What is a videogames?

[TStodden]

I hate to add fuel to the fire, but I tend to consider games like Dear Esther, Don't Move & The Stanley Parable (to name a few) in a special genre (for a lack of better classification... if you have to organize games): The Anti-Game.

What makes anti-games controversial in the "Is this a game?" debate are the lack of clear objectives & any measurable metric of progress. With Dear Esther, besides moments of narration & some loading moments, there's really no telling how far you're into the game until the end credits start rolling. It's also a bit difficult on when the game starts.

I'm not saying that they're NOT a game, but they're just so different that traditional definitions tend to fail with such titles. In the right perspective, these anti-games can be a good pallet cleanser after playing a heavier game.


As for the argument for Gone Home... I'll get back to you after playing it (haven't played it yet, but it's in my library).

[Loslomo]

Well, I was going to come in here about post-modernity, a question of art, and the death of the label, but those seem to have been covered already. I'm honestly not sure what to post at this point.

[Kapol]

Well, I was going to come in here about post-modernity, a question of art, and the death of the label, but those seem to have been covered already. I'm honestly not sure what to post at this point.

Cute cat gifs are pretty much the go-to answer for that.

[AdmiralMemo]

I mentioned something in Twitch chat. There's a problem I've seen with labeling movies, where different people label a movie differently. I've seen the same movie labeled "Horror" in one store, "Drama" in another, and "Action" in a third. So the question becomes: What genre is this movie, exactly?

The problem kind of happens when you're set up for one expectation and receive something else. I've watched many a movie that was labeled "Horror" and ended up being disappointed, because they were either a "Drama" or a "Thriller" movie, and not "Horror" to me. The movie may have been good, but I was not in the mood for that type of movie at that time, and if it had been correctly labeled, I would not have bought it and watched it then. (For reference, to me, if you label it "Horror" it has to have at least some gore in it, while "Thriller" is more about the suspense and drama of the situation.)

I watched the YouTube video of Dear Esther (because I didn't have access to my home PC, and it doesn't play on Linux). From what I can tell, it's a self-guided virtual tour with an audio-book added onto it. I would not consider it to be a game. That's not to say it's bad in any way. The narration and story are very good, and the graphics are stunning. However, it's really a 3D movie, since there's nothing to do in it. If it has Occulus Rift capability, I'd say it's probably the closest we're getting to a "Holodeck"-style movie in the near future. But, I don't think it qualifies as a game, at least under my definitions, where you can make a choice. (Like, right off the bat, I wanted to pick up, move, or kick that old rowboat at the beginning and I'm under the impression that the game won't let you do that type of thing. I guess I'm like Alex, where, if you have a physics object, I want to interact with it. Heck, if you could move that boat, that single change in Dear Esther would turn it into a "game" to me.)

So, to sum up, people shell out some money for these things, and they go in, expecting something that conforms to their definition of a "game" and they don't get it, so they're upset, just like I get a bit upset when I buy a "Horror" movie that turns out to not be "Horror" in my view.

Edit: You know what? I think that many of the issues with Dear Esther are mentioned in this Extra Credits episode. I think it may be just one giant Skyrim opening. Despite the freedom of movement, the exploration falls flat.

[Genghis Ares]

I posted this in the other thread:

I think a video game is more than just interacting with a digital environment, so I'm hesitant to call them games if that's all they offer. If I filmed someone reading a book out loud or just showing the entirety of a book as text on screen, I wouldn't call it movie, even though it still is.

I think there has to be a challenge or goal and a way to complete it through the use of strategy, skill, or even luck. So if you have to figure out a puzzle in order to continue, you're playing a game. If you just walk down a hallway until the game ends, you aren't doing anything other than basic interaction with the environment.

At that point, you are just being delivered a story in a way that's different than a movie, a book, or even a song. Just because you have control over what you see and how fast you see it, it doesn't make that experience a game in my opinion.

[Duckay]

By definition, however, that excludes Minecraft and The Sims. Now, that's not just "walking down a hallway" - there's innumerable ways to interact with the world and achieve things. Just no challenges or goals except the ones you put on yourself. Are you happy with those being termed "not games"?

Now, of course, I've heard very reasonable arguments that these are not games but "toys", on which you can play games (such as the various Sims challenges).

ETA: Oh, I said this on page one. I'm a doofus.

[JackSlack]

That's OK, everything old is new again!

And I'll restate my opinion too: Being a game is less about what it is than where it is. Yes, yes, a screen helps, but does that mean Johan Sebastian Joust isn't a videogame? A loss state is common, but does that mean Animal Crossing isn't a videogame? A challenge of some sort? Does that mean Goat Simulator isn't a game?

To me, the question is: Who is it being promoted/sold to? What community is accepting it? Where is it, what's its context? That matters more to me than what it actually is.

And to my mind? All of the above are videogames.

[korvys]

I would actually say Joust isn't a video game. It's closer to laser tag. Is laser tag a video game?

[AdmiralMemo]

I would say JSJ isn't a video game but it is a game.

[JackSlack]

See, whereas to me, it's unquestionably a video game. It was clearly aimed at videogamers, released into videogaming spaces and included in a collection of videogames.

By contrast, I wouldn't call Storium a videogame. That feels more like a tabletop RPG to me, in spite of being on a screen.

[Duckay]

See, whereas to me, it's unquestionably a video game. It was clearly aimed at videogamers, released into videogaming spaces and included in a collection of videogames.

By contrast, I wouldn't call Storium a videogame. That feels more like a tabletop RPG to me, in spite of being on a screen.

Okay. I put it to you: is Dance Dance Revolution a video game?

[JackSlack]

Yes. Released into arcades and in spaces other video games usually are, at people who would play games like that in those spaces.

[AdmiralMemo]

Well, JSJ doesn't use any "video" components. Where is the "video" part of the video game?

[Genghis Ares]

By definition, however, that excludes Minecraft and The Sims. Now, that's not just "walking down a hallway" - there's innumerable ways to interact with the world and achieve things. Just no challenges or goals except the ones you put on yourself. Are you happy with those being termed "not games"?

Now, of course, I've heard very reasonable arguments that these are not games but "toys", on which you can play games (such as the various Sims challenges).

ETA: Oh, I said this on page one. I'm a doofus.

Minecraft and The Sims are still games under my "definition". There are still challenges and goals in those games. Minecraft has monsters and crafting that you are required to deal with if you want to build things. You could play on Creative and just build stuff, but you're still accomplishing a goal to build something at that point. And the Sims requires you to make money in order to continue playing. If you don't earn money, you don't eat or pay your bills, and you can't keep playing if you die or lose your home/belongings. Even if you want that to happen, you're still playing a game the way you want to; with a goal in mind.

Dear Esther still technically has a goal, but it's just to reach the end. It's to finish the story being told to you. But you aren't heading toward that goal through the use of skill or strategy, you are just allowing the experience to continue. There are no obstacles or challenges to overcome in order to reach that goal.

[Trevor]

I hate to add fuel to the fire, but I tend to consider games like Dear Esther, Don't Move & The Stanley Parable (to name a few) in a special genre (for a lack of better classification... if you have to organize games): The Anti-Game.

I can certainly see this classification fitting for Stanley Parable at least, since the point of that game was to be an inversion of a what a game usually is.

[JackSlack]

Well, JSJ doesn't use any "video" components. Where is the "video" part of the video game?

Flip that around on you: Is A Blind Legend not a videogame even though it relies wholly on audio cues? The controls, the ideas, etc. are all very videogame-like. I'd just say it's a videogame.

Like I said, it's about spaces and context, not content, that determines it for me.

[AdmiralMemo]

I had never heard of that game. I also didn't know what JSJ was until someone mentioned it in this thread and I got a chance to see it. (I heard it briefly mentioned once at LRRcon by someone, and that was it.)

I really don't know how to classify A Blind Legend. Perhaps this whole discussion is merely indicative that our system of words is simply wrong in defining these fringe concepts and we need to develop new ones. Like, "video games" or even "interactive experiences" are too narrow and we need to open up the medium space with a new term.

[korvys]

I guess the answer to "What is a video game" depends on how you're going to use the answer.

If you're looking for "things that appeal to 'gamers'", like if you're writing for a website like Kotaku, or whatever, JSJ and A Blind Legend might both appeal.

On the other hand, if you're a Keyboard manufacturer, and you're trying to created a new 'gaming' keyboard, JSJ is not something to consider at all.

Those examples are terrible, but I hope you understand what I mean.

[JackSlack]

True, but that doesn't mean the keyboard manufacturer doesn't consider JSJ "not a game".

They define it as "not a game we support".

[korvys]

What I mean is, out of context the idea of a game is meaningless.

Without context, you can define it whatever way you want, and it has no impact. So what's the context the question is being asked in?

Your friend says "Can you recommend any good video games?", so the context is "what does your friend consider a video game, so what is a valid answer to their question".

[JackSlack]

Yeah, that's fair. I guess a lot of this discussion is, "For the purposes of videogame criticism and discussion, how should we define 'videogame'?"

It is fair to say the answer varies depending upon the context of the question.

[phlip]

That's basically what I was getting at in my wall of text last page... instead of asking "is this a game?", think about why you want to know... if you're all "if it's a game then X, otherwise Y" then think about whether X or Y is true, and work from there.

Like, for instance... if the reason you want Gone Home to be classified as "not a game" is that when you think "game" you think of action-heavy shooty fighty times, and you don't want things like Gone Home cluttering up your game collection... then you should just change your focus from "is X a game" to "is X high-action shooty fighty times" and not only will you find it easier to get what it is you're looking for, but the question of whether Gone Home is a game won't even be a major concern for you any more.

Labels are a useful tool for shorthand, but it's important to keep clear what it's a shorthand *for* and not to try to stretch the label to mean something else. If there's any contention on the label, you should always be able to fall back on whatever the label is shorthand for, and work from there... if you lose sight of that, then the label is in danger of overfitting.

[AdmiralMemo]

Well, I think that is itself the problem: no one can agree with the term "game" or "video game" is shorthand for.

If you're just working on your own, then what it means doesn't really matter.

However, when it comes to multiple people interacting, that's where the problem comes into play. Take this example of Gone Home. Everyone knows it's true that some people say it's a game and other people say it's not a game. Whether either side is right or wrong, or whether there is a rightness or wrongness to be determined is irrelevant to the point I'm about to make.

Person A says that Gone Home is a game. They tell Person B about this game. So Person B goes and experiences it. (They could borrow it, or buy it, or whatever.) Person B does not feel that Gone Home meets their definition of a game. Here's where the issue comes in. Because the definitions of what "a game" is are conflicting, Person B can easily feel like Person A lied to them when they said it was a game. (And if Person B bought the game, they could feel ripped off, too.)

Then, you get Person A and Person B arguing about it. Person B would be like "You said Gone Home was a game and it's not." Person A would react, "Yes it is a game because [Reasons A, B, C, etc.]" Person B would rebut, "No, it's not a game because [Reasons X, Y, Z, etc.]" Both could be equally valid, regarding their own individual definitions of what "a game" is. However, since they don't agree on that, they end up fighting with each other due to that.

Now, part of the issue comes in based on who Person A is. How do people find out about games? There's word of mouth, advertisements, store displays, reviews, etc.
If it's a friend, then this type of argument could strain the friendship. If it's a reviewer, then this argument could taint your opinion of their credibility in future reviews. If it's a developer or publisher, this could taint your opinion of them and lower your chances of buying another one of their products.

So this issue has the potential to hurt all sorts of relationships in the gaming community, because, rightly or wrongly, people are going to feel like they were lied to by someone. (This could come up in different ways when trying to define genres of games, too. What's a "platformer"? What's a "first-person shooter"? What's an "RPG"? And does this game fit into any of those categories? If so, why? If not, why not? You could get dozens of answers to the general questions, and dozens more on why a particular game might or might not apply.)

Now, consider what would happen if there was a "standard definition" that people could sit there and point to regarding what "a game" is. (Even if it's locally, like say on a review site, they'll have somewhere buried in legal documents or something "When we say something is a game, then we mean [Things X, Y, and Z]." Different places could have their own definitions, if necessary.). Even if you don't agree with that definition, you could at least mentally make the allowance that the person telling you about this game was using that definition. I don't think people would be as upset if there was at least some sort of standardization on this.

[phlip]

Well, sure. And that's exactly why I don't recommend Gone Home as "a game" without clarifying the ways it's unconventional (hedging a bit to avoid spoilers, but still getting across what the main mechanical conceit is).

I also wouldn't say "I'm sitting around without pants on, eating biscuits with jelly" to someone on the Internet (that I didn't know what country they were from) without clarifying what I meant with the UK/US split on definitions of several of those words.

Words can be ambiguous sometimes. It's important when communicating to recognise that and clarify appropriately... but that doesn't mean that there needs to be a major debate over which of the various definitions is "right", pick a standard and throw out all the others...

[phlip]

So, I just came across this essay, via this piece a friend linked me to on social media. Great pieces about labels, and how things can fall apart around the boundaries.

The former is talking about labels in general, and the latter goes more indepth about gender labels and transgender things... but the whole thing also fits well with what I was saying earlier about "game" as a label, and how whether things like Gone Home are "not a game" are just not the right question...