-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Anyone feel that "video game" is too narrow a title for the medium?
- Thread starter More_Badass
- Start date
camequipped
Member
Interesting topic as I was just having a conversation with dad about games like TLOU, witcher etc (basically story heavy games). It was hard for him to grasped the concept of games having an actual interesting story where you feel for the characters just like other mediums. I think video games carry a juvenile connotation to it which is hard to shed seeing how it was marketed during its infancy but I believe going forward that will change.
terrdactycalsrock
Member
I think it's fine. It's very literal, but I like that. It's a reproduction of moving images in which a person has objectives. I mean, you could argue that the reproduction (thus the video part) is a little wonky. We can't really do what movies and music have done though. We describe those mediums based on the tech we bought them on. Film, albums, and so on.
More_Badass
Member
How does he feel about comics or graphic novels, if he's familiar with those? Does he watch The Walking Dead? That was one of the things that helped my dad understand the appeal of games and how they're not just "did you beat all the levels?"
IES! Now find a prefix word to make it marketable. Gamies, Playies, Computies, Controllies. I vote Controllies.
I think about this occasionally and completely agree. And not for any bullshit reasons people are suggesting like it not being a mature or sophisticated enough name but for the same reasons mentioned in OP. If we stop calling them that, we can stop having the "Is [insert experimental game] a game?" debate. What a game can be has been pushed so far beyond what the term "game" implies. Video games don't have to be competitive. They don't have to have defined failure or victory states. They don't have to have a challenge. They don't need objectives. We've reached a point where they can barely have any mechanics. And this is all a great thing, but it does dilute what the words "video game" suggest. These are not all games presented as video. They're their own thing evolved from that concept. Now, the word is so ingrained in society that I'm not sure it will ever change and definitely not anytime soon. However, I fully support typing them as one word, "videogames". Therefore, we get away from it literally being the first word modifying the second and move more towards them being considered their own concept.
On the other hand,
Fuck everything I said. Ludies 4 Life!
On the other hand,
Fuck everything I said. Ludies 4 Life!
It's a perfect description.
It manages to be precise in describing what they are - games of sound & moving images (the latter two is what the portmanteau word 'video' comes from).
It also manages to be generalist enough to cover the full scope of video games. In much the same way the term 'board games' covers everything from Chess to D&D.
'Interactive entertainment' arguably includes non-video media such as board games, but could also be extended to cover any activity where you have positive input - books are interactive insofar as you are actively engaged mentally by reading - so while it has a strong association with electronic entertainment media thst only exists via linguistic convention not a categorisation.
Tl:dr 'video games' is an accurate term for the category and manages to be both general and specific in a way e.g. 'Interactive entertainment' is not.
It manages to be precise in describing what they are - games of sound & moving images (the latter two is what the portmanteau word 'video' comes from).
It also manages to be generalist enough to cover the full scope of video games. In much the same way the term 'board games' covers everything from Chess to D&D.
'Interactive entertainment' arguably includes non-video media such as board games, but could also be extended to cover any activity where you have positive input - books are interactive insofar as you are actively engaged mentally by reading - so while it has a strong association with electronic entertainment media thst only exists via linguistic convention not a categorisation.
Tl:dr 'video games' is an accurate term for the category and manages to be both general and specific in a way e.g. 'Interactive entertainment' is not.
Glass Shark
Banned
The problem is that there is almost nothing that what we call "video games" today universally share besides interactivity. Can't call it "interactive entertainment" because some works aren't meant for fun or pleasure. Can't call it "interactive art" because games don't necessarily have to be artistic. Can't call it "interactive fiction" or "interactive narrative" because games don't have to tell a story.
Someone said it's okay to call them "video ______" because it's played on a video screen. But how much longer will that be the case? Pretty soon we'll be playing things on holographic projectors, then "video" will have lost all meaning. Maybe a better descriptor would be "digital?" But even then, what word or series of words do you pair with it? Digital toy? That doesn't really fit. Digital art is too broad. It's a really hard problem if you insist on a single term to cover everything!
I honestly don't know if we will ever have a term to wholly encapsulate everything we think of today as "video game" without coming up with something completely new. And maybe that's okay.
Someone said it's okay to call them "video ______" because it's played on a video screen. But how much longer will that be the case? Pretty soon we'll be playing things on holographic projectors, then "video" will have lost all meaning. Maybe a better descriptor would be "digital?" But even then, what word or series of words do you pair with it? Digital toy? That doesn't really fit. Digital art is too broad. It's a really hard problem if you insist on a single term to cover everything!
I honestly don't know if we will ever have a term to wholly encapsulate everything we think of today as "video game" without coming up with something completely new. And maybe that's okay.
Zepp Twofist
Member
I'm not sure if any different term would help explain it. I've sometimes tried to explain to my parents (their in their 60s, I'm in my 30s) what games are and they don't dismiss it but aren't very interested either.
When I showed them room scale VR they were blown away though, but I don't think they can understand that a lot of flatscreen games I play have sort of the same impact on me that the act of literally putting them in a virtual have on them.
When I showed them room scale VR they were blown away though, but I don't think they can understand that a lot of flatscreen games I play have sort of the same impact on me that the act of literally putting them in a virtual have on them.
SHAFT MASTER
Banned
Personalally I prefer the term "emotional interactive experience". I make a point to correct people when they use that old, outdated term "video game".
This is probably a topic for a different thread, but something doesn't have to be artistic to be art.
LegitMcfalls
Member
Me too dont feel bad lol
Chris_Rivera
Member
Yeah, but now you have something that is too general, that title encompasses much more. You require a screen, it's a video game, literally.
A tech leap as big as holography will bring with it the same linguistic revisions television (which is why the word video was invented) bought with it, even though technically it's still video via a different projection medium.
FWiW 'video' as a word only really gained traction outside technical use with the advent of the VCR.
Glass Shark
Banned
Yeah my wording there is probably a bit off. I guess... I think games can be art, but not all games probably are art. There are games that are absolutely art in my mind, no doubt, like What Remains of Edith Finch. But a simple mobile game, or even something like the original Asteroids, I don't know if that really qualifies in my mind.
But you're right, it's a question for another thread. And even if we did decide all "games" are art, then the term "interactive art" could apply to many things that aren't games.
Or are they?
ichtyander
Member
Something like "intecs" (interactives), if we were in a cyberpunk novel or something.
I think just "games" is fine, because that word alone seems to have grown to mean "video games" over the years. People usually tent to specify "board games" or "card games" while the singular "games" grows more and more synonymous with "video games" I think.
Another thing to note is that the advances in technology with VR/AR might eventually meld into a singular "interactive entertainment" space that will encapsulate many human activities, including video games, so we might call all of these interactive experiences by a new name, more synonymous with the VR/AR platform, or just keep the short "games" to refer to all games in VR/AR which will almost certainly be augmented by the technology (meaning that it might become trendy to "augment" even simpler card games with elements that feel closer to video games, making them all video-game-esque even if they weren't historically).
I'm kinda leaning towards the idea that the future of the interactive medium is to get the players more engaged in whatever interactivity is involved in the product, so I'm thinking much more people getting used to "acting", actual role playing, being more communicative (doesn't even need to be VoIP, or at least not with your actual voice), and a lot of "games" going for interactive fantasy scenarios in more involving and complex ways.
Anyway, I think just "games" will stay there for a very long time, and the diminutive connotations to the word will eventually fizzle out, making the word more synonymous to things like stage plays, interactive art as well as sports or movies.
I think just "games" is fine, because that word alone seems to have grown to mean "video games" over the years. People usually tent to specify "board games" or "card games" while the singular "games" grows more and more synonymous with "video games" I think.
Another thing to note is that the advances in technology with VR/AR might eventually meld into a singular "interactive entertainment" space that will encapsulate many human activities, including video games, so we might call all of these interactive experiences by a new name, more synonymous with the VR/AR platform, or just keep the short "games" to refer to all games in VR/AR which will almost certainly be augmented by the technology (meaning that it might become trendy to "augment" even simpler card games with elements that feel closer to video games, making them all video-game-esque even if they weren't historically).
I'm kinda leaning towards the idea that the future of the interactive medium is to get the players more engaged in whatever interactivity is involved in the product, so I'm thinking much more people getting used to "acting", actual role playing, being more communicative (doesn't even need to be VoIP, or at least not with your actual voice), and a lot of "games" going for interactive fantasy scenarios in more involving and complex ways.
Anyway, I think just "games" will stay there for a very long time, and the diminutive connotations to the word will eventually fizzle out, making the word more synonymous to things like stage plays, interactive art as well as sports or movies.
I tend to play 'game-y' video games in classic genres, like strategy, simulation, RPG, platforming, action, text adventure, adventure, puzzle, etc. or games that blend these things.
Sure some have more adult or mature writing and themes or more thought provoking imagery and sounds, and some more playful and childish across the board. But I've never played a video game where I didn't think the name fit.
That makes sense given what I said above, of course. Perhaps it is a problem of just what I've played, but I've played a lot of games, including some of the "they're too artistic they can't be games!" candidates in this thread.
Tbf I have not played them all, nor the specific experimental indie games the OP suggests, but personally I think that the title is nigh universally apt.
Maybe it'll be less so in the future, but tbh I doubt it.
Sure some have more adult or mature writing and themes or more thought provoking imagery and sounds, and some more playful and childish across the board. But I've never played a video game where I didn't think the name fit.
That makes sense given what I said above, of course. Perhaps it is a problem of just what I've played, but I've played a lot of games, including some of the "they're too artistic they can't be games!" candidates in this thread.
Tbf I have not played them all, nor the specific experimental indie games the OP suggests, but personally I think that the title is nigh universally apt.
Maybe it'll be less so in the future, but tbh I doubt it.
It would be infinitely easier to stop arguing stupid semantics with nerds who question "is this a video game" than it would be to find a new moniker for video games.
Everything you listed is art.
Everything you listed is art.
Damn Silly
Member
Thinking about it now, it does kind of pigeonhole it a bit, huh. Like a "game" should be "fun". whereas nowadays video games can be all sorts of things.
It's easy to understand why they came up with the term originally though, and I can't come up with anything that much better, and I don't think any new name would stick regardless.
It's easy to understand why they came up with the term originally though, and I can't come up with anything that much better, and I don't think any new name would stick regardless.
Art is always in the eye of the beholder. There are many examples of interactive 'fine art' - i.e. software specifically written with an eye to being displayed in galleries alongside video art. And (IMO) like the vast majority of video art made as 'art' it is usually either bad or embarrassing or both.
Its also worth noting that our conception of 'art' is one deeply tied to things like class, occupation, education but also it is something that is defined by, and the definition defended by, elite gatekeepers/curators in academia, media & the art business itself. This is a grest Adam Ruins Everything on the 'fine art' market which touches on this.
Anyway, I've wandered waaayyyy OT so apols...
lol that was my first thought as well.
I wrote about this a long time ago. "Game" only really made sense in the 80s. There's a much broader spectrum of Things Wot Can Be Done with the medium. Like, hey, I'm playing Forza 4 right this second. That's not a game at all. It's a racing simulator. And it's awesome.
But, like JRPG, it's a word that describes a concept completely unrelated from what it's about and you can't really change it. It's embedded. JRPGs aren't RPGs, but that's not gonna stop people from calling 'em JRPGs.
don't worry, be happy
But, like JRPG, it's a word that describes a concept completely unrelated from what it's about and you can't really change it. It's embedded. JRPGs aren't RPGs, but that's not gonna stop people from calling 'em JRPGs.
don't worry, be happy
Weltall Zero
Member
How is "movie" or "film" any more descriptive of encompassing than "moving picture"? The first one is an abbreviation of it, and the second one describes the physical medium that stored them (and that is becoming as anachronic as calling a collection of songs a "tape"). If anything "moving picture" is the more descriptive of the three!
Most videogames are still "games" in the classic sense. The rest fall into the broader "interactive fiction" term that "videogame" is a subset of. I'm all for finding and popularizing an equivalent term for "interactive fiction" that isn't a mouthful, if only to stem the silly "not a game" debates. Suggestions?
Human Trashcan
Banned
No, rather I think we should let the definition of the term expand to encompass the spectrum of all videogames. It's just words. They can change. They've done so forever and will continue to do so until the end of time. And attempts to bypass this process forcibly rarely work out. And when they do it's usually because of marketing.
Reptars Revenge
Member
Lets call it football.
sixteen-bit
Member
Interactive fiction, brehs.
Weltall Zero
Member
Sony had a pretty good idea with "Interactive Entertainment" imo
"Interactive Software" could also work I guess
EDIT: Just realized that SIE isn't the first videogame company that uses the "IE" moniker (Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment for an example), but my point still stands.
"Interactive Entertainment" is accurate, but even worse of a mouthful. Interactive Software is far less useful unless you want a category that includes Excel and Word as well.
ProgenitorCastle
Banned
I think "walking simulators", even if they're not considered "gamey", can still qualify as video games, for example. I like when video games experiment, and push the boundaries of what's considered a video game or not...and yet still count as video games...something about that is exciting to me somehow
Not all interactive pieces of entertainment are games, but theyre all simulations, aren't they? Simulations in that they don't exist in our own reality - they might be a simulation of real things, or a simulation of something that doesn't exist in the real world except as an idea in our heads. How about Sims? Who cares if EA owns the trademark, haha.
I definitely think theres some sort of categorical bloat going on - you wouldnt want to call movies photos, its good we developed new words to distinguish the two despite their shared lineage.
I think good game design is generally conducive to putting the player in a Flow state, but itd be wrong to judge something like Gone Home on those terms. Theres a difference in intent of these works of art, I think, and our language should reflect that.
I definitely think theres some sort of categorical bloat going on - you wouldnt want to call movies photos, its good we developed new words to distinguish the two despite their shared lineage.
I think good game design is generally conducive to putting the player in a Flow state, but itd be wrong to judge something like Gone Home on those terms. Theres a difference in intent of these works of art, I think, and our language should reflect that.
Short for video gaming football, not to be confused with football, short for association football, or football, short for gridiron football.
Alternative name could be whatever the 19th century Oxford style nickname for video game would be, like soccer for association.
Perhaps gamer.
ShadowSoldier89
Member
Weltall Zero
Member
"Are games art" discussion should be banned on GAF. Responsible for more derails than flange climbing.
Refreshment.01
Member
Interactive Media.
Imedia.
Imed. or Medi (Media Interactor)
Imid.
Interware.
Iware.
The medium is not only visual or enteritement focused. Look at something recent like 1 2 Switch which goes beyond looking at flat images on a TV and some games rely on sound mostly.
What distinguishes the medium is the "interaction" and the software is composed or focused around the interactivity using different types of media (touch, sounds and/or images).
Imedia.
Imed. or Medi (Media Interactor)
Imid.
Interware.
Iware.
The medium is not only visual or enteritement focused. Look at something recent like 1 2 Switch which goes beyond looking at flat images on a TV and some games rely on sound mostly.
What distinguishes the medium is the "interaction" and the software is composed or focused around the interactivity using different types of media (touch, sounds and/or images).
Hispanic! At the Disco
Member
Interrotainment is the only real answer.
Maybe Interactoware.
Maybe Interactoware.
Weltall Zero
Member
I'm having a hard time reading any of these and not immediately thinking of dystopian sci-fi.
Interactive Experience. Intex?
Video Game is too ingrained in pop culture to be replaced at this point tbh.
Imedia is good, and it's kinda catchy. Sounds like an Apple product though lol
Video Game is too ingrained in pop culture to be replaced at this point tbh.
Imedia is good, and it's kinda catchy. Sounds like an Apple product though lol
ichtyander
Member
This is something I've been leaning towards as well, that essentially any game is a simulation of a concept. The fact that children tend to play and invent games is tied to their development and experimental nature, trying and prodding, imagining and simulating, so the word "game" has that immature overtone or the tendency that it has to be fun, depending on what your definition of fun is.
Another thing people seem to cling to is the difference between older and newer video games, but the only difference (and admittedly is a big one) I think is complexity. So it's really a spectrum, and taking out or adding certain complexities might make the product seem more like something else, but we can still recognize it as a video game, or a game in general. So Proteus is a game, it's just that certain aspects are diminished or focus on different (and unconventional) things. A game's goal can be to alter your psychological state, give you exercise or educate you as well, those being the "win states". The difference between those examples and a planetarium tour, going to the gym or seeing a therapist is the interactive involvement of the human player inside the digitally simulated environment (as opposed to participating in some art performance, or a real life team building exercise).
And then as the complexity of the simulation increases, the more blurry the "game" part of it becomes as it blends with other mediums and concepts, and the more confusing and arguable the whole topic becomes, but I think it's important to still look at it at a fundamental level and recognize them all as games, even when you're just walking around to experience a story.
I, mean, a race is a game. So a racing simulator is a simulation of a game.
You are also playing it.
You aren't simulating it in the sense that you are having a computer go through the statistics to predict outcomes (or doing that yourself). (Not that you can't have math/statistics/logic games).
You also aren't simply watching a virtual representation of said outcomes. It isn't a simulation in that sense either.
It is a simulation in the sense that you are playing the driver and experiencing that simulation of a game as the person playing the game.
But let's assume instead that it isn't a simulation of a game, like a race, but rather just a simulation of driving around to press more on this "playing" angle.
Perhaps a way to start is to think of video games that are simulations of things not explicitly a game in real life. Something like SimCity comes to mind. But clearly there the idea is to try and survive and thrive within the rules of the simulation as well as to experience the stylized take on what it is to be a mayor/god/city-planner/tyrant. I think it is pretty clear how a simulation like that is a game.
But let's consider something like a flight simulator. This would be akin to a pure driving simulator. Clearly, it can be used as a game in the way any sandbox with toys that spark the imagination can be used as a game.
Moreover, insofar as the activity with regards to is described as "playing," I think it is a game. But does "playing" describe someone, say, training with a simulator?
I think it does, at least in part, it is a heavily interactive simulated experience where there is a player attempting to do something, however inchoate, within the bounds and rules of the simulation, be it "fucking around and crashing into shit" or "approximating how one drives."
...
But I think this raises a question that ties into the OP. Do you "play" all videogames? And that is a strong sense of "play." Not just the "play" of turning a movie, an album, the sort of potentially non-game simulation discussed above, etc. How strong does the interactivity have to be to achieve this vague idea of "play"? Etc.
You don't want to be a gamer gaming a game of gamer? Imagine having two simultaneous interweaving debates about gamer, one in each sense of the word. That would clear be a good place, not a bad place. A utopia, not a dystopia, in other words!
Riposte
Member
The proposition is backwards. Videogames, as a concept, are not too narrow; the games which are trying to break off are too narrow (in interactivity). There are games so limited in concept (e.g., ones where you only "walk" between audio recordings in a fairly simplistic 3D environment) that they may not compare well in generalized terms to conceptually fuller or deeper games.
There's no such thing as a videogame which isn't an "experience" and "simulation", concepts which are being turned into buzzwords in attempt to create a conceptual distance. Videogames are "fictional" simulacra you become immersed in. This is through interactivity and all other forms of art. That is to say, we are not missing a strata between "game" and "reality", at least not without dividing "game" into increasingly realistic mediums. There's no reason to think ill of the word "game".
Some of these other proposed terms are similarly suspect.
"Interactive fiction" - What are videogames if not "Fictional Interaction"? There's really isn't much to say besides the fact that no matter where you shift the weight of these words, all videogames are fictions you interact with. The average WRPG is both more "fiction" and more "interactive" than pretty much every walking sim in existence. These are just low-interactivity games, there's nothing to say they have more narrative or even a strong narrative focus on average. It might work a cute genre name, but it does nothing to separate games from games.
"Art games" - Quite subversive. By using the most socially valuable label possible, one not only camouflages low-interactivity games, it changes the hierarchy to where interactivity is counter-"art" (see Ebert's stupid nonsense). Mind you, art is far from an established term besides its value, much like a crown or a throne. People invoke this throne with vague phrases like "art game" or "artistic", but for all intents and purposes in common conversation, it's empty.
EDIT: In the future, the term videogame will sooner have a problem with the term "video" than "game".
There's no such thing as a videogame which isn't an "experience" and "simulation", concepts which are being turned into buzzwords in attempt to create a conceptual distance. Videogames are "fictional" simulacra you become immersed in. This is through interactivity and all other forms of art. That is to say, we are not missing a strata between "game" and "reality", at least not without dividing "game" into increasingly realistic mediums. There's no reason to think ill of the word "game".
Some of these other proposed terms are similarly suspect.
"Interactive fiction" - What are videogames if not "Fictional Interaction"? There's really isn't much to say besides the fact that no matter where you shift the weight of these words, all videogames are fictions you interact with. The average WRPG is both more "fiction" and more "interactive" than pretty much every walking sim in existence. These are just low-interactivity games, there's nothing to say they have more narrative or even a strong narrative focus on average. It might work a cute genre name, but it does nothing to separate games from games.
"Art games" - Quite subversive. By using the most socially valuable label possible, one not only camouflages low-interactivity games, it changes the hierarchy to where interactivity is counter-"art" (see Ebert's stupid nonsense). Mind you, art is far from an established term besides its value, much like a crown or a throne. People invoke this throne with vague phrases like "art game" or "artistic", but for all intents and purposes in common conversation, it's empty.
EDIT: In the future, the term videogame will sooner have a problem with the term "video" than "game".
Pinko Marx
Banned
Video Game is a fine term. What we need is to name our genres better.
Weltall Zero
Member
Can't express my agreement vehemently enough.
The idea is precisely the opposite: all games are interactive fiction, but not all interactive fiction is a game. It's the umbrella term for traditional games AND works like Gone Home, not a label for the latter exclusively.
If I ever see someone using the term "art games" non-ironically and non-disparagingly, I will summarily remove them from my acquaintances.
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
Yeah, the games that appeal to kids (e.g. Leap Frog) are called the same thing as your Call of Duty and Frogger/Pacman. There's a lot of diversity and opinions.
The child's video game console versus the next generation gaming platform. Which sounds better to you?
Yeah, I dislike a lot of what comes with the name. That dislike can go away when I can define it in my own way. I can play your definition of a video game and pray to God I never play another game the same way. Or I can enjoy whatever you like and hate my own taste. I think it takes a hit with the general public or with the news media. Human beings can define the word and make it sound childish or they can say it with a straight face like they're describing E3 or that new amazing tech.
I dislike branding it towards age groups the most. Everyone can play, but not everyone thinks the same.
Fully Reactive Eye Entertainment was one genre label (ShenMue) that I thought positively stood out.
The child's video game console versus the next generation gaming platform. Which sounds better to you?
Yeah, I dislike a lot of what comes with the name. That dislike can go away when I can define it in my own way. I can play your definition of a video game and pray to God I never play another game the same way. Or I can enjoy whatever you like and hate my own taste. I think it takes a hit with the general public or with the news media. Human beings can define the word and make it sound childish or they can say it with a straight face like they're describing E3 or that new amazing tech.
I dislike branding it towards age groups the most. Everyone can play, but not everyone thinks the same.
Fully Reactive Eye Entertainment was one genre label (ShenMue) that I thought positively stood out.
Lucky Seven
Banned
I think if you get into the specifics and details, it's actually the most straightforward but also honest name you can have. Tabletop gaming, pen and paper games, athletic games (sports), video games etc. Video games can be more abstract, but the name doesn't have any indication of that. I don't think it makes it inaccurate, but it is lacking due to a lack of a better word in our day.
With the word video, you could understand it's a visual media potentially abstract. Game helps you understand it's combined with a recreational activity, with rules and goals.
With the word video, you could understand it's a visual media potentially abstract. Game helps you understand it's combined with a recreational activity, with rules and goals.
Similar threads
- Locked