"Video Games": why is this primitive term still used?

[ZippyDSMlee]

The urge for a new name probably comes from the stigma of the old. Wouldn't it be just better to fight the stigma than appear pretentious and just make a new one?

But that would mean shunning a quick fix for a long term solution, and we as humans HATE that.

Because it has not degraded fully into interactive film/media.

Apparently, that's a step up.

This is interactive media

https://www.telltalegames.com/walkingdead

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK1Ymh1F3nc (Shadow Gate)

http://www.heavyrainps3.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1WEq3dhnnI (Sewer shark)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon%27s_Lair

http://www.survivetheoutbreak.com/

As much as I loved Shadow Gate and Sewer shark (and Time Gal) they are the worst most limited pieces of media made and they are some of the best of "Interactive Media".

Video games, focus on game, as in gameplay, more options and mechanics not less options and mechanics... we do not want to go down the real time generated computer graphic full motion video path of inequity where you only need 5 buttons to play a game.... (wonders off and nerd rages more to an uncaring world).

Sorry I lived through FMV and "interactive media" BS of the 90s and modern limited dumbed down hand holding gaming is slowly killing me.....
(wonders back under his rock and goes into fetal position sucking his thumb and cries remembering the horrors of FMV)

 

[Xanadu84]

A game is a type of activity meant for enjoyment and friendly competition and serve no direct productive purpose. An example of a game is chess or poker.

It must be enjoyable? So if someone doesn't like Metroid, Metroid is not a game? Or if a game has a purpose that isn't pure enjoyment, like Spec Ops: The Line, it can't be a game?

It must have competition? So Solitaire, Half Life and the single player components of most multiplayer games arn't games?

It can't be productive? So when I learned some history from Age of Empires, Age of Empires wan't a game? The existence of professional gamers makes Starcraft not be a game? oh, and what about foldit? http://fold.it/portal/

A game has to have a victory condition and/or loss condition

Funny, I always thought that Dungeons and Dragons was a game. Or Minecraft. And in a sandbox game when you respawn, can you really call a death a "Lose" condition?

I'm not trying to be an ass here, I'm just making the point that the question, "What is a game?" is probably a more complicated and convoluted question then, "What is art?". Case in point, one commonly used definition for games is, "A series of meaningful choices.". Players make choices according to rules that effect a game state. You might see the weakness in that definition as being too broad, that it is a definition that could encompass 99 percent of human endeavors. But the problem is that if you want to call Candyland a game, that definition is just too narrow. And with the advent of both flavors of ARGs, games where the game state is dependent on real life qualities like Fitocracy, and various other weird experiments, even a basic working definition of "Game" probably requires a few books and half a dozen migraines, and experts will still disagree.

 

[Something Amyss]

This is interactive media

Yes, and that seems to be a step up in the eyes of the people doing the complaining, you see.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

This is interactive media

Yes, and that seems to be a step up in the eyes of the people doing the complaining, you see.

I see what you did there.... *twitch twitch* sorry I always think the world is out to get me..er is against me..er dose not agree with my opinion >>

LOL

 

[COMaestro]

I can't say I agree with that. I usually try to avoid using dictionary definitions to prove my point since language isn't static, but in this case I feel it matches my gut feeling on the subject. A game is an activity engaged in for diversion or entertainment. Sure it may be a bit loose, but it certainly encompasses why I play most games - not necessarily to win or make someone lose, but to have fun.

It's so loose it renders the term meaningless. So now Minecraft is a game, but so is watching a movie or driving around or reading a book.

At which point, it really doesn't matter anymore.

I know that the definition of game used here is word for word from the dictionary, but I would recommend altering it to say a game is an INTERACTIVE activity, to avoid the argument that the definition is too loose and could be applied to reading or watching TV. So reading a book or watching TV is not interactive, as no matter what you do, it does not change the story you are watching/reading. As far as driving around, that CAN be a game, depending on your mindset at the time. How fast can I get to my friend's house or can I beat that other car off the line would be games of sorts. Ultimately, I say a game is something interactive done for entertainment purposes.

A game is a type of activity meant for enjoyment and friendly competition and serve no direct productive purpose. An example of a game is chess or poker.

It must be enjoyable? So if someone doesn't like Metroid, Metroid is not a game? Or if a game has a purpose that isn't pure enjoyment, like Spec Ops: The Line, it can't be a game?

It must have competition? So Solitaire, Half Life and the single player components of most multiplayer games arn't games?

It can't be productive? So when I learned some history from Age of Empires, Age of Empires wan't a game? The existence of professional gamers makes Starcraft not be a game? oh, and what about foldit? http://fold.it/portal/

This does not mean that if you do not find something to be entertaining that it is not a game. I get bored with sports video games and do not find them fun, but they are still games. It was created to be fun and entertaining for a large group of people, and hence it is a game, even if it is not a genre I prefer or enjoy. Same with something like Spec Ops. I can be horrified or disgusted, but still be entertained.

I do agree with you Xanadu, that games can definitely have a productive purpose. Otherwise, why are there so many educational games for children? I remember playing Math Blaster and such when I was a kid. It was fun, and I learned basic math. Gamification is a wonderful thing and can make dull routine tasks fun when done correctly.

A game has to have a victory condition and/or loss condition

To refer back to Microsoft Flight Simulator, you can make your own victory and loss conditions. Simply, if I land the plane without crashing it, I technically have a victory. If I crash, I lose. Alternately, if I wanted to mess around, I could consider it a victory if I crash the plane into the ground creating a spectacular fireball. It's all in the mindset. Same as D&D, as Xanadu mentioned. It is a game, and while your characters can die, that is not a loss as long as the group had fun. So the only win/loss conditions are really did the people playing enjoy themselves or not.

 

[Twilight_guy]

No. Changing the name would be largely pointless and time consuming. Just because the term 'motion picture' is antiquated doesn't mean we try and abandon it.

What defines games is the set of rules and winning and losing conditions. A game focuses on doing some action to achieve some positive end, an interactive story focuses on telling a story and not does not have a goal driven structure. A set of rules of what makes each could be useful but this distinction is really the only one games need.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

No, I subscribe to the philosophy of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Also, what Daystar said.

 

[Atrocious Joystick]

It must be enjoyable? So if someone doesn't like Metroid, Metroid is not a game? Or if a game has a purpose that isn't pure enjoyment, like Spec Ops: The Line, it can't be a game?

It must have competition? So Solitaire, Half Life and the single player components of most multiplayer games arn't games?

It can't be productive? So when I learned some history from Age of Empires, Age of Empires wan't a game? The existence of professional gamers makes Starcraft not be a game? oh, and what about foldit? http://fold.it/portal/

Never said it must be enjoyable. I said it must be meant for enjoyment. As in entertainment. That you find a particular game to be boring doesn't negate the fact that it was intended to be entertaining primarily. And while you might learn things from many games, just like you might learn something from movies, also doesn't negate the fact that it is primarily about entertainment. If a game primarily focuses on education, I'd argue that it isn't a game but rather interactive educational material.

Same thing goes for productivity, I don't think even a visual program which main goal is to aid in production or the providing of a service could be called a game, even if it is fun to use. It would be some sort of work tool or office program. And I would hardly call making money off of playing a videogame an example of productivity. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, I don't consider football stars to be productive either. To be productive is to provide a service or be a part of the chain of production of goods. In my mostly honest opinion.

My point still stands. A video game is a product that is meant for entertainment, competition (playing against a computer is still competition), has no productive purpose and displays feedback through a video screen of some sort.

 

[sextus the crazy]

Because the term works. I don't get why someone would be apposed to it, it's like those people that say that we shouldn't call ourselves "gamers", I just don't get it.

Well, probably all of the members of the escapist forums would still be called gamers considering gaming is the focus for the site.

The point people are trying to make is that "gamer" should be used as the VG equivalent to "film buff", "foodie", or "bookworm" i.e. someone who's dedicated significant time and effort into said pursuit, as opposed to a term denoting playing video games in any amount.

 

[burningdragoon]

A game has to have a victory condition and/or loss condition

"I'm no longer enjoying this game" sounds like a loss condition to me.

Edit: Right the topic. Come up with a 2-3 syllable word that doesn't sound pretentious and maybe it will catch on. It won't, but maybe.

 

[Xanadu84]

It must be enjoyable? So if someone doesn't like Metroid, Metroid is not a game? Or if a game has a purpose that isn't pure enjoyment, like Spec Ops: The Line, it can't be a game?

It must have competition? So Solitaire, Half Life and the single player components of most multiplayer games arn't games?

It can't be productive? So when I learned some history from Age of Empires, Age of Empires wan't a game? The existence of professional gamers makes Starcraft not be a game? oh, and what about foldit? http://fold.it/portal/

Never said it must be enjoyable. I said it must be meant for enjoyment. As in entertainment. That you find a particular game to be boring doesn't negate the fact that it was intended to be entertaining primarily. And while you might learn things from many games, just like you might learn something from movies, also doesn't negate the fact that it is primarily about entertainment. If a game primarily focuses on education, I'd argue that it isn't a game but rather interactive educational material.

Same thing goes for productivity, I don't think even a visual program which main goal is to aid in production or the providing of a service could be called a game, even if it is fun to use. It would be some sort of work tool or office program. And I would hardly call making money off of playing a videogame an example of productivity. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, I don't consider football stars to be productive either. To be productive is to provide a service or be a part of the chain of production of goods. In my mostly honest opinion.

My point still stands. A video game is a product that is meant for entertainment, competition (playing against a computer is still competition), has no productive purpose and displays feedback through a video screen of some sort.

Well here is the problem. What you are discussing goes into the realm of containing infinite grey area. What percentage of a game must be entertainment? What is entertainment? Something that is entertaining may have common trends, but it can also contain infinite amount of subjectivity. Some people enjoy solving math equations, and if a math equation isn't used to make something real, then isn't it completely non-productive? The vast majority of games also contain learning of some kind. Maybe your learning about a very narrow and inapplicable set of mechanics and dynamics, but hey, there's a lot of weird things in science and math that fall into that realm. Often times games are not particularly practical learning, but then again, neither is string theory. Is the concept of game really a completely subjective process, depending on an individuals definition of "Primarily" "Focused" "Entertainment" and "Useful"? Because that sounds to me like your definition is too vauge to count as even remotely useful. Id argue that what you are discussing is things strongly correlated with games, but not a working definition.

When you say that it has competition, you apparently are saying that it simply must have challenge. Competition is necessarily against another person, and calling for example an NPC , or an anthropomorphic abstraction of the mechanics of a game like tetris a fellow competitor raises just too many grey areas. What is competition? Is it literally any system in which player agency effects the state of the system? You know, that's not a bad definition of Game, but its a pretty big leap from simply saying, "Competition". Maybe it is in pursuit of specific goals, but certainly player defined goals could be seen as goals, and it seems absurd to exclude the concept of player defined goals. After all, if you exclude player defined goals, what modern games ARE games? There is no "Win Screen" in, for example, Halo. The idea of reaching the end being the Win state is easy to assume, but that is still a subjective judgement. Whose to say that I can't "Win" halo by muteing the volume? Where in the rules does it say that that is not a win state?

The best definition for a game I can come up with is this. Play the process in which a player intentionally takes actions within a system of abstracted rules, in which those actions create an identifiable change in the state in which those rules exist. This is called meaningful actions. The player may then observe and take additional meaningful action based on that observation. A game is a discrete system of abstracted rules which lends itself most readily to play.

 

[Lugbzurg]

What's this about hatred for graphic novels? Graphic novels are books with comics in them. IE: Novels with lots of graphics in them. What's wrong with that?

Just like games played on a video device are called "videogames". And just because someone says that The Walking Dead is a bad game, that doesn't automagically make it not a game, anymore. I could tell you that I think Call of Duty 12 is a bad game, but it'd still be a game. Sonic '06 is a game. So are Big Rigs, ET: The Extra Terrestrial, and Superman 64. Being bad doesn't make it not a game.

I should mention that I also find the term "gamer" to be incredibly stupid. I know there's an article about that on here somewhere. After all, we don't call people who watch movies "watchers" or people who read books "readers". In fact, why is it "gamer" and not "player", anyway? After all, You aren't "gaming" Quake II. You're playing it.

 

[dessertmonkeyjk]

Hmm...

Cyber Entertainment...Interactive Virtual Software...SimGame...Fun Software...LaLa Simulator...

I got nothin'.

 

[JEBWrench]

Hmm...

Cyber Entertainment...Interactive Virtual Software...SimGame...Fun Software...LaLa Simulator...

I got nothin'.

I got it!

Cyberactivesimfunla.

We may be on to something.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Books and films aren't necessarily entertainment. I think the problem with "games" is that, whether or not it should, it automatically connotates entertainment, which again connotates something that is not intellectual or productive. This, of course, isn't the case - chess is a game, so are tennis and darts and those all exercise the mind and/or body. They don't exist simply to entertain and waste time.

I personally don't give a crap whether others see electronic gaming as a waste of time or whether they see it as having the potential to be artistic, but that perception does have an effect on the medium (I don't like to use the word "industry" but perhaps that word applies too). If the people who fund games have the idea that they are mindless and necessarily so, then the games they develop will always follow that trend. Which is why anything that tries to delve into the depths of the real potential of the medium isn't usually made by the "big guys", at least initially.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Question: Do you think video games should get an alternate or even new name? And if so, what? And/Or, what classifies a "game" to you?

After reading the "The Walking dead is a bad game but a good story" thread, and replies in it, it got me thinking even more than I usually do about this medium.

Should we just segregate "interactive stories" and "games" into different categories? Do "games" just have more layers than other entertainment forms, and we should take all of those into account? Or should we be forced to take all "games" for what they are, to avoid an industry standard?

I think it boils down to just opinions, and what people personally classify things as, but still, they can all be entertaining in the same way, and as a superficial representation as to what this medium is, it's hard to even put a finger on one.


EDIT: I just kinda realized this is what they were talking about over there. Shit.

I agree with you. I think there are actually two different kinds of video games--games that are built for an experience (think interactive fiction, point and click adventures, games like Bioshock that minimize the impact of 'losing'--where skill isn't the point) and games that are built for competition, which more closely resemble (similarities between racking up kills in Counter-Strike to points in games like basketball).

And they're all lumped into the same category of 'games.'

I think instead of redefining video games, we're slowly redefining games as a concept.

 

[zehydra]

A game has to have a victory condition and/or loss condition

"I'm no longer enjoying this game" sounds like a loss condition to me.

Edit: Right the topic. Come up with a 2-3 syllable word that doesn't sound pretentious and maybe it will catch on. It won't, but maybe.

but that is not an example of victory/loss condition

 

[thiosk]

You are right! Let's rename them... Make up a random word here, gazongas! I'm gonna go play with gazongas for a while, cya.

 

[PrimitiveJudge]

Because you're pretending to be sophisticated, and ended up looking dumb that's why. Unless you want to go down the route of VN, and point and click not being games.

You have officially became my favorite responder ever.

As for the OP. Why do they call them Movies and not talkies(original name), why call them gun and not hand cannons? It is what it is, no one in the next 100 years is going to call a wheel (as it was named 100,000 years ago) a rotator, or someone
saying this is not a rock, it is a planetary space object that fell from the cosmos and shall be used to throw or bash a skull in.

 

[Altorin]

would it be better served with a new name? maybe. Do I think someone should arbitrarily make one and enforce it on people? no. we have enough craziness in this world without a subset of people claiming video games aren't video games but are rather Interactive Gameplay Scenarios or some garbage. Everyone knows what a video game is, at least in general, and that's how language is best used.