Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

I definitely agree with the author that more games need to be treated as a sandbox and less like a guided tour. That was particularly my gripe with Shadowrun Returns and, to a lesser extent, Wasteland 2. Both of which had the plastic, waxy sort of gameplay where I felt like it was going through the motions. I don't know if every game would should be a sandbox, but...well, the Stanley Parable is definitely an apt metaphor. Many modern games are afraid of the unknown in their own games. In the name of balance they opt for restriction. In the name of budget and efficiency, they opt for simplicity. It's why I look critically at any RPG with leveling's skill list. Because it usually is a short hand to describe the set of interactions available to you. Most games limit that to explicitly one or two things per interaction. Great games weave many interactions into their skills.

[Shadowlord]

I'd posit that the existence or absence of win conditions or failure conditions can't determine whether something is a game. Tetris lacks a win condition, along with numerous early arcade games. MMOs almost universally lack failure conditions - that is, it is generally impossible to lose at an MMO. You can "die" but it generally only temporarily inconveniences you.

IMHO a game is anything interactive that you play for entertainment. Movies? Not interactive. Books on tape? Not interactive. Choose your own adventure books? A game in book form. Visual novels? A game in book form computerized with visuals, right? So this definition would probably be more broad than the ones that were proposed earlier in the thread.

This is a thing from the 80s, which definitely was a game in book form (It had stats, equipment, even a spellbook you were encouraged to try to memorize pre-adventure and then never look at again because you couldn't bring it with you on your adventure):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorcery!

On the subject of sandbox games vs linear games:

A funhouse is a linear sequence of scares. "Take it or leave it" is the only choice given. Makes you think about free will. Had our choices been made for us because of who we are?

I feel like sandbox games tend to lack strong stories, requiring you to make one yourself, and while that can be fun, you can run out of motivation to keep playing (and skinner boxes really don't do it for me).

I like games with good strong stories, especially when they let you make choices in the course of them, shaping the events as they proceed. If they're overly linear, where you've got no choice, it's less great, but if the story is amazing then I won't mind.

Some games seem to put no effort into the writing or quest design, ending up with a terrible story and quests (most of which seem to be generic fetch/deliver/kill quests that send you across the map), apparently in the hopes that it'll be overlooked because they've got sandboxiness and moddability (SKYRIM SKYRIM SKYRIM).

Edit: Damn, I was trying to avoid making a long post.

[Antioch]

well on a more philosophical note it is extremely hard to define ANYTHING. Defining Something as mundane as a chair is already nigh impossible. I have found that defining is a subjective term. Something is a chair when someone BELIEVES it is a chair. This means that objects can be different things for different people.

so:

Something is a game when someone finds it a game.

[Sensei]

I think it's fair to say that a "success state" is not necessary, but games like Space Invaders and Tetris ostensibly have a Goal/Objective, and they still have failure states. I'd also say MMO combat also definitely has failure states- just because you can go try again doesn't mean you didn't fail! I mean, the game pretty much told you that you failed. That's like saying that Call of Duty doesn't have a failure state because you respawn when you die. Let's also consider what Tetris or Space Invaders would be without a failure state? I think work, maybe. You could maybe have fun by imposing your own failure state, like "beat my friend's score" but otherwise you're just shooting aliens for points which seems a little too close to flipping burgers for money.

IMHO a game is anything interactive that you play for entertainment. Movies? Not interactive. Books on tape? Not interactive. Choose your own adventure books? A game in book form.

Well, I'm pretty sure this definition includes things which are interactive but don't really involve decision making. As someone who wants to buy a game, I'll still be disappointed if I got Dear Esther, played through it, and was quite certain that my decision to go down the left path instead of the right path didn't really matter. I'd probably say I wasn't playing a game because I wasn't making meaningful decisions; I might as well be choosing a chapter on a DVD menu. In that situation I'm not sure how useful that definition is.

well on a more philosophical note it is extremely hard to define ANYTHING. Defining Something as mundane as a chair is already nigh impossible. I have found that defining is a subjective term. Something is a chair when someone BELIEVES it is a chair. This means that objects can be different things for different people.

so:

Something is a game when someone finds it a game.

Pfff, sounds like giving up to me! That definition is just not useful in conversation. The entire purpose of a definition is to allow us to communicate, and assuming complete subjectivity doesn't help us communicate objective facts, or to recommend an item on Steam to a friend.

[Virtz]

Tetris lacks a win condition, along with numerous early arcade games.

Nope. The win condition of those is getting to the top of the scoreboard. Being the best around, and no one ever keeping you down.

MMOs almost universally lack failure conditions - that is, it is generally impossible to lose at an MMO. You can "die" but it generally only temporarily inconveniences you.

A singleplayer video game doesn't permanently uninstall itself when you lose either, that doesn't mean the game over screen for that is not a fail state, even if it's temporary.

IMHO a game is anything interactive that you play for entertainment. Movies? Not interactive. Books on tape? Not interactive. Choose your own adventure books? A game in book form. Visual novels? A game in book form computerized with visuals, right? So this definition would probably be more broad than the ones that were proposed earlier in the thread.

It'd also be not very useful to a consumer or anyone trying to communicate in human language. Also, does this mean my DVD player's menu is a game? How about my mp3 player? I can fast forward and pause and stuff, so it's interactive, and its purpose is entertainment.

[Cheeetar]

IMHO a game is anything interactive that you play for entertainment. Movies? Not interactive. Books on tape? Not interactive. Choose your own adventure books? A game in book form.

Well, I'm pretty sure this definition includes things which are interactive but don't really involve decision making. As someone who wants to buy a game, I'll still be disappointed if I got Dear Esther, played through it, and was quite certain that my decision to go down the left path instead of the right path didn't really matter. I'd probably say I wasn't playing a game because I wasn't making meaningful decisions; I might as well be choosing a chapter on a DVD menu. In that situation I'm not sure how useful that definition is.

How meaningful does the decision have to be? If there is a game that consists solely of two doors, and one brings you to a game over fail screen and the other to a custcene where you win, is this a game with meaningful decision(s)?

[Sensei]

No. I'd safely say that it's not. I think it might be fair to say that is not a game at all. I don't know what to call it though, people in normal conversation would normally describe that as being a game. It's certainly a sticking point in my definition. Maybe we could describe a game as requiring at least a failure state OR meaningful decision making? That would also qualify, say, a choose your own adventure style thing where the meaning of success and failure is ambiguous as being a game. It would make Candy Land or that stupid mario party minigame where you walk through one of two doors and win or lose (yes that's a real thing) games, which matches how we use the word in conversation.

Thoughts?

[Leafsnail]

So, I'd like to propose a definition for "game": A "Game" is an interactive experience in which someone (or a team) attempts to complete a challenge, and Wins, Loses, or fails to progress based on their decisions, for entertainment.

This may be what you like to see in a game, but it doesn't fit the common definition at all so I don't see why anyone else should accept it.  As you point out it excludes luck-based board games, and when kids play house or something it's called a game even though there's no competitive aspect to it.  As you've said upthread your definition also implies that something like Minecraft isn't a game, even though everyone regards it as one.

I think the only sensible definition for videogames is "an interactive piece of digital media", because that fits what a "game" is in common parlance.

How meaningful does the decision have to be? If there is a game that consists solely of two doors, and one brings you to a game over fail screen and the other to a custcene where you win, is this a game with meaningful decision(s)?

Sure - guessing coin flips would be regarded as a game in real life, even if it's not a very good one.

[Reelya]

"Something is a game if anyone says it's a game"

The big problem with this, while on it's face it sounds good, is that we're talking the word game, and mapping that to a concept. If we accept "word X can mean whatever anyone wants it to", then :

Dude A: "This is my chair"
Dude B: "Bro, that's a cup"
Dude A: "Well it's a chair to me!"
Dude B: "Do you sit in this chair?"
Dude A: "Of course not, I drink out of it, silly, that's what chairs are for!"

Yeah, decoupling words from concepts is the best way to just not be able to communicate at all.

[Shadowlord]

It'd also be not very useful to a consumer or anyone trying to communicate in human language. Also, does this mean my DVD player's menu is a game? How about my mp3 player? I can fast forward and pause and stuff, so it's interactive, and its purpose is entertainment.

I thought it was fairly clear that I meant play-as-in-playing-a-game, not

[Reelya]

a game is anything interactive that you play for entertainment.

Let's break this down, to show the circular logic flaw ... take just "interactive" and "entertainment". That doesn't really equal game by itself. Then, browsing a website or forum would be a game. The issue is that this undefined word PLAY has been added.


"A game is a thing you play" isn't a satisfactory answer to "what is a game".

... Define "Play".

I thought it was fairly clear that I meant play-as-in-playing-a-game, not

"A game is a thing you play, where play is in the sense of 'playing a game' "

Can you see my issue about circular logic?

[Shadowlord]

"A game is a thing you play, where play is in the sense of recreational activity?"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/play - That would be definition 3a.

Or, "Where play is in the sense of... I want to say... sexual intercourse? No wait, that's obsolete! Amorous flirtation?" (Definitions 2a and 2b)

[Reelya]

"recreation activity" isn't really any better since it's virtually a synonym for game. You might as well just go through a thesaurus and define things by the words in there, word-shifting isn't a definition.

[Leafsnail]

My attempt at a general definition of "game would be "An activity with a set of associated rules or conventions that one or more people engage in interactively".

Yeah, decoupling words from concepts is the best way to just not be able to communicate at all.

Yeah words are defined by how they are commonly used.

[Shadowlord]

English is recursively defined. What do you want?