Jimquisition: It's Not A Video Game!

[Wisq]

Maybe those aren't games for you, but historically the real world games have been called "games of chance" for centuries, so you're going to have a hard time justifying it.

Actually, it would be pretty easy to justify. They all have a challenge, and thus a fail state and a win state. All of the games you mentioned require one to use good judgement and some form of strategy, therefore are not completely luck based. The challenge is as Kenny Rogers would say, in "knowing when to hold em, knowing when to fold em". The win state is to win more than you lost and the failure state is to lose more than you won.

I've brought it up before in this thread, but I'll bring it up again ? Snakes & Ladders. Classic board game. Zero strategic element. Unless someone cheats (particularly with the dice) or is using variant rules, every single match could be played by a computer, with the exact same outcome given the same rolls.

 

[Artolio]

What this really makes me think of is Minecraft. You can die in Minecraft but it's trivial not to, creative mode doesn't have it, and early betas didn't have it either. It feels almost anachronistic to how so many play the game. And I think Minecraft represents what games *are* to a whole new generation of games. They expect to make their own fun.

 

[SamTheNewb]

I find it interesting that even if, people say they are non-video games. Much of these products can not exists without what most would agree to call a game engine.

It make me wonder. Do we consider video games a specific type of product, or a medium that describe how a class of products are constructed? Do we need to give another name to the medium currently only called video games?

 

[Magmarock]

Hi there Jim I love your videos and am a loyal viewer. With this latest video though I'd like to offer a counter argument if I may.

I think you make some good points, but ultimately I don't agree that it does a disservice by calling interactive narratives such as Dear Esther or Gone Home "none games."

In my opinion they're not. However I don't mean that as criticism but rather a more accurate gnura label for what they are.

If you're going to say that anything that visually interacts with you is a game, then that would make the Windows OS a game; or even Microsoft Word a game. These are not games they are tools that people use to write documents or file their taxes.

So no, I don't agree that anything that interact with you visually is a game. I believe a game has to have a challenge and a goal because that's what the word "Game" means.

 

[nuclearday]

I believe a game has to have a challenge and a goal because that's what the word "Game" means.

Only that's not necessarily the definition of the word...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/game

 

[Alarien]

I have to fall into the TB camp on this one. It's better to find a way to clearly differentiate content that is clearly a game and those that are not or, at least, have minimal (if any) game content. Mountain is not a game. It is not. There is no gameplay. Nothing. Dear Esther is... something other than what I would expect if I bought it expecting a game. Gone Home is similar. I give Gone Home slightly more credit because there is clearly a lot more player agency in Gone Home, but I did play that and was ultimately dissatisfied.

The issue at hand is the consumer and consumer protection and that's why I think TB has the right of it. Steam is (and has been for a couple years now) a morass that you have to wade through to find good games to buy and play. I can't tell you the number of times that I almost bought Dear Esther when it was cheap. However, after really digging into what it is, I realized that this is something that has no player agency, no win/lose. It essentially just boils down to pressing W until it ends. That's not something I would expect in a game.

That's not to say that Dear Esther is something bad. It's to say that it isn't something that someone looking to play a game, even a low-interactivity exploration game (like Gone Home) is necessarily looking for. And how would we know that when it's touted as a game on the Steam front page? We wouldn't.

You might argue that gamers should all be very wary of games and do a lot of research before they purchase anything, and you would be right. I buy almost nothing pre-order or day 1, ever. In fact, I almost always wait for a major sale unless I am already sold on the concept because of previous experience (i.e. Demon's/Dark Souls series). However, what we should do (research) isn't necessarily what we should have to do. The nature of a "game" should be clearly disclosed prior to purchase and without having to go to youtube and sit through multiple videos on something.

I respect Jim and agree with a lot of his arguments, but some of the recent content, while not "anti-consumer" necessarily, has definitely had a defensive "circle the wagons" feel with the dev and journalist communities. I find it disappointing. Right now, I think the gaming community, including the players, devs, and journalists need to stop focusing on the sensationalists who are out to brand themselves for the purposes of making the University lecture rounds (listen or don't, that's up to you) and stay focused on the anti-gamer, anti-consumer crap that is coming in from all sides.

 

[daxterx2005]

I dont understand why some game developers think their "game" being labeled as a "game" makes it any less impressive?

 

[nuclearday]

I wonder how much of this is just awkward (and often lacking) nomenclature?

Back in the day, you could pin down a game by genre pretty easily. It was either a sidescrolling shooter, or an RPG, or a strategy game, etc. King's Quest was an Adventure Game, Wolfenstein 3D was an FPS, Zork was a Text Adventure, and so on.

We often can't peg many modern games into existing definitions of genre, our vocabulary for these things hasn't expanded as quickly as the permutations of the form.

If we're going to take the tack that videogames are art (which I think they are,) then "videogame" becomes the medium of transmission as I see it. And like other forms of art, this quickly gets muddy the further you want to go down the rabbit hole.

If I put paint on a canvas, then it's a painting; I am a painter. But if I glue a dead cat in there, is it still a painting? Or has it become a collage? If it's still a painting then, how many dead cats do I need to glue to a canvas before it becomes something else? What if I cut a hole in that canvas and stick a television in there? Is it then a movie, or a painting, or both?

With other, more... "mature" (as in they've been around longer and had time to evolve, not as a value judgement) forms of art, the medium is often less important than the message. You can have academic discussions of these definitions, but "It's not a painting," rarely does double duty as a broad dismissal of the work.

Generally, in other mediums, it simply boils down to artistic intent. I'm a painter if I say I'm a painter; it's a painting if I view what I've created as a painting.

So as I see it, if you call it a videogame and it's something I use a videogame console or computer too experience, then it's a videogame - "game" is less important than the usage of the word to refer to the artistic medium.

So for a lot of these games like Gone Home, I think you can still safely call it a "videogame," as that's the medium used to express that vision. But as such, you can still critique it (and fairly) along the same parameters you would any other game.

If you feel it's boring and doesn't give you very much to do - then I'd say that's a fair criticism. (Keeping in mind that all criticism is innately subjective unless we actually do live in a Platonic as opposed to an Existential universe where all objects can be measured against their approximation of the Ideal.)

Because engagement is a fair measure for any medium. I don't care profound your message behind gluing all those poor cats to the canvas is if I don't find it interesting to look at. I might admire the artistic vision of your 16-hour movie, but if I get bored watching it, then it's a fair point to raise in it's criticism.

So I think a discussion of what constitutes the definitions of the medium is important (though I don't think we'll ever settle on a universally-accepted one.) So I think for most of these sort of games, you make an argument about whether or not it's a "good" game, or how well it accomplishes it's intended goals - but we don't want to confuse those conversations with ones about whether or not it actually is a videogame in the first place?

 

[RetroMenace]

I agreed with most point in this video, except for the most important one -- your definition of a video game

"An Electronic Game that involves human interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a video device"

Firstly -- you used the word in its own definition. Which could work if you're trying to say that the key-point of the definition is that a video game is simply an electronic form of a game, under the standard definition of game. And the standard definition of a game (according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary) is...

"a physical or mental activity or contest that has rules and that people do for pleasure"

Which, when used in the context of the original definition for video game, doesn't work very well. Firstly it insists that people do it for pleasure, and many people play games which they KNOW will make them sad simply for the sake of being sad and enjoying a well written, if depressing, story (such as Spec Ops: The Line, or The Walking Dead.)

I still believe that a solid, good definition for what a video game is has yet to be written out. And given how broad the spectrum of games can be, it almost seems impossible to write a good definition that encompasses all that video games could be.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

So how exactly would declaring tripe like Gone Home 'non-games' hold back the medium exactly? It wouldn't stop people from making and selling them, they would just be called 'interactive experiences' or some shit.

I'd put the Interactive part there in quotations. Granted there are puzzles in that game, but I can honestly say I felt less restricted in Final Fantasy 13. That would at least let you leave the hallway for brief moments to pick up extra goodies.

Yes, Gone Home is more linear and restrictive than freaking Hallway Simulator 13.

 

[WeepingAngels]

I think that as long that it's interactive in some way, it can be consider a video game.

Netflix is a video game then.

 

[Iceklimber]

Are DVD/BLuray Movies where sometimes icons pop up, allowing you to view extra Commentary, additional scenes, or behind the scenes footage by pressing buttons on the remote conttrol, already Videogames?

Why would it even matter?

 

[Chaosian]

I like how people are arguing the definition of a now that was formulated, what?, 30, 40 years ago? Back when the term meant pretty much nothing.
Why stop at Video Games too? I mean, there's bigger fish to fry! Why aren't we over what qualifies as a Movie too? Is animation a Movie? Is a youtube footage a Movie? An ad on TV? Those stupid animated TVs at MacDonalds or Tim Hortons? How about a flip-book? Hey, they all 'move', so they must all be 'move-ee's? And what about Empire! It didn't even move for 8 hours! That's not a movie!

 

[GonzoGamer]

Okay but can I at least demand some sort of progression to the game? I have a few good games on my phone but I also have wierd shit like Bit. It's Flynn's sidekick from tron, when you tap on him he says "YES!" or "NO!" like he does in the movie. He's funny and I've used him in tabletop games to settle disputes but I wouldn't consider that app a game as there is no way to progress. I'm fine with no violence, but when there's no progression, it's no longer a game but more of a display of sorts.

 

[Ipsen]

So how exactly would declaring tripe like Gone Home 'non-games' hold back the medium exactly? It wouldn't stop people from making and selling them, they would just be called 'interactive experiences' or some shit.

I'd put the Interactive part there in quotations. Granted there are puzzles in that game, but I can honestly say I felt less restricted in Final Fantasy 13. That would at least let you leave the hallway for brief moments to pick up extra goodies.

Yes, Gone Home is more linear and restrictive than freaking Hallway Simulator 13.

So...Is it because you get to do MORE 'things to do' in FF 13; perform more nicknacks, a battle system, growth management, etc. that it's more of or qualifies as a game over Gone Home?

It's not like you do NOTHING in Gone Home; you clearly walk, you clearly displace select items to the front of your first person perspective, and can choose to place them down again.

Or maybe it's that Gone Home and its story don't explicitly say anything about your actions that leads you to calling it restrictive?

 

[Wraithfighter]

The problem is that Jim's basically coming at this like it's one question: "Is it a game, or is it a dumb imitation of a game". Which is understandable, since the most common term used is the dismissive "Walking Simulation" term, people insulting games like Gone Home for not being games.

The way I look at it? Gone Home and The Stanley Parable aren't exactly games. They're in that fuzzy area, given how there's no real gameplay aside from walking around and interacting with objects, almost no real agency in there. They're exploring a story and a concept, you're just along for the ride.

And they are two games that I will recommend to anyone, because they are fantastic. That's where this breaks down for me, because the question "Is it a game" and "If not, is that a bad thing?" should be separate.

I think it really just comes down to a need to better define this sort of thing, a genre of its own. It doesn't feel like an interactive novel or anything. The best term I can think of is a "Story Game" or some sort: One focused on the story or experience it wants to get through, but absent the more traditional hallmarks of video gaming.

 

[BrainBlow]

What annoys me with people throwing around "walking simulator" like as an insult because they believe they aren't games is that they never bother to attempt clarifying what they actually are then.
Okay, so it is a "walking simulator". So, what is it if not a video game? A movie? No? So is "walking simulator" an entirely new medium then?

 

[NoeL]

Jim, forgive me if it's already been asked (probably has), but I'm interested in your reasons for declaring Dear Esther, The Path, Gone Home, etc. "bad" video games. If it's things like "not much interactivity", "boring" and the likes, then you ARE defining video games as something that excludes those experiences. You're saying video games must have X in order to be any good. I think we should (and usually do) critique something as good or bad largely by how much it fails/succeeds at what it's trying to be. If Dear Esther was only trying to be a stroll through a visually impressive environment then I'd say it succeeded at that. If it was trying to do so while also being engaging and entertaining you could arguably say it failed there. But if you say "It's a bad video game because it's just a stroll around an island with no interactivity and it bored the pants off of me." you're defining what a video game should be then criticising Dear Esther for not being that - which is totally contrary to your own argument.

 

[Entitled]

while yes i cant realy think of any advanture/rpg games or the like that has an early branch off like that in a linear game, i dont see how having something like that can make something lose its qualifications to be a game

Again, I'm not really arguing that VNs are not games, just that Walking Dead is not a VN. We might as well say that neither of them are games, or both are, or Walking dead is not a game but VNs are, or vice versa.

The point is simply that VNs have a set of traits, such as character sprites in front of flat backgrounds, textboxes, a handful of route coices, and specific type of fully divergent linear routes, which make them into a genre and/or medium that Walking Dead is not a part of.