Minimum Requirements to be a "Game"

[reg42]

I think it has to be fun to some extent, and it has to present to with some sort of long-term goal.

So Superman 64 is not a game?
Yeah, I'm nitpicking but still.

I dunno man, I've never played it.

 

[Aeshi]

A demo (yeah that throws most games out the window)

 

[Supraliminal]

-Space
-Invaders
-HighScore Board

 

[zakski]

Fun means different things to different people. I personally don't find JRPGs fun, but I don't contest the notion that they are games. You might be bored to tears by the games I enjoy, but calling them anything other than games would just make you look foolish (or worse, like a fanboy.)

If it is fun for someone, then it counts. thems the breaks. If it fails at creating fun, then it fails at being a game. And please never mention jrpgs again, im allergic.

 

[Meemaimoh]

Something with a) a goal, b) a set of rules, and c) a conflict to overcome. Oh, and that ever-elusive sense of "fun" doesn't hurt.

I think most of the Zynga games lack a). The only exception would be the Poker one. Though its overall structure is meaningless and endless, its meta-games (ie. each individual game, each round, etc) qualifies under these rules, just like the meta-games of multiplayer FPSes, or MMOs.

Not that Poker really counts, since they didn't invent it.

 

[Crispee]

A game is simply something fun you do to pass the time.

Or at least something that is intended to be fun.

 

[Henrik Persson]

Three criterias needs to be met I think.

1. It needs rules.
2. It needs a challenge.
3. It can only be played for fun.

Zynga games pass all three, thus they're games in my eyes. The problem with Zynga in the developer contest isn't that they don't make games, it's that they make games I could do, maybe even better. So why don't I? Well, I don't have the business acumen they have (i.e I have a soul), so what's the point?

 

[Dexiro]

Needs to have interaction and a challenge.

 

[Chamberdog]

Due to the rage found over at the Zynga vs. Infinity Ward thread right now, you've got to wonder about this. Echo Bazaar is little more than bar filling, Farmville is the worst kind of persistence (the useless, lazy, pull-lever kind) and Rhythm games are just Simon-says with a beat.

But they're all "games". People might argue about the particulars, but Echo Bazaar won an Escapist Award, and few people will question the rush of 5-starring a Guitar Hero Track. Fewer people will want to recognize that Zynga's re-skinned abominations count, but they have rules and goals... sorta. So what is the minimum requirement to be a game? Is it just the definition of the word? Is it anything that we can have fun with? If a 5 year old turns a box upside down and pretends its a spaceship, he's playing, but is it a game?

A game can be anything so long as there is (1) interactivity, (2) a goal, and (3) an opponent. In the case of the example you provided, it really depends on whether or not he is attempting to fly to Mars or if he is just flailing his hands around as he floats through space, because that's the difference between playing a game and indulging a fantasy. Assuming he is attempting to fly to Mars, then the interactivity and goal are obvious. The opponent, on the other hand, isn?t so apparent, and though it may never come into play, it certainly exists; In this case, the opponent is the child himself. The only things which would cause him not to complete his goal are things which only the child can conjure up. Since there is a risk ? provided by the opponent ? of not completing the goal, it is a game. That may seem contradictory since the child has complete control over every variable, but even so, omnipotence doesn?t disqualify it as a game.

Garry?s Mod, for example, grants ultimate authority to the player, but would still be considered a game by most. In fact, I?ll go so far as to say Garry?s Mod more akin to a child pretending a box is a spaceship than it is to most video games specifically because the goal is player-made. The Garry?s Mod player generates his or her own goal, deciding what it is they ultimately want to do, just as the child decides to fly to Mars. On the other hand, just as the child flails his hands around as he floats through space, if the player fails to realize a goal and just messes around, then the player isn?t playing a game. Though they are utilizing the game to have fun, they are not actually playing a game ? they?re just playing around with a program. This is because ?having fun? isn?t the player?s goal in the game, but rather a result of the game. Fun is what you hope to achieve by playing the game, not what you hope to achieve within the game.

That doesn?t necessarily mean that a game has to be fun, though. To be fun is to exceed the bare minimum of what it means to be a game. In fact, to bring out any emotion at all is to exceed the bare minimum. Obviously the role of games has traditionally been to have fun. After all, what?s the point in playing if it?s going to make me sad, right? The thing is (and I?m sure you?ve all heard this a million times over), video games don?t have to be any more fun than movies or literature do. From here I could rant on about how video games in general haven?t ascended to the status of art (not yet!), but that?s another discussion entirely?

So yeah... That's my 2 cents lol...

 

[Altorin]

If you're playing it, it's a game. Fun is even optional, because it's a subjective thing, what's fun for me, may not be fun for you. But I think we can agree that if you're doing something and it's having an appreciable effect (like, by not doing something you fail), then it's a game.

so that's it. A game is something you can fail at by not doing anything. If nothing happens, or the character on screen dies if you do nothing to help them, then you are playing a game.

 

[Plurralbles]

If one woudl characterize what you are doing as being called, "playing" then I think it's a game. I dont' consider Farmville to be a game. I consider it about the same level as messing with a screensaver or screwing around in paint.

I would even go as far as say that Myst is not a game. One would not call that as engaging in play, more like needing a mouse pointer to move around in a book.

 

[Mordwyl]

You people are thinking inside the box. Chess is a game. Hide and Seek is also a game. What do all these have in common?

Players (those participating in the game),
Rules (the things the players should follow to play the game),
Objectives (what the players should do to progress in the game),
Goals (the condition to win the game).

Let's take my hide and seek example:
Players: At least two, with a single seeker and any amount of hiders.
Rules: The seeker should not peek and the hiders cannot change spot when the seeker finished counting.
Objectives: The seeker will begin counting on the homebase while the hiders look for a place to hide. When the seeker finishes he will begin to look for the hiding players.
Goal: If the seeker manages to find everyone he wins the game. Otherwise, if any hider which hasn't been caught manages to touch the homebase before the seeker he loses.

As you can see, the PROG can be applied to any form of game in existence. Zynga games don't have an established goal for the player and the objectives tend to fall quite flat, so I exclude them from the "game" label.

 

[GLo Jones]

Farmville is the worst kind of persistence (the useless, lazy, pull-lever kind)

Well the advert here calls it a 'game' and shows how fun it is.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

It must be FUN and most of all, it should at least be playable after the main quest was completed, this or the game can have variations that makes the player want it to play again.