Jimquisition: It's Not A Video Game!

[Abnaxis]

snip

Thats why games where there is no skill involved are called gambling games and you have to follow a huge box of laws should money be involved.

You cant just open up a casino anywhere you want for example. So yeah these games while still being games (luck based games) are their own category. After all the very first games humans invented where luck based, i think dice here if i remember correctly.

And you are indeed correct about RL games being translated into digital format are video games. However driving a car is not a game in RL and a simulator also isnt necesary a game... since it tries to emulate the real world version as close as possible. Just depends on how close the simulation is.

I wouldnt necesary call the simulators they use to teach you how to drive tanks in the army games for example.

Oh absolutely, I'm with you 100% on the simulators front. To me, that example concisely shows what I'm talking about--that whether something is a "game" depends in its intended purpose. I can take the same widget about driving tanks and shooting terrorists, and if I market to the general populace as purposeless entertainment (and it is accepted as such), then it is a game. If I instead market it to the military as an advanced simulation designed to teach soldiers to be better tank drivers (and it is accepted as such), it is not a game.

While it may seem strange to classify it differently based on how it is used, the distinction is important because it shapes how the software is designed and critiqued. If it builds unrealistic expectations about how combat actually works, it is inappropriate for military use regardless of how fun the oversight is. OTOH, if the interaction includes a half-hour sequence to check and double check all instruments that is boring is hell, that detracts from the software as a game.

Further, I absolutely would agree that gambling games are a class all their own, yet are still considered games. I bring them out to point out that if we as a society include them in our conceptualization of "games," that creates issues with defining the word "game" as "a competitive test of skill or a challenge."

 

[carnex]

I love that definition, Microsoft Office is most sold game franchise EVER!

Seriously, not a game can be considered a serious tag to inform players it's not a game in classic sense. But again, it's interpretations can be as wide as galaxy.

You can't define what game is, just like you can't define what art is, there always will be something that goes across the line both ways. Like, what's music and what's noise. It's entirely subjective.

 

[Vicioussama]

I never got the "must be a failure state" in games because, technically, there is no failure state in Dark Souls or Demon's Souls or so. Sure there's death, but never a failure state. The game is never over for you until you either beat it (and even then it starts over) or you give up (which can be the same for any media, you can quit a show half way through or stop reading a book).

So ya, I never saw a need for that "must be a failure state" when it comes to classifying what's a game.

 

[Demonchaser27]

Even with the hint system? It will tell the player the answer if they like - no skill at all required.

There's a hint system in Monkey Island? Since when?

The re-releases and the new games all have hint systems. The original releases did not.

Which makes it an interesting question - can the addition of the hint system take something that was a game (the original) and make it not a game (the re-releases)?

Yes.. yes it can.

Because at this point the game plays itselfe and you are just there to make the necesary clicks it tells you to do.

Honestly thought... who would ruin the game for themselves by using such a system? I mean i remember the first phantasmangoria also had a hint system (damn fine horror game with hilarious acting btw) but what it did was pointing you in the right direction... not really outright tell you what to do.

However theres still a difference in ruining the game for yourselfe by using what basically is a cheat tool... and having it ruined for yourselfe simply by watching a video....

The interactivity in these games is just a pacing tool and for a more involved atmospheric overall feeling. However interaction =/= gameplay

To me it's a little too far for the video game definition to push away hint systems. I think we have to clarify when a hint system is too invasive. I can tell what you might mean by a hypothetical tell's the whole game hint system. However, even the most talkative and hintiest of games like Zelda: Skyward Sword are still games. They may give you some answers or make them really easy to figure out, but you still have to... figure them out. And Skyward Sword, for instance, doesn't give you all of the answers. I still had to learn my way around temples and solve puzzle's without you know who's help. Despite how brain-dead it might feel to us, it's enough interactive/problem solving stimulus for some. Did I enjoy the game? Not really, but it still has enough qualities to be a game. We just have to be very careful about which instances clearly define this "non-game" vs. "game".

Yeah but we where talking click and point game where the whole gameplay is figuring out all the puzzles yourselfe. In zelda despite having navi remind you where you need to go you still have to figure out how to get there, you still have to beat the enemies, and you still have to solve the puzzles yourselfe.

So with click and point games it does really depend on how inasive the hint system is. Is it a reminder where to go next or does it actually solve the game for you on its own?

The first is just that... a remainder where you left off... and the second one makes the whole game obsolete.

Okay that makes more sense, thanks.

 

[Abnaxis]

I never got the "must be a failure state" in games because, technically, there is no failure state in Dark Souls or Demon's Souls or so. Sure there's death, but never a failure state. The game is never over for you until you either beat it (and even then it starts over) or you give up (which can be the same for any media, you can quit a show half way through or stop reading a book).

So ya, I never saw a need for that "must be a failure state" when it comes to classifying what's a game.

If I may ask, what definition of "failure state" are you using? I mean, I don't think games have to have a failure state either, but arguments like this confuse me. By this logic, no matter what happens while you are playing a game, it's not like the thing self-destructs on failure, so you can always keep playing and no video game ever created contains a failure state.

 

[Almechazel]

Honestly, I feel like saying something is or is not a game is excruciatingly subjective. 'Video Games' are a medium, so the definition should be broad. I've seen a lot of people throwing out the 'are choose your own adventure books considered games?' argument, and I have to say, yes, yes they are. They're a form of entertainment that gives you agency in some way to make it enjoyable, and frankly, that should be all I need. Are they complex games? No, maybe not, but that doesn't stop them from being games.

Heck, some of my favorite games lately are by Choice of Games, and those are chose your own adventure games played on a computer or smartphone; it gives you some story, you make a choice, that choice effects how the story unfolds, and potentially changes some stats. Not the most compelling game to a lot of people, but still a game. 'Walking simulators' give you a small sense of agency in that you choose where you go and how to get there, so I'd consider them games.

Video Games are a medium, so it should be broad. Simulators are a game genre. Role Playing is a genre. FPS is a genre. They aren't all exactly similar, but they're all still games, just like documentaries are still movies. If anyone can explain to me why this is an issue, I'd love to know.

I feel like this is the old pornography argument all over again - "I know it when I see it".

 

[maffgibson]

But this definition has further problems: if I am playing a walking simulator, and walk into a wall consistently rather than the narrowly-defined corridor, I will not be able to access any of the content later on. I will have failed to walk correctly, and be denied content as a result. The task in question is easy, sure, but you can't really say that something isn't a game because it is too easy: otherwise you might define something as a game on "hard mode", but not a game on "easy mode".

So yeah, subjectivity is the problem here. Even if "fail-states" were agreed upon as a valid measure, what constitutes failure is pretty subjective.

Check out TotalBiscuit's video about defending specific definitions [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm-3GJsr8Xw] for a very good rundown on what I mean by "failure state" and the like. I agree pretty strongly with his take on it.

In short, it's not about difficulty. It's about competition and the possibility of losing that competition that defines a game, which introduces failure states that can arise from interacting with the software.

Very interesting, particularly with him saying that Stanley Parable IS a game. Having not played Dear Esther or Gone Home, I was mainly using Stanley Parable as my frame of reference on this issue (I played it and felt strongly that it was, indeed, a game). A few people seem to have lumped them all together, so I was working on that basis. What TB mentioned about Stanley Parable's "failure states" actually being an important part of the experience also resonated with me. Although, I would question whether failure states are indeed, strictly, failure states if they are desirable as part of the experience. I like what TB said about "walking simulators" possibly being a "crossover medium": this issue is not clear cut. I am inclined to agree with another commenter:

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

...

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.

There are degrees of "game-ness", and some things are so far at the end of the spectrum as to be in danger of falling off.
...


Mountain is DEFINITELY not a game though.

 

[Abnaxis]

Honestly, I feel like saying something is or is not a game is excruciatingly subjective. 'Video Games' are a medium, so the definition should be broad. I've seen a lot of people throwing out the 'are choose your own adventure books considered games?' argument, and I have to say, yes, yes they are. They're a form of entertainment that gives you agency in some way to make it enjoyable, and frankly, that should be all I need. Are they complex games? No, maybe not, but that doesn't stop them from being games.

Heck, some of my favorite games lately are by Choice of Games, and those are chose your own adventure games played on a computer or smartphone; it gives you some story, you make a choice, that choice effects how the story unfolds, and potentially changes some stats. Not the most compelling game to a lot of people, but still a game. 'Walking simulators' give you a small sense of agency in that you choose where you go and how to get there, so I'd consider them games.

Video Games are a medium, so it should be broad. Simulators are a game genre. Role Playing is a genre. FPS is a genre. They aren't all exactly similar, but they're all still games, just like documentaries are still movies. If anyone can explain to me why this is an issue, I'd love to know.

I feel like this is the old pornography argument all over again - "I know it when I see it".

I think a lot of the problem is that video games aren't really a medium all on their own. They're zeros and ones encoded on a platter, that carry no meaning until some electronic device interprets them. They are ideas made manifest through math.

The problem is, there's lots of stuff that isn't video games, yet are still zeros and ones on a platter. Operating systems. Word processors. Device drivers. Multimedia players. The examples of non-game software that still uses the same medium is endless, so where do you draw the line between Notepad and Battlefield 3?

And maybe it is a "I know it when I see it argument," but that's not a reason to write it off. The lighting technician working for a porno company works under different constraints than one who works for Hollywood. The distinction is important even if it is ephemeral.

 

[Vicioussama]

I never got the "must be a failure state" in games because, technically, there is no failure state in Dark Souls or Demon's Souls or so. Sure there's death, but never a failure state. The game is never over for you until you either beat it (and even then it starts over) or you give up (which can be the same for any media, you can quit a show half way through or stop reading a book).

So ya, I never saw a need for that "must be a failure state" when it comes to classifying what's a game.

If I may ask, what definition of "failure state" are you using? I mean, I don't think games have to have a failure state either, but arguments like this confuse me. By this logic, no matter what happens while you are playing a game, it's not like the thing self-destructs on failure, so you can always keep playing and no video game ever created contains a failure state.

Perhaps it's because I've been gaming since this was the case, but failure state to me seems to be that the game straight up "game over" screens and returns you to the title menu to either load from a save point or start the ENTIRE game over.

But yea, that's one reason I don't see any of these "definitions of games" that are too strict being reasonable.

 

[veloper]

Thank god for Total Biscuit more like. I much prefer his definition, because it isn't so very broad yet as to become almost meaningless.

At least Jim calls Dear Esther and the Path bad games, but "bad walking sims" would also suffice for a negative final verdict. No need to call them games.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

I have to disagree with Jim and his definition. According to his definition, basically every software that has a GUI can be considered to be a video game. The definition is so broad that it's useless.
Also I disagree with his statement that by limiting the definition we are limiting the experience we can get. No, we just limit what can and what can't be a game.

In my opinion, saying Dear Ester is a game is limiting it. It's limiting all the "walking simulators" or interactive experiences or however you like to call them (I think Visual Novel makes the most sense) by forcing them to fit into the general idea of "video game". Those "games" will get lower review scores because they don't give what is expected from them. If I want an adventure game and find Dear Ester (it's adventure on steam) I will be disappointed and I will give it a negative review. It didn't give me what I wanted, simple as that. However if I want a interactive experience and find it on steam, I might like it because that's what I was looking for.

Definitions are important, too broad definitions are useless. If we include every interactive digital medium as video games, the definition of video games will become useless, consumer will have a harder time finding what they want and the developer of those experiences will have a harder time because of the negative reviews. If it's separated from video games, it will be able to build up a nice consumer base that will love the things for what they are. Many of those will probably consumer of video games as well.

We have a problem here. Part of the user base is trying to fit something into a mold that clearly doesn't fit, another side is trying to force the mold to be changed to fit that something. The obvious answer would be to make a second mold for that. We could have "somethings" that would blur the lines a bit between those, but most of those somethings would be either on or the other.

Now, I don't know how to define video games. I'm biased, I will openly admit that. I don't consider Gone Home and Dear Ester to be games. The "gameplay" in them is even less than barebone. When "playing" them, I feel like the developer thought something like the gameplay being a necessary evil for their creation. Calling something that uses gameplay as a necessary evil a game is doing dishonor to games. I would call them visual novels.

And I think is time to stat it (thought it should be clear from my post), I don't consider visual novels to be games. They are as the name already says, novels. Just visual. They use the absolute minimum gameplay the can in order to tell a story. The gameplay is completely unimportant, the story/visuals are everything. If the game part from the video game is irrelevant, why even call it a video game?

I don't know how you will take my post but I honestly don't want to separate them because "I don't like them". I've played quite a few visual novels and I like them. And since I don't consider them to be video games, I won't judge them based on my "video game standard" which in turn means they would get more points if my opinion was ever relevant. I want to separate them because it won't mislead the consumer and it will open up a path for them to flourish alongside of video games and not fight against video games.

I don't know. Making a definition is hard, it will exclude something someone likes, include something someone dislikes, but I think it's important for the good of the medium.

 

[-Dragmire-]

I see you've watch Errant Signal recently, eh Jim? Anyhow, as a huge fan of "walking simulators", my beliefs are pretty set in stone. The visual novel style of gaming has been popular for a very long time now, and if you tried to make the separation between visual novel and game in some circles you would be laughed at (Japan for example). Yes, Dear Esther is more minimalistic, but visual novels are mentioned because they clearly have no real fail state (often), minimal interaction, no competition. Hell, only a few even have the concepts of boosting stats, and you do that by clicking one button. So you have a choice of either separating them from video games, which seems silly considering their pedigree, or moving away from a weird mechanical definition of videogame.

Can't you usually get a "bad end" of some kind by making poor choices? Some might consider that a fail state.

 

[Welkin]

I have to agree with Jim's opinion on the matter. What really bothers me the most is when people complain that something is "not even a game!" as if that instantly removes all merit from it or hell, even matters at all

 

[maximara]

I think I'm more in line with what total biscuit said about the issue. I like using the term interactive experience to talk about these kinds of games, but I don't mean it in a derogatory way. Either that or call them games but have some way to classify them as more of an experience than a mechanical challenge or something. I don't know, this is an issue that the community will eventually settle as long as people like Sterling and Total biscuit keep voicing their opinions on it. Good episode as always jim.

Also that TV you showed in animal crossing looked like an apple. If you didn't notice.

But what is the different between an video game and an interactive novel? As Yahtzee said some time ago "a game must have gameplay, otherwise it's just machinima that you have to press buttons to watch"; but how much gameplay?

 

[faefrost]

Honestly I think there must be some mid point between TotalBisquits definition of a game and Jim's.

TB's "requires a failure state" does seem to be a little to exclusive. There are planty of things that we all enjoy that don't have such explicit failure states. Animal Crossing being a good case.

But Jim's "interactivity" is too broad. Under Jim's definition MS Paint is a game. Microsoft Office is a game. (Excel is an MMO).

Maybe the key thing is they require challenge and or goals? (and I am sure that someone will find examples that don't).

I think that is why some "games" such as Dear Esther, Gone Home and Depression Quest just don't seem like games to me. They are like those online Hallmark Cards that people send around at Christmas. Click here to see what happens. Click here to build a snowman etc. And yeah I know they all kind of harken back to classic stuff like The Manhole, but still by modern standings they seem to be missing something. and I am not sure that I can properly verbalize what it is. It doesn't make them bad for what they are. I know people that have been moved by Gone Home as it seems to reflect something profound from their own lives. But I still have trouble thinking of it in terms of "game"

 

[SecondPrize]

If you spend your time online bitching about walking simulators you're never going to play then you don't get to complain when someone talks about character designs on the games you like they won't ever play. That's how it works. Don't ***** about people destroying your games and then trash steam tags for gone home. Nobody likes a hypocrite.

 

[captain_dalan]

I actually don't believe video games are inherently art either. It seems to me that there can be art "inside" of the game, but the game itself isn't art. See art doesn't serve an actual function. Art isn't built for the purpose of working for others. Art by some people's definition, mine included, cannot be hindered in it's creator's image if we attain to call it art.

Video games are too consumer and money-driven, just like movies. They are too influenced. They have too many different opinion's on the development level that are involved in shaping that game. There isn't an actual PURE artistic vision. See, the intent behind the art is just as important, if not more, as the supposed "art" itself if we wish to define it. There are muddled visions of multiple writers, designers and programmers in video games. The "function" of art as we know it is by all intents and purposes not to be inhibited by others. But in video games it clearly is. Game's won't be made, not if there isn't enough money to make it (which can be attributed to art), but if their isn't enough profit to made from making it (which most artist's themselves will admit is troubling, since the value of your art isn't intrinsic anymore but extrinsic/monetarily valued, ie. your vision isn't as important as your money).

My brother makes masks out of various materials. He makes them for no real-world functional purpose. You can't even wear all of them. The intent behind them is to convey feelings that he has about certain places and aspects of people's lives. No one hinders this vision. It is wholly his own. It isn't there to be claimed as art, or to be looked at, or to be sold. These things are what makes it art.

Some very good points there, and worthy of a whole new topic on their own

 

[Something Amyss]

Funny... the only people who are raging and are "pissed off" and insult everyone on one side of the argument in this thread happen to be the "yeah it is a game... you idiot" type of persons.

Such as?

I havent really seen anyone who says "its not a game" in this thread fall into that category of behavior.

In this thread. Sort of have to ask...so?