What is a videogames?

[ch3m1kal]

So because this conversation keeps coming up in chat, I figured might as well make a thread to talk about it so we can stop fouling up the chat with it.

Because Dear Esther is often used as an example, I'm going to address it first.
I personally enjoyed Dear Esther, it had lovely atmosphere, looked and sounded good and was generally a pretty decent time.
The only real criticism I would have about it is that it's not as clever as it thinks it is.

However I would opine that it is NOT a video game.

My reasoning is simple: there is no player agency and player interaction. There are no paths to take, there is no exploration, there are no decisions and no consequences. There is just walking down what is essentially a corridor while the thing crams story down your throat.
Essentially there is absolutely nothing to be gained by "playing" Dear Esther rather than watching a playthrough.
This basically makes it at best a virtual art exhibit or a strange kind of film.

Now there is nothing inherently wrong with creating or enjoying that type of thing, but I do not believe that it should be called a video game.

Gone Home is another example that is brought up a lot.
I've enjoyed Gone Home too, and while it does share some similarities with Dear Esther it does differ in a few significant ways.
Namely that it is not entirely linear, you do get a bit of freedom to explore the house. And there IS exploration. There are things to pick up, look at and interact with, in order to uncover the underlying story.
I would argue that while not particularly deep, those ARE game mechanics, thus making Gone Home an actual game.

So Internet, what do YOU think is a video game? What's isn't? And where is the distinction relevant?

[My pseudonym is Ix]

As a counterpoint to the above (since I'm not able to provide something even pretending to be an answer), I give you Freedom Bridge

As in the example mentioned above, Freedom Bridge does not give any choice as to how the game ends- however, it DOES offer interactivity, and this provision of interactivity without having genuine agency in the story is crucial to the effectiveness of the experience. Thus, to me, it counts as a game purely because the experience could not be as effectively presented in any other format- I wrote a blog postabout it a few years ago and I still rate it as the best use of the illusion of choice in gaming that I've ever seen*.

*Although this does come from someone who's never got round to playing either Bioshock or The Stanley Parable

[Geoff_B]

Here's a question - Are Visual Novels games? I don't mean so much Phoenix Wright where there's a lot of interaction, I mean ones where you get pages and pages of text with the occasional decision as to go one way or the other?

Come to think of it, are most video games actually games? Game implies competition with a winner(s) and a loser(s), but for a lot of games out there you don't win/lose you progress through the story to its end.

[Kapol]

I'd suggest that video games is an outdated term at this point. Video games are no longer strictly games. They can be experiences beyond the simple notion of playing. The fact that they're still called video 'games' is one of the major reasons why there are a good amount of people (though at this point they're largely older people) who think of games as toys rather than interactive experiences. I feel this hurts their overall credibility in the public eye, and has helped form the 'dude-bro' image of recent gamers. Since multiplayer games like Cabadooby and Halo can still be looked at as games in the more traditional sense.

As for what is and is not a video game... the answer is pretty simple for me. Does it have gameplay? Does it give you control over it in some way? Is it on an electronic device? If the answers to these is yes, then it's a video game. That includes games like Dear Esther and the much more extreme example of games like The Graveyard. While you might not have a huge role in these games, you're still controlling things. Even if that control is simply being the camera and exploring and environment. I'd say even the 'digital tours' work as games. Though there's a difference between having control and simply being able to flip through images as well (like Google has with their street view).

Now that relates to something Geoff brought up. Are Visual Novels games? And I would say... it depends. In the ones you're giving choices in, yes. They're basic, but I'd say they're still games. They have some way to interact in a solid way. I wanted to mention that Choose-Your-Own-Adventure kind of books are kind of games too. Not video games, but they're still games. But if the graphic novel is really just that; a book you can read and look at pictures without influencing, it's not a game. It's a picture book. And that's fine too.

[My pseudonym is Ix]

I think my definition, following on from the Freedom Bridge example, is "Does your interacting with the experience improve it compared to a non-interactive one?"

Or something

[AdmiralMemo]

I too think that we need to redefine the phrase "video game" because it covers such a wide range of things currently. I see the term "video game" as spanning the gulf between "toys" and "movies"

On the one side, you have toys, where you interact with them, but there's no real rules other than the ones you make up, and those imposed by the system of logic and constraints of the toy itself. There's no narrative On that side, you have things like yo-yos and Legos, and in the "video games" world, Minecraft in Creative Mode. I find very few qualitative differences between Legos and Minecraft Creative, other than the fact that you have infinite supplies in Minecraft Creative. If someone called Minecraft Creative a "toy" rather than a "game" I personally wouldn't correct them, since I could easily see it as one. Similar, but slightly further into the "gaming" side are things like SpinTires, SimCity, and The Sims. There may be some goals that you can possibly achieve, if you want to, but you don't have to. They're just suggested.

Then, on the other side, you have movies, which give you a very good narrative and next-to-no freedom of choice. However, let me use Kapol's definition:

Does it have gameplay? Does it give you control over it in some way? Is it on an electronic device? If the answers to these is yes, then it's a video game.

Let us ask ourselves what the definition of "gameplay" is. From a "video game" stand-point, I believe most people would agree with a definition of "pressing a button or somehow otherwise inputting a command (mouse, VR tracking, etc.) affects the action or outcome on the screen." If you agree to that definition of "gameplay" and then add in the control and electronic clauses, then you could consider a VHS tape or DVD to be a "video game." Under the strict definition, it has pause, play, rewind, and fast-forward buttons, which affect what happens on the screen. It would be a very linear game with the only agency being the pace and order in which you watch it, but it would still classify as a "video game" under that definition. Getting further into the "gaming" side from this direction, you have things like Freedom Bridge and Dear Esther. Having never played Dear Esther, I can't give it a full and accurate take on it, but from what people have told me, it essentially sounds like a combination of a movie and a virtual tour. You're rail-roaded down a single narrative path with limited interaction, but you have the freedom to go at your own pace, and you can look around at the environment.

I'm not sure where on this spectrum to put "The Game of Life" since it essentially runs itself after set-up. It has the elements of complete creative freedom at the beginning and no "goal" to speak of, but after you "turn it on" it becomes essentially a movie with no interaction.

And, of course, as mentioned, none of this discussion involves the quality of the thing being discussed. There are bad games, movies, toys, etc. and there are good games, movies, toys, etc.

[Kapol]

If you agree to that definition of "gameplay" and then add in the control and electronic clauses, then you could consider a VHS tape or DVD to be a "video game." Under the strict definition, it has pause, play, rewind, and fast-forward buttons, which affect what happens on the screen. It would be a very linear game with the only agency being the pace and order in which you watch it, but it would still classify as a "video game" under that definition.

That's why I made sure to include this statement:

Though there's a difference between having control and simply being able to flip through images as well (like Google has with their street view).

When interacting with a movie in the way you described, you're simply scrolling through images in a basic sense (going to the whole idea that movies are just moving images). You're not playing a game, the same way that you're not playing a game when you go through a base graphic novel or going through Google Street View (though there was a game made out of said program). It's that distinction that separates movies from games.

I suppose a more eloquent way to put it might be to say: "Gameplay is having the ability to interact with the content of something rather than just being a passive observer." Again, this covers stuff like Dear Esther and Gone Home (though I'll admit I've played neither, so I could be wrong about that). You are interacting with the content of the game rather than the device itself, unlike how a DVD player or similar device simply allows you to scroll forward and back as a function of the hardware rather than the disk. Even if that means playing 'Camera Man' in the world of the game.

[My pseudonym is Ix]

Once again, xkcd has something to contribute (titletext)

A game is not just in its architecture, but in how it is used.

[ch3m1kal]

I think my definition, following on from the Freedom Bridge example, is "Does your interacting with the experience improve it compared to a non-interactive one?"

Thank you, this is exactly the point I was trying to make, but couldn't find a way to articulate it in such a succinct manner.


Since we keep using it as a talking point, here's Dear Esther in its entirety.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEjvpHpVyiw

I'm curious if any of you think that playing it yourself would in any way offer a different experience from just watching that video.


And now I'm going to make another long-winded post, sorry.

Just because It's on sale right now we could also talk about Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs for a bit. I bring it up because it's also made by The Chinese Room, developers or Dear Esther and it makes a great example on why removing gameplay features hurts games as an experience and a medium.

I'm sure most of you have at least heard of the Amensia franchise. They are horror games focused on storytelling, atmosphere and an interesting 1-1 interaction with the environment, using the mouse. For example to interact with a door or a drawer, you click it, then you drag the mouse according to how fast or slow you want it to open or close.

A Machine for Pigs is the sequel to the original Amnesia: The Dark Descent, and it's generally received worse reviews, for a few very simple reasons.

The original Amnesia features a hub based system, where you could go to pretty much any part of the castle from a central area (one you found the required keys or solved some puzzles) and exploration was actually a large part of the game. This is because you are always limited in resources. For example, you have a lantern that you can use to navigate dark areas, but it burns oil fairly quickly so you have to use it sparingly.
The reason this is important is because the player character has a sanity meter that decreases when he's in the dark eventually leading to hallucinations and other impairment effects.
There are also all kinds of items to find in order to navigate your way around the castle and solve puzzles, as well as healing items for those times when you just barely mange to get away from the monsters.

This creates a very interesting risk-reward system where you NEED more supplies, but since you don't know where you're going, you're just as likely to end up using some of your already limited stash for very little payoff.

All this, including the inventory system was removed in A Machine for Pigs. The lantern is electric and runs forever, there is no inventory at all (you just hold items in front of you and actually have to drop them to interact with other things), there is regenerating health, and the game is essentially a linear progression through a series of corridors and rooms.

Now this doesn't automatically make it bad, in fact the overall story and atmosphere in A Machine for Pigs are still excellent, but as countless others have pointed out before me, the removal of features makes it less than it could have been.

So to bring my rather lengthy point to a close video games are supposed to have mechanics through which they engage the player, and the removal of these is rarely a good thing.
The whole point of games is to engage and give you things to do, because we already have a medium that engages you without giving you things to do, it's called film.

[Kapol]

[quote="ch3m1kal"
So to bring my rather lengthy point to a close video games are supposed to have mechanics through which they engage the player, and the removal of these is rarely a good thing.[/quote]

THIS is a point I agree with. The idea that having minimal features is a good thing is normally mistaken I feel. But that's both a issue of taste, and an issue of creator's desire for their work. I don't agree with the thought that a lack of those things makes it any less of a game.

The thing is, you can still explore in Dear Esther. You aren't forced to precede from the looks of it. You can go around and explore all you want. You can examine the surroundings and everything. Yes, it IS linear. But that doesn't mean you can't take time to examine and appreciate the surroundings. The environmental design looks good to me, and the entire thing has an atmosphere to it that I feel would not be there without the gameplay present.

Honestly, I disagree with Pseudonym's definition. Mostly because that is entirely based on taste and preference. If you played something and felt it being interactive didn't improve the experience, that doesn't mean that others did not. You might even be in the minority with that opinion. And trying to say something is or is not a video game should not be based on preference I feel. Mostly because it doesn't seem like something that should even have to be questioned.

[mariomario42]

Looking through my Steam library, I see Proteus, which I wouldn't define as a game, and checking out the website, it defines it as an "audio-visual exploration".

I don't like the definition around gameplay. It seems to complicate things on what people define it as.

To me, to be defined as a game, it must meet at least one of the following requirements:

- interaction with a story changing it based on decisions made and/or overcoming obstacles

- interactive program based on a score

As said before with Proteus, and what I understand of Gone Home (please do correct me if I am wrong), you are exploring to understand a story and do not have any opportunity to change it. Items are not retrieved through puzzles or carefully sneaking by enemies, or just plain attacking then, rather just found to progress. If it does possess other elements along the lines of DOING rather than EXPLORING, I am definitely willing to change my mind. Same with other games, but also can be used to redefine my definitions.

Another point, and probably more importantly, is that it shouldn't matter if it's a game or not. If you enjoy an exploration adventure or the like, then do so. It shouldn't matter what technical category it falls under.

[Duckay]

By that definition, mariomario, we touch on a strange point. That definition would mean that "The Sims 3" is not a game, but that a self-imposed or community-accepted challenge (like the Legacy challenge or the Apocalypse challenge) are. Now, defining The Sims as a "toy" and these challenges, for example, as games designed to be played with toys is not inherently wrong by any means. I'm just wondering if that's a distinction you're happy making.

[JackSlack]

See, I've always been of the opinion that a social definition rather than a technical definition is better. Namely,

• If the makers of a piece of art claim it is a game; and,
• The gaming community accepts it as a game;

Then it's a game. Yes, I know that's fuzzy as hell, but that's kind of the point. I prefer a broad, big-tent approach that argues gaming can do all sorts of shit, rather than putting up pointless walls.

However, if we must have a technical definition, I am partial to one my game designer friend Kieren suggested,

• It is not a game if it is not possible to suffer loss within it.

That's essentially an inversion of the common 'it needs to have a win state' argument, and to me it works WAY better.

Proteus, Dear Esther, and Gone Home fail this test, because there's no real way to suffer any sort of loss state and be penalised for failure to meet criteria.

The Sims, however, passes easily: If all your Sims die, you're reset to square one, more or less.

So, blurry line? The Path. Because if you do just walk on down the path, you 'win' and thus are reset to the start with no progress kept. That's a game, right? But it's not as universally accepted. Or what about Journey? There's arguably a loss state (think falling off a large tower and having to restart the climb) but it's very slender, but that thing is very well regarded as a game.

[ch3m1kal]

The only problem I have with the failure state argument is that not all games have it, and yet...

One example that immediately comes to mind would be Dark Souls. You can never actually die, and in theory, if you keep chipping away at it, you should eventually manage to finish it, given enough time.

However I'm pretty sure that nobody would ever argue Dark Souls isn't a game.

Also Sims 3 probably falls into the toys category, since it's literally a virtual dollhouse. But that doesn't really matter, since there are plenty of mechanics and decisions in it, and it is definitely a different experience to play it rather than watch.


As for why this matters, I'd say at the most basic level it's for comparison and review purposes. Things do not exist in a void, not even games and they will be subject to criticism and comparison to existing works.

[mariomario42]

By that definition, mariomario, we touch on a strange point. That definition would mean that "The Sims 3" is not a game, but that a self-imposed or community-accepted challenge (like the Legacy challenge or the Apocalypse challenge) are. Now, defining The Sims as a "toy" and these challenges, for example, as games designed to be played with toys is not inherently wrong by any means. I'm just wondering if that's a distinction you're happy making.

I would say that you are interacting with a story though. These characters you create have certain desires implanted on them by you, and you objective is to make them achieve and keep them alive. When the game itself is about doing so, and not and additional self-imposed community challenge, I don't see a problem with it. It's a blank canvas to create stories on and interact with them.

It's kinda weird to say, but simulators can definitely be games.

EDIT:

To add more to this, let's look at Garry's Mod. That itself is not a game, there is no consequence to living or dying or any goal to make something, but within its constructs, people have made games on servers within it. It does not make Garry's Mod a game, but games can rise from it.

[Kapol]

- interaction with a story changing it based on decisions made and/or overcoming obstacles

- interactive program based on a score

I assume you mean the overcoming obstacles as a way to progress the story, rather than changing it. Because otherwise a lot of games aren't games due to not having a changing story or score system.

• If the makers of a piece of art claim it is a game; and,
• The gaming community accepts it as a game;

I was actually going to include something about this in my last post, but didn't due to not wanting to drag on. I do feel like authorial intent is the primary aspect on if something is or is not a game. If they intend it to be a video game, then it will likely be one. The only reasons it wouldn't be are because of something like, say, they're insane and try to say a book (or if they're less insane, but try to say a 'graphic novel' with nothing else to it but words and pictures is a game) is a video game.

I do disagree on the gaming community accepts it as a game though. That, to be frank, seems like an awful idea. The fact is, the gaming community is pretty shit right now. We're struggling to have something as simple as non-white, straight, male protagonist (or even something slightly more than eye candy) be generally accepted by the overall gaming community. I don't feel like it's wise to say that something is defined by the community around it. That tends to lead to very insular situations more than anything else. It also leads to the issue of who exactly is part of 'the gaming community?' If we're struggling to decide what a video game even is, then how to we figure out who exactly is part of the community around it?

As for not being able to suffer loss, it depends on what you mean by loss. If you mean that there should be a way to reach a 'failure state,' then I strongly disagree. For an example that I feel is certainly a game, you cannot lose in Kirby's Epic yarn. You can get a bad score. You can lose beads. But you can never actually lose. It also gets rid of any choice based game. The Stanley Parable is no longer a game in that state. You never 'lose' so much as reach different ends. Same with most choice-focused games.

If you mean that there is some kind of loss at all, then how deep does that definition go? Does it have to be a loss of something in the game? A loss of content? Or a loss of the overall experience? There are a lot of different kinds of loss to be had I feel, and one could argue a way to lose something from any of the games you mentioned. Even if it's just the basest of things like the overall experience or intended experience.


I suppose the big thing for me is that a 'video game' is a very broad term. To me, a video game is akin to calling something a video. If it is a series of images on a screen that play, then it is a video. Yes, even the ones without sound. Yes, even ones that are only 5 seconds. It's just a general overarching category. In that category, there are a lot of sub-categories. Not genres, but different methods of making a video. It could be a long, drawn out movie. A short but reoccurring piece like a Television show. And so on. We have separate words for a lot of videos.

And that's one of the main reasons why I feel that new terms needs to be made for video games, starting with the overall concept. We have some. 'Arcade games' isn't quite a genre, but an overarching theme. Normally simpler styled games crossing a fairly wide gameplay genres but with the end goal of wracking up a score rather than progressing a story. I feel like we need more stuff like that to define certain subsections of games, like Gone Home and Dear Esther rather than just saying they just aren't games.

[mariomario42]

- interaction with a story changing it based on decisions made and/or overcoming obstacles

- interactive program based on a score

I assume you mean the overcoming obstacles as a way to progress the story, rather than changing it. Because otherwise a lot of games aren't games due to not having a changing story or score system.

Yes, collecting 20 bear butts or linear shooters to kill all the enemies are games, but have various obstacles between you and the end. Even if those are bad obstacles.

[Kapol]

- interaction with a story changing it based on decisions made and/or overcoming obstacles

- interactive program based on a score

I assume you mean the overcoming obstacles as a way to progress the story, rather than changing it. Because otherwise a lot of games aren't games due to not having a changing story or score system.

Yes, collecting 20 bear butts or linear shooters to kill all the enemies are games, but have various obstacles between you and the end. Even if those are bad obstacles.

I was asking to be sure. Because the way you phrased the first part could be taken:

-Interaction with a story changing it based on decisions made and/or interaction with a story changing it based on overcoming obstacles
or
-interaction with a story changing it based on decisions made and/or interaction with a story based on overcoming obstacles.

While I had assumed that you meant the latter, I'm sure there are is at least one person who feels that games are defined by having interactive stories instead of static stories. Hence me asking for clarification.

[empath]

Once again, xkcd has something to contribute (titletext)

A game is not just in its architecture, but in how it is used.

Indeed; someone took Randall's idea and ran with it

[JackSlack]

As for not being able to suffer loss, it depends on what you mean by loss. If you mean that there should be a way to reach a 'failure state,' then I strongly disagree. For an example that I feel is certainly a game, you cannot lose in Kirby's Epic yarn. You can get a bad score. You can lose beads. But you can never actually lose. It also gets rid of any choice based game. The Stanley Parable is no longer a game in that state. You never 'lose' so much as reach different ends. Same with most choice-focused games.

If you mean that there is some kind of loss at all, then how deep does that definition go? Does it have to be a loss of something in the game? A loss of content? Or a loss of the overall experience? There are a lot of different kinds of loss to be had I feel, and one could argue a way to lose something from any of the games you mentioned. Even if it's just the basest of things like the overall experience or intended experience.

It just has to be a clear, well defined setback point. That could be a complete game over. eg. roguelikes. It could be a 'push back to nearest save point', ala most FPSs. It could be 'respawn nearby, minor cash penalty and restart mission' ala GTA or Saints Row.

So Stanley Parable? I'd argue not a game by this logic, though I love the shit out of it.

This is why I favour a social definition, though I think community acceptance matters as much as authorial intent. Indeed, if anything, part of the catch becomes The Path, yet again. Tale of Tales maintain it's not a videogame. I'm pretty sure it is.

[Kapol]

Again, by that definition, I'd say that it sounds like Kirby's Epic Yarn (or realistically a lot of Nintendo games anymore) wouldn't really be considered games. The most you ever lose are basically points. Which doesn't seem to be what you mean. Or David Cage games (Heavy Rain being more of a game than Beyond: Two Souls in my opinion) are another example.

As for the acceptance thing, that is the reason I didn't bring up authorial intent in my other post. I feel that something can be a game even if the make doesn't call it a 'game.' But that's why I lean more towards the standard definition. That way it doesn't become a giant argument over 'is this a game or isn't it?' Because community acceptance isn't going to be something that easy for a lot of more experimental games to get.

[JackSlack]

Kirby would count. Like, Geoguessr (to bring up a previous example) counts: You lose out on points the further you are away. There we go. Ditto Kirby.

Cage? Harder, but so help me, game. I hate them, but game. There's all sorts of ways to lose Farenheit, for example.

[Kapol]

Kirby's Epic yarn doesn't really set you back any for 'dying' though besides points. Hence why I preferred to be clarified on if you counted them as a loss for your version of the definition.

And while that may be true for Fahrenheit, it isn't for Beyond or Heavy Rain. In Beyond there seems to be no way to lose (besides one part, apparently, maybe? I know someone mentioned it during the GPLP). In Heavy Rain, your characters can die. But the game just continues on anyways. So if we're counting if a game is a game by setback points, you don't have those in either game (besides potentially a section or two, as mentioned).

[ch3m1kal]

I think getting hung up on specific mechanics doesn't quite work, since there are many different genres of games and not all of them work the same way. And that is without getting into strange territory like Antichamber or The Stanley Parable.

Once again, I find that the easiest way to think about this is "Am I objectively getting more out of this experience by playing it myself over watching a let's play?"
If the answer is yes, then it's probably safe to call it a game though, of course, that should generally not be the only criteria.

I'm also not a fan of the creator's intent argument. Road to hell and all that...
Doesn't matter what the author set out to do, what matters is the final outcome.

[JackSlack]

Maybe we should just go with the Extra Credits opinion: The question is wrong.