rules that exists for no practical purpose. When I say "If I manage to get to work in fewer than 4 red lights, then I get a candy bar," I am in no way affecting the nature of my commute (assuming I was already trying to get to work with as few red lights as possible). All I have done is play a psychological trick on myself, laying out a specific set of rules in order to make the drive more pleasurable. Rules that only exist to produce pleasure makes it a game.
Again let me reiterate, The Walking Dead (and probably Gone Home, but I haven't played the latter) isn't a game by this definition in my mind, because the "rules" (which in gaming are usually termed "mechanics") serve a purpose other than to be directly pleasurable on their own merit. To me, this is evident in the fact that if you created an experience that was "walk around a featureless plain" or "press A really fast" or "click the dot," stripped of all story contextualization, it would not be fun. The mechanics themselves aren't fun, but they enhance the story being told, and effective delivery of a story is the primary purpose of TWD and GH as collective works.
TWD can certainly be made into a game, but without user intervention it is not one. That means that they are fundamentally different than games, and as such when we look at them we should judge them based on different merits--namely, how well they succeed in conveying the ideas and themes of their respective tales. Incidentally, I think this is why TWD is so well received in many cases despite its clunky mechanics. If you are playing TWD for tight zombie shooting mechanics, you are missing the point because TWD isn't intended to be a game.
I was speaking metaphorically with the hold em line. All games of chance require some level of strategy on the part of the player, the most important and sometimes only being knowing when to press one's advantage and when you've lost enough and thus giving up.Abnaxis said:
No, they are not video games, because you can get the exact same experience without having to pick up a controller or keyboard. To put it simply, if one finds themselves questioning whether something is a game or not, ask yourself this: Can you get the same experience in any other entertainment medium besides video games? If the answer is yes, then it's not a video game. If the answer is no, then it is.
Why do people keep bringing up board games and games of chance and so on anyway? They have nothing to do with video games at all.
I very much agree Mr. Jimothy (although I prefer Dear Esther to Gone home, as the latter became too sappy, predictable and blunt for my liking).
I must say though, that I am a bit conflicted when it comes to that mobile -game- "Mountain" I don't see it as a positive or a negative, but to me it seems to stand in the very edge. It's technically less interactive than a snow globe, and it doesn't need any user input to progress beyond turning it on.
In this sense I relate it more closely to a screen saver (and I don't mean anything bad by that, screen savers can be rad). And I can't deny that in that particular... I tend to empathize with the observation that it is not a game. And it's not that I don't like it either, but I don't really understand it.
Anyhow.. Indeed thank dog for you.
I must say though, that I am a bit conflicted when it comes to that mobile -game- "Mountain" I don't see it as a positive or a negative, but to me it seems to stand in the very edge. It's technically less interactive than a snow globe, and it doesn't need any user input to progress beyond turning it on.
In this sense I relate it more closely to a screen saver (and I don't mean anything bad by that, screen savers can be rad). And I can't deny that in that particular... I tend to empathize with the observation that it is not a game. And it's not that I don't like it either, but I don't really understand it.
Anyhow.. Indeed thank dog for you.
I think I disagree with you Jim. I actually liked some of the titles you discussed (i.e. Gone Home, The Stanley Parable, ect) but I would not consider them to be much more than some basic interactive entertainment. However, this basic interactive entertainment could fall under the umbrella of the Game Industry, but should be held to their own standards. I am not going to go into the definitions, as many above me have, but I do feel that this is a new genera in side of the Game Industry that will have to reviewed against peer works and judged for their own merits. This is an interesting new genera of entertainment that I think could have some pretty serious applications for dealing with emotional events in a persons lives. But, it is too different from the other genera of games to be comparable in an apples to apples basis.
This discussion shows just how much we need to expand the vocabulary of gaming. All other media recognizes a parent class for example: text books, novels, self help, and how to are all books with no discussion of one being less then the other. We need to recognize that video games as a term is very board and refers to any interactive video medium, we can then find whatever classifications for individual video games we want from there.
Please tell me what the winning strategy is for roulette.immortalfrieza said:
In my mind, any definition which excludes numerous works that an overwhelming majority of people define as a "game" (or conversely, any which includes numerous works that an overwhelming majority of people define as "not a game") is a faulty definition. This is because the whole issue is one of etymology, and etymology is decided by the masses.
By your definition, you exclude hundreds of racing games, simulators, and hell, even the copy of solitaire that is automatically installed in the "Games" folder of every version of Windows. Saying "video games have to enable an experience that is impossible to other media" runs too far counter to the overall consensus of the definition of "game" to be useful. You're free to define it however you want and I respect that, but when you start talking to other people, including that in your definition will lead to miscommunication
And games of chance are brought up to counter definitions that say there much be an element of challenge or competition involved for something to be considered a "game." There is no challenge in roulette, people play for the tension and release of watching the wheel spin and hoping their number comes up, which causes an addictive release of endorphins when it happens. This is in no way, shape, or form a test of skill, and in fact a truly "skilled" person knows perfectly good and well that they are more likely throwing their money away than not. Making money isn't the point
Yeah but we where talking click and point game where the whole gameplay is figuring out all the puzzles yourselfe. In zelda despite having navi remind you where you need to go you still have to figure out how to get there, you still have to beat the enemies, and you still have to solve the puzzles yourselfe.Demonchaser27 said:
So with click and point games it does really depend on how inasive the hint system is. Is it a reminder where to go next or does it actually solve the game for you on its own?
The first is just that... a remainder where you left off... and the second one makes the whole game obsolete.
Thats why games where there is no skill involved are called gambling games and you have to follow a huge box of laws should money be involved.Abnaxis said:
You cant just open up a casino anywhere you want for example. So yeah these games while still being games (luck based games) are their own category. After all the very first games humans invented where luck based, i think dice here if i remember correctly.
And you are indeed correct about RL games being translated into digital format are video games. However driving a car is not a game in RL and a simulator also isnt necesary a game... since it tries to emulate the real world version as close as possible. Just depends on how close the simulation is.
I wouldnt necesary call the simulators they use to teach you how to drive tanks in the army games for example.