What is a Game?

[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!