What is a game? And why it matters! | Game/Show | PBS Digital Studios
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 ноя 2014
- Viewers like you help make PBS (Thank you 😃) . Support your local PBS Member Station here: to.pbs.org/DonateGAME
What do you think about the show? We're dying for feedback.
Tweet at us! / pbsgameshow
Follow us on Facebook / gameshowpbs
Email us! pbsgameshow [at] gmail [dot] com
Follow us on Reddit / pbsgameshow
WHAT IS A GAME? It seems like an easy question to answer, and one, that if not already answered, has been at least a lot. A LOT. Not only that, but everyone seems to fall on different sides of the line when it comes to answering it. Games like Gone Home, Mountain, and Journey have made us question what it even means to BE a game anymore. But if they're games, is everything a game? Watch the episode and find out!
--------------------------------------------------------------
ASSETS
:22
"The Creation of Mario" by Shigeru Miyamoto
tsaoshin.deviantart.com/art/Th...
:25
"First Impressions: Nintendo Entertainment System (NES)"
• Video
:59
"Extra Credits - What Is a Game - How This Question Limits Our Medium"
• What Is a Game? - How ...
2:08
"THIS GAME LOOKS AMAZING! -- Abstract Ritual"
• THIS GAME LOOKS AMAZIN...
2:17
"Kid Screaming At Black Ops"
• Kid Screaming At Black...
2:53
"Guy With a Cat on his Head, Upper West Side"
• Guy With a Cat on his ...
2:55
"Birds Singing as filmed by Phil April 2011 Paxton Pits"
• Birds Singing as filme...
2:57
"The Hillbilly Slide And One Mad Coon Starring Your Favorite Coon and Coonrippy!"
• The Hillbilly Slide An...
4:55
"Taking a look inside- The Hobbit- an Unexpected Journey Strategy Battle Game Rules Manual"
• Taking a look inside: ...
4:56
"The Hobbit Strategy Battle Game Tutorial 'A Beginners Battle Report'"
• Taking a look inside: ...
5:32
"BUT IS IT ART - SIXTY MINUTES"
• Taking a look inside: ...
5:34
"Ornette Coleman Sextet - Free Jazz (1of 3)"
• Ornette Coleman Sextet...
5:39
"John Cage playing amplified cacti and plant materials with a feather"
• Video
5:52
"In the Hauge" by Mark Rothko
www.factsandarts.com/essays/ma...
5:54
"Pink Angels" by Willem de Kooning
arthistory.about.com/od/from_e...
5:56
"Big Self Portrait" by Chuck Close
www.artsconnected.org/resource...
5:58
"Frank" by Chuck Close
www.artsconnected.org/resource...
5:59
"Ralph's Diner" by Ralph Goings
vertufineart.com/artists/ralph...
--------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTS
SonOfAKing
• The Evolution of Horro...
Jader7777
• The Evolution of Horro...
Sam Rogers
• The Evolution of Horro...
Kaimax_61
• The Evolution of Horro...
--------------------------------------------------------------
MUSIC:
"Oh Damn!" by CJVSO
/ cjvso-oh-damn
"Digital Sonar" by Brink
"Mindphuck" by Known To Be Lethal
• Video
"After Hours"
"Lakes" by Chooga
• Chooga - 3170 Lakes
"Beautiful Days" by Extan
/ beautiful-days
"Spectrum Subdiffusion Mix" by Foniqz
/ foniqz-spectrum-subdif...
"Good Way Song" by Electronic Rescue
"Alice y Bob" by Javier Rubio and Parsec
archive.org/details/escala19_...
"Sleet" by Kubbi
/ kubbi-sleet
"Toaster" by Kubbi
/ toaster
"Patriotic Songs of America" by New York Military Band and the American Quartet
freemusicarchive.org/music/New...
"Lets Go Back To The Rock" by Outsider
www.jamendo.com/en/artist/440...
"Run" by Outsider
www.jamendo.com/en/artist/440...
"Fame" by Statue of Diveo
www.jamendo.com/en/artist/352...
"Freedom Weekends" by Statue of Diveo
www.jamendo.com/en/artist/352...
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hosted by Jamin Warren (@jaminwar)
See more on games and culture on his site: www.killscreendaily.com
Made by Kornhaber Brown (www.kornhaberbrown.com)
And regarding my glasses:
• Has League of Legends ...
I used to be a formalist, but as the years have gone on I have to admit I like seeing my favorite hobby expand and take on new definitions. Stagnation was something I was concerned with in the last two decades, I did not feel the genre's were expanding, only contracting. I think we do a disservice to the medium by using the term game to describe the medium itself. Games are only a portion of what interactive media can become and not the entirety of the medium. I think a lot of conversation misses this and focuses on some unspoken idea that interactive media IS games. Not everything produced in this way has to be a game. I realized how short sighted of me it was to demand that all interactive media be a game and instead enjoy each experience on it's own merits.
Go play board games and look into that hobby. The variety is quite expensive (especially compared to videogames) in there while most still being formally a game. And ONLY in videogames is the "idea" there that interactive media is games, for all intends and purposes within videogames the term "game" has lost it's meaning while outside has figured it out for centuries.
Personally I think there are 3 types of interactive media looking purely at its structure:
Toys, like minecraft (pre enderdragon) to action figures (in this fits the "expirience" videogames most often)
Puzzles, Like jigsaw puzzles and portal
Games, like Chess and Street fighter
And there exists at least 1 secondary which is interactive fiction which most often is associated with puzzles due to that knowledge about story telling is mainly linear or semi-linear and puzzles being the only of those 2 having that same trait.
Games are only a fraction of interactive media, which is a bigger thing. I don't know if we're ever going to get to see it happening but, for example, when true virtual reality kicks in, that is going to create a new medium (and also a new art form), and require very different paradigms than games. Edit: [By that time games won't become obsolete, but, virtual-reality experiences are going to be able to do stuff that games can't]
relo999 I don't know where to put Crusader Kings 2 in those boxes. I play it like it's a toy, roleplaying characters and sabotaging my own success but there can be a game component where you try to conquer the world and the game also generate random events that have multiple choices wich could fit the interactive fiction box as the game is really a random story generator at its core.
relo999 So where would (because the video highlighted it specifically) Gone Home fit in your three-catagory system?
Is it open-ended enough to be a "toy"? - You spend a lot of your time walking from room to room, enjoying the spaces and the atmosphere, rather than confronting specific challenges or trials.
Is it controlled enough to be a Puzzle? - Everyone who plays it has a different experience because there is often no set path to how the experience must play out. There's no "you have to find X, to get to Y" for most of it - in fact, the majority of content can be passed over entirely, and retain the narrative (albeit, a thinner narrative.)
BUT there is a goal, and means to the end of accomplishing that goal.
AllannaXD Puzzle. with a strong presence of the sub class of interactive fiction.
Guillaume Bérubé From what I know of the game (from the little I played of it) it's a toy like you said yourself, that is with a strong interactive fiction push behind it.
I like the Jim Sterling definition: "An electronic game that involves human interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a video device."
That would apply to all video games, but I can conceive of, and assume there are, games for blind people. I've at least heard of blind people playing games.
Kicks And Giggles Film It's not a "video" game if there is nothing to see, as video comes from "to see". maybe a blind videogame would be an electronic game? mmm.
Kicks And Giggles Film Maybe if we expand it to visual or audio feedback, or feedback in general, if there are more kinds of it. After all, things like picking up items, hit conforms, etc. usually involve some kind of sound cue along with the visuals.
Kotano I like that definition.
rapsody230 Look up "Real Sound: Kaze no Regret" for the Dreamcast.
From an economist's standpoint, a game is defined as anything in which strategic choices are made which lead to different outcomes.
From this point of view, chess or team fortress 2 are games, but something like super mario bros or a rubiks cube ARE NOT. Strategic choices demand the prediction of the behaviour of other agents, and so, the deterministic mario bros and rubiks cube are not technically "games". There are no other agents other than the player.
Of course, I'm not saying that the economics definition is the correct definition of a game. I personally believe we need to widen our pool of labels. "Interactive media" as a broad category, of which "games" are a subset.
Interactive media which are a medium for narrative and meda which are a medium for strategic gameplay are different things. Of course, one work can be a medium for BOTH, as most games do strive to be, but sometimes they are mediums for NEITHER. Purely aesthetic exercises like Mountain, or a Rubiks cube, for example.
Thank you, I was hoping someone would bring this to the comments. I like the game theory definition version a lot.
But I have to argue, yes I agree about Rubik's cube not being a game, and to some extend Super Mario Bros can be considered just a fancier puzzle (which would make it not a game). But then we have to ask ourselves if the goombas and koopas in the game are agents or not. Also, it can be argued that, even if there are no agents, there is a collective array of decisions that can be made (a possibility space); for each level there is an array of decisions (strategies) that won't lead you any outcome, and some that will lead you to better, or optimal outcomes. Mario Bros isn't completely binary, there is a timer and points and lives. In other terms, Mario Bros would be better described by Decision theory; as a game about a single player against nature.
Would (Klondike) solitaire be considered a game? The agent you're playing against would be the randomization of the face-down cards, and there are strategic choices about where to move cards. FreeCell, on the other hand, wouldn't be a game by this definition. Since you have all of the information available at the beginning, it's essentially just a complicated puzzle.
TCMOREIRA
TC is raising the interesting question of whether or not we can consider, perhaps not the *characters* in the games as agents (Goombas), but rather the PROGRAMMERS of those characters, situations, and reactions. If, as game theory suggests, all games must have multiple agents, could we consider ourselves (Agent 1) as playing against the creators of the game space (Agent 2)? As in any game-theory situation, we as agents would be making decisions based on our predictions of what the "other player" is going to do in response (or what they possibly predicted that we might do). Similarly Agent 2 (the programmer, writ large) is making decisions based on what choices she thinks we, Agent 1 (her future game-players), are going to make -- perhaps hoping to frustrate or influence out future choices in the process.
This may not be as silly or convoluted as it sounds. It even fits with the emotional situation of video-game playing, for me. Especially when things are going poorly, I see myself as in competition not with the monsters, but with the people who set the stage for the play and are playing against with (or sometimes with me). I want to beat them, or at least I base my choices on what the think "they" have decided beforehand, hoping to increase the game's "payoff."
Case in point: Dark Souls. I hate those guys.
(Sidenote/question: it actually does not matter is the agent against whom you are playing makes choices in a random or deterministic way, correct?)
Sizik
In game theory, solitaire is a classic example of a NON-game. You have to be playing against another agent that is (1) making choices and (2) receiving payoffs. And the same agent must be doing both of these.
A better question might be "what is play"
That is indeed a great question. But be careful. As a non-native speaker of English, I can tell you that other languages have different words for different kinds of play. If you'll play the guitar, there's a specific word for that, that is different from "I'm going to play outside". So the very nature of the English-word might trick you into thinking play is broader than it is.
TCMOREIRA
In germany we don't even have play and game, we have only one word. Many german definitions fail because of that. ;)
CiszHelion That's amazing!
TCMOREIRA same goes for pretty much all latin languages afaik,as in,if i want to say "i want to play X instrument" i should say in italian "voglio suonare X strumento" but if i want to say "i want to play X videogame" i will say "voglio giocare a X videogioco"
Get it?
iota-09 Actually I do. I speak Portuguese and Spanish. So I could get it because it's similar. =] [Italian must be cool though ;D]
I go with Wittgenstein's family resemblance theory on this issue. There is no one clear common characteristic that separates all and only games from non-games: either that characteristic is too broad (leading to many "non-games" meeting it), or too narrow (leading to many "games" not meeting it). Rather than a single (or a clearly defined set of) characteristic(s), games have overlapping similarities. It's like a list of characteristics (including interactivity, a fail state, etc.) where a paradigm example has all of them, but not every single game is expected to do so. It's like a family (and thus, "family resemblance theory"): people in a family don't all share a single common feature, but they are still readily recognisable as being in the same family because of the overlapping similarities.
One important thing I caught in this video was a perceived value associated to games as opposed to not-games.
I'm going to give a simple definition of what I perceive as a "game" (emphasis on "simple"): I see a game as a form of play confined by a set of rules with a focus on achieving a goal.
Take basketball; remove the baskets and just have players dribbling and passing the ball. There's no real goal, so it's not a "game". But it may still be fun and as such is a form of play.
Now, take Minecraft; remove the Ender Dragon as a final boss and just have players exploring and building in the world. By the definition above, this is now not a "game", but does that really detract from the enjoyment that most people get from playing Minecraft?
What I'm trying to illustrate is that even though there may be a clear definition between what is and isn't a game, it doesn't mean that not-games are any less enjoyable or important to the industry. The most important aspect that defines value is whether or not the "game" is fun.
In reverse though, take something in a non-digital format, playing house or something where you improvise a story or fantasy, (things not limited by any set of rules,) then turn that same experience into a digital format. Simply the translation between mediums gives it a set of restrictions. Playing house might not be a game, but Second Life and the Sims set up arbitrary rules and use player determined goals and objectives to make it one simply by virtue of being digital. These 'games' would not be games if played in real life, even bouncing a ball can be a game in virtual space.
And minecraft is just minecraft
Well, you're ignoring player-driven goals. The ball bouncing game is still a game if the players have internal goals (let's see if we can bounce pass this ball a whole bunch). Minecraft is driven almost exclusively by player-invented goals (I want to build this house, but I need clay, so I need to explore etc.).
Also do games stop being games if you do them for a living? I can assure you that many reviewers and professional gamers and designers play games not as a "form of play". Did those games stop being games just because the players didn't "play" them?
This discussion just got meta. I'm not ignoring player-driven goals so much as I just don't think those define the whole game. With that idea, what's to say that game development software isn't a game, if it contains a user-designed game? Similarly, let's consider toys; I'm going to go with LEGO for this example. Certainly someone can come up with a game that involves LEGO bricks (in fact, I think LEGO themselves have released board games), but that doesn't mean a LEGO construction set is itself a game.
As for your second point, "play" and "fun" are essentially learning within the confines of a set of rules (again, I'm over simplifying the definition). I believe a game is defined by its goals and rules, not so much what we do with them. Basketball is still a game even though it's played professionally.
Eric Nash What are games but toys given structure? A ball is a toy, but you use a ball in many games. Legos may be toys, but "trying to build the tallest lego structure" is a game.
Is anything meaningful gained by saying "minecraft is a toy in which you can play games"?
I actually do think that's a fine definition of play, by the way, but I do think it needed to be defined.
Well, there are games that don't involve toys. But I think this is circling back around to my original point, which is that making this distinction between game and not-game does not mean that one is more valuable than another.
My definition of "video game" is a slightly clarified version what can be found in many dictionaries (based on google's): A piece of electronically displayed media (especially images) designed for entertainment, and whose primary distinction from other media is it's focus on user interaction. So things like Gone Home, since they rely on much user interaction, count as games. Netflix is not a game, because while it relies on user interaction, that is not an especially key aspect of the experience.
Nice one. This might actually work a lot better. :)
Usually it is very hard to distinguish between a game and non-game software like open office or photoshop, but your emphasis on experiencing some creation might do the trick.
Video game - A highly interactive technically mediated experience.
Still has some loopholes, but much better than what I used so far.
Can I quote you on that in a scientific context? Pls? :)
I suppose, the precise wording just came off the top of my head while writing that.
That is no excuse for beeing totally right. :)
If you feel uneasy about the wording, I'd love to see the refined version of your definition and I am willing to wait. :D
Haha no, it's I don't think I really need to reword it, it's good enough like that.
CiszHelion would pathed visual novels count though? I would count them, as they rely on user interaction to get different outcomes from the story, even if the outcomes are always the same for every player that does the same choices less or more( from this stand point the walking dead isn't a game as the final outcome is pretty much the same no matter what you choose except for the ending,basically only the very end of the "game" is a game)
a game is a form of media in which the player is in control. We watch Tv and movies, but we play games. if all you do is sit on your phone tapping colorful candies, that is a game (candy crap...i mean crush) so, there you go
Netflix is media and you have controller of it so is it a game?
Gary Merchant ....gir, i know your an idiot but come on. i literally said you watch movies and tv and play games. saying netflix is a game for using a controller is like saying that moving your mouse and clicking a like or dislike button on youtube is a game
Jeremy Greenlee That isn't really a refutation. If Netflix could be a game, RUclips and Twitter could be games. After all, you even gain "points" (likes and views on RUclips and retweets and follows on Twitter).
Tyler Graham ....if thats the extremes people will go to then im done talking.
So you are clearly a formalist, but you must have some criteria beyond the player being in control if Netflix and social media do not count. So what is the criteria for it to be a game, if those cannot be included?
This is definitely one of my favorite episodes so far. The driving force of debate, ideas playing off and reacting off each other in modes of art is absolutely important. You draw an subtle but excellent distinction between your views and those of extra credits, as you value both sides of the discussion instead of just saying "why bother?" Perhaps what is most interesting about this is the concept of being ok with no absolutely correct definition, but at the same time valuing the efforts to try and find that correct definition. That correct definition likely does not exist, but, bizarrely, the search for that definition is absolutely productive. So much in life falls into this sort of territory, but it is difficult to feel comfortable with it. Deep down it is an uneasy state of mind. And yet, it is where great ideas flow from. Plus, if there were an absolute definition, then games might be 'solved' and stagnation might occur. Luckily, I believe this debate, this flux, will last as long as games do.
When i was at an art museum in london. Forgot the name... but in anycase, lots of people me including followed a tour guide telling us about the art in the section we were in. This was abstract art.
In the end, she tells us little bit of the history if to consider these types of art (square, lines, abstract canvases and sculptures) as art at all. I raised my hand and said "I dont feel as though this is artful, but in what it is, it is. By that im saying that this art is celebrating their concept"
And im standing by this with games. Before, games always had, a failstate, a score, password, levels, jumping, some kind of challenge. That typical gameplay. As time went on with technology, games are now exploring different concepts of being a game. Like Gone home, Stanley Parable, that design game you mentioned...
There was this one small game where i had to figure out puzzle by meta-ing the game. Jump-slide or something its called.
Basically, games are exploring different concepts of intereaction. The problem i feel is *What it delivers*. Dear esther delivers a narrative for you to interpret and experience, but the thing were doing when aware is holding W and moving the mouse around. Stanley parable is a good version of this, because you actualy want to hold W and be delivered new narrative content!
And i dont think it will stop being different. I mean the occulus rift is close by.
And only we know what can come out of it. Were seeing creative stuff like that bomb defusal game.
So in games case, and subjectively, i think games are considered games based on what they mainly deliver. Not on its format. A boardgame, is a game... card game is a game. What it instructs to deliver is what we are looking at!
Click a cookie to manage cookies and make the number of cookies go higher? Uhm... not a game?
I think this definition is my favorite: "Playing a game is the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles."
Also: When you strip away the genre differences, and technological complexities, all Games share four defining traits: a goal, rules, a feedback system, and voluntary participation.
These definitions fit all games from "sports" to board games to video games, and everywhere in between.
I have problems with "voluntary". Progaming is as voluntary as beeing a dentist. Both require a massiv investment of practice and you do both for money. And in both it is allowed to do it with enjoyment, but by no means required. (Progaming ofc includes the nfl, fifa, boxing etc..)
Also, I would like to include stage play and music here. :)
CiszHelion I did say it was my favorite, not neccesarily the best. lol
Right. Which reminds me, that I still have not even a basic definition of video game. :)
That would mean, you don´t play a game, when someone forces you to play chess (to death ^^). And when soccer player participate in a match to earn money, - could you call that a "unnecessary" obstacle? And is there an obstacle or rules when a kid throw and catch his ball? We don´t need a definition (that matches maybe many games, but never all), we intuitionally know (kind of) what a game is.
betongitarre look to people who's careers it is to "play games" like game reviewers, and pro gamers. Their lifetimes in those fields are fairly short, and many game reviewers actually stop playing games "for fun" due to burn out.
As to your point about "obstacles or rules when a kid throw[s] and catch[es] his ball", I will assume you meant that as rated G as possible. And that wouldn't be much of a game. Perhaps you are practicing a part of a game.
Also, if we "knew" what a game is, then there wouldn't be a debate about what is or isn't a game.
*raises hand and asks in patrick voice* is game an instrument?
Imo, yes, yes it is.
(Bangs a game of a piece of wood.) :D
No, mayonnaise is not an instrument
But I have heard it played beautifully?
Also, I did read McLuhan, and I do find some sense in his "extensions of men" bit, which ammounts to "media is a tool".
I don't understand the "patrick voice" bit. Are we talking Patrick Steward per chance?
CiszHelion No, OP meant *Patrick Star*; a character in the Nickelodeon tv show, SpongeBob SquarePants.
Ahhh, that makes sense, thanks for the clarification. :)
One of my favorite definitions of art is: _"Art is anything you can get away with"_ . And I think this sentence encapsulates this debate. These new and odd "non-games" are trying to _get away_ with breaking the norms of games. And while right now they are not succeeding to be embraced as games by the larger audience, the fact that they've succeeded within _certain_ audiences seems to me like a huge step in their favor. Maybe *the* most important step in their favor.
Let us remember that most art movements are usually rejected at first, then they're tolerated, and finally they're embraced and absorbed. We saw this happening with electronic music, mockumentaries, digital illustration, fanfiction, grafiti art, etc. So it seems inevitable to me that this new race of non-games will become part of the gaming pantheon in a generation or less.
Maybe not today, maybe not with today's audiences, but give kids a chance to grow up with these games as an option in their consoles and I _bet_ you they'll be commonplace later.
I'm not against things that don't meet the requirements of being a game. But I am a "game formalist". A game needs to require the active interaction of a person, lose conditions (ability to succeed or fail, or do badly or do well), etc. And as for confusing the term game with the term play, no, don't -- you play a game but you can also play without it being a game.
I do also love that these debates are going on around videogames now though. Debates like defining games and feminism in videogames and violence in videogames will ultimately help videogames be taken more seriously as a fully valid form of art and entertainment like movies and music and books, and not just thought of as toys.
We're not dismissing all movies by criticizing a movie for being violent, we're not dismissing all of music because of criticizing the sexism in the modern rap genre, and we're not dismissing anything as unworthy or bad because it may not fit the definition of "videogame". These things are still art and have worth, but if we really respect videogames then it's important we treat it like any other form of art/entertainment, and can criticize it by holding it to the same standards and stuff.
I disagree that Gone Home doesn't meet the weighted outcome or the outcome affecting motivation requirements. You can't "win" or "lose" the game, but you can have richer or poorer experiences depending on your level of exploration. Given that the intrinsic goal of the game is to uncover the narrative of Katie's family, you can miss a lot of that goal by not being thorough in your exploration, or put in more game-centic terms, by not taking full advantage of the game's mechanics. For example, it's possible to completely miss the story of what Katie's mother has been up to by not investigating enough items, and given that this story is a "reward" in this narrative-based game, I'd argue that this would constitute a lesser game experience and therefore a weighted outcome. Consequently, players are motivated to fully explore every corner of the game to ensure that they don't miss any part of the story, meeting the sixth requirement of Juul's definition.
the discussion isn't necessarily destructive on a peer to peer level I think it is very destructive when a critic like TotalBiscuit uses the argument of "It's not a game" as a way of not talking about the game. And it's not only destructive to the view of the game but it's destructive to the culture. When compared to a culture like say experimental music, something I am very personally invested in. Someone who doesn't have any real experience in music looking through my record collection and trying to tell me Swans or Godspeed you! Black emperor records weren't music wouldn't be all that surprising. But no critic with any real experience would ever try to pass off such ignorance as critique
Right? Commenting on what something is or isn't (with regards to what form of art or entertainment it can be categorized as), doesn't necessarily comment on the quality or worth of that thing.
Well, in general game critics know very little about games. Music critics on the other hand, generally study their medium and have a broader understanding of music. Game critics are just eloquent people with influence and a position to critique, who like games.
Also, I'm curious, would you kindly give me a list of Experimental Music bands to listen to ?! =]
What? TB said nothing of the sort, he doesn't want to not talk about non-games, he just wants to call a spade a spade and not a call it a wrench. He just did a video this past month that explains his stance. There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling something that isn't a game, well, not a game and just because it isn't a game doesn't mean it's barred from being able to produce an enjoyable experience. Games aren't "the broad medium" like music is, it's a subset of interactive media, much like experimental music is a subset (or genre) of music. You wouldn't call anything from Swans "Pop music" because it isn't, it just doesn't fit the definition.
thewizardninja You wouldn't call it Pop Music, but you would call it Music regardless. That is the point. Just like games have their genres too. Even if badly defined ones (would you call portal an FPS?, etc.).
I think I lean more toward Extra Credits view of games.. In that I believe someday "everything" will basically take place in some form of "game". From work, to play, to daily life, it will all eventually be "game-ified" via the magic of Augmented Reality. Of course this is something we can't have until the technology gets advanced enough to make it possible.. But we ARE getting there, step by step, when it comes to the technology and software involved.
By overlaying our real-world experiences, with customized themes, or point systems, or characters/friends we can be with all the time, we'll end up viewing everything as a "game". It will make most boring things into something less boring, or at least distract us a bit. heh It will also help motivate us at work, and encourage us to meet our responsibilities.
What's the point in classifying things as "games", when really what we just want is experiences that are fun and prevent boredom. lol
Game Formalist here. I think you got closer to the answer than Extra Credits did, much as I love them. Thanks for seeing it through.
I once heard a definition of game that included the idea that there are rules that make things less efficient, without which the game would not exist. For example, if the object of a race is to cross the finish line, and the race track is circular, then you could simply get off the course and run across the finish line right away and win, right?
Or if you're playing poker, you could just hunt through the deck to find the right cards for a great hand.
So perhaps part of the definition might be a level of rules that allow for cheating?
Oddly, I think this might nudge Gone Home a little more toward the game side. Because I've seen a "speed run" of the game, and you just go inside, open a hidden panel, grab a key and head straight to the end part of the game. And that may be a fun activity and it may be challenging to have figured out a faster method or whatever, but you've somehow lost the point of playing the game... much like the Harvest Moon "speed run" that involves playing a single day then hitting a debugging combo to go straight to the final scene -- you're not playing the game, that's not a speed run, go away now, shoo.
I've also heard it said that there is a difference between a game and a plaything. A plaything is like a ball, say. You can do all manner of things with that ball, but a ball is not a game in and of itself because there are no rules or challenge attached to the ball inherently. Like rolling dice is not a game, but rolling dice to try to get close to a certain number *is* a game, as is spinning dice to see whose die stays up the longest.
Again, I'd hazard that a sandbox without structure is not a game but a plaything. However, it's a setting on which you can play any number of games, and it might lend itself to certain games more naturally than others. Emergent play is an awesome concept and I love the fact that people have begun creating games out of things that were never designed to be games in the first place (such as Wikipedia: The Wiki Game, where you find a route from one page to another faster (or via fewer links) than another person, that's definitely a game).
I don't particularly like games that are entirely based on luck, but I acknowledge them as games. When I had to play Candy Land to amuse a kid, I simply updated the rules to keep my sanity: Draw three cards, choose which color to use; you can combine cards of the same color to move 2 or 3 spots at once, and you can use the special cards to send you opponent back to a previous spot. A mind-numbingly simplistic game became a reasonably fun one with that change.
If Dear Esther is a game, it's roughly on par with tearing a book apart, throwing the pages around the room then reading them in random order. A book with gorgeous pictures, to be sure, but it seems very much a story or a plaything, not a game.
For me, a game cannot exist without a goal, and the goal can't be merely finishing the story (though that might be your meta-goal, and is certainly the reason I slogged through hours of irritating combat on more than one JRPG). Again, you can make your own games out of it -- can I get it all without doing X, can I do it in reverse order, can I do it in a certain timeframe, can I break the mechanics enough to do Y, or (personal favorite) can I play this same level enough to understand a perfectly efficient way of accomplishing all the things? (the reason I had several dozen World of Warcraft characters and never hit level 40) -- but without an inherent goal, it's just a sandbox or plaything.
And there's nothing wrong with sandboxes and playthings! People act like saying "You're not a game" is like saying "You're just a kiddie comic book, not a truly artistic graphic novel" or something. That's bringing in word play and connotations that don't have to be there. It's taken us decades to reach the stage where gaming is an acceptable source of fun for hardworking adults; do we have to go through the same process for non-game play as well? Are non-game playthings riding on the coattails of games because they can't make it on their own just yet?
The edge cases are things we'd tend to call "games" that offer a variety of smaller challenges without an overall end goal, and where the loss conditions are trivial. Minecraft and MMORPGs fit here.
I think the problem between my nephew and me is that we're both playing Minecraft but we're after completely different experiences. He's all about powerhouse play -- swords that do five billion damage, morphing into any creature he kills, flying around throwing fireballs, no sense of challenge or restriction. And that's fine, but to me it's boring because there's no point to any of his actions. Unfettered do-anything-you-want fun is not a game.
When I play Minecraft, I'm after a survivalist experience with strong immersion and a sense of restriction that you fight against over time to grow. I joined before beta but there was a time when for months I didn't play the regular game because there was no goal; then I discovered the Super Hostile maps (definitely games) and my love of the game was reborn.
The thing about Minecraft, for me, is that I grew up with the understanding that my brother was good at games and I just wasn't. It's why I stuck to JRPGs, because I could use my brains and didn't have to have Controller Fu to beat the game. Minecraft was perhaps the first game that I, already adult by then, found both challenging and something I could reasonably do, because you could bend the world around you to alter the level of challenge. If I couldn't take zombies hand-to-hand, I could noob tower a bit and hit them from where they couldn't reach me (something World of Warcraft didn't allow). If I found creepers unmanageable, I could block off the tunnels, dig around and hit them in the feet. The Super Hostile maps were milestones for me because I could really manage to get through extremely difficult areas using the skills I'd built up and some block-based thinking, even if some of the areas took longer than they would've if I had charged right in like Zisteau might.
So Minecraft offers challenge -- a variety of challenges -- and you can make your own rules, or borrow the rules others have made, for meeting that challenge, but equally you have a variety of tools at your disposal to moderate how that challenge matches your skills. The base setup might not be a game, but games abound within it.
So maybe we're to the point where it's hard to tell, not because things that are not games have somehow become games, but because there's been a merging between the tools used to create the game and the game itself. Sandbox and story, plaything and structured goal, they've managed to overlap in a way that makes it difficult to tell where one ends and the other begins. And I don't think that's bad, but sometimes it's frustrating.
I think one of the weird phenomena I've seen is that what one defines as a game is altered based on out quality of experience and enjoyability. You see this with games like Gone Home and Proteus where if a player doesn't find the game fun or enjoyable, they tend to be less likely to allow it under the cannon of games. You rarely see people who like Gone Home not calling it a game. Same with the reverse, you rarely see people who hated it calling it a game as well. Now I know that correlation doesn't imply causation but I feel like this is a point of note for the discussion.
Hmm, the more I think about it, the more I believe that tackling the definition of a game is only part of this discussion. While we're at it, we also have to tackle the definitions of a puzzle, simulation, toy, play, and story. I'm now picturing a very complicated set of Venn diagrams.
Work can be a game, but sometimes a game becomes work. Mark Twain showed this in "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer." Tom thought of the task to paint 800 square feet of fence as boring work. But by "tricking" the other boys, the painting became a game. It really boils down to if you as a gamer are having fun, it is a game. Something that entertains you to pass the time is a game. Like watching 24 hours straight of Netflix...
Searching for wreckage of the Malaysian Airlines flight over satellite images became a game for a lot of people, and it was very helpful to the global community. So games can be accomplishments too! The world is a game! So live on!
This is probably Game/Show's best video so far. Really good and fair stuff.
Excellent video!
I'm currently at the end of my first year into a Bachelor of Games and Interactive Entertainment and our lecturers have been talking extensively about what would constitute a game, even asking the students their definition. But most of us found we could describe components of a game but not a true definition.
I myself fall into the Game Abstractionist category after being so sick of the same mechanic driven games being shovelled out of the industry and coming from an artistic background. I'm not saying mechanic games aren't important or are becoming stale, but when there's massive series of the same games coming out with no real new content it makes me what to rebel and create something thought provoking and creative.
I think only early arcade titles like Pong and Space Invaders were still purely "games". Everything after that (including even what most formalists would classify as games) are complex interactive experiences that *include* one or more games, but also other stuff like narrative, film (cutscenes,) music, feedback systems and so on. So modern "games" are NOT JUST games, while some of them are not games at all. But "electronic interactive experience" is a mouthful, so here we are.
I'm studying Games Technology at Confetti (part of De Montfort University) and something that's cropped up quite a lot in assignments and projects is the question "what is a game?", I've kinda come up with two definitions that I'm still edging around but I'm getting closer to one I'm finally satisfied with.
n. Game
1. A leisurely activity without a directly beneficial output (i.e. fishing in minecraft doesn't put food on the table), involving competition with others (including AI) or against a personal best.
2. A means of making tedious or difficult tasks more bearable by making them more enjoyable/tolerable (see gamification).
There are holes in these, as the first definition raises the question of "Is playing LoL professionally really playing a game?" or "Is football a game if you get paid for it?".
The second definition also fits gamification more than what a game actually is, but it makes my working in a coffee shop/cafe more bearable, as it's almost like an irl tower defense game, getting those pesky customers away by giving them baguettes while they pelt me with money, and making sure everything's stocked up to prevent dangerous events like complaints or the permanent removal of a customer.
The trouble with the term "game" is that it's very ambiguous, are you just talking about video games? Computer games? (there is a difference) Board games? Word games?
The thing is especially with corporate gamification, the granting of points for particular actions as an employee, the concept of a bonus payment could be considered the foundation of gamification, does that make a job a game? I mean filing reports doesn't feed your children, at least not directly... yeah I'm still working on it.
TLDR: I view games and other interactive media as having genres similar to the way music has genres.
First, there is interactive medium; this includes any medium that requires input such as choose-your-own-adventure books, simulators, and games. Understanding this, a game is a form of interactive medium that requires goals, challenge, and other requirements mentioned in this video (like a sub genre). A game such as Gone Home may not be purely a game, but is still within the realm of interactive mediums and is definitely closer to a game than a choose-your-own-adventure book. Almost as if Gone Home is a sub genre of a sub genre.
I would fall on the game abstractionist category, and although I agree with you Jamin that this is a discussion worth having, I feel that it can also lead to a lot of limitation in this media: is not so much about the word "Game", but more about what's an interactive experience worth of your time. I will be really surprised to hear someone say "yeah, I played Gone Home, it was great, try it out!. But it was not a game.": Most people that fall in the formalist category feel like they have been "betrayed" (lacking a better word) by that game. Like as if they were promised a "real" game, and they didn't get it.
Again, it's not about the word "Game", I would be happy calling this thing I'm passionate about "designed interactive experiences". I just see something like Loneliness or Gone Home looking and feeling very similar to, I don't know, Papers Please, and really different from FIFA (both clearly games).I know this doesn't end the debate at all, someone could argue that any app or software is a designed interactive experience, to witch I would add that this "designed interactive experience" should be self contained. In other words, they are their own purpose, not depending on other content and not having a tangible benefit outside itself. Netflix, for example, is a service, as well as that app in your phone that tells you the weather, is just a way that facilitates your path to other content or information. Then again, now a chat room is a game? Of course not, and I'm not sure how to keep delimiting what I think of as a game. But as Jamin said, this is a discussion worth having. Thanks for another great video.
I remember a couple years ago, my friend had an app on her phone that made her like like an RPG or something like that. Basically, you'd put various objectives into the phone (such as doing chores, grocery shopping, going to work, etc) and when you completed each task, you'd gain experience points, gain new items and even level up. It was amazing! And I think honestly, even without an app like that, I kind of think that imagining your life in terms of a "game" can make it more fun. A little off topic, but got me thinking anyway.
For me, a game should be a) fun to play b) challenging but not unfair c) rewarding. If I am playing something that is not rewarding, even after I overcome its awful challenges, I am not having fun. I would say a game that focuses entirely too much on QTE, particularly during cutscenes, is less of a game than say MGS4, which had over 10 hours of cutscenes. And that's because for me, the games that are entirely QTE are not fun, not very rewarding, and the challenges are unfair. Some would say if you don't have good reaction time or quick reflexes, you have no business playing video games, but that sounds like a cop out to me.
This got long.
To ask the question "what is a game?", seems similar to asking the question "what is art?" (maybe...I could be wrong) for people to stamp down and state "GONE HOME IS NOT A GAME!" seems similar to stating "Michelle Duchamp Urinal is not art" all things that are digital or none digital that has a set of rules and goals regardless of how many, and derives entertainment and pleasure from exploring and accomplishing those goals.
Is technically a game is it not?
Why could it not be all of the above? who's to say what a game is and isn't?
A very interesting debate :) its great to see these questions being asked.
I think a game is anything that you can interact with. Whether it be watching a soccer game, and cheering for a team, enjoying (or not) an interactive "game" piece, or one with what everyone already accepts as a video game. (Being an example Portal, or Call of Duty, etc)
I generally go with the idea of not restricting games to any particular set of rules that they need to follow: "games need to be fun", "games need to do this and that".
No, games don't need to do anything in particular, not all games have to be the same, and when a game doesn't follow the norm, we should praise it for trying something new, instead of excluding it.
As usual, very spot on! I am a game abstractionist. Games are an experience, and even if my actions don't make a shred of difference to the outcome of the narrative, I still feel like they do. I care more about whether something feels like a game, rather than if it meets certain criteria.
This classification of gamers into abstractionists and formalists actually falls very nicely into the categories Robert Pirsig laid out in his metaphysics of quality. In his book Lila (the deeply flawed but ultimately far more ambitious sequel to Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance), Pirsig explores this process wherein long periods of equilibrium are punctuated by sudden flashes of revolutionary thought, which ultimately redefine the status quo. According to Pirsig, everything that happens, from the atomic level up to the galactic, is a movement towards higher quality. An atom bonds with another atom because that bonded state is "better."
He offers that there are ultimately two states of quality -static and dynamic. Static quality maintains the status quo -keeps atoms bonded, keeps organisms together, keeps people together, keeps galaxies together. It allows for slow iteration and perfection of something that works. A dynamic leap comes when a new combination occurs which changes the game, like the shift from single cell to multicellular organisms.
Dynamic quality, at least as it relates to human culture, results in new combinations of old ideas, and while they are often disliked by the majority and end up falling into obscurity, their impact is felt far and wide. These dynamic leaps, often hated by the static majority, become the static quality of the younger generation.
I'm not certain to what degree I believe in Pirsig's metaphysics, but they can certainly provide an interesting context.
Hey PBS crew...
I as an abstractionist advocate I have these debates quite often, with developers or my game design students or friends and I think the question - asking for a binary game-yes or game-no conclusion - is unnecessarily dividing people.
I found that a useful question in conversations is "does this thing have game in it?" Games are an amalgam of different media forms - by nature they must feature a way of communication with the player, that has already been explored in other media. Be it art, writing, music, animation, sequential storytelling and so on...
... maybe an exception would be a game that completely runs on tactile feedback without any audio or visual presentation.
Games are usually a media mix.
BUT there are communicative means and properties that originated in the creation of games and these are worthy of formalist definitions. ...play activities, challenges, fail states ect. ...these elements make games. They are game native.
However there is no healthy way - i think - to define a threshold of how many of these game native means need to be in a game to have this game be worthy of its label. Because this threshold ONLY serves as a barrier against abstractionists.
So here is the deal:
Abstractionist get a barrier free medium in which they can decide how much game native elements they put in their game - so they can come up with a package that best serves their creative vision.
Formalists get to clearly define what games consists of by breaking up games into properties /means and cataloguing these game native elements. There is important value in formalistic exploration of games and what games consist of. Game DNA if you will.
But for this we have to understand games (and other media) as a pool of communicative means to use, explore, share, expand and not a set of means that need to be complete or GTFO.
Abstractionists v formalists is a nice terminology btw. Very helpful.
Cheers.
Anjin
What was the clip used at 0:54? I don't see it linked in the description.
a game has to have up-to-date graphics, memorable music, nice voice acting, catchy dialogue, relatable characters, fun gameplay (with a working camera if in third person lol), a wonderful storyline (enough lore to go around), a balance between customization and limitation for players, the ability to be solo or multiplayer without whoring either one, some kind of creativity, and hours of seemingly addicting fun; not all in that order. Oh, and maybe also not greedily wanting player's money. AND a frgging point and also a friggin morale. Might have forgotten something, but this is all I could come up with.
By the way, I play games most people wouldn't consider games. I play Sonic,Halo, Skyrim, Sims, etc. I also play mobile games but loathe that they want money from me. Sometimes I HATE when a game focuses TOO much multiplayer to the point where people would rather look at you funny when you ask if they liked or played the campaign because they prefer the multiplayer which consists of cussing 5 year olds...lookin at you CoD. (Granted, all that comes from friends who play it, as I never have played it but the sheer popularity annoys me) Also, I like the games I mentioned because they have story and they don't focus entirely on gameplay nor sell it because the entirety of it IS gameplay...I'm looking at you, Mario. Granted, I play the Sims and Angry Birds, but I really do NOT see how a fat plumber racing through a land that may as well have been from and acid trip (shrooms...wait, I don't think shrooms and acid...know what, forget it, you know what I mean lol) and smiling creepy stars and just....none of it really makes sense to me. Granted again, birds hurling themselves from a slingshot into green pigs doesn't make much sense either but I like using my brain that way in it haha I like games that stimulate the writer in me (storyline or lore like in Halo or Sonic or Skyrim), involve creativity (The Sims and Spore), and make me use my brain when it doesn't boggle it so much that I want to give up xD (Angry Birds). HOWEVER, I ALSO mentioned a game having a point and morale. Doing things that you can do in real life that shouldn't be done in real life regardless if its fantasy or not SHOULD NOT BE THE MAIN FOCUS OF A GAME. Lookin at you, GTA, you filthy, greedy scum. Running over old ladies, raping prostitutes, stealing things, among other things while being snazzy in some "cool" vehicle is NOT a bloody game! Why do people like this crap? You idiots defend it like its holy. You people say it has a plot..yeah, plotlines probably based on REAL crimes based on REAL criminals. You people are sickening, you think its okay to play because you know its JUST a game. When is the last time you watched the news? Ever? Did you honestly laugh at a criminal because it reminded you of something you did on GTA? If you had any moral bone in your body to honestly distinguish the difference, I'd be surprised. I don't see how robbing banks and crap help you any in life. How do the games I play help me? well for one thing, I'm autistic so the sims helps me understand socialization, for example. Bam.
Okay, that rant aside, Goat Simulator...have we all got rotting brains? What is the actual point of being a mothereffin goat? Like really...for the longest time, I hated Minecraft due to its blocky nature. I have given it a try and while I appreciate the creativity, I still hate the blockiness. Used to it, but still hate it. I know it's SUPPOSED to look at that way, but why couldn't we push the limit and just friggin make something somewhat realistic? I can't do certain things because it's so damn blocky. I'm creative but I'm not THAT creative. I can't see the bigger picture from scratch, just the results. But that's a little thing, GTA gets my goat (wow.....I just made a reference) the most. I'm sorry, but games do NOT need sex and eerily realistic violence. That's for the movies. It should stay there. Even though we shouldn't be robbin banks and bangin everyone, why must you play games that you can just do in real life? I'm now lookin at you sports games...they are the definition of lazy. Why you playin ball if YOU HAVE A FRIGGIN NET OUTSIDE. Granted, not everyone can play baseball because they don't have a diamond outside, so I guess sports games have some purpose....
all ranting side, does anything I said ring true with anyone? Because I'm pretty much open to almost anything. I've played Kinect games that I can get somewhat active by having my very own virtual pet. That's cool in my book. But...playing horror game to scare the popp outta yourself? Just...why? Okay so maybe I sound ignorant here...but here's the thing...games are all matters of opinion. I can't change if a game or franchise exists. I just have to ignore it. So yeah....
I think the more pressing issue people are concerned about which wasnt really addressed in this video is the debate of whether "notgames" should recieve game coverage, appear in game publications, be displayed in game events and so on. There are a lot of people who would exclude "notgames" from the industry and I find that troubling.
This reminds me of a conversation I once has about "what is music?" 4'33'' and loads of other 'music' has some but not all of the ingredients commonly seen in music. In the end, he said that his decision was that music is music when anyone says it is. Personally, I think this whole "art is in the eye of the beholder" idea is what I would go with for this question. Games can be an art, so this is both a natural and unanswerable question.
an ontopic, non flaming comments section? ON RUclips?!?
Faith in humanity was restored this day.
What I'm more concerned about is when high-profile people in the industry try to impose definitions unto their audience. One example is Total Biscuit who bases his definition (and imposes it through what he chooses to cover and not cover) on consumerism. He said that he needed to come up with a definition to cancel out games that are not traditionally conceived as games by his audience. That is an extremely dangerous thing to do and I'm honestly very surprised that not a lot of people have discussed that because it's a serious topic that needs to be brought up more often.
Limiting the definition of a medium based on consumerism brings nothing good to the medium, let alone the audience that you're supposedly trying to serve and protect
I think the problem is with the term game itself. The term has a meaning that had implied fun for longer then the video game industry existed. Now that we realize that this media can do much more than provide the traditional fun that is had in the past, people are having problems differentiating between the medium of games and the old definition of games. The games like gone home would be a part of the games medium, but they would not be a game in the definition of the word, just like hide and seek is a game but not part of the games medium. What we really need is to rename the medium so that it can include these interactive experiences.
Great to see a historical and empirical perspective here. Thank you for that. :)
so in the end, you did come to (basically) the same conclusion as extra credits.
I would like to add the philosophy of Will Wright to the conversation who by his own admission designed "Software Toys." As he put it the software he designed had its own rules and boundaries of what it could or could not do, but the objective was up to the player to decide and reach for. Half the journey was discovering how to play with his toys, what games could evolve around his software.
That being said, my own personal philosophy differs. I do believe life is a game. Or to put it another way: "Life is the only game in which the object is to learn the rules" - Ashleigh Brilliant
I believe in this philosophy, and by extension I believe that everything can be a game, or that a person so dedicated can make a game out of anything. Even the worst videogames in the world, with the right mindset can be made fun, and a game played around them. For example: In simCopter it is possible to cause a memory overflow that causes the game to throw an error and force quit. The challenge: To find a 100% reliable way to achieve this.
This episode inspires me to note just some of the very talented people I met at the 2007 European Machinima Festival; held at De MontFort University.
Because it was dead interesting weekend and also, because many of the people there were working on this very question in one way or another;
Dan Pinchbeck & Jessica Curry and who designed, built and scored 'Dear Esther'
Ill Clan members; Frank Dellario, Kerria Seabrooke, Paul Jannicola and Paul Marino
Two of the Red vs. Blue guys (sorry names are lost in 7 years)
Ricard Gras at De MontFort Uni
Just to name a few.
Machinima is important because of it's early role in decontructing games (inherit in that is their meaning) So it played a vanguard role in the question of "What is a game?"
I think i could establish 2 base rules. 1) It must be interactive in some way. 2) The task must be done with some goal for accomplishment. Whether that accomplishment be winning, or forming an understanding.
I honestly like Jamins use of the term "Interactive Story," as that is the distinction I like to draw. I usually use it to refer to Visual Novels and titles that have a heavy emphasis on story, with little, if any, way to influence the story beyond "Continue" or "Stop Playing." Even so, I often time have difficulty drawing the line between Interactive Stories and Adventure Games, like The Walking Dead.
I would also like to ask for a more thorough answer on why having specific definitions is worse than not having them. My reasoning for having specific definitions is because they allow you to describe something with more accuracy. If I were to describe it to a friend, I wouldn't want there to be miscommunication because we have different definitions on what makes a game.
I believe that the distinction between a "game" and the "not game" categories breaks down into two requirements:
-Mechanics of some kind, even if it's just picking stuff up, you build this or shoot that. Something must be down that you, the player, are directing under your power.
-It must be on a console/mobile and cannot be played on something like a DVD player. I cannot shove my Banjo-Kazooie cartridge into my VSH player, and I can't play Hyrule Warriors in a DVD player. It just won't happen.
This seems to be similar to the statement, "All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares." All games are interactive media, but not all interactive media are games. From what I've heard about Gone Home, it sounds more like a book than a game--it reminds me of those old choose-your-own-adventure books, or maybe piecing together a story by reading different parts of it when you choose to do so. That doesn't mean it's bad, but it would make it not a game, so it might cheese people off if it's advertised or described as a game since that suggests a different kind of experience you spend time on/product you spend money for. When I first saw teasers and trailers for it, in combination with its description as a game, I honestly thought it was a horror title. If someone that's into horror games bought Gone Home based on that kind of impression, I don't think it would be unreasonable for them to be irritated; it would feel like false advertising.
Even though this is more of a question of "what makes a good game?", I want to note the game deadly premonition. Its gameplay feels more like a chore than a game, but yet people like me and others love it. It challenges many people's outlines for a game and is very important for these types of discussions.
Every time this debate shows up, I feel the need to point out a distinction that exists in scandinavian languages between "play", as the free, irreverent, exploratory thing that small children do ("lek") and "play" as the rule-bound thing we do when we play board games, COD online or when we're learning an instrument (spill). They really are two very different things, and in fact, both kinds of games exist. Minecraft and the Sims being typical examples of the former. Since Juul is a Danish family therapist, this seems especially relevant here.
Normally I'd consider myself a formalist. After all, I play games as a completionist: I need to collect absolutely everything, that's where my fun lies. But then came the Stanley Parable. It might be my love of postmodern humor, but I'm obsessed with this game. I find it fascinating, clever, hilarious, and weird. And that's a good thing. So ever since then, I think I lean more on the abstractionist side
I enjoy AAA hardcore gaming experiences, and I also loved Dear Esther, Gone Home, and others that were debated on being games. Even though I do agree that Extra Credits answer was a cop out, at the same time I also agree with it because honestly, I really don't care if you label it a game or not. All I care about is one thing, "Is it an enjoyable experience?" if the "game" passes that test, I could care less what you call it, I want it and that's all that should matter.
A game requires two things, for me: 1. Choices 2. Success or failure based on those choices.
I'm reminded of games like Schism and Myst, which almost seem to be equal parts an interactive story, and (extremely frustrating) puzzler. As well as point-and-click adventures, like King's Quest for example. Not all of which have a set put before you, or sometimes even a story, just exploration.
I think that interactive stories/novels are games. Choose you own adventure books, and stories like it, have rules since you have to follow page numbers, and you can't go back to change your choice (at least in digital versions), it requires you to read the story and choose what to do, it's just a story so it has negotiable consequences, there's many different branches the stories follow and each of those branches can either help you, hurt you or sometimes even kill you so it affects motivation since you want to stay alive and finish the story. There's also stories that are more like text adventures where with certain choices affect your personal stats which in turn affects what you can and cannot do, successfully later in the story.
To me, a game is basically an interactive experience where you take action. The interaction happens between the player and either an object, an intelligence or a environment.
Well, I'm a game abstractionist. I believe that video games are anything where you as the player are experiencing a story and/or just interacting with the system and/or other players. I think that Dear Ester and Gone Home are amazing games because they're a breath of fresh air and a new game type for me. I was waiting to find a game where it's just story and you just wonder. I can also understand the formalists ideas. Games have been a certain type of thing for so long and people want to keep with that. (I'm not saying it's a bad thing)
I'd say a better definition for Gone Home might be "an interactive story" or "interactive experience." Just like visual novels aren't games, they are visual novels.
well what about chose your own adventure books? would you class those as games or interactive storys?
TheMontablac Interactive fiction.
TheMontablac They're quite literally interactive stories. That said, some of them are actually games, like the DnD inspired ones with stats and dice rolls and stuff.
I think interactive story/experience can be said about any video game. All games are interactive, all games are experiences.
Everything is an experience, but that doesn't mean everything has a story. Farming simulators, Journey, and Papers Please would fall under the category of not having any story.
Also interactive story could describe Heavy Rain where you can literally place the controller down and the 'game' will play itself for hours at times.
In my mind the problem perhaps comes from the word 'game' itself. It implies play, it implies goals, and it implies something with set parameters. Gaming for me has never been this, it's been an experience.
Perhaps we consider these parameters and goals important due to the restrictions of previous technologies. In the early days of gaming, what designers could physically create was bound and restricted, do games were shorter and with simple yes/no mechanical winstates. Now we have the technology to explore and really build experiences, and for some reason we're STILL defining what a game is by this early definition. Technology has allowed us to push gaming towards an experience of places/times etc but we still insist on defining it by the earliest set parameter that were in many way defined and shaped by the technology through which the games were built and experienced.
TL:DR how are we still defining what a game is based on pong? Everything but our definition of gaming has changed...
While I usually enjoy very mechanic-focused games, When I played Dear Easter I really felt I wasn't playing a game, because I didn't felt I had any agency nor any involvement and I do think that what makes videogames is actually the ability to be directly involved into the story. If you take that statement to its extreme you could say that corridor games relying on a lot of cutscenes to tell their stories are quite poor in what makes video games : player agency. When I experienced Gone Home I actually felt I had an agency and means to live the story, not watch it. The game was inviting me to explore the house and be an actor in the game world, not just the dude watching a pre-rendered movie unfolding the story after 20 mins of X type of gameplay.
I'm going to try not to start an argument like I somehow always manage to, but let's see if we can come up with a suitable compromise, shall we?
1) A game must be an interactive experience of ANY kind... (be it stacking coloured shapes or being a badass war hero or exploring an empty house)
2)... Set in a world or version of this world that is not reality. (yes, this includes games like Bejeweled and Tetris, since the board is the world)
3) The world it's set in has it's own set of rules that dictate both how the game behaves and how the player interacts. (obvious)
4) The game must be ENGAGING. (note: engaging is most definitely not the same as fun)
That's my opinion on what a game is. If you can't tell, I like to be exactly in the middle when it comes to these sorts of arguments. If you can think of any amendments I may need to make, I'm all ears.
Also, the word "medium" is taken directly from Latin, therefore the plural is "media" (hence why we call TV and movies and such "the media"). "Mediums" is technically correct, but it sounds a lot less intelligent. Just a pet peeve of mine.
I'm an abstractionest. I believe that as long as it is an interactive experience where performing a physical action results in a digital action through some kind of technology (involving either visual, auditory or both in reaction to the physical action) then it is a game. I think that Gone Home is a game because you perform a physical action, which triggers a digital action
Video games are a form of art.
We shouldn't try to put it a box, we would be limiting are selfs. Art is always changing and will always change..... The beauty is in the eye of the beholder
Bravo. One of your best vids in a while. I was disappointed with the lack of user responses at the end tho.
At any rate, the answer is: game video game, but there can be overlap. A video game should be seen as an individual work that you can interact with (and whatever other criteria), while a game should be seen as an activity (and whatever other criteria). This means that games should be fun, but video games, maybe they don't have to. Games must have win-lose states. Video games? Maybe not.
On the far end of abstraction, a game can be anything that the player enjoys doing.
Your job can be a game.
Great thoughts, as always. I think 'games' right now are just like old television 'plays'. We're limiting the nature of the medium by requiring it to be a certain state. Example: what if television was only a fixed camera filming a stage play, a single camera sitcom at the most basic. Then if it's television if the camera moves, covers the news, broadcasts sports, game shows? I think game is about win states and choices that lead to outcomes. So I think it's less what is a game and more "what do we call this new interactive medium?" This might be side stepping some but it's something I've thought about for awhile.
I feel like the minimal criteria approach is best and as I see it those criteria are as fallows.
1. Guidelines saying what should or shouldn't be done.
2. Entertainment value.
3. A "magic cycle"
I think the best example game for what is a game? Is Elite. Not only was it the first 3d game, it had no high scores and ignored the 3 lives system. It was radically different to anything before it and didn't meet the successful game criteria of many game producers.
who is the youtuber, or youtubers, playing at 5:02? ive seen them before, but don't remember the channel/video name.
The argument from the extra credits crew wasn't really "stop discussing what is a game or isn't" but rather "stop fighting over it and enjoy them both". To use your own terminology, some Game Formalists tend to look at Gone Home and act snarkly, outright refusing to give the experience a try because "it's not a game". On the other side of the coin we have Game Abstractionists acting higher than the Formalists because their games are "more than a game, it's an experience". Nobody wins in that scenario, period.
I agree that the discussion must exist, because it is from constantly questioning that you are able to find new ways and evolve. But both sides need to understand this: the discussion is NOT to decide what's BETTER, it's to help move the midia forward. Learn to give them both a try, they are both good, they are both trying to show you something different and they are both trying their best to give you a good experience. Why hate one another? Why say Candy Crush is a game but outright refusing to play Heavy Rain or Gone Home? I say this from experience, I had a college professor who go in heated arguments with students that defended those as games.
I say: follow the Extra Credits line of thinking with a touch of Jamin. Don't fight over the issue, but do use the topic to further discuss, as discussion breeds new ideas. Enjoy those experiences and cherish them, there's no need for a definition that shuns one or another as "not a game = BAD".
PS.: That professor I mentioned also said good story telling is wasted in platformers. Too bad she never played Braid.
The difference between other media and Games is that Games involve interaction from the audience, so if it involves interaction or engagement then it is likely a Game.
I guess I feel like we need some sort of overarching way to designate interactive media--whether "video game", or another title.
By way of comparison: "Movie" encompasses everything that is visual media, usually cut into 1-3 hours for display in cinema. Movies can be pure entertainment, they can be educational documentaries, they can be silent, they can be black and white, they can be experimental, they can be shallow blockbuster brand-service. But they all project onto a big screen to be watched, so they're all movies.
Similarly, we need a term for any digital media that loads into a console, computer, or handheld/mobile device, and is heavily dependent on user interaction. This term could be "video game", in which case we have a bunch of sub-genres of video games, and interactive narratives is one of those genres. Or, the term could be something like "Interactive digital media", which includes narratives, shooter games, puzzles, virtual performance art, hardcore action games, arcade games, relaxation media (think Zen Mode on Bejeweled), etc. etc. etc., some of which fall into the "game" category, and some of which fall into other categories.
The important thing to me is that, whether we label Dear Esther as a game or as not-a-game, we recognize that there is space for it to exist as an interactive medium, and we ought to be okay with letting experimental, new ideas onto platforms that have previously been dedicated to narrower genres.
A game for me is something you can interact, having the possibility to either win or lose depending on your actions.
I think for something to be a game, it has to either be a puzzle or a sport. A puzzle being something you have to solve that may be 1 player or more working together. Or a sport, in which people play against each other to solve a goal.
I see games as experiences you learn something from by means of active participation. Whether it's on computer, smartphone, tablet, handheld, IRL, or some other medium, you can *_game_*.
The comment of watching Netflix potentially being a game wouldn't meet my definition since watching something is a passive activity. While you can be active _about_ the show, you aren't active _with_ it (unless you are a cast member during filming). "Casual" games are still games and meet the definition even though they aren't as in depth as more mainstream games are.
As long as the act of participation allows you to become better at what you are doing in future instances, potentially being able to apply it to your real life for the betterment, and/or can help others in similar tasks improve, I see you as gaming.
I still like TB's explanation. What is and isn't a game is to more describe what to expect to an audience that is curious in it. TB stated to not consider calling something "not game" as a negative thing which everyone seems to be consider it as. I see is as another genre tag until you could find something to better describe it as their forms of interaction are much different than most people would expect from the medium.
One of the things I don't see people really talking about is the difference in the definition of "medium".
By medium, you could mean the literal physical medium the creation is stored on:
- Paper
- Pastel
- Wood
- Film
- Video
- Tapes
- Discs
- Digital
But medium can also define what the type of content is:
- Writing
- Music
- Movies/Television
- Advertisements
- Games
The first section is usually pretty clear but doesn't define what the type of content is. For instance:
- Tic Tac Toe (paper)
- Parcheesi (wood)
- League of Legends (digital)
These are all games, but their medium is different.
The second section is a little more flexible though, for instance, what's the difference between:
- a Movie that takes 1.5hrs and
- a double HBO Television episode which also runs 1.5hrs?
The difference was in delivery method and assumed intent of the content. A movie was brought through cinema's and was meant to be stand-alone. Television was meant to be serialised and came through your TV. Now with digital services, we can take in Movies and TV through the same physical medium (digital), and neither has had the restrictions of being standalone or serilaised.
So what is a Movie? What is Television? What is the difference between Movies, Television, RUclips Videos, other than `expected` type of content?
The same is happening for Games right now, a lot of games are digital, but then the type of content is wide and varied, and we're still looking for easy to understand, simple to digest and inoffensive labels. So someone can say "Oh, Movies aren't my thing", or "I can't stand serialised TV" without insulting someone.
A lot of the time it comes down to where you place Games in the hierarchy of creation:
Creative Art-forms [abstractionist]
+ Music
+ Movies
--- Blockbusters
--- Indie Flicks
+ Games
--- Tactical
----- FPS
--- Arcade
--- Interactive Stories
--- Sandboxes
or
Creative Art-forms [formalist]
+ Music
+ Movies
--- Blockbusters
--- Indie Flicks
+ Interactive Media
--- Interactive Stories
--- Games
----- Tactical
----- Arcade
--- Sandboxes
For me, this doesn't make a lot of difference. But it does sorta clarify the Abstractionist/Formalist divide. Where do you put Games in the hierarchy of media and creative art-forms?
This show gets better with each episode. I originally only came here from Idea Channel, and didn't even like a lot of what the early episodes were saying. The last few months though I feel the shows really stepped up its game, and is exploring some great questions. Keep up the great work!
Since this is an ongoing debate and will never be 'Resolved' with an agreed upon set of standards and rules (just like the definition of 'Art' won't have a finite answer any time soon) I feel completely comfortable with the Extra Credits decision to render the debate null and instead discuss whatever we feel is a game at that moment. Too many people decide that once the debate gets brought up they have to hash it out until a resolution comes about, but that's never going to happen so instead talking about interactive media/ what we feel is a game is a better use of our time. Not that this debate isn't fun to have every so often, but focusing too much on it can lead to some fatigue which nobody benefits from. Plus games and what the Game Abstractionists (which I tend to categorize myself as), and to a lesser extent what Game Formalists, consider a 'game' is constantly changing, so any answer we happen to decide on will only hurt the 'game' industry, as was mentioned towards the beginning of this piece.
I'm a game formalist and prefer to use Greg Costikyan's definition when I use the term: "A game is a form of art in which participants, termed players, make decisions in order to manage resources through game tokens in the pursuit of a goal."
As Will Wright has mentioned, contrast this with a toy, like SimCity, which is a superset of elements that can be used for other things. Granted, it's easy enough to turn a toy into a game (just add a goal, e.g. build a city in SimCity with 100,000 residents), but by itself is merely a different tool for play.
I feel like this conversation is very similar to the "what is a sport" debate. Just as in this debate there seems to be some higher quality associated with "sports" or "games", where there shouldn't be.
For instance, I consider things traditionally called "sports" in to several categories, none of which are superior to the other, but make for a better description of the event which is occurring.
Sport: Events (usually athletic) in which you score points where the highest score wins (examples: Baseball, Soccer, Tennis)
Competition: Events (usually athletic) in which the outcome is judged, and the best performance wins (examples: Skateboarding, Figure Skating, Cheerleading)
Race: Events (usually athletic) in which the outcome is timed and the lowest time wins (examples: Track, Cycling, Swimming, NASCAR)
And even with this greater organizational structure, you can still easily find events that don't cleanly fall in to any of these (expanded) categories. Golf is probably most closely classified as a race (with my above definitions), though instead of being timed, we're looking for the player with the highest efficiency around the course.
I think similar delineations would make the question of "what is a game" more clear. Instead of the broad umbrella of "games" we could have buckets that better describe the experience one has in playing.
Something like:
Puzzles - spacial reasoning and logic are the primary methods of completing a task (Portal, Tetris, Fez)
Interactive Narratives - story is the driving force behind advancing (Gone Home, Journey)
Strategy - Out-thinking an opponent largely more important than mechanical prowess (Civ, League of Legends)
Twitch - Mechanical prowess and agility are primary methods of success (Most FPS games, Mario)
Once again I can easily come up with examples that don't cleanly fit. Most fighting games would fall in to the twitch category for most players, but on the highest levels they become strategy games.
These categories may not be the best possible sets, but I think they serve to make my point.
Even if I didn't consider something like Gone Home to be a game, does that somehow not make it worth playing? I love it, and I think people should play it even if it doesn't necessarily meet their definition of 'game'.
While it is true that the defining factor of games is the fact that they are designed to be interacted with to create a unique experience for each player, it is actually more specific than that. Not only do games allow themselves to be interacted with, but they are made to simulate some experience, idea or story that the creator(s) want to tell their players.
For example, Chess teaches the concept of military strategy via its mechanics and its play space. That is what it communicates to its players. Borderlands immerses players in a colorful world with huge weapon and enemy variety, where you help as many entities in the game as possible in order to gain ever more valuable rewards as you make progress in the narrative. Gone Home evokes 90s nostalgia for the purpose of pulling us into the story of a suburban family. The primary focus, the entire point of all of these items, can be traced back to a particular idea or experience that the original creator(s) wanted their creation to simulate.
Netflix, in contrast, is not the same as what I just described. The mechanics and possibility space in Netflix do not reflect some primary story, experience or idea that its creators wanted to express. It is a service through which you can watch movies and TV shows. It is a tool, no more, no less. Even when Netflix makes original content for the service, the entire point of the service is not that original content. The primary intent behind Netflix is to be a platform for others to showcase their own works of art, not to be a work of art with authorial intent in and of itself.
In short, if something is made with some primary authorial intent to express a particular object, concept or experience, and chooses interactivity to be the main mechanic of delivering that intent, then it could be considered a "game". While this is still a broad definition of what a "game" is, it excludes objects and tools that we interact with all the time. In short, we interact with "games" because their entire point is for the creator(s) to communicate something to the player through the means of interaction. The point of a tool or service is to provide some tangible benefit to those who use it.
For example, driving your car around town is not a game, it is merely a method of transportation that you take advantage of to go where you want to go. A computer program that is created to accurately simulate the kind of driving that you do every day could be considered a game, because its primary intent is to recreate that experience in a computer program. A computer program that is designed to gather data from crash tests would not be a game, because the intent of such a program is not to recreate the experience of crashing, it is to analyze data and come to some kind of conclusion based on that data, depending on the type of data and the type of analysis it does.
Thus, Gone Home and Dear Esther and The Stanley Parable and, yes, even Depression Quest, can be considered games because they use interactivity to express the stories and observations of their creator(s), according to this definition. Their primary purpose is not to be a tool that we use every day to make our lives easier. Their purpose is to communicate something specific to the player via some level of interactivity.
I am sure the "full" definition of what a "game" is, is more complicated and nuanced than I expressed here. But this is at least something that, as far as I know, is true. Make of my thoughts whatever you will.
I share your sentiments exactly. I feel like a game designer should have a strong idea of what a game is _to them_. They should try and create something that is an expression of that game, to really plant their flag in that space, and then other designers who have a different idea of what a game is will plant that flag elsewhere. For instance, Tale of Tales have a very different idea of what a "game" is vs Lucas Pope which will be different to Team Meat.
I'd actually be interested to know whether Jamin is a Formalist or an Abstractionist (since he does a fair bit of fence-sitting on his video).
I'll go purist, and say that it's only a game if it has rules, objectives, strategic or tactical decisions, and multiple teams or players which all must follow those same rules, and attempt to reach the same objectives. If there is only one 'player' (A.I. can be players) then it is not a game, it is simply interactive text (using "text" in the broad literary sense). By this definition, Mario Kart is a game, but Super Mario Bros. is not because in the former, Bowser plays by the same rules as all other players, and in the later, he does not.
However, I think it's a bit pedantic, and we can use the word two ways, similar to the word "comics".
We use the word "comics" very loosely to define all manner of types of text, but technically, the term only really refers to books full of graphical jokes, of a sort which are very rarely published anymore. Most of what we typically call "comics" is actually more accurately called "Sequential art narrative", but this is really an academic term.
As a literature professor, I am careful to use terms like "Sequential art narrative" and "Interactive narrative" instead of "comic" or "game" when we study these works because it's an academic setting, and one should strive to be accurate in the classroom (in fact, I make distinctions among "interactive art", "interactive verse", and "interactive narrative" - plus all of those with and without the word "digital" - in my classroom), but when I talk to my friends about what I've been filling my leisure time with on the weekends, I talk about "comics" and "games" because that's the expected language, and using the more accurate language would be pedantic in that setting.
Is it important to know the technical difference among all these terms? I think so. Should we be attacking or even correcting others when they use them incorrectly? Probably not outside of a classroom or other discussion in which the distinction is important to the topic at hand.
I love your posts because they are so thoroughly thought out. I'm going disagree with the purist approach because it removes at its assertion of only being multiplayer a few of the fundamental reason why humans have games at all.
In every culture we play games. The purpose of play is to mimic survival skills, increase mental and motor functions, and establish relationships with our peers. If it is a product created by a third party for any of all of these purposes then I think it's a game.
However, I love that you use further qualifications when discussing games, art, and literature as that really drives home the meat of what the discussion maybe. "Game" sets the context but the qualifiers identify the content.
I used to be an abstractionist, but now I'm a formalist. I believe that we need a criteria for what certain things are, and what things are not. Without some kind of boundary, without some definitions, I feel a bit lost; if anything can be something, then does that something even exist? If we just defined all life as life, then how do we separate ourselves from fish? Categorization is a natural human tendency: "Sky is sky", "Day is day", "night is night", "this is a fish, that is a snake", etc.
Now, that's not to say that strict guidelines are ideal; on the contrary, we need some flexibility within our categories, because when divisions are too narrow, they're harder to use, and less useful to people. Categories should be broad enough to not be excessively restrictive, but not too broad as to be vague and meaningless.
As one who has played both games, I would not define Gone Home or Dear Esther as video games (computer and console games are both video games; after all, a console is just a specialized computer). Those two titles are "Electronic Interactive Experiences" (a term I just put together); not quite on the level of interactivity and playability that video games typically have, but still containing features commonly found within video games. In comparison, The Stanley Parable, A Dark Room, and Cookie Clicker would be video games. Visual Novels, of which I've played a few, could be defined as a specific type of EIE.
Sidenote: Upon reading about Mountain, I'm certain it is not even an EIE. It's a procedurally generated, infinitely long film. Nothing more, nothing less. It's only a dollar though, so I'll give it credit for charging people a fair price. Which couldn't be said about Dear Esther or Gone Home...
The difference is the level of interactivity and player choice; The Stanley Parable has minimal interactivity for a first-person game (about as much as Gone Home, really), but has player choice take a starring role, dictating the path the story takes. A Dark Room and Cookie Clicker also provide a level of player choice and interactivity. Gone Home has more interactivity than, say, Cookie Clicker, but less player choice.
In fact, Gone Home and Dear Esther have no player choice whatsoever. Sure, you might not see the whole story if you don't check certain rooms or certain objects, but that doesn't mean the player made a meaningful decision; it means they didn't complete the experience. Complete vs. Incomplete Experience isn't a choice in the video game sense.
Choice is the primary difference between these two types of experiences. An EIE has no meaningful choices, while a video game does. What is a meaningful choice in a video game? It's a choice which makes a complete experience vary from player to player. The decisions which alter the way the player's story unfolds are meaningful choices; these are certainly present in games with branching storylines, like many RPGs, but can also be found in the fundamental elements of a video game: The choice of which enemy to attack first, what clothing option to pick, which crop to plant in which spot, when to buy that upgrade, where to set up shelter for the night. It's the player's ability to approach a situation and completely resolve it in a different way than another player. Under this definition, the boundary lines become clear: Gone Home and Dear Esther are EIEs, and not video games. Call of Duty, Heavy Rain, Halo, Civilization, Angry Birds, Flappy Bird, Farmville, and even Cookie Clicker are video games.
Video Games are Games played using electronic equipment.
Games are structured forms of play.
Play is any activity done for fun.
Fun is any stimulus response in the MDA framework.
Strictly Defined, & Abstracted. Everyone can be happy.
I like your conclusion that gaming has reached such a critical mass that people have started debating about it. Like Art or Music, Video games shall become seriously studied university courses in the distant future and like other art forms, will reflect, in a sociological and historical sense, the era it originated from!
It's like some sort of video game civil war, when you think about a few videos ago when we were discussing if games should be sports.
I believe that in order to be a videogame, the following conditions must be met (Please note that this ONLY applies to video-games. tabletop games, board-games, and card-games, have a different set of conditions to be a "game", and that is more closely related to games theory, since games like monopoly, and dungeons and dragons, and magic the gathering, all fail THIS set of conditions)
1 Actions taken by the player must have a consequence, even if that consequence is simple
2 The player must be capable of interacting with the game environment in some form, and not JUST non-interacting movement through it. and for clarification, stepping on a button does count as interaction. IE Indirect action counts.
3A: There must be multiple end-states. This can be a win state and a lose state, or it can be multiple lose states with no win state, it could be multiple different win states. the reason being is multiple progressions from starting the game to ending the game. navigating an environment and doing 100% of the same tasks, in a different order does NOT count to this effect.
3B: there must be at least one action which prevents some specific progression, chain of events, or access from occurring on a given playthrough, in other words, a choice must be made. OR logic.
3C: There must be a scoring system of some form
3D: the game must encourage the player to engage in some form of "Play" using the game mechanics presented
Clarification of rule(s) 3. the game MUST contain at least one of the 3rd rule. so you could have rule 1, rule 2, and rule 3B, but NOT 3A or 3C. This would be valid. games which qualify for rule 3D are sometimes "Toys" or "Tools" rather than "Games", for instance, Garry's Mod, which can CONTAIN games, but is itself not a game, due in part to this specific clarification. and the lack of an objective.
4: the game must in some way engage the player into action. Engaging in periods of "non-interaction" are acceptable ONLY if those periods of "non-interaction" are broken up by moments of "interaction"
Clarification of rule 4: by this rule alone, cookie-clicker and the like might not qualify as a game, due to the ability to start the game, get the first auto-click upgrade, and then simply walk away, never interacting with the game in any way again, EVER and still claim to be "Playing" it. additionally the internet-meme of "The Game" (which we all just lost), also fails at this checklist. given that it is an idea and not an active task, this is to be expected
5: Must be on an electronic device of some form (since this is video-games and not board games or miniatures)
NOW... To test this. Lets run a few games through this.
Minecraft: 1-yes, 2-yes 3A-yes 3B-no 3C-yes(ish) 3D-yes 4-yes result - minecraft is a game
Minecraft IN CREATIVE MODE 1-yes 2-yes 3A-No 3B-no, 3C-no 3D-no 4-No Minecraft in creative is NOT a game, it is a tool or a toy. (fails rules 3 and 4)
Gone Home 1-yes 2-yes 3A-no 3B-no 3C-no 3D-no, 4-yes. Gone home fails at rule 3, but does NOT fail at rule 4, which is odd considering it is technically possible to start the game and not do anything, sitting on the porch forever. you are however ENCOURAGED not to do so, purely by the very atmosphere of the game. that house, that porch are creepy. they are designed to make you WANT to progress, by making you uncomfortable for staying in one place for too long. the dim lighting, and the ambient noises are reminiscent of horror games.
The Stanley Parable 1-yes 2-yes 3A-yes, 3B-yes, 3C-no, 3D-no 4-maybe. the stanley parable, despite having fewer objects to interact with, is more of a game than gone home, due to branching interactions, where one course of action means that some other course of action is denied. it passes multiple rule 3's. rule 4 is dependent 100% on the curiosity of the player. there is no negative enforcement of non-action, nor is there positive enforcement for action. non-action is therefor valid. the ONLY encouragement to even move from the start position, is 100% pure curiosity, which is not controlled by the game. I personally would call the stanley parable a game, due to the curiosity involving what the narrator will say.
But anyway, this is just my thoughts. I'm sure someone else could expand upon this.
My views about game is simple, if i get to control a certain character, item, land or object and that every thing i do will affect this world that the character, item, land or object is in. Another way to look at it is games can be anything that can allow oneself to be free of boredom.
After watching this video and reading many comments this is my definition of a game: A risk is taken for a reward.
Watching a movie is not a game because you take no risks, but Candy Land is a game because you have to roll a die and take the risk of rolling an unwanted number for the reward of moving forwards on the board.
So do linear games follow Juul's forth rule of significant variation in actions? Like in the Half-life series you fallow a set path and although you could fight the enemies in different ways/with different weapons there are some things you have to do the same way every time: like turning valves. Also what about negotiable consequences? Do games really have a minimal effect on life? If a game evokes some kind of emotion that effects the way we think and act in the real world does that game technically fail Juul's third rule?
Also the debate about what is a "true game/real game" sounds like the "no true Scotsmen" fallacy, to me anyway. All in all I'd have to put myself in the game abstractionists camp.
A game is more than an interactive experience. For this reason, I wouldn't even classify the Sims as a game.
I believe the best the solution is to let the player define what experiences they want to define as games ... well as games.
A game is whatever you feel like man. As long as your opinion isn't being forced others.
In other words as long as your definition of a game doesn't come at the expense of others a game can be whatever YOU want it to be, eyes of the beholder and all of that.
Same exact situation with the word "Gamer."
This takes me back to art school, and the whole, "what is art?" Is art about the concept or the craft? If art is about the concept, conceptual art like Marcel Duchamp's Fountain (aka a toilet) is art. If it is about the craft, is a really well woven basket a piece of art? Is an illustration in a sports magazine art?
My favorite perspective is that art is something created to incite the mind. This game argument sounds the same. It's ultimately highly subjective, and I'm not really certain it matters, but it's a fun thought experiment. Make a rule that encompasses the way people play and see if it can be countered.
For myself, I think the quintessence of play is the engagement of the mind into a task that is separate from its reality. You can play soduko. You can play make believe. You can play halo. You can't play walking to get the mail, or play paying bills. The brain doesn't disengage from its shell to partake in these tasks, because they are life. Play gives us respite from these realities. That's just my initial guess, though.
I've got to say that I fall under the Abstractionist category. If I'm having fun doing something I'm going to classify it as a game. Not to say that I say that things I don't enjoy aren't games, but I generally don't spend enough time on them to form a real opinion of them.
To me I'm looking at the use of the word game in history. It's always been something that has presented some form of challenge. Today we even have genres that we use today to subdivide types of games. So I feel that a game must present some form of challenge. In a video medium I feel this challenge must be something placed in the way of the player by the developers.
An example I'll use is Flower. The first level in that "game" has really no challenge it's simply an experience. I would call it an Interactive Video Experience, IVA. However there is a goal, to gather all the flower petals and bring life to the tree. And this is the point at which I think the game starts. It's when you are presented with a goal and a challenge or obstacle between you the player and that goal. Without that you really are just participating in an interactive experience.
I don't know if this is a full synopsis of the medium as a whole, however, I feel that when we propose what a game is we have to view its historic connotation in relation to the use of the term in regard to the video game medium as a whole today.
I think I'm little bit of a formalist and an abstractionalist. I'm with Extra Credits in that we should start calling these things "digital experiences" instead of games. I think things would be better off if we called everything a game, but then assigned categories that each experience fits into based on motivation for play. People play games for different reasons and dividing them up based on the driving factor in interaction would satisfy everybody. Gone Home is a game based heavily on narrative, exploration, and puzzle rewards while Call of Duty is based more in competition, action, and skill. We can call them both games, but they are totally different experiences and we should highlight that.
I feel like people are trying to blur the lines between a game and interactive story. The big difference is if you need skill to go threw it or if you just need interaction. If you need skill its a game, if you just have to interact with it then its an interactive story, a chose your own adventure if you will.