Jimquisition: It's Not A Video Game!
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I would call them games, but would definitely add a description before it to clarify how it differs from the failure state, do something other than walk around standard.
We already do this, online only, multiplayer. The answer would be to find the appropiate word. This helps the customer. I guess some of the anger and dismissal of Dear Esther and others also comes form people expecting something traditional and they get something that doesn't appeal to them.
We already do this, online only, multiplayer. The answer would be to find the appropiate word. This helps the customer. I guess some of the anger and dismissal of Dear Esther and others also comes form people expecting something traditional and they get something that doesn't appeal to them.
I think Jim missed a big opportunity here. Rather than have a discussion on what constitutes a game, what the definition is and how it can be applied across the field, he simply laid down a declarative statement and said "that's it."
For example, I'm not completely sold on the notion that "visual novels" are "video games;" be they a work by Telltale, some other independant studio, or something more Japanese and adult-oriented. I fail to see how an electronic version of the choose-your-own-adventure books I grew up with can be compared to a simulation like Animal Crossing; which may be a game, but not in the same vein as the Sims franchise.
For example, I'm not completely sold on the notion that "visual novels" are "video games;" be they a work by Telltale, some other independant studio, or something more Japanese and adult-oriented. I fail to see how an electronic version of the choose-your-own-adventure books I grew up with can be compared to a simulation like Animal Crossing; which may be a game, but not in the same vein as the Sims franchise.
I don't agree that Mountain counts as a game. It's a screensaver, as far as I can tell.
But I'm also not comfortable with the "failure state" definition.
I would go for something like "It requires input to work". Under that definition, Dear Esther would make it (but barely), Mountain would not. At all.
But I'm also not comfortable with the "failure state" definition.
I would go for something like "It requires input to work". Under that definition, Dear Esther would make it (but barely), Mountain would not. At all.
I honestly don't see why some people get so insistent about whether or not something is a video game, I don't even mind the opinion that something isn't a game so long as it has no (explicit) failure states, with the addendum that something not being a game isn't the same as something being bad in my mind.
I will agree that far too many people simply use ''It's not even a video game!'' as a way to badmouth a game they don't like.
I will agree that far too many people simply use ''It's not even a video game!'' as a way to badmouth a game they don't like.
Here's a TV that looks like an apple.Jimothy Sterling said:
More on topic:
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.
This definition is fairly clear, and as there's nothing to be "decided by skill, strength, or luck" in the so-called "walking simulators", I cannot in good conscience call them a game. That doesn't make them any better or worse as experiences in and of itself though; it just makes them not qualify under the definition of "game". Of the pieces you named in the video, the only one I've played is The Stanley Parable, and I absolutely adore it. It's one of my favorite samples of any form of media of all time. It's an amazing commentary on game design and player interactivity. From where I sit, it's one of the finest examples of artistic achievement in recent years.
That doesn't make it any more of a game though.
I would love to see you and totalbiscuit debate this issue, considering how you both have pretty different opinions about it, personally I don?t really care enough about this to have a real opinion.
For some reason I want to buy a tv that looks like a apple.
For some reason I want to buy a tv that looks like a apple.
Oh my god, I've been trying to remember the name of the magazine (very loose definition) your occasional odd piece of artwork has come from for ages Jim and "The Ancestral Trail" finally just popped back into my head. Real trip down memory lane, and wasn't some of the artwork a little... odd for a serial aimed at kids?
How do I put this... I agree with what Jim says, in that I don't think games should be discarded on the basis of lacking failure states or enemies or even, by and large, strictly defined conflict or obstacles.
But I also think the makers of these games could have done themselves a big favor by defining some language to describe themselves early on. If nothing else, it might have avoided the sense that some seem to have gotten that there was some sort of attempt to "deceive" gamers- that Gone Home was supposed to be a horror experience, or that Dear Esther or Stanley Parable, having started with the Half-Life 2 engine, ought to have been first-person shooters.
It's been pointed out more than once that we're in the process of muddying genres in gaming, such that games are increasingly described as "fighter with RPG levelling and stats" or "First-person shooter with survival horror elements", etc. But even as the language gets vague, I think there's still room for tinkering with it.
But I also think the makers of these games could have done themselves a big favor by defining some language to describe themselves early on. If nothing else, it might have avoided the sense that some seem to have gotten that there was some sort of attempt to "deceive" gamers- that Gone Home was supposed to be a horror experience, or that Dear Esther or Stanley Parable, having started with the Half-Life 2 engine, ought to have been first-person shooters.
It's been pointed out more than once that we're in the process of muddying genres in gaming, such that games are increasingly described as "fighter with RPG levelling and stats" or "First-person shooter with survival horror elements", etc. But even as the language gets vague, I think there's still room for tinkering with it.
No.... We never 'play' with game story. Like, ever (that I can reasonably think of).Karadalis said:
Stories that happen in games...just happen. They happen due to specific events, whether by happenstance of the player's fiddling, or actions led by the game and certain motivations to such events, or somewhere in between. Story is secondary entertainment (though should lose no importance for being so, especially today). You, the player, are outside of the story, and remain there until you start making actions in the world that would spur that story on (for whatever reason; it's always at least a bit contrived).
Would Gone Home be more of a game if it did not have the story attached? If it clearly told you that it was just a 'house-exploration game'? If so, how did the introduction of a story suddenly warp that intention? If not....how far are you willing to go to perhaps hamstring the definition of a game?
Well it's a game. Actually more game like then most games people don't want to call games. It even has a health bar or it's version of one. It's basically a web game.blairs1995 said:
Good episode Jim.
I agree with you that the "non games" should be criticized just like any other game, even though I have on several occasions questioned if a game is actually even worth calling a game.
What we really need, I guess, are more ways to refer to these more non-traditional or experience focused games. Walking simulator only covers a few of them, and even then they don't really tell you much about the intention of the game - good or bad.
I agree with you that the "non games" should be criticized just like any other game, even though I have on several occasions questioned if a game is actually even worth calling a game.
What we really need, I guess, are more ways to refer to these more non-traditional or experience focused games. Walking simulator only covers a few of them, and even then they don't really tell you much about the intention of the game - good or bad.
Oh, the "Psh, you wouldn't get it" excuse. The rallying cry of hipsters who like anything labeled "indie", whether it be video games or bands. It's one thing for players to call something "not a game", but it's another for their developers to do the same, which just reeks of pretentiousness. I've seen a lot of what Jim showed today nominated for, and win a few, awards at GDC. I'd look at the footage of Dear Esther or one of those other things that are BARELY games and think , "THAT'S a what passes for a video game now? Oh god, I feel old." To ut that statement in perspective, I'm 30.
And I always love a good burn on David Cage. Thank god for that and you, Jim.
And I always love a good burn on David Cage. Thank god for that and you, Jim.
The bulk of video game development these days is in level design and other asset creation. That is where games like Gone Home come from. They are pure level design without some arbitrary game mechanic getting in the way.
Some people don't like that but really, is all that gameplay we get in modern, narrative driven shooters really what you're paying for? Was the combat in Bioshock the big draw, or was it a way of slowing you down between story revelations? Minecraft is little more than a paint program with some gameplay thrown in as an afterthought. Why is it OK to spend my time in Skyrim admiring the view instead of following the pointer to the next fight, but when Dear Esther cuts out the fighting we suddenly have a problem?
I get the complaint though. What's the point in playing a game where you feel redundant, uninvolved? I just feel like that in a lot of traditional video games too.
Some people don't like that but really, is all that gameplay we get in modern, narrative driven shooters really what you're paying for? Was the combat in Bioshock the big draw, or was it a way of slowing you down between story revelations? Minecraft is little more than a paint program with some gameplay thrown in as an afterthought. Why is it OK to spend my time in Skyrim admiring the view instead of following the pointer to the next fight, but when Dear Esther cuts out the fighting we suddenly have a problem?
I get the complaint though. What's the point in playing a game where you feel redundant, uninvolved? I just feel like that in a lot of traditional video games too.
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.
Personally, I'm offended that the sandwich I'm about to eat isn't on Wikipedias list of presidents of the united states. The editors are just a bunch of narrow-minded elitists.
Personally, I'm offended that the sandwich I'm about to eat isn't on Wikipedias list of presidents of the united states. The editors are just a bunch of narrow-minded elitists.
We kind of need a few new genres to cover these new kind of games. We have that walking simulator tag on steam, but that is more intended as a insult.Callate said: