What's in a Game?

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
3,247
0
0
What's in a Game?

How we define videogames has changed much since their creation.

Read Full Article
 

Rot Krieg

New member
Feb 6, 2008
81
0
0
"Using Games for Windows Live - while about as challenging as Dark Souls..." It's funny because it's true.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,769
5
43
He done got all hairy!

Not sure about your definition. If "play" can include "probing new systems and discovering how they behave in response to your input" then one can "play" with, say, Photoshop. I'm sure we've all heard people use the term when experimenting with a new application.
 

Adventurer2626

New member
Jan 21, 2010
713
0
0
Personally I'm gonna go with an interactive virtual medium. The output to you is the same as a movie but you can modify what happens. So I guess for me a game where all you do is walk around and interact with absolutely nothing, it's case is a bit water-thin. I hate the have to be able to win/lose definition. If I wanted an experience that ended I would buy a movie not a game.
 

Falseprophet

New member
Jan 13, 2009
1,381
0
0
Isn't the core of this debate the fact that the term "game" doesn't have a single, simple definition, as Wittgenstein [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game#Ludwig_Wittgenstein] noted? If "games" in general don't always have rules or win/lose conditions, why should videogames require them?
 

The_Great_Galendo

New member
Sep 14, 2012
186
0
0
Zhukov said:
He done got all hairy!

Not sure about your definition. If "play" can include "probing new systems and discovering how they behave in response to your input" then one can "play" with, say, Photoshop. I'm sure we've all heard people use the term when experimenting with a new application.
Yeah, I came here pretty much to post this. All you've done is taken the broad term "video game", for which everyone has their own definition, and replace it with the broad term "play", for which everyone has their own definition. Total progress: zero.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
When you make a term overly broad it loses meaning. As such I do not believe that everything called a game is a game.

I tend to consider things like Sim City and some piloting games "Simulations" rather than games because in general they exsit to represent something and well... simulate it, rather than actually setting out to provide gamplay or any kind of objective. They typically aren't entirely out to entertain, though they usually do. Not everyone creates this kind of a distinction but I think it's what best applies to the situation, and has even been used that way officially, though it always comes down to the masses not wanting to accept a more complicated vernacular.

By definition when you want to define video games as anything that can be played, you pretty much wind up including almost every bit of software in existance, so there is no real reason to even have the term "video game".

To my way of thinking the kind of software that we're seeing now that raises these questions will eventually get a label if it ever becomes popular enough to matter. To be entirely fair outside of a relatively select group of people things like "Dear Esther" are pretty much unknown, unlike the way video games in general have seeped into the mainstream consciousness. I'm tempted to just call it all "Computer Art", while other things might have artistic intent along with other purposes, such productions have nothing else to them except for the art, a lot of them are even stated as having no intent to entertain, so much as to represent a mental exercise or convey a message. "Dear Esther" is more or less defined as basically being a giant waste of space, it exists because it can, which is kind of the point. The creators more or less acknowleged that there is no actual answers or storyline, it's just wierdness and narrative for the intent of having it, and for people to broadcast onto, it means nothing. I guess you could pretty much call it a piece of "Troll Art" in the long term given the eventual reveals I was reading.
 

Riobux

New member
Apr 15, 2009
1,955
0
0
Falseprophet said:
Isn't the core of this debate the fact that the term "game" doesn't have a single, simple definition, as Wittgenstein [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game#Ludwig_Wittgenstein] noted?
Honestly, this is a debate as old as time it's self with nothing new on this table to offer up a worthwhile purpose to regurgitate the whole "when is a game not a game?" debate. I'll just mention that Ludwig Wittgenstein did work on Language-Game theory and that should be enough regurgitation about this subject that's needed for now.
 

Smertnik

New member
Apr 5, 2010
1,172
0
0
Falseprophet said:
Isn't the core of this debate the fact that the term "game" doesn't have a single, simple definition, as Wittgenstein [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game#Ludwig_Wittgenstein] noted? If "games" in general don't always have rules or win/lose conditions, why should videogames require them?
Exactly. And while we're at it, what is even the point of this debate? What would we achieve if we somehow came to the final consensus what is and isn't a game?
 

silverhawk100

New member
Dec 17, 2009
80
0
0
I'd go further than other people are going. A game is a set of rules and stimuli that demand interaction of some form or another. Usually that involves some degree (or lack of) action and reaction, but not always.

If you have a screen saying "use the arrow keys to move" and a dude on the screen who will do nothing until you press a button, then it is demanding you to interact with it. If you have a blank photoshop window, you can play around in it and certainly have fun from drawing in it and messing with the myriad of tools, but it isn't a game because the software is not reacting to the stimulus you're providing it, you are the only one reacting to said stimulus. A movie asks us to react to the stimulus, but it will not react to our reactions.

Now a better question is how do we define the difference between a Game and the Theatre? That I don't know, because there most definitely is an interaction between audience and actor. Perhaps it's something as simple as the degree of interaction. Perhaps the stimuli demand interaction, but the rules do not.
 

Falterfire

New member
Jul 9, 2012
810
0
0
I'm going to go with the 'Why does it matter'? school of thought. I'm reminded somewhat of the discussion over whether or not there was such a thing as an 'art game'. Ultimately I think it's a game if you think it is. I don't think it's possible to come up with a definition that is both concise enough to be understandable while still including Minecraft, Dear Esther, and Minesweeper and precise enough to separate such distinctions as Minecraft and a Lego Design Tool.
 

Varil

New member
May 23, 2011
78
0
0
I'd define "game" as an activity used for entertainment which has a clearly defined goal(short-term or long-term). This doesn't necessarily mean a "win" or "loss" condition, but merely something the player is supposed to accomplish. Sports are all games because they are primarily meant to be enjoyable, and have clearly defined goals(which happen to include win/loss conditions). A dart isn't a game, but it can be used for games. Throwing darts alone is a game, even without a clearly defined win/loss scenario, because there is a clearly defined goal(hit your target) which the player can take effort to accomplish.

I'd say "software toy" is a good catch-all for any program used for entertainment. All videogames are software toys, but not all software toys are videogames. MSPaint isn't a videogame, but CAN be used as a software toy, and can even be used to INVENT games to play(see who can draw the best picture!). This doesn't make it at videogame.

Curiously, this definition means Minecraft survival mode is a game because it has emergent goals(survive, improve gear, defeat bosses, etc) but creative mode is a software toy, since the player has no goals or emergent goals. The player can make goals(build a scale model of the earth), and turn them into a game(do it as fast as possible), but then they're just utilizing a toy to facilitate a game they want to play, not turning the toy into as videogame.

I suppose this means Loneliness is a videogame by definition, because it does have a stated goal(wait for the end) and an emergent goal(play with the dots).
 

krellen

Unrepentant Obsidian Fanboy
Jan 23, 2009
224
0
0
On the subject of planets, something few modern people know is that for a time in the 19th century, we had 11 planets in our solar system, because the four largest asteroids were not called "asteroids" until decades after their discovery (as the word had not been invented yet).

This situation with Pluto is not new. We've been through it before, and will probably be through it again. Eventually, we'll all come to embrace our new solar system, with its planets, asteroids, and plutoids.
 

freaper

snuggere mongool
Apr 3, 2010
1,198
0
0
I'm happy that you mentioned The Stanley Parable there. A truly great Half-Life 2 mod, with one of the best narrators out there.
 

mikespoff

New member
Oct 29, 2009
758
0
0
Woo hoo, a new Shamus post! And it's GOOD!

Rogue 09 said:
Now, for games, I believe you definitely need win loss scenarios for a game. Otherwise, you're just "playing". If we both have Legos and are building things, we're playing. If we're each trying to build the better Robot, it's a game. There are defines goals and ways to win or lose.
This doesn't work. If I use Visual Studio to write a program, then by your definition I'm playing a game, since a successfully written program can be termed a "win condition".

I like Shamus' definition, partly because it doesn't try to be over-perscriptive. Its interpretation hinges on the subjective understanding of "playing".
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Rot Krieg said:
"Using Games for Windows Live - while about as challenging as Dark Souls..." It's funny because it's true.
Funnily enough, GFWL is the reason I CAN'T play Dark Souls. ;__;

"Beat our non-game before even trying the real thing!" Sorry, three days of fury with no reward isn't cutting it.

Rogue 09 said:
Not a fan of this first installment, but I'll play along.

I believe that you're looking at the entire argument from the wrong angle. Any word is used in order to communicate an idea, or an image. It's to facilitate understanding. The point is that it's a commonly understood thing that everyone can identify with.

The issue with Pluto is that a minority came along and told the world that it was in the wrong. That the majority who have used the term planet for Pluto were incorrect. So they renamed it a "Dwarf Planet", seemingly just to tick us off. We all knew that Pluto was small, but we used other terms to describe that element of it. We described it's mass, it's width, it's gravitational pull.

We have a separate word for Jupiter: "Gas Giant". That doesn't mean it stopped being a planet. It was like someone went into an art gallery, said you were looking at the Mona Lisa wrong, moved it 3 degrees to the right, and then said "Enjoy". Nothing at all has changed, you just messed with something because you have nothing better to do.

Now, for games, I believe you definitely need win loss scenarios for a game. Otherwise, you're just "playing". If we both have Legos and are building things, we're playing. If we're each trying to build the better Robot, it's a game. There are defines goals and ways to win or lose.

The game you described is a movable screensaver. Not a game. This is the general position of society, therefore it is the definition.
They changed it because better classification helps keep things clear. The official definition of "planet" (since I took an astronomy class two years ago, anyways) is "a large celestial body that controls its own orbit", ie. doesn't encounter other bodies in the same orbit for a significant chunk of the time. Pluto doesn't do this. Thus, it became a dwarf planet. If you're saying that we might as well keep it a "planet" because it annoys the majority, then you're going to annoy them MORE when you introduce hundreds to thousands of more "planets" that need classification. (There's a lot of dwarf planets out there.)

Also, I hate the "society defines right" point of view, because if THAT'S true, then many standards of grammar would be out the window, as would be the definitions of various words and phrases, such as "entitled", "I could care less", and "game".

And if we're going to go by your definition, then Sim City isn't a game, The Sims isn't a game, a free-form round of Tropico isn't a game, Minecraft isn't a game, and any "sandbox mode" is a non-game inside a game. I'm going to go ahead and say that Shamus has a much better definition of "game" than you.
 

WanderingFool

New member
Apr 9, 2009
3,991
0
0
Shamus Young said:
What's in a Game?

How we define videogames has changed much since their creation.

Read Full Article
I personally dont believe there is, or suppose to be, a singular yes/no definition of the term videogame. There are degrees. While the term "videogame" can be used to describe a large number of things, there are degrees that people associate with the term "videogame". While you may consider Dear Esther a videogame, others do not.

Simply put, the term "videogame", and what it applies to, are subjective as hell.
 

sethisjimmy

New member
May 22, 2009
601
0
0
Never really understood the exclusionist attitude among some gamers when it comes to what are and aren't games. You know, the type of people who seem offended when you call Minecraft or Dear Esther a game, and are quick to correct you. As if them being considered games by someone is just blasphemous.

There's really no point. Every definition of "game/video game" varies, why do people even attempt to claim they know the definitive rules for this shit?