What's in a Game?

I was reading this interesting Guardian article which basically poses this question:

What is a video game?

Some may suggest that a game requires a 'win-lose' state, or that a game that consists primarily of cut-scenes is not truly a game.

When you think of a game? What do you expect? What's the first image that pops into your head? For me, the definition behind what a game is shouldn't be constrained, because it would limit innovation, transformation, experimentation and all those other words you'd expect to find in a company board room.

It'd be interesting to hear your thoughts on the definition debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Formalhaut

For me, the definition behind what a game is shouldn't be constrained, because it would limit innovation, transformation, experimentation and all those other words you'd expect to find in a company board room.

---

That definition alone disqualifies most Visual Novels and super linear games like Final Fantasy XIII, and yet they're still all games, aren't they?

For me, it's difficult to say. Post-modernist thought has made us really question the essence of everything, so I don't think there is a clear distinction between what is a game and what isn't.

If I were to choose anything it would be that something is a video game when it is created as such. Even if it's story heavy or someone never plays it, instead watching someone else play it or a video compilation of all the cutscenes, it's still a game.

What is a game?

A MISERABLE PILE OF PIXELS!

I have no idea. I put game in I either enjoy it or I don't, I don't think about definitions or trout.

Well I think that to call something a game, there must be a way to get to a failure/lose state. If not, it's an interactive story (like "make your own adventure" books, just in digital form), which is a perfectly fine thing for something to be, but it's different from what a game is.

What the failure state is, however, can vary greatly. It doesn't have to be "enemy kills you".

What I personally expect when I hear the term "game", is a way to influence its state, and having to consider which actions will lead me towards a form of victory, and away from a form of defeat.

I generally consider a game something a player actively interacts with that has a 'win' condition and rules.

To me a game is simply an interactive experience with a (self-contained) goal. If it's software on top of that, it's a video game.

I hear the question of whether or not visual novels are games brought up every now and then and as far as I'm concerned they're more or less a subcategory of games but can just as well be considered their own medium. With them being software and having interactive elements most of the time (some even including actual gameplay), they're certainly closer to games than anything else.

Going by what I said, poker would be a game, because you can influence the state of the game (and also metagame) to increase your own odds of winning. Unless my understanding of roulette is completely wrong, that game would not meet my requirements of a game. I don't know of any ways to influence the state of the game in a way that increases your odds of winning (or losing).

Likewise, blackjack is a game, but betting on which side of a dice will be facing up is not. Unless you are cheating. Then the act of cheating would of course be a metagame. You win if you get your desired result, and lose if you get caught. This also of course assumes perfectly balanced dice, which isn't always the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

Going by what I said, poker would be a game, because you can influence the state of the game (and also metagame) to increase your own odds of winning. Roulette is not a game because it does not allow you to influence the state of the game in any meaningful way. Sure, you can decide when the ball starts spinning around the wheel but no human has the capacity to in any way predict the result based on the initial state of the game.

---

I would call roulette a game of chance. I would also argue that you DO have influence, over how much and where you bet, which can have a significant impact on how much you win or lose.

I would say that if it was made to be a game, and people call it a game, then it's a game. A chessboard and pieces could be a piece of art if it was called art and hung up in a gallery. But, if it's called a game and is used as a game, then it's a game. The context is the important thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Carnelian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

Going by what I said, poker would be a game, because you can influence the state of the game (and also metagame) to increase your own odds of winning. Roulette is not a game because it does not allow you to influence the state of the game in any meaningful way. Sure, you can decide when the ball starts spinning around the wheel but no human has the capacity to in any way predict the result based on the initial state of the game.

---

I would call roulette a game of chance. I would also argue that you DO have influence, over how much and where you bet, which can have a significant impact on how much you win or lose.

I would say that if it was made to be a game, and people call it a game, then it's a game. A chessboard and pieces could be a piece of art if it was called art and hung up in a gallery. But, if it's called a game and is used as a game, then it's a game. The context is the important thing.

---

I think your chessboard as art is kind of stretching the point of this question. Yes, of course it can be. In the same way as a horse can be art if you hang its from the ceiling of an art gallery. An item can be used as part of a game, but no game is happening unless someone is engaged in the action of playing it. A chess board and pieces isn't a game, they are the tools you need to play the game called chess. A game is an abstract, I guess. It's more than the physical items needed to play it, as it is also the rules both players have agreed upon. I don't think this abstract concept that we call a game is a game unless you can affect the state of it, and it has win/loss conditions.

Back to roulette: You have control over how much you win or lose, but you don't have control over the game itself. Unless your eyes operate at 50000 frames per second and you can calculate the exact velocity of the ball and wheel, and how fast they slow down, you can't realistically alter any state of the game to skew the odds in your favour. You can choose when to stop the game and leave with your money, of course, but then you're no longer in the game. I guess I could perhaps stretch it as far as to say that there is a very slight metagame in roulette, but even that I'm not entirely sure of. I would have to read up on how people actually participate in it.


I might also be biased because I think chance games are really uninteresting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

I think your chessboard as art is kind of stretching the point of this question. Yes, of course it can be. In the same way as a horse can be art if you hang its from the ceiling of an art gallery. An item can be used as part of a game, but no game is happening unless someone is engaged in the action of playing it. A chess board and pieces isn't a game, they are the tools you need to play the game called chess. A game is an abstract, I guess. It's more than the physical items needed to play it, as it is also the rules both players have agreed upon.

---

True! The point I was trying to make is that it's the context that makes a game a game.

Yes, and now the context is that someone is engaged in the act of playing a game, and we're talking about which requirements are needed to call it a game :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

Yes, and now the context is that someone is engaged in the act of playing a game, and we're talking about which requirements are needed to call it a game :p

---

I'm saying that the context IS a requirement. The primary context being that it was made to be a game, and the person playing the game thinks of it as a game.

I'm with Fynn in that a video game is something which the creator calls a video game and created for that purpose. There should be interaction from the side of the player as well, I suppose. I'm not as sure that I would qualify a win/loss scenario as a defining feature of video games, it's just a factor in most video games.

I feel like visual novels can be tricky with regards to this though. There are games such as Danganronpa which I've heard people categorize as visual novels, but you are interacting a lot in those games and there are definite win/lose scenarios with the class trials. I don't know for sure if it's actually considered by most to be a visual novel though. Then you have visual novels such as one of Karifean's favorites, Clannad. I don't think there really is a win/lose scenario, but you make choices which effect what path the story goes. Some will include good ends and bad ends, which can kind of create a win/lose scenario I suppose. Then you have some where the only interaction you have really is just maybe hitting a button to continue the text. No alternate paths, no choices. All are visual novels, but I can see how the argument can be made for some being video games and some not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Carnelian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

Yes, and now the context is that someone is engaged in the act of playing a game, and we're talking about which requirements are needed to call it a game :p

---

I'm saying that the context IS a requirement. The primary context being that it was made to be a game, and the person playing the game thinks of it as a game.

---

In that case, I think you're redefining things on the fly, which is pretty counterproductive if you want to use those terms around other people.

If I claim to have made a game with fynn where we "stare at each others", without deciding on when the game ends or what causes one of us to lose, this isn't a game just because the two participants just decided that it was. If it was, then the term "game" would stop having any real meaning and saying "i'm going to play a game" could literally mean the exact same as "i'm going to watch this potato grow"

If I said "I'm going to play a game of roulette" and someone said "Well actually I wouldn't define that as a game due to " I'd probably want to hit them or never speak to them again.

'Game' is just a word right? Does it matter what situation it is used in as long as everyone understands each other?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crop

If I said "I'm going to play a game of roulette" and someone said "Well actually I wouldn't define that as a game due to " I'd probably want to hit them or never speak to them again.

'Game' is just a word right? Does it matter what situation it is used in as long as everyone understands each other?

---

Well put!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crop

If I said "I'm going to play a game of roulette" and someone said "Well actually I wouldn't define that as a game due to " I'd probably want to hit them or never speak to them again.

'Game' is just a word right? Does it matter what situation it is used in as long as everyone understands each other?

---

Good thing you'd probably never have to deal with something like that. However, this thread is actually about what makes a game a game, so you'll have to excuse me for sticking to the topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crop

If I said "I'm going to play a game of roulette" and someone said "Well actually I wouldn't define that as a game due to " I'd probably want to hit them or never speak to them again.

'Game' is just a word right? Does it matter what situation it is used in as long as everyone understands each other?

---

Good thing you'd probably never have to deal with something like that. However, this thread is actually about what makes a game a game, so you'll have to excuse me for sticking to the topic.

---

I simply left my opinion on what I think makes a game a game, just like you.

If I can interact and affect what's happening on the screen, it's a video game as far as lazy me is concerned.

As far as picky anal me is concerned, there has to be a goal and a way to lose in order for it to be a video game, hence the "game" part, but that's not going to stop me from calling the other stuff video games too because there's simply no better term out there for them that you can use to where anyone else would know what you're talking about.

Maybe we should create one that applies to all interactive entertainment things but isn't misleading with the "game" part. Video.....exhibits? I don't know.

I've been mulling this over lately and trying to come up with an all-inclusive answer, so here goes.

A game requires only three things:

1. A game must be interactive on some level, whether it is physical, mental or both. A game must be something the player can take part in and manipulate to achieve something.

2. A game must have a goal to it. The goal is a loose term that can mean a variety of things and may change based on the type of game. The goal may be a win/lose scenario, a high score, an arbitrary ending, or it may even be metaphysical in nature.

3. A game must have defined rules the player must abide by to interact with and achieve the goal.

I feel this is probably the most broad and easy to understand definition of the term.

That's a good definition Kanno. Simply, a game should be fun.