"Interactive Entertainment Software"Board games, card games, (pen and paper) role playing games are interactive and forms of entertainment.
Almost all programs from Word to Photoshop to Facebook are interactive and are softwares.
Boom
"Interactive Entertainment Software"Board games, card games, (pen and paper) role playing games are interactive and forms of entertainment.
Almost all programs from Word to Photoshop to Facebook are interactive and are softwares.
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?"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.
"Interactive Entertainment Software"
Boom
What if... what if we called games "ludies"?
o_o
Can't call it "interactive art" because games don't necessarily have to be artistic.
Me too dont feel bad lolholy shit, I literally just realized where the term "movies" comes from
I'm a moron
Personalally I prefer the term "emotional interactive experience". I make a point to correct people when they use that old, outdated term "video game".
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.
This is probably a topic for a different thread, but something doesn't have to be artistic to be 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.
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?
I heard the last Bombcast too.
I tend to think of it how one medium started as "moving pictures" before evolving into what it is today. And while motion picture is a term still used (and as a venerable and/or historical marker i.e. the MPAA was formed in 1922), film and movies tends to be the norm nowadays.
However this medium has retained that original title of "video game" since the 60s, even as what's available has expanded and experimented beyond the bounds of the "game" part, something we see today in the common inquiry when a title like Gone Home or Edith Finch comes up or the argument that a win condition, failure state, etc is needed to qualify when considering experimental works
That kind of debate is a near certainty with "game" in the name of the medium; titles bring with them expectations and assumptions, and if we're still having that "is it a game/not a game" today, perhaps that's a sign that "video game" isn't an adequate name for the medium as a whole.
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.
Lets call it football.
I propose, Vames'Movies' is a waaay dumber title than 'games'.
To add, I think we're just used to the term 'movies'. Like, they're pictures that move, moving pictures, movies.
Interactive Media.
Imedia.
Imed.
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).
'Movies' is a waaay dumber title than 'games'.
To add, I think we're just used to the term 'movies'. Like, they're pictures that move, moving pictures, movies.
Not all interactive pieces of entertainment are games,? 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.but theyre all simulations, aren't they
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 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.
I'm having a hard time reading any of these and not immediately thinking of dystopian sci-fi.
There's no reason to think ill of the word "game".
"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.