Jimquisition: It's Not A Video Game!

[gridsleep]

I have a sudden strange need for a TV that looks like an apple...

 

[Spearmaster]

Whoa... You mean everything I do with my television and computer is a video game? Checking the weather on my smartphone is a video game? Watching a DVD or blue-ray is a video game? This is absurd beyond where my comprehension of ignorance could ever take me. There is a line, just because we cant quite define it doesn't mean its not there.

On the other hand if we start calling everything a video game we can finally stop trying to rate these non-video game things as good pieces of whatever they are but rather horrible, shitty, 0/10, .01%, video games.

So if we call them video games, we can rightly call them shit video games, brilliant

 

[seditary]

So the Jimquisition is a game then.

It requires user interaction, has a user interface that provides feedback and is on a video device.

So I'll treat it as a game.

What a terribly poor sexist game. 7 minutes long and no women? I feel marginalized by the exclusion. I want to play a woman's opinion on the definition of videogames. The graphics were at times crisp but mysteriously blurry at others. Sound was excellent throughout. At least it was free to play, I wouldn't spend money on the product since I didn't even get to do anything. Would not recommend.

 

[ConanThe3rd]

Absolutely; Your product is a game and with that title comes power, however, with that power comes the responsibility to be a _good_ game.

 

[barbzilla]

Good morning to my lord and master. I can't help but agree with you. Provided it is interactive and requires a monitor, screen, television, ect. I would classify it as a video game. No matter if it is good or bad, it is still a video game, even if I have to use game lightly.

Anyhow, great video as always Jim, thank god for you!

So all movies are videogames because they have menu's. Windows 7 is a videogame because it is interactive, and requires a screen.

If I were to strap a camera to the head of a robot, give you movement controls of it then place it in a museum, no one would call it a videogame. That is what Dear Ester was, just with different words and setting.

I wouldn't call ordering from a mcdonald's menu social interaction, so by the same means, I don't call picking play from a DvD menu interaction. I can somewhat see your point about windows, but it still isn't entertainment, and that was my fault for not specifying entertainment. As for your robot claim, people ***** all the time that drone warfare is nothing but video games with real life consequences, so how would that be any different?

 

[MrBaskerville]

I don't really know where i stand and i don't really think this entire discussion is worth having. It's semantics, but at some level i probably would say that some games might benefit from a different tag, They don't really feature a lot of game mechanics and might be more akin to something labeled Interactive Fiction. But that might as well be a sub genre of the umbrella term: Game. It's all semantics anyway, the only somewhat important part would be to find a proper genre tag to fit onto games like Heavy Rain and Dear Esther and i think Interactive Fiction works better than the vague Not-Game or the degrading Walking simulator.

But yeah, it would be more interesting to discuss whether the games are good or not. The only reason them being games are called into question is that a lot of people hate all these art games and they want them out of their tree house. It's a bit silly and ultimately it really doesnt matter at all.

 

[Abnaxis]

I can somewhat see your point about windows, but it still isn't entertainment, and that was my fault for not specifying entertainment.

What do you mean when you say "it"? Are you saying that any technological system where "interaction" input produces "entertainment" output is a video game? What about a Mutoscopes? Mutoscopes were devices from the early 1900s which ran on electricity, that would shows users a short film as long as they continued cranking a handle. When historians describe the history of video games, should these be listed as one of the first? I mean, they even had a "game over" condition--if the user stopped cranking or tried to reverse the film, many of the machines would snap shut and lock them out of their movie.

Or, for a more relatable example, take old, analog, broadcast television. Anyone who's old enough (or poor enough) can tell you stories, about the times when you just Could. Not. Get. Reception. with those crappy bunny-ear antennas that were supposed to pick up television transmissions. If you wanted to see what was on bad enough, you had to get up and move them around until you hit the magic configuration that let the signal come in. Often, this miracle configuration was not independently stable, and as soon as you let go of the antennas the picture went away. I literally spent hours of my youth "interacting" with a piece of electronics in this way, holding antennas in order to get entertainment.

Are either of these examples video games? If not, what is the distinction between them and a game like Dear Esther, where the entertainment comes from the story, and interaction only facilitates moving from one story bit to the next? If so, what proportion of people who generally have an idea of what a "video game" is would agree with you? Do you think defining the above examples as video games would ever gain widespread acceptance?

To me, the answer is this: the defining characteristic of a video game, is that the interaction IS entertainment. One didn't crank a mutoscope or perform antenna calisthenics because they found it fun, they did it because it was a necessary evil performed to get the actual entertainment they were really interested in. THAT is why I don't consider Dear Esther a game. In that work, the mechanics amount a metaphorical mutoscope crank, a necessary bit of interaction required to get at the bits that are actually entertaining: the story. As such, I'm not going to complain about the mechanics unless they detract from the story, any more than I complain about Get Smart because I didn't find the antenna wrangling engaging. You don't play Dear Esther because you find walking around on an island fun, just like audiences didn't use mutoscopes because they liked twirling handles.

Every piece of software requires some form of interaction. If the interaction is not intended to be entertaining in and of itself, then that piece of software isn't a game. That's why Windows isn't a game, and that's why Dear Esther isn't a game.

 

[jdarksun]

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.

"Failure state" means you did not succeed at a task and was punished for it. In Dark Souls, you are sent back to your campfire and everything respawns. That is your punishment for failing to play correctly, hence, "failure state."

I see Jim's argument, and I can even see why he's right (he is Jim, after all); it's just a thing I have a hard time accepting. Games (which I grudgingly use in this context, but use nonetheless) like Dear Esther are, to me, like requiring you to press one button at random intervals to keep a movie playing. If I published that to Steam, that'd fulfill the definition of game as defined here. But that's not really a "game" to me - it's a passive experience, like watching a movie or reading a book, that I've artificially broken up by requiring user input. My participation didn't provide me with a unique experience; I got what everyone else got, verbatim.

Which is a silly argument that goes down Jim's path of "personal preference -> Roger Ebert", which I certainly don't want. But it's a hangup I have regardless.

 

[lord.jeff]

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.

It's true that video games share some things in common with computer programs but that could be said of other mediums. Are books the same as pictures because they're both pen on paper?

 

[Abnaxis]

snip

It's true that video games share some things in common with computer programs but that could be said of other mediums. Are books the same as pictures because they're both pen on paper?

First, I wasn't saying that video games are exactly the same as other computer programs, but rather that video games aren't really a medium, the zeros and ones are the medium, and that medium includes more than video games.

To answer your question, I would say both the examples you listed are the same in that they share they same medium. Clearly (say) graphic novels and encyclopedias are different from each other in a great many ways, but they are both "books".

Saying that "'video games' are a medium, so anything within that medium is a 'video game'" is like saying encyclopedias are a medium, so anything that shares the same medium is an encyclopedia. "Encyclopedia" does not describe a medium, but rather a subset of one.

 

[Neferius]

That TV looked NOTHING like an Apple!
I mean, where's the cheap plastic flatscreen? Where's the easily bendable tin casing?
And where is the damn PRICETAG.
Everyone knows the most recognizable feature on an Apple, the one thing that makes it stand head and shoulders from all the "commoner" merchandise is it's goddamn PRICETAG!!!

 

[The Lunatic]

I see no issue with classing games as "Non-games" for failing to adhere to a set criteria which the vast majority of games do.

I think it simply makes classification and finding what you want easier.

And besides, it's not like the majority of people aren't going to say "I meant a -real- game".

So, it just seems better to deal with the term.

 

[Melaphont]

I honestly struggle understanding why people care either way. If there is a subset of consumers who dont think it is worthy of the title of a game or dont want the label... More power to them. This idea that there is "damage" to the industry due to people not wanting to call gone home a game is silly. People can consider it "other" and other people can consider it a game. The market will sort it out just fine, without 1 name to rule them all, one name to bind them. Regardless of whether they are a "game" or not doesn't mean people wont be critical of a game regardless, so I find Jims...issue with this topic to be incredibly indulgent in the semantics of dictionary definitions, in relation to a video game. Going on the dictionary definition of what can be a video game, technically a lot of things qualify, that you would think wouldn't(depending on how you derive fun and ect).

Seems this particular issue is chasing after windmills in the fact that it has no real impact on the quality of said titles.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

So can we call DVD's that have hidden easter eggs in the menu video games? I mean it requires the user to interact with the system to find hidden treats, which can lead to enjoyment on finding them.

Edit:Also going by the logic of not having these terms I can call Tomb Raider a RPG. With how it has XP and skills you can get.

 

[maxben]

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.

Sure, and some might consider failing to unlock all the endings a fail state, but that's user defined. In my opinion the bad endings are just as valid as good endings, and it is not more disappointing to get that than to read a book which ends with something negative.

 

[barbzilla]

Good morning to my lord and master. I can't help but agree with you. Provided it is interactive and requires a monitor, screen, television, ect. I would classify it as a video game. No matter if it is good or bad, it is still a video game, even if I have to use game lightly.

Anyhow, great video as always Jim, thank god for you!

So all movies are videogames because they have menu's. Windows 7 is a videogame because it is interactive, and requires a screen.

If I were to strap a camera to the head of a robot, give you movement controls of it then place it in a museum, no one would call it a videogame. That is what Dear Ester was, just with different words and setting.

I wouldn't call ordering from a mcdonald's menu social interaction, so by the same means, I don't call picking play from a DvD menu interaction. I can somewhat see your point about windows, but it still isn't entertainment, and that was my fault for not specifying entertainment. As for your robot claim, people ***** all the time that drone warfare is nothing but video games with real life consequences, so how would that be any different?

Ok then how about this. If I were to grab the files for the map in any videogame, plop it into a 3D program (like Blender) then fly around the map in the camera, would that suddenly be a videogame? I mean, the map was made for entertainment, I have just as much interaction as Dear Esther, technically more since I'm able to fly.

If you got permission to publish said maps under your own title, then yes I would consider it a game. I personally take games like DC Universe and just fly around for hours looking at the scenery and picking stuff up. Remember, just because you don't find it entertaining, doesn't mean that someone else won't. Try to have an open mind, and remember that unless you want everything to become shades of grey and brown shooters, that we need new and refreshing (or sometimes, absolutely idiotic ideas) to keep us moving forward.

 

[Abnaxis]

I honestly struggle understanding why people care either way. If there is a subset of consumers who dont think it is worthy of the title of a game or dont want the label... More power to them. This idea that there is "damage" to the industry due to people not wanting to call gone home a game is silly. People can consider it "other" and other people can consider it a game. The market will sort it out just fine, without 1 name to rule them all, one name to bind them. Regardless of whether they are a "game" or not doesn't mean people wont be critical of a game regardless, so I find Jims...issue with this topic to be incredibly indulgent in the semantics of dictionary definitions, in relation to a video game. Going on the dictionary definition of what can be a video game, technically a lot of things qualify, that you would think wouldn't(depending on how you derive fun and ect).

Seems this particular issue is chasing after windmills in the fact that it has no real impact on the quality of said titles.

I'm not sure what "market" nonsense has to do with any of this. People don't buy or sell labels. They either call something a "game" or they don't, no money changes hands if someone decides to call something a "video game".

More to your point, it matters because how we define "game" shapes how games are thought of critically, which in terms shapes games design, criticism and the gaming community at large. The fact that "what is a game?" is so ill defined hurts the medium in a myriad of ways.

For example, have you ever noticed that if you talk to an expert in absolutely any other artistic medium, they can talk to you in precise jargon terms about what techniques are used and how they are used to create the art? Film ciritcs can talk about mis en scene, method acting versus classical acting, lighting fundamentals, camera angles, etc. If I were to talk to a film expert and ask, "what effect does it have when you have a close up view of a character addressing the camera?" the expert can answer me in concrete terms.

That doesn't exist with games. Every single attempt to come up with jargon ends in one of two ways: if the word is positive in connotation, it goes on the back of every box and becomes synonymous with "I like this game". If the word is negative in connotation, it conversely becomes shorthand for "I don't like this game". For a good example of the latter, see Sesquipedalian Loquaciousness, was an attempt to define one good jargon term to describe an effect unique to games. Specifically, it's supposed to describe when the story nd the gameplay conflict within a video game.

But...who the hell cares if the story and gameplay conflict? Why does it matter? When is it acceptable? Why do we even have stories in games anyway? What purpose do they serve?

Nobody can answer these questions (or rather, everyone has their own answer for them), because the first requirement in answering any of the questions above is answering "what is a game?" As a result it took no time at all before a reviewer was chucking the term at Bioshock because you find food in garbage cans (hence Jim's video).

In fact, I would go so far as to say most of the biggest problems in gaming today are caused by ambiguity. You have gamersgate, which was fueled in part by the fact that no reviewer has the language to talk about a game in more depth than a subjective "it was/was not fun," and so the gaming media has abysmal credibility. You have the deluge of brown and gray, fueled in part by the fact that no publisher has the tools needed to adequately assess the risk of trying something new, so they go with what's deemed safe. Some of the worst dens of vitriolic trolling and flame wars on the internet are gaming forums, because nobody can get on the same page on something as fundamental as "what is a game?"

Ambiguity is not good for us, and we shouldn't encourage it. Ideally, we should be able to define what gaming is, and how to make it better, and then go do those things. Maybe it will leave some things out of the gamer tent (frankly, it should if those things don't fit), and I'm sure there will be dicks who look down on those "non-games" with disdain as a result. However, in the long run it helps to have better defined boundaries versus the way it is now.

 

[Plunkies]

Good morning to my lord and master. I can't help but agree with you. Provided it is interactive and requires a monitor, screen, television, ect. I would classify it as a video game. No matter if it is good or bad, it is still a video game, even if I have to use game lightly.

Anyhow, great video as always Jim, thank god for you!

So all movies are videogames because they have menu's. Windows 7 is a videogame because it is interactive, and requires a screen.

If I were to strap a camera to the head of a robot, give you movement controls of it then place it in a museum, no one would call it a videogame. That is what Dear Ester was, just with different words and setting.

I wouldn't call ordering from a mcdonald's menu social interaction, so by the same means, I don't call picking play from a DvD menu interaction. I can somewhat see your point about windows, but it still isn't entertainment, and that was my fault for not specifying entertainment. As for your robot claim, people ***** all the time that drone warfare is nothing but video games with real life consequences, so how would that be any different?

Ok then how about this. If I were to grab the files for the map in any videogame, plop it into a 3D program (like Blender) then fly around the map in the camera, would that suddenly be a videogame? I mean, the map was made for entertainment, I have just as much interaction as Dear Esther, technically more since I'm able to fly.

If you got permission to publish said maps under your own title, then yes I would consider it a game. I personally take games like DC Universe and just fly around for hours looking at the scenery and picking stuff up. Remember, just because you don't find it entertaining, doesn't mean that someone else won't. Try to have an open mind, and remember that unless you want everything to become shades of grey and brown shooters, that we need new and refreshing (or sometimes, absolutely idiotic ideas) to keep us moving forward.

Just because something is entertaining does not make it a game. This is the problem with the argument. People act like if something isn't classified as a game then it's automatically bad. So then people like Jim Sterling broaden the definition so much that your operating system is suddenly a game. The word becomes meaningless.

A game is a competition. Wandering around looking at stuff isn't a game. It's not a game on a computer, it's not a game on a console, and no one considers it a game in real life. You could make it a game if you wanted to. A scavenger hunt would make it a competition of who looked at stuff the best. Or you could make it a race, who wanders the fastest. Or an endurance challenge, the winner falls asleep last. Those would be games.

 

[barbzilla]

Good morning to my lord and master. I can't help but agree with you. Provided it is interactive and requires a monitor, screen, television, ect. I would classify it as a video game. No matter if it is good or bad, it is still a video game, even if I have to use game lightly.

Anyhow, great video as always Jim, thank god for you!

So all movies are videogames because they have menu's. Windows 7 is a videogame because it is interactive, and requires a screen.

If I were to strap a camera to the head of a robot, give you movement controls of it then place it in a museum, no one would call it a videogame. That is what Dear Ester was, just with different words and setting.

I wouldn't call ordering from a mcdonald's menu social interaction, so by the same means, I don't call picking play from a DvD menu interaction. I can somewhat see your point about windows, but it still isn't entertainment, and that was my fault for not specifying entertainment. As for your robot claim, people ***** all the time that drone warfare is nothing but video games with real life consequences, so how would that be any different?

Ok then how about this. If I were to grab the files for the map in any videogame, plop it into a 3D program (like Blender) then fly around the map in the camera, would that suddenly be a videogame? I mean, the map was made for entertainment, I have just as much interaction as Dear Esther, technically more since I'm able to fly.

If you got permission to publish said maps under your own title, then yes I would consider it a game. I personally take games like DC Universe and just fly around for hours looking at the scenery and picking stuff up. Remember, just because you don't find it entertaining, doesn't mean that someone else won't. Try to have an open mind, and remember that unless you want everything to become shades of grey and brown shooters, that we need new and refreshing (or sometimes, absolutely idiotic ideas) to keep us moving forward.

Just because something is entertaining does not make it a game. This is the problem with the argument. People act like if something isn't classified as a game then it's automatically bad. So then people like Jim Sterling broaden the definition so much that your operating system is suddenly a game. The word becomes meaningless.

A game is a competition. Wandering around looking at stuff isn't a game. It's not a game on a computer, it's not a game on a console, and no one considers it a game in real life. You could make it a game if you wanted to. A scavenger hunt would make it a competition of who looked at stuff the best. Or you could make it a race, who wanders the fastest. Or an endurance challenge, the winner falls asleep last. Those would be games.

I already covered the operating system, so now you are just reaching to be argumentative. Not all games are competition, a game is a form of entertainment used to pass time. Or if we really want to be strict with our definitions, you could consider sports and competition games, but this is also found as a definition for game "a type of activity or business, especially when regarded as a game.". So please tell me again why it has to be competitive?

Edit: Just realized my last question sounds argumentative. I am actually asking the question, and not trying to bait you.

 

[Snowskeeper]

I think it might be fair to accuse games like Dear Esther and Gone Home of not being /games/, but saying they aren't /video-games/ is a little silly.