-
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
I don't think we should get sidetracked here. Super Mario Bros and Gone Home can both be art, but the former is art through the act of "play" with a win/lose state, whereas the later through an interactive narrative experience. I don't think this discussion needs to be oriented around whether or not video games can be art, of if there's some sort of artistic hierarchy where some games are "artful" and others are just toys.
The question is, are such radically different experiences with totally different aims even the same art form at all, and if not, do we need new language to distinguish between the two? A novel and a poem both involve the written word but they aren't the same thing, for example - we have words to distinguish the two, even though one could incorporate elements of the other.
I apologize if it came off as sidetracking. What I meant though, is that he was so focused on a narrow definition of the word "game" that he failed to see the wide variety of experiences that can exist in that single word. Whether they be guided experiences or whether they emphasize play and experimentation.
As an example, taking the video element out of it for a moment, Dungeons and Dragons and poker are both games. Candy land and tag are both games. It's an extremely broad term - almost too broad. But we do not use a different word to propose playing them. They are all games.
but if I understand the question, then what you're asking is at what point is this thing we call a video game not actually a game at all. Visual novel type games probably bring this most into question. You can't really screw up Ace Attorney. You just pick every option until you get to the end of the story. Is that a game?
Interactive entertainment doesn't really solve this issue. How would one call Ace Attorney interactive entertainment, but not Solitaire? They both require interaction.
We do have genres and descriptors to differentiate between things. Arcade means something short and twitchy. RPG is usually long, story driven and slower paced. As you say, poems and novels are both written word. But just because the two are so different, we do not say one is not writing.
...apologies if rambly. A little sleepy
Chris_Rivera
Member
Painting is a form of art, regardless of what is on the canvas or how it's experienced. Different styles or type of paint on the canvas branch from it to create many sub forms. "Interactive entertainment" is ridiculously general, which is why it's not used. Any number of video games could be radically different, but they all require certain objects. The canvas for a video game is indeed video fed to a screen, but there could be many different styles of controlling, like VR, mobile gaming, etc.
If people don't like the connotations associated with the words 'video games', the only option would be others words that mean the exact same thing.
Sweet Bellic
Member
Lupin the Third
Member
All games, including sports, board games, card games, etc. are Interactive Entertainment. That's a terrible name.
Video at least implies an electronic display is involved.
You know, in Japan, they're called TV Games, which is pretty close, except it would have to exclude handhelds and PC games...which Video doesn't.
The name is fine. I'm glad people picked up on Movies being a cutesy shorthand for Moving/Motion Pictures because yeah that's not a term to revere.
Video at least implies an electronic display is involved.
You know, in Japan, they're called TV Games, which is pretty close, except it would have to exclude handhelds and PC games...which Video doesn't.
The name is fine. I'm glad people picked up on Movies being a cutesy shorthand for Moving/Motion Pictures because yeah that's not a term to revere.
Virtual experience? Though that would technically also include animated films so that doesn't work. It also doesn't sound that great LOL. Maybe we could let the term "film" inspire us? I mean, that comes from the actual physical medium that used to (and sometimes still does) carry movies. So maybe we could derive a name from the game production process or the devices that run them. Maybe just take the word cartridge and extend it to also refer to the medium?
Or "virtual space"? Or maybe just "virtual" or just "interactive" as a noun. As in "Tom has over 300 virtuals in his collection". Or "immersives"? Eh, all of these sound kinda dumb. Computationals?
Another thing we'd have to change if we got rid of the "game" part, though, would be the accompanying verb. Right now, we're "playing games" but if it's not longer a game, you can't technically play it. So what could we say instead? Experience? Engage? Haha, no we should just call it "escape into". "What are you doing? -I've escaped into a cartridge." LOL
I think all of these are going to sound awful, though, because they're all artificial. I mean, obviously lot of the language we use today feels stupid when you actually think about it but it sounds right when you don't because it just developed organically over time.
Or "virtual space"? Or maybe just "virtual" or just "interactive" as a noun. As in "Tom has over 300 virtuals in his collection". Or "immersives"? Eh, all of these sound kinda dumb. Computationals?
Another thing we'd have to change if we got rid of the "game" part, though, would be the accompanying verb. Right now, we're "playing games" but if it's not longer a game, you can't technically play it. So what could we say instead? Experience? Engage? Haha, no we should just call it "escape into". "What are you doing? -I've escaped into a cartridge." LOL
I think all of these are going to sound awful, though, because they're all artificial. I mean, obviously lot of the language we use today feels stupid when you actually think about it but it sounds right when you don't because it just developed organically over time.
Tye The Czar
Member
Vidcons, dad.
Films are also classed as entertainment, though, even the serious ones. I think in this case we can simply define entertainment as something you do in your free time or to pass your free time, not necessarily something that's super fun or amusing.
Honestly, this is the only term in this thread so far that I think could actually work. But yeah, much like the unfortunate designation of "eSports," I feel like the term "video game" is just too ingrained in our day-to-day speech at this point.
Been thinking about this recently too.
I like interactive experience. People reaaaaaaally hate the word experience as it's tied pretty closely to PR speak but there's such breadth in offerings today that it's really the most inclusive and descriptive that I can think of.
Or interactive video. But even using the word video feels antiquated with VR, audio, tactile feedback, etc.
I like interactive experience. People reaaaaaaally hate the word experience as it's tied pretty closely to PR speak but there's such breadth in offerings today that it's really the most inclusive and descriptive that I can think of.
Or interactive video. But even using the word video feels antiquated with VR, audio, tactile feedback, etc.
StrategyFan
Member
there isn't a great reason to put games and non-games in the same category
but "video games" is an adequate label for the games, even if "electronic games" is more technically correct
but "video games" is an adequate label for the games, even if "electronic games" is more technically correct
I think the title is more reflective of the medium than the actual content. Movies were traditionally an encapsulated story usually around 2 hours shown in a theater and cover a great range of subjects and themes. There is a huge difference between Pixels and Magnolia but they are both still movies. Sure some try to ellavate using the word film but for most people that just means, movie.
TV offerings where called shows and programs. It's funny how "made for TV" was added when it encroached the movie format.
For the most part these labels have stuck with only a few notable excrptions like music videos and documentaries really creating their own class in media.
The only thing close to those in video games is VR. I don't think there is anything else that merits it's a own classification yet.
TV offerings where called shows and programs. It's funny how "made for TV" was added when it encroached the movie format.
For the most part these labels have stuck with only a few notable excrptions like music videos and documentaries really creating their own class in media.
The only thing close to those in video games is VR. I don't think there is anything else that merits it's a own classification yet.
Affeinvasion
Member
The only problem I have with video game as a term is that it tends to by definition exclude mechanical entertainment devices like pinball tables.
Jerry Orbach
Member
I see where you're coming from with this, but I don't think a puzzle qualifies as a game. A puzzle has only one potential outcome (or multiple outcomes of equivalent value), whereas a game requires two or more potential outcomes (which it values differently). In the simplest terms, a puzzle is "solved" (or abandoned), a game is "won" or "lost" (or abandoned).
An easy way to turn a puzzle into a game is to add a timer and a hierarchy of results (ie, faster is better). Just about any activity can become a game if you add the right rules, because games are made out of rules.
Signed,
GAMELORD, The Lord of Games
The mention of poetry in relation to gamey vs non-gamey games upthread bought to mind the advent of blank verse in the 1920s where there was much learnéd debate on whether poetry without rhyme or consistent cadence could be considered poetry.
We're still waiting for gaming's TS Eliot or Ezra Pound - indeed I'd say most gaming is more akin to the Victorian Penny Dreadfuls (not the show, what the show was named after) but even they eventually gained enough respectability to form the basis of the modern genre novel.
We're still waiting for gaming's TS Eliot or Ezra Pound - indeed I'd say most gaming is more akin to the Victorian Penny Dreadfuls (not the show, what the show was named after) but even they eventually gained enough respectability to form the basis of the modern genre novel.
Well no one has ever called Gangnam Style a movie...that's a music video... hence the MV in the YouTube link.
I think the OP is overthinking this for sure. There is nothing wrong with video games being called video games.
Earthpainting
Member
I feel similarly to the OP on the matter. I had a phase where I'd play nearly nothing but visual novel games. The reaction of my friends would be that those weren't "video games", but they couldn't tell me what they were if not games.
I'll just cut the knot for the community and establish the term "Digital Shenanigans". It can "Digishan" in America for short, and "Digishans" in the UK. We'll have to rebrand the forum to NeoDAF though, so we better make sure that domain name's free.
I'll just cut the knot for the community and establish the term "Digital Shenanigans". It can "Digishan" in America for short, and "Digishans" in the UK. We'll have to rebrand the forum to NeoDAF though, so we better make sure that domain name's free.
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
Phones are called smartphones.
Programs are now called "apps".
Why can't we change video games.
Programs are now called "apps".
Why can't we change video games.
joe_zazen
Member
Zero marketing budget.
I could get into this.
Samanosuke Akechi
Member
Back in my day, all games were simply called "Nintendo".
Yeah but we've been stuck with it for a while now so it might as well stay. "TV shows," doesn't really make sense as a title for TV shows now that a lot of people watch them on their laptops or iPads or w/e but we're still gonna call them now.
Also I think interactive entertainment or experience is too long. InExp or something along those lines sounds like a corny term a marketing exec came up with.
Also I think interactive entertainment or experience is too long. InExp or something along those lines sounds like a corny term a marketing exec came up with.
I don't think switching names to "interactive entertainment" or whatever is going to change much.
"video games" encompassing a broader set of experiences than pacman and tetris is something that'll have to organically grow, just like it did with other media.
One can always use some fancy descriptors for more experimental experiences to signpost "hey, this is about more than shooting dudes" just like we use with film and books.
"video games" encompassing a broader set of experiences than pacman and tetris is something that'll have to organically grow, just like it did with other media.
One can always use some fancy descriptors for more experimental experiences to signpost "hey, this is about more than shooting dudes" just like we use with film and books.
Weltall Zero
Member
This is my suggestion, I think it covers all the bases: Virtual Interactive Digital Electronic Onscreen Gamified Artistic Media Entertainment Software.
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
I think the moniker doesn't need to encompass the entirety of the various experiences the medium provides. I think the moniker just needs to be something simple that's easy to say and understand.
"Videogames" is quick and easy to say and understand.
"Interactive Virtually Rendered (sometimes Rasterized but other times Voxel-rendered) Artistic, sometime Narrative Driven and sometimes not, Entertainment"... isn't...
"Videogames" is quick and easy to say and understand.
"Interactive Virtually Rendered (sometimes Rasterized but other times Voxel-rendered) Artistic, sometime Narrative Driven and sometimes not, Entertainment"... isn't...
I sometimes call it "interactive entertainment" or "interactive art" but the latter sounds pretentious.
Playie?
Gamie?
Enteractie?
Playie?
Gamie?
Enteractie?
Meh, I had to agree with him. Definitely wouldn't call it misguided. I have yet to see any videogame get even close to rival the best that other art forms have to offer.
Just enjoy games for what they are. Their own merits are many. Gotta find it funny to see the backlash Ebert received coming from people with very limited exposure to the best other art forms have to offer. How can you defend something as art without having really experienced it first? Besides, it's 2017. We are no longer playing Pong and videogames have reached a degree of social acceptance that doesn't require us fighting an art critic over what art actually is.
No art form ever let me manage an empire through the ages or infiltrate a heavily guarded complex under the cover of dark. I'm more than satisfied with gaming being more its own experiential, simulative kind of thing. I've got art itself for more profound, contemplative moments.
The problem with video games compared to other media like film, theater, books or comics is that they are much more heterogeneous than those ones.
Just think about the genres. In film, books, comics genres don't change much about the basic rules how the media works. Yes, of course narrative structures etc. is quite different, but in video games genres mostly define the basic game mechanics of a game.
The genre FPS e.g. only tells me stuff about the camera and controls. But a shooter can be a survival, multiplayer, action, anti-war, fun experience. Just remember how Mark Brown once compared Far Cry 2 with Far Cry 3 and pointed out how those games feel like they were in two different genres.
Anther thing is of course how "gamey" a video game is. I've read a cuple of things about board game design. And one thing they mention is the difference between a "puzzle" and a "game".
Saying that a puzzle once solved is solved for the consumer. If they trie to do it again, their experience won't be the same, because they already solved. While a game like chess for example is a new experience whith every start of the game.
It has defined starting conditions and the interaction within the rules defines how it turns out. But it is always a new experience. Everything reset and nothing solved.
But this definition doesn't work really well for video games, because they have narrative, because they have puzzles, which once solved are solved for the consumer forever, but also have resets which makes the game a new experience with each savegame, with each start. If I think about it this definition doesn't work with every non-video game as well. Just think about D&D e.g. If I think about it tradional role playing games and video games are really comparable in that regard. Because even though role playing game seems to be a genre. It isn't because with every rpg system and within a world you can have different genres of adventures for the players.
Still I would say video game is the right term to use. People just need to open their mind a little bit about the idea what a game can be. The lines are blurry. And to be honest you can define a game just as a interactive safe space for the consumer and it will be fine.
Just think about the genres. In film, books, comics genres don't change much about the basic rules how the media works. Yes, of course narrative structures etc. is quite different, but in video games genres mostly define the basic game mechanics of a game.
The genre FPS e.g. only tells me stuff about the camera and controls. But a shooter can be a survival, multiplayer, action, anti-war, fun experience. Just remember how Mark Brown once compared Far Cry 2 with Far Cry 3 and pointed out how those games feel like they were in two different genres.
Anther thing is of course how "gamey" a video game is. I've read a cuple of things about board game design. And one thing they mention is the difference between a "puzzle" and a "game".
Saying that a puzzle once solved is solved for the consumer. If they trie to do it again, their experience won't be the same, because they already solved. While a game like chess for example is a new experience whith every start of the game.
It has defined starting conditions and the interaction within the rules defines how it turns out. But it is always a new experience. Everything reset and nothing solved.
But this definition doesn't work really well for video games, because they have narrative, because they have puzzles, which once solved are solved for the consumer forever, but also have resets which makes the game a new experience with each savegame, with each start. If I think about it this definition doesn't work with every non-video game as well. Just think about D&D e.g. If I think about it tradional role playing games and video games are really comparable in that regard. Because even though role playing game seems to be a genre. It isn't because with every rpg system and within a world you can have different genres of adventures for the players.
Still I would say video game is the right term to use. People just need to open their mind a little bit about the idea what a game can be. The lines are blurry. And to be honest you can define a game just as a interactive safe space for the consumer and it will be fine.
Weltall Zero
Member
That wouldn't be confusing at all.
"The intent of this intent seems to be to examine the intents behind popular intents". 
Interactive entertainment isn't always a game, but a game is interactive entertainment.
Weltall Zero
Member
I'm fine with inties. Could be confused with anties (little ants), aunties and probably more obvious ones I'm missing because of not being a native English speaker, but hey. As a bonus we would get the amazing term "indie inties".
I'm decided, it's going to be inties. To Petition.Org!
BigBusiness
Neo Member
I like what people have been saying about interactive experiences.
As others have pointed out though, too long of a phrase to catch on.
As others have pointed out though, too long of a phrase to catch on.
Sephiroth_VII
Member
I think, and hope, that "e-arts" will eventually become an umbrella term for the entire medium.
I think video games is a really good term, even if it doesn't cover all the media available on the market.
I know it's a terrible analogy, but some people make some dreadful sounds that they call music but i personally would classify as noise, so if a dev makes a "video game" that doesn't offer a challenge let them call it a video game, i'm totally fine with that, there's no need for a 100% perfect definition for the medium.
I know it's a terrible analogy, but some people make some dreadful sounds that they call music but i personally would classify as noise, so if a dev makes a "video game" that doesn't offer a challenge let them call it a video game, i'm totally fine with that, there's no need for a 100% perfect definition for the medium.
GuitarAtomik
Member
Yeah. The best alternative I can think of is "Interactive Digital Entertainment". That's both vague and specific enough to cover the medium imo but it's also a mouthful.
EDIT: "Interactive Digital Experiences" is probably just vague-er enough to cover more.
EDIT: "Interactive Digital Experiences" is probably just vague-er enough to cover more.
Chris_Rivera
Member
If you want interactive entertainment, it will also include board games and every possible thing like that. So, when you say interactive entertainment to someone, not only would you sound like you are embarrassed, they will just ask, what type? Then youll eventually say....video games. Lets not create an extra definition for adults afraid to admit they might share a hobby with kids. Bending the truth.
Similar threads
- Locked