I remember Jim mentioning he was going to do this topic a while ago. I was wondering whether he was ever actually going to get around to doing it. But whether he was or not, I knew that it would mean the first time I would sign in to these forums in a very long time.
Usually I think Jim is right on the money, and I have a huge amount of respect for him and what he does, but I just can't agree on this one at all. It's a topic I've thought about a lot, and I think it's a real shame that when people talk about it, it always seems to be such an unfairly one-sided discussion, because no one seems to even want to listen to the side that says this or that isn't a game, and thus only has very poor justifications for why something is.
From my point of view, a game is defined as a measured test of skill that is created for the purpose of entertainment. There's more to it than that, but that's the general gist of it. It gets at what the essence of games are; that essence of competition. Something which covers games in general, be they digital or otherwise. Jim actually mentions that in the video. Another thing Jim does to define videogames is use the word "game" in the definition. It should be obvious why that's a poor argument.
But what I more want to get across is why I'm making this argument. There seems to be many assumptions about why people want to argue something isn't a game, and they're all tiresome strawman arguments. I'll get to those later, but first I'll describe why I'm actually making this argument.
For one thing, I think saying these non-games are games creates poor expectations for what experience something is offering. When you say something is a game, it is generally understood to have that essence of competition about it. It's fair to be upset that something advertised as a game ends up not having that type of interaction. But that reaction sometimes means that something doesn't get the recognition it deserves for what it actually does achieve. If people went in not expecting something to be a game, then people would be a lot more open-minded towards it.
This leads on to another reason, that I think calling these things games actually limits what they can be, and potentially their audience too. There's a lot of talk about how people who want a stricter definition of games are trying to restrict what game can be, but I'm actually trying to achieve the opposite. If we more widely recognised these non-games as the entirely new medium that they are, then that gives them endless potential to explore what they can do. They aren't limited by what games are, and they can experiment and branch out to see what they can achieve. I think it also potentially opens them up to a whole new audience. A lot more people may be interested in these things if they didn't think they were games. Some people are scared off by that word, but if they weren't burdened with that inappropriate definition, then the medium could be opened up to a whole new group of people.
Also, I think people are kind of hypocritical about what they define as a game when it comes to videogames. People focus on surface-level, superficial similarities, but miss the core of what the experience is. If you took a lot of what these non-games are, and created them in the physical world, people would be a lot less inclined to call them games. Think about if, say, Gone Home was created in a real house, with all the props having audio recordings attached to them. No one would call that a game. People would much more likely say it was some kind of artistic experiment in interactive storytelling. It would fit much better in the halls of a modern art gallery than on the sports channel on TV. People are only inclined to call these things games because they are created using the tools traditionally used to make games, and are controlled in a similar way too. But neither of those things define what a game is either.
Finally, I just thinks words should mean something. I don't expect the definition to be absolutely rigid and 100% flawless. Some things will obviously blur the lines. I just want them to be as accurate as possible. That doesn't limit what games can be. I don't want games to be limited in what they can explore. I also don't want games and these non-games to have no interaction with each other. While I think they are clearly separate, they do have some similarities, and I completely welcome them learning from each other. But I don't like being so lax that the word "game" doesn't mean anything anymore. So many of these experiences are hyped as being something which makes you questions what games really are, and that's simply what I've done. I'm not afraid to ask that question, or to have the discussion. To paraphrase the words of Tim Minchin, if you let your mind be too open, your brain might fall out.
I also want to pre-empt some counterarguments that I hear often, because honestly I'm tired of hearing them.
"You're just saying something isn't a game because you don't like it."
This is one that Jim actually said himself. It's utter nonsense. As should have been made clear by now, when I say something isn't a game, I am absolutely not making a value judgement. This has nothing to do whether something is good or bad. I'm not trying to discriminate against something by saying it's not "good enough" to be a game, nor am I saying something should be excluded from criticism. Saying something is a game is merely a descriptor. Just a useful tool to give you an expectation of what something is like. What the experience is like. Nothing more, nothing less.
"You only say something is a game if it's just about killing/it's hard."
Again, one I made clear is not the case already. Difficulty doesn't come in to the definition at all. A test of skill can be testing any skill level at all. It doesn't matter if it's designed for a baby who can't read, or if it's for a masochist with infinite free time. It also doesn't matter what skill is being tested. It can by anything, as long as it can be measured somehow. And when I say "measured", I'm not just talking about explicit win or lose states. There has to be something along those lines, thus the measuring, but in no way does it have to include the ability to die, fail, or even win.
Also, with this argument, not only is it an ad hominem, the strawman it creates is actually a stronger argument. At least killing is something which can legitimately be made in to a game mechanic. Simply making an accusation of character is not even an argument why something is a game at all.
"You're just afraid of games not being just about killing, etc."
Another one I think I've already covered, but I'll be more explicit about. I don't want games to be limited by anything, and I don't think there's anything they shouldn't be able to do. I'm not afraid of these non-games coming in and "taking over". I know that's not going to happen. But I welcome them for what they are and what they offer, and what they can teach games. None of that actually makes them games though. Welcoming diversity does not mean forgetting what definitions mean. An example of one medium can be about another.
Also, I think this argument can quite easily be flipped around the other way. Why are people are so afraid of these non-games not being called games? Do they think they will go away or they won't be able to talk about them if they don't have that descriptor attached to them? Obviously, this argument is absurd. That's exactly why it's a terrible argument in the opposite context too.
"You're just arguing semantics."
Yes I am. What's wrong with that? Do you really think semantics is a bad thing, or are you just parroting that because that's what people say when they don't want to think about something?
No? You think it's because I'm just drawing lines in the sand? I disagree. There are large, fundamental differences between these types of experiences, and distinguishing between them is only common sense. It's like distinguishing between a dolphin and a shark. Both have some similarities, but very important, essential differences.
Or maybe you think that arguing semantics distracts from what the "real" conversation should be. Again, I totally disagree. As I mentioned, I think these non-games are valid experiences and are totally worth of praise, criticism, analysis, or whatever you want to say about them. That doesn't mean we can't also discuss what they actually are. It is possible, and appropriate, to say two things at once on a certain topic. There's no pre-defined, limited amount of conversation that we're allowed to have on these things. It's just providing a context for something.
"A game is just something that's interactive."
Almost everything is interactive. You are interactive. Your friend is interactive. These forums are interactive. None of that makes them games. Most media is actually unusual in that it isn't interactive. And just because games are unusual amongst media in that they are, that doesn't mean that all interactive media has to be games. This is an example of why I think calling these non-games games is limiting to them.
"A game is just a story."
Another similarly weak argument. Pretty much everything is a story when you stretch it out to include the definition of games. At that point, you've made two words meaningless.
And yes, these are all genuinely arguments I've heard, several times.
I also want to be clear that I don't think my definition is the be-all, end-all. As I said earlier, I'm not afraid to have this discussion. I'm not afraid to be wrong. If you think you have a better definition, then I'll gladly read about it and see if it has any merit. If it does, perhaps I'll change my mind. Make my definition better.
