What's in a Game?
How we define videogames has changed much since their creation.
Read Full Article
How we define videogames has changed much since their creation.
Read Full Article
What's in a Game?
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
He done got all hairy!
Not sure about your definition. If "play" can include "probing new systems and discovering how they behave in response to your input" then one can "play" with, say, Photoshop. I'm sure we've all heard people use the term when experimenting with a new application.
Not sure about your definition. If "play" can include "probing new systems and discovering how they behave in response to your input" then one can "play" with, say, Photoshop. I'm sure we've all heard people use the term when experimenting with a new application.
Personally I'm gonna go with an interactive virtual medium. The output to you is the same as a movie but you can modify what happens. So I guess for me a game where all you do is walk around and interact with absolutely nothing, it's case is a bit water-thin. I hate the have to be able to win/lose definition. If I wanted an experience that ended I would buy a movie not a game.
Isn't the core of this debate the fact that the term "game" doesn't have a single, simple definition, as Wittgenstein [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game#Ludwig_Wittgenstein] noted? If "games" in general don't always have rules or win/lose conditions, why should videogames require them?
Yeah, I came here pretty much to post this. All you've done is taken the broad term "video game", for which everyone has their own definition, and replace it with the broad term "play", for which everyone has their own definition. Total progress: zero.Zhukov said:
When you make a term overly broad it loses meaning. As such I do not believe that everything called a game is a game.
I tend to consider things like Sim City and some piloting games "Simulations" rather than games because in general they exsit to represent something and well... simulate it, rather than actually setting out to provide gamplay or any kind of objective. They typically aren't entirely out to entertain, though they usually do. Not everyone creates this kind of a distinction but I think it's what best applies to the situation, and has even been used that way officially, though it always comes down to the masses not wanting to accept a more complicated vernacular.
By definition when you want to define video games as anything that can be played, you pretty much wind up including almost every bit of software in existance, so there is no real reason to even have the term "video game".
To my way of thinking the kind of software that we're seeing now that raises these questions will eventually get a label if it ever becomes popular enough to matter. To be entirely fair outside of a relatively select group of people things like "Dear Esther" are pretty much unknown, unlike the way video games in general have seeped into the mainstream consciousness. I'm tempted to just call it all "Computer Art", while other things might have artistic intent along with other purposes, such productions have nothing else to them except for the art, a lot of them are even stated as having no intent to entertain, so much as to represent a mental exercise or convey a message. "Dear Esther" is more or less defined as basically being a giant waste of space, it exists because it can, which is kind of the point. The creators more or less acknowleged that there is no actual answers or storyline, it's just wierdness and narrative for the intent of having it, and for people to broadcast onto, it means nothing. I guess you could pretty much call it a piece of "Troll Art" in the long term given the eventual reveals I was reading.
I tend to consider things like Sim City and some piloting games "Simulations" rather than games because in general they exsit to represent something and well... simulate it, rather than actually setting out to provide gamplay or any kind of objective. They typically aren't entirely out to entertain, though they usually do. Not everyone creates this kind of a distinction but I think it's what best applies to the situation, and has even been used that way officially, though it always comes down to the masses not wanting to accept a more complicated vernacular.
By definition when you want to define video games as anything that can be played, you pretty much wind up including almost every bit of software in existance, so there is no real reason to even have the term "video game".
To my way of thinking the kind of software that we're seeing now that raises these questions will eventually get a label if it ever becomes popular enough to matter. To be entirely fair outside of a relatively select group of people things like "Dear Esther" are pretty much unknown, unlike the way video games in general have seeped into the mainstream consciousness. I'm tempted to just call it all "Computer Art", while other things might have artistic intent along with other purposes, such productions have nothing else to them except for the art, a lot of them are even stated as having no intent to entertain, so much as to represent a mental exercise or convey a message. "Dear Esther" is more or less defined as basically being a giant waste of space, it exists because it can, which is kind of the point. The creators more or less acknowleged that there is no actual answers or storyline, it's just wierdness and narrative for the intent of having it, and for people to broadcast onto, it means nothing. I guess you could pretty much call it a piece of "Troll Art" in the long term given the eventual reveals I was reading.
Honestly, this is a debate as old as time it's self with nothing new on this table to offer up a worthwhile purpose to regurgitate the whole "when is a game not a game?" debate. I'll just mention that Ludwig Wittgenstein did work on Language-Game theory and that should be enough regurgitation about this subject that's needed for now.Falseprophet said:
I'd go further than other people are going. A game is a set of rules and stimuli that demand interaction of some form or another. Usually that involves some degree (or lack of) action and reaction, but not always.
If you have a screen saying "use the arrow keys to move" and a dude on the screen who will do nothing until you press a button, then it is demanding you to interact with it. If you have a blank photoshop window, you can play around in it and certainly have fun from drawing in it and messing with the myriad of tools, but it isn't a game because the software is not reacting to the stimulus you're providing it, you are the only one reacting to said stimulus. A movie asks us to react to the stimulus, but it will not react to our reactions.
Now a better question is how do we define the difference between a Game and the Theatre? That I don't know, because there most definitely is an interaction between audience and actor. Perhaps it's something as simple as the degree of interaction. Perhaps the stimuli demand interaction, but the rules do not.
If you have a screen saying "use the arrow keys to move" and a dude on the screen who will do nothing until you press a button, then it is demanding you to interact with it. If you have a blank photoshop window, you can play around in it and certainly have fun from drawing in it and messing with the myriad of tools, but it isn't a game because the software is not reacting to the stimulus you're providing it, you are the only one reacting to said stimulus. A movie asks us to react to the stimulus, but it will not react to our reactions.
Now a better question is how do we define the difference between a Game and the Theatre? That I don't know, because there most definitely is an interaction between audience and actor. Perhaps it's something as simple as the degree of interaction. Perhaps the stimuli demand interaction, but the rules do not.
I'm going to go with the 'Why does it matter'? school of thought. I'm reminded somewhat of the discussion over whether or not there was such a thing as an 'art game'. Ultimately I think it's a game if you think it is. I don't think it's possible to come up with a definition that is both concise enough to be understandable while still including Minecraft, Dear Esther, and Minesweeper and precise enough to separate such distinctions as Minecraft and a Lego Design Tool.
I'd define "game" as an activity used for entertainment which has a clearly defined goal(short-term or long-term). This doesn't necessarily mean a "win" or "loss" condition, but merely something the player is supposed to accomplish. Sports are all games because they are primarily meant to be enjoyable, and have clearly defined goals(which happen to include win/loss conditions). A dart isn't a game, but it can be used for games. Throwing darts alone is a game, even without a clearly defined win/loss scenario, because there is a clearly defined goal(hit your target) which the player can take effort to accomplish.
I'd say "software toy" is a good catch-all for any program used for entertainment. All videogames are software toys, but not all software toys are videogames. MSPaint isn't a videogame, but CAN be used as a software toy, and can even be used to INVENT games to play(see who can draw the best picture!). This doesn't make it at videogame.
Curiously, this definition means Minecraft survival mode is a game because it has emergent goals(survive, improve gear, defeat bosses, etc) but creative mode is a software toy, since the player has no goals or emergent goals. The player can make goals(build a scale model of the earth), and turn them into a game(do it as fast as possible), but then they're just utilizing a toy to facilitate a game they want to play, not turning the toy into as videogame.
I suppose this means Loneliness is a videogame by definition, because it does have a stated goal(wait for the end) and an emergent goal(play with the dots).
I'd say "software toy" is a good catch-all for any program used for entertainment. All videogames are software toys, but not all software toys are videogames. MSPaint isn't a videogame, but CAN be used as a software toy, and can even be used to INVENT games to play(see who can draw the best picture!). This doesn't make it at videogame.
Curiously, this definition means Minecraft survival mode is a game because it has emergent goals(survive, improve gear, defeat bosses, etc) but creative mode is a software toy, since the player has no goals or emergent goals. The player can make goals(build a scale model of the earth), and turn them into a game(do it as fast as possible), but then they're just utilizing a toy to facilitate a game they want to play, not turning the toy into as videogame.
I suppose this means Loneliness is a videogame by definition, because it does have a stated goal(wait for the end) and an emergent goal(play with the dots).
On the subject of planets, something few modern people know is that for a time in the 19th century, we had 11 planets in our solar system, because the four largest asteroids were not called "asteroids" until decades after their discovery (as the word had not been invented yet).
This situation with Pluto is not new. We've been through it before, and will probably be through it again. Eventually, we'll all come to embrace our new solar system, with its planets, asteroids, and plutoids.
This situation with Pluto is not new. We've been through it before, and will probably be through it again. Eventually, we'll all come to embrace our new solar system, with its planets, asteroids, and plutoids.
Woo hoo, a new Shamus post! And it's GOOD!
I like Shamus' definition, partly because it doesn't try to be over-perscriptive. Its interpretation hinges on the subjective understanding of "playing".
This doesn't work. If I use Visual Studio to write a program, then by your definition I'm playing a game, since a successfully written program can be termed a "win condition".Rogue 09 said:
I like Shamus' definition, partly because it doesn't try to be over-perscriptive. Its interpretation hinges on the subjective understanding of "playing".
Funnily enough, GFWL is the reason I CAN'T play Dark Souls. ;__;Rot Krieg said:
"Beat our non-game before even trying the real thing!" Sorry, three days of fury with no reward isn't cutting it.
They changed it because better classification helps keep things clear. The official definition of "planet" (since I took an astronomy class two years ago, anyways) is "a large celestial body that controls its own orbit", ie. doesn't encounter other bodies in the same orbit for a significant chunk of the time. Pluto doesn't do this. Thus, it became a dwarf planet. If you're saying that we might as well keep it a "planet" because it annoys the majority, then you're going to annoy them MORE when you introduce hundreds to thousands of more "planets" that need classification. (There's a lot of dwarf planets out there.)Rogue 09 said:
Also, I hate the "society defines right" point of view, because if THAT'S true, then many standards of grammar would be out the window, as would be the definitions of various words and phrases, such as "entitled", "I could care less", and "game".
And if we're going to go by your definition, then Sim City isn't a game, The Sims isn't a game, a free-form round of Tropico isn't a game, Minecraft isn't a game, and any "sandbox mode" is a non-game inside a game. I'm going to go ahead and say that Shamus has a much better definition of "game" than you.
I personally dont believe there is, or suppose to be, a singular yes/no definition of the term videogame. There are degrees. While the term "videogame" can be used to describe a large number of things, there are degrees that people associate with the term "videogame". While you may consider Dear Esther a videogame, others do not.Shamus Young said:
Simply put, the term "videogame", and what it applies to, are subjective as hell.
Never really understood the exclusionist attitude among some gamers when it comes to what are and aren't games. You know, the type of people who seem offended when you call Minecraft or Dear Esther a game, and are quick to correct you. As if them being considered games by someone is just blasphemous.
There's really no point. Every definition of "game/video game" varies, why do people even attempt to claim they know the definitive rules for this shit?
There's really no point. Every definition of "game/video game" varies, why do people even attempt to claim they know the definitive rules for this shit?