"The modern definition of a videogame is an electronic game that involves human interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a video device."
I'm sorry, but that is BS. Cutting out all the stuff about tech, all you said was a game is a game. That's a circular definition.
I look at these walking simulators and interactive fiction and think "Why is this a game? Why not a novel or a film?" I contribute nothing to the story, I only turn the page. Oh, sure, you could say the same of other games like CoD, but even in corridor shooters I contribute to the story, even if it only matters outside of the game. How I tackle a firefight may well be different to how you do it. Maybe you hold back and snipe while I run around sprayin'-n'-prayin'. Same scenario, different stories. Dear Esther? "I walked around an island and was talked to about... something." There's no player involvement.
I mean, what makes a videogame different from other forms of media? Books have stories, but the visuals are all in your imagination. Then film came along and suddenly the visuals were no longer in your head, but before your eyes. In both cases, however, the audience wasn't involved. They were some nebulous group that watched the story unfold. Now with videogames, that's not the case. The audience is no longer just watching, they are contributing. Yet some walking simulators and interactive fiction seem to want to cut that away. And [i/]that's[/i] when they stop being games. Defying some omnipotent Narrator while walking through endless office rooms and corridors? Cool. Digitally walking along an island while listening to snippets of a story? Piece it all together into an audiobook and I'll listen to it during my morning jog thank you very much.
Does this mean all walking simulators and interactive fiction don't qualify as games? No. David Cage's stuff is interactive fiction, yet are also games since they use mechanics like combat, puzzles, and QTEs. The Path and The Stanley Parable are also games since player interaction determines the story and ending.
EDIT: as for failure states, that's personal preference. I like my games like I like my stories: with an end. However, some people prefer to play a game until they are bored with it and cast it aside, with goals incomplete and the game world either stuck in limbo or slowly turning into some hellish landscape. And I say more power to 'em; games are an artform and just like other artforms should have something for everyone. Why should we exclude?
I'm sorry, but that is BS. Cutting out all the stuff about tech, all you said was a game is a game. That's a circular definition.
I look at these walking simulators and interactive fiction and think "Why is this a game? Why not a novel or a film?" I contribute nothing to the story, I only turn the page. Oh, sure, you could say the same of other games like CoD, but even in corridor shooters I contribute to the story, even if it only matters outside of the game. How I tackle a firefight may well be different to how you do it. Maybe you hold back and snipe while I run around sprayin'-n'-prayin'. Same scenario, different stories. Dear Esther? "I walked around an island and was talked to about... something." There's no player involvement.
I mean, what makes a videogame different from other forms of media? Books have stories, but the visuals are all in your imagination. Then film came along and suddenly the visuals were no longer in your head, but before your eyes. In both cases, however, the audience wasn't involved. They were some nebulous group that watched the story unfold. Now with videogames, that's not the case. The audience is no longer just watching, they are contributing. Yet some walking simulators and interactive fiction seem to want to cut that away. And [i/]that's[/i] when they stop being games. Defying some omnipotent Narrator while walking through endless office rooms and corridors? Cool. Digitally walking along an island while listening to snippets of a story? Piece it all together into an audiobook and I'll listen to it during my morning jog thank you very much.
Does this mean all walking simulators and interactive fiction don't qualify as games? No. David Cage's stuff is interactive fiction, yet are also games since they use mechanics like combat, puzzles, and QTEs. The Path and The Stanley Parable are also games since player interaction determines the story and ending.
EDIT: as for failure states, that's personal preference. I like my games like I like my stories: with an end. However, some people prefer to play a game until they are bored with it and cast it aside, with goals incomplete and the game world either stuck in limbo or slowly turning into some hellish landscape. And I say more power to 'em; games are an artform and just like other artforms should have something for everyone. Why should we exclude?