Jimquisition: It's Not A Video Game!

[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.

 

[Darklupus]

A game has the possibility to be not only for competition, but for no competition whatsoever. What I mean is that a game can just be simply for fun as well. And even if someone doesn't think it's for fun doesn't mean it is a game. Also, just because someone "plays" a game doesn't mean that person must have fun with it. One of the possibilities of doing that is to pass the time.

 

[Sticky]

Going on what Totalbiscuit said on the issue: Games have failure states. There has to be a way to fail at your goal in order for it to be considered a 'game' purely. Even dying in a game and being forced to try a segment over is considered a failure state. Otherwise, you're not being engaged by the narrative. You cannot have any bearing on the narrative if it isn't possible to fail at what you are doing.

Then it's more like you're being led along in a very well-constructed themepark. Which is fine, nothing is wrong with themeparks, but I wouldn't call them a 'game'. You would be very hard-pressed to find a definition where walking in a themepark could be considered a 'game' unless you're quizzed on what you saw at the end.

That's what I think separates Gone Home with a game like The Stanley Parable. The Stanley Parable has failure states, it has dozens of them. You can fail in TSP by walking off the edge of a loading dock in the first minute of the game. Some of the 'good' endings in the game are endings where you specifically fail at what you are trying to accomplish. Or endings where the player character himself just gives up and quits.

Gone Home is okay if that's what you want in an interactive experience, but please don't try to pontificate at me that this is exactly the same type of game like TSP and then compare me to a whiny baby.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

You have your definitions, I have mine, but at the end of the day it's all semantics.

I'm gonna cut right in here and say that I find this sentence to be extremely dangerous, intellectually speaking.

My problem is that strictly adhering to one and only one definition tends to lead to a lot of side-tracking. Suddenly instead of just talking about what we're talking about, we're sitting here discussing definitions. It's fair enough to know how someone defines a word, but suddenly the entire conversation has been derailed so that we could go on this little tangent about a specific word that was used. Okay, so maybe what TB does isn't "reviews" by his definition, but they're the same basic concept. To insist that they aren't reviews just because they don't adhere to one's personal definition of the word is, frankly, egotistical. Suddenly TB's definition of the word is more important than the general concept of what we're getting out of the videos; which is a critique on the game in question. Heck, I would almost argue that his "WTF is" series is more informative than what he considers to be proper reviews, because I can actually see the game in action. I also really like how he goes into the options menu, because it can help call-out a game that is lacking options it would sorely need (like Rage having none, and I've heard Quantum Conundrum was lacking in graphical options as well). That can be a huge deal-breaker that many "reviews" don't even bother to mention usually.

Anyway, my point isn't that definitions are worthless, just that getting hung-up on specific definitions for something that can have broad meanings doesn't do any good. TB getting hung-up on how he does "first impressions" instead of "reviews" is like how people freak-out anytime I say that I'm gonna go get some ice cream at DQ, because it's SOFT SERVE! It's like, okay, maybe you're technically correct, but you still haven't pointed-out a flaw in my sentence as-is. I'm well-aware of the semantic differences between "ice cream" and "soft serve", but how many people are going to complain about wanting ice cream when they're given soft serve? Not enough to matter. I don't doubt that there are people who hate soft serve, but absolutely love ice cream (maybe even vice versa), but they are in a slim minority. Meanwhile, I watch TB's "WTF is" series to get an idea of whether or not a game is any good, therefore they are "reviews", even if only by a looser definition of the word. Sure he doesn't show-off the entire game or play to completion before giving an opinion on it, but that generally isn't necessary for knowing if a game is any good.

If that means he is overly specific for you fair enough. However, it is not done to separate or label things, but to clearly communicate a large amount of informational with only a handful of words. When TB says whether something is or isn't a game I immediately know quite a bit about the thing he is talking about, because he is clear with his definitions.

Yes, but he's also exclusionary with his definitions, which means that when he says that something isn't "X", it loses all value. Okay, so TB is saying that such-and-such "isn't a game", but he also has a very strict definition of the term that includes things that other people don't see as vital, so he might as well have been gargling Listerine and I'd have gotten the same value from his statement. Basically, where you feel that his strict definitions makes it easier to know what he's saying, I almost argue that it makes it less clear to know what he's talking about. I get that he wants to be understood by as broad of an audience as possible, but the problem is that a broad audience is going to have several people who all have their own interpretations. By keeping his definitions so strict (especially for something like his definition of a game), he narrows the scope of viewers who will know what he's talking about more-so than broadening it.

----------

(( Also, sorry for the delay in the reply. It's one of those things that was sitting in the back of my head, but then I'd never be thinking about it while actually at the computer. x_x ))

 

[Rooks]

So wait, farmville is then considered a game?