What is a Game?

[Madame Adequate]

I'm interested in getting to the heart of what people consider to be a game qua game. I can see a whole lot of possible criteria and I'm very curious about what other people think.

Is it the presence of particular mechanics? It can't just be pressing buttons to cause reactions, or channel surfing would be a game. But how does that distinction come into being?

Is it doing something that no other medium can do? But what would that even mean - is it again a mechanical issue, or does it require some kind of reward system like points, or is it in a deeper way an ability to influence things? Though even that last one carries the potential problem of dismissing more on-rails and linear games where you can't influence things very much.

Is it a mix of factors? Graphics, sound, gameplay, story, etc? Lots of games miss some elements out though: Plenty of older or deliberately old-school games don't have graphics or sound. New-school adventures like those from Telltale often don't have much that could be called gameplay, they're more like interactive TV episodes or comic books. Plenty of things that are incontrovertibly games lack any semblance of a story, things like Tetris, Asteroids, Dig-Dug. They may have stories in the manuals and all, but they don't matter in any way to enjoyment and usually sprung up after the fact due to a perceived need for justification.

Is it something else entirely? Is it ineffable? Is it like pornography - impossible to describe, but I know it when I see it?

Please share your thoughts and opinions.

[Pumpkin]

Um for me it says its a video game or I play it on a game console. I wouldn't say movies or TV are because I have very little input, but visual novels yes because I do have some input

That's about it for me. Yep

[Scotty_ffgamer]

What is a game? A miserable little pile of secrets.

[Yellow_Magic]

What is a game? A miserable little pile of secrets.

But enough talk...Have at you!

(Beat me to it. Well played)

[Scotty_ffgamer]

In all seriousness, I consider a video game to simply be anything with some form of interactive gameplay which is played on a tv screen/monitor/whatever. This would include most visual novels, but maybe not all of them. I feel like there are some visual novels that probably don't have any real choice in them or anything, and those I would maybe argue against being a game.

The distinction between this and channel surfing would be creator intent I guess? Games have someone (or many someones) who created them with the intent of creating a fun, interactive experience for the player. Simple channel surfing doesn't have that. Then again, my roommates and I have created "games" out of similar experiences with picking music on spotify. Hmm.

[Skyblade]

Interactivity is not enough to make a game. I mean, a movie has interactivity. You can speed it up, rewind it, turn it off. That doesn't make it a game (Beyond: Two Souls, I'm looking at you).

[Fox]

I have two criteria to call something a game:

1) It must have set rules.
2) There must be an element of competition.

Now that word 'competition' is a bit vague. That doesn't mean you have to be playing against other people. It can also include trying to set goals you have set yourself, Competition was the closest word I could find for what I wanted to express there. Basically it must have goals or objectives.

Many people will tell you a game has to have a failure state. I disagree with that. If you decide to build a tower in Minecraft and don't finish it, have you failed at the game of Minecraft? I don't think so, you've merely adjusted your goal. To me, as long as you are setting yourself or being set a goal within a set of fixed rules, it can count as a game. "The floor is lava" is a game. "How many sheep can I count before I fall asleep?" is a game. The Order 1886... well, maybe not, but you catch my drift ;)

[TheShogun]

The idea of what can be a "game" and what can't be does get a bit iffy, especially with many games picking up a more story based or cinematic aspect. Namely I would find a game to be something that uses the interactive element of a game well, whether it be to create fun, immersion or using the aspect of player choice to a significant degree. Personally I find more recent "cinematic" games such as Gone Home to not be real games, as they do not really use the gameplay aspect, instead becoming little more than an interactive walkabout.I don't think a game needs to focus on fun or traditional gameplay (like mindless shooting) to be a game per se. An example of a well made game that uses interactivity well without needing normal gameplay is The Stanley Parable, which uses the element of interactivity (along with the fact that it breaks the fourth wall in constantly referencing that it is in fact, a game) to create an entertaining and unique experience. Most games seem to be focusing on story or being "artsy" without really focusing on the fact that they are games, and in that I feel they would be better off as movies or books or something, rather than forcing some interactive element that doesn't belong.Games that don't really focus on being fun, or properly use the interactive element of a game would be better off being something else tbh. Even games like COD are fun and entertaining, and use the gameplay, even if it's story or overall experience is lacking. That's my two cents anyway :/

[Mirage]

I don't think something is a game unless there is an element of victory or defeat in some form.

Channel surfing isn't a game because there is no victory or defeat in it. If channel surfing was "find x show within y seconds", then channel surfing would be a game.

Minecraft is a game because you can be defeated in it, either by accidentally killing yourself, or getting eaten by a monster. Technically, I don't consider minecraft's "creative mode" to be a game mode, but you can make games in the mode if you choose to, by setting your own goals that you can succeed or fail at. For example if you are competing against someone else to build something.

Likewise, running isn't a game, but competing against your friend to run x distance the fastest is a game.

That said, something doesn't have to be a game in order to be fun.

[Night Fury]

A different reality in which you can interact with via controllers etc.

[Electroshock Therapy]

Gameplay is the most important factor to me, but it doesn't have to be the driving force of the game. I like a game whether it's heavy on story or not, but I want the interactivity to be enjoyable. I like Nintendo because they are doing what no-one else is. They are trying to make gameplay as immersive as possible. But I still like regular controls, too. Basically, the interactivity in the game needs to be good and interesting even if the mechanics themselves are simple.

I like a game with an ending. So I generally don't like arcade-style games.

I don't need good graphics. As long as I can distinguish between an enemy and a bush, I'm fine. But I won't say no to a graphical upgrade if I think it looks good. Having good music helps. I love music, but I'm picky so I need it to not annoy me.

[Leigh]

Anything from making coffee to rape.

EDIT BY BoB: No. -_-

[Loony BoB]

A video game is something displayed on a visual interface that you can, through your own input, interact with in order to establish an outcome. The game requires your interaction in order to progress past certain points, unlike a film, and this is by design. It is also designed with the intention either to be enjoyed or to provide a challenge.

[Shiny]

A video game is a visual and interactive experience that can be controlled but not necessarily predetermined by the player. If it isn't interactive then it's a movie and not a game. Movies and television -- while they allow social media interaction -- they dont allow for viewers to shape what's happening in the experience so it's not really truly interactive.

[chionos]

It's not just simple interactivity, otherwise something like Jack White's new interactive music video (which is fucking awesome, btw) would be a video game.

I think one of the most important components is the repercussion factor. The player's choices must either shrink the list of available choices (via loss of life, injuries--includes Mario shrinking et al) or expand it.

The number of choices in a movie is static. The actions themselves are static.

But choices in games are context-sensitive. Different outcomes result from exactly the same actions. Take the input: Mario jumps.

Under a breakable block: Mario Jumps --> block breaks
Under a ? box: Mario Jumps --> mushroom appears
In front of a gap: Mario Jumps --> Mario eaten by the abyss
Under a pipe: Mario Jumps --> Mario is sucked into the underworld
Under a jumpy turtle: Mario Jumps --> Mario shrinkage
etc

[WildRaubtier]

Didn't John Nash already ask/answer this question?

A game is just a fancy word for a decision.

[Sephex]

[edgy statement that flirts between a mainstream and indie scene perspective]

[Loony BoB]

It's not just simple interactivity, otherwise something like Jack White's new interactive music video (which is smurfing awesome, btw) would be a video game.
The music video is hardly interactive, it is simply a camera switch, essentially changing the channels (admittedly in a very fluid way). Per my earlier post, the video does not require user input in order to complete, therefore it is not a game.

However, no matter how you define things, there will be grey areas which could be argued for or against being a game. What if a video required quick pressing of buttons in order for it to complete? What if there are two buttons could lead to different outcomes? What if it labels each of the buttons "positive" or "negative"? What if there is only one location in which this happens throughout the entire video? What if there are two? Three? Thirty? What if you have to, occasionally, move a character from one room into another instead of pressing a button? Is it suddenly a game?

I suppose my point is that you can't be too picky with your definition. There will be a lot of grey areas and, because of that, subjectivity when deciding what is and is not a video game.

[Mirage]

If some of the button presses lead to a "failure" state, it is a game. A negative outcome does not have to be a failure state, but it might be.

[Loony BoB]

If some of the button presses lead to a "failure" state, it is a game. A negative outcome does not have to be a failure state, but it might be.
Is Journey a game if you can't fail?

[Mirage]

Never played it, so I can't say.

Maybe not. Does it have to be a game? Can you get stuck? Getting stuck could count as failure.

[Loony BoB]

Never played it, so I can't say.

Maybe not. Does it have to be a game? Can you get stuck? Getting stuck could count as failure.
I suppose you could get stuck, but that would just mean you haven't finished. You can't get to a point that you can not beat the game, if that's what you mean. Frog Fractions is the same in that regard. There are probably a lot of games where you can't fail, now that I think about it. The Sims. Loads of puzzle games out there. Loads of point and click games. Visual novels. Flower. Flow.

[metagloria]

There are no such game as things.

[DMKA]

I often here people say it needs to have a failstate to be a game, but there's lots of old point-and-click adventure games like Grim Fandango and The Neverhood that are lauded and praised as some of the best games ever made, none of which have any sort of fail state.

Meanwhile games like The Walking Dead and Heavy Rain get called "movies" when they do have failstates.

In my opinion, if you can push buttons and it lets you interact and change what's happening on screen, it's a video game.

[Randy]

I think to be a game, a piece of electronic entertainment has to somehow offer better and worse outcomes based on a user input of some kind. So even something like Dear Esther, in my opinion, counts as a game because your input determines whether you make it to the end or not. It's entirely possible to get lost and give up (fail). Whereas something like Passage is not a game.

[Loony BoB]

Whereas something like Passage is not a game.
I consider Passage to be sandbox. You can do things or not do them in the game, and whether or not that is better is down to the individual. For example, you can get married or not get married. Likewise, there are games such as Dwarf Fortress where it can be argued that "bad things" are what actually makes the game so incredibly fun, in which case the worse a thing the better, in a weird way. In the end, it's a game if you can interact with it and alter what happens next based on your own input, and is designed to be either enjoyable or challenging.

Some people might not consider these things games, but I'm not sure what they would call them if not games. Personally, I see them as games. Whether or not they are good games, or succeed at being either enjoyable or challenging, does not change that they are designed to be these things (which is what differentiates them from applications like Excel or Notepad).

[Karifean]

As I'm currently very much into visual novels, I've been wondering for some time where to draw the line between game and not game.

I don't think there's any question that Ace Attorney qualifies as a video game. It actually has gameplay, what with the investigations and cross-examinations and giving you a Game Over if you fail too many times.

Little Busters!, too, I would consider a video game. While it doesn't have the puzzles or investigations of Ace Attorney, it does have minigames and your choices have a big influence on where the story goes, with the "Bad Ends" being more or less Game Overs.

Then you have visual novels like Higurashi: When They Cry which have little to no interactivity whatsoever. Higurashi has exactly two choices, and neither have any influence on anything beyond the next few lines of text. There's also the TIPS which are basically little extra chapters you can read whenever you want, but that hardly counts as interactivity.

And then there's Planetarian which has no choices of any kind and is just a linear story from start to finish. This is really the point where the only interactivity is pressing a button to advance the text, and nothing more. It's still different from reading a book, as it's supplemented by graphics, music and voice acting, but does that make it a "game"? Hardly.

I still consider all of them games because the line between when it is a game and when it's not is a bit arbitrary. To me, Ace Attorney and Planetarian, even being the two polar opposite extreme cases, are still fundamentally representatives of the same genre. And if I consider Ace Attorney a game, I feel like I should consider Planetarian a game as well.

[Loony BoB]

And then there's Planetarian which has no choices of any kind and is just a linear story from start to finish. This is really the point where the only interactivity is pressing a button to advance the text, and nothing more. It's still different from reading a book, as it's supplemented by graphics, music and voice acting, but does that make it a "game"? Hardly.

stuff

And if I consider Ace Attorney a game, I feel like I should consider Planetarian a game as well.

Wait, what? Based on what you described, you can not change anything, you can only read and watch and flip to the next "page". This, to me, is not a game, because you are not really interacting, you are just pushing a button to progress. That is akin to scrolling down a thread on EoFF when the thread happens to include images and text and perhaps video.

[Skyblade]

And then there's Planetarian which has no choices of any kind and is just a linear story from start to finish. This is really the point where the only interactivity is pressing a button to advance the text, and nothing more. It's still different from reading a book, as it's supplemented by graphics, music and voice acting, but does that make it a "game"? Hardly.

stuff

And if I consider Ace Attorney a game, I feel like I should consider Planetarian a game as well.

Wait, what? Based on what you described, you can not change anything, you can only read and watch and flip to the next "page". This, to me, is not a game, because you are not really interacting, you are just pushing a button to progress. That is akin to scrolling down a thread on EoFF when the thread happens to include images and text and perhaps video.

So you can advertise the new EoFF with riveting gameplay!

[Loony BoB]

Totally. F2P!

[Mirage]

But pay to win.

[Karifean]

And then there's Planetarian which has no choices of any kind and is just a linear story from start to finish. This is really the point where the only interactivity is pressing a button to advance the text, and nothing more. It's still different from reading a book, as it's supplemented by graphics, music and voice acting, but does that make it a "game"? Hardly.

stuff

And if I consider Ace Attorney a game, I feel like I should consider Planetarian a game as well.

Wait, what? Based on what you described, you can not change anything, you can only read and watch and flip to the next "page". This, to me, is not a game, because you are not really interacting, you are just pushing a button to progress. That is akin to scrolling down a thread on EoFF when the thread happens to include images and text and perhaps video.

Yeah, I know. If you look at planetarian by itself, it shouldn't qualify as a game. It is a visual novel, though. Ace Attorney on the other hand you can look at by itself, and it should qualify as a game. But again, it is a visual novel. The choices that most visual novels have is enough for me to consider them games, as that does make them interactive, but then the only difference to Planetarian is the complete lack of those choices. Other than that it's the same kind of software. And to draw the line right there and call the visual novels that have at least one choice games and exclude the ones that don't... feels like an arbitrary distinction.

In short I wouldn't call planetarian a game by itself, but because it's part of a genre that I do overall consider to be games, I just count it as one as well.

I actually find Higurashi to be a more interesting example, since, well, is a single choice that changes no more than 10 lines of dialogue in an 80 hour long visual novel enough to call it a game? Is that one little thing sufficient to differentiate it from planetarian? (Edit: Technically there are two choices in total, but the other choice is even more irrelevant to the story)

[Loony BoB]

Visual novel and video game are two different things. However, they are not mutually exclusive. So just because two different things are both visual novels doesn't mean you have to blanket them both into either Video Games or Not Video Games.

[Karifean]

Visual novel and video game are two different things. However, they are not mutually exclusive. So just because two different things are both visual novels doesn't mean you have to blanket them both into either Video Games or Not Video Games.

I guess. In my mind, VNs are a subcategory/genre of video games. They're not common enough to make up a category by themselves, so I usually see them marked as games.

Although it seems in Japan there is indeed a distinction between NVLs ("novels") and ADV ("adventure games"), and it's just lumped together into 'visual novels' over here. So there you go, I guess.

[Shauna]

I think it's because adventure games are a different thing here. Not sure what it is, but it's usually lumped with "Action" as the genre.

[metagloria]

But pay to win.

inb4 EoFF microtransactions. "Pay $0.99 for unlimited posts for the next 24 hours!"

[Skyblade]

But pay to win.

inb4 EoFF microtransactions. "Pay $0.99 for unlimited posts for the next 24 hours!"

I think it would be more like "You must wait 30 seconds before making another post. Or pay $0.99 to post immediately."

[Christmas]

For starters, no microtranscations plz. Secondly, no multiplayers. I HATE PPL. I HATE HAVING TO PAY. I HATE YOU IF YOU DISAGREE. :mad2: