Support NeoGAF

[Campster]

arcade games should be score based and have a final level. GTA has a end game, you're allowed to play beyond it. Sim city is a simulation game, which is a non-game.

So SimCity IS a game, but it's a non-game. ....Right, whatever. And GTA3 doesn't have a winstate, for the record - it has a narrative element you can complete, but it's an implicit winstate at best. There is no explicit winstate in GTA3. And now you're dictating how arcade games SHOULD be? Who are you to dictate to the designers of the world that their game "needs" a final level?

And what about tag? Do we have another made up, cop-out answer as to why that delightful children's activity isn't a game? Oh! That's a good one. Tag isn't a game, it's an "interactive children's activity."

 

[Scrow]

there's a whole bunch of academics that love pontificating about this topic. it's far too intellectually masturbatory for me to care about it, but it's sometimes called ludology.

if you really care to know more about the subject check out Salen and Zimmerman's Rules of Play.

the short of it is there's no definitive answer.

 

[Campster]

there's a whole bunch of academics that love pontificating about this topic. it's far too intellectually masturbatory for me to care about it, but it's sometimes called ludology.

if you really care to know more about the subject check out Salen and Zimmerman's Rules of Play.

the short of it is there's no definite answer.

Or the works of Jesper Juul, or Gonzalo Frasca, or Ian Bogost, or a whole host of other wonderfully smart people.

ooh, I like this better.

I will restate my posision; Games should have a "win/lose" state.

Okay, well, what about MMO games? We totally left that out. No way to win, no way to lose. Are they non-game/interactive experience/immersive narratives/entertainment software/etc, too?

 

[Belfast]

A game is an activity that I derive enjoyment from. That's it. Sorry guys. Non games don't exist.

Masturbation is a game?

Nintendo, I think I've got an idea for your next hit franchise!

 

[Branduil]

A non-game is any game that doesn't fit my personal, arbitrary definition of what a game is. I will now go into threads and use the term "non-game" as though it is an objective term. I win.

 

[Ranger X]

Game = A somehow structured activity you do for you entertainment + something you can "participate in".

If to play you use some mode of display like a screen, therefore you add "video" to the word.

There really is nothing else to understand there. All other terms are categories and sub-categories and funny words like "Edutainment", etc. We live in a society where it's fun to give a name to alot of stuff when it's not even necessary.

 

[Uncle]

Well I'm not offended, just curious. And it's annoying, as well, to see someone dismiss an interesting looking piece of entertainment because it's a "non-game".

I was speaking in general, I didn't mean to single you out.

 

[plagiarize]

how would you know

did you know that neo is an anagram of one?!?!?!

OMG WOW.

i know that we aren't all living in a computer simulation the same way i know you aren't all really advanced robots, and that the world didn't blink into existance five seconds ago.

you don't have to take my word for it though.

it would take a computer bigger than the entire universe to come near simulating our world.

if you want to believe that some other advanced civilisation would build such a thing, then hey... that's not my problem.

 

[tanasten]

Videogame = A game that is played trougth a video screen.

A game = something created to entertaind children or adults.

 

[Campster]

Videogame = A game that is played trougth a video screen.

A game = something created to entertaind children or adults.

That's too broad, though. TV and movies would be included in that definition.

 

[Belfast]

Indeed, the qualification for a game these days have been stretched thin and, if you want to get absolutely technical, AC/Nintendogs/Brain Training *could* be considered games. However, they fulfill what few qualifications we can nail down to a very shallow degree and are as far from what is traditionally considered a game as can be.

I personally can't get into them because they don't challenge me. The rewards are shallow and superfluous in most cases and don't go back into the game changing something fundamental about it (being give a new ability, for instance, which changes the fundamental way in which you play the game, what parts of the game can be accessed, etc. within the game's diegetic world). Brain training is a complete sham. Yes, it could increase the speed at which your process data, but it doesn't teach you the ability to access said data in the first place or reason or think critically. You're simply increasing your response rate, but Brain Training's plusses are empty gestures when there is nothing to supplement it.

Quite simply, there are NO "puzzling" elements to any of these things we've come to term non-games. OK, BT has Sudoku, but that wasn't part of the original program and it was tacked on to promote more sales in the US. Hell, I enjoyed that more than the actual exercises.

Also, as much as we hate to admit it, some 99% percent of gaming is work, with the rest being the reward that we so desire. This is where we get our conception of "fun." BT/AC/Nintendogs all have rewards, but none of the actual work. They are leisure-minded activities that only succeed in taking up time.

 

[Shapermc]

A game is when you are actively involved in play as set up by Plato when attached to a goal.

And I did it in 20 words.

 

[Scrow]

A game is when you are actively involved in play as set up by Plato when attached to a goal.

And I did it in 20 words.

now you're giving me flash backs to words like paidia and paideia

 

[Campster]

A game is when you are actively involved in play as set up by Plato when attached to a goal.

And I did it in 20 words.

The problem is that moves us from one quagmire to another - what is play? Obviously we're using Plato's definition here, but is that really valid for all games?

Plus, we have the arbitrary winstate/goal assignment again.

 

[bud]

did you know that neo is an anagram of one?!?!?!

OMG WOW.

i know that we aren't all living in a computer simulation the same way i know you aren't all really advanced robots, and that the world didn't blink into existance five seconds ago.

again, how would you know?

 

[plagiarize]

again, how would you know?

i believe it's called 'sanity'.

 

[Tiktaalik]

The Wario Ware games have unlockable sort of activities that I would consider more "toys" than games. For example, a pudding where if you touch it with the stylus it wiggles back and forth and makes a boing noise.

 

[Campster]

The Wario Ware games have unlockable sort of activities that I would consider more "toys" than games. For example, a pudding where if you touch it with the stylus it wiggles back and forth and makes a boing noise.

But where do you draw the line in terms of complexity between a toy and a game?

 

[Shapermc]

now you're giving me flash backs to words like paidia and paideia

sorry

The problem is that moves us from one quagmire to another - what is play? Obviously we're using Plato's definition here, but is that really valid for all games?

Plus, we have the arbitrary winstate/goal assignment again.

Yes, true, but you know you're making it more complicated than it needs to be. I mean, there are entire books written on each half of my sentence (game and play) and their definitions. He wasn't asking for the semantics of the definition. Going into such semantics will just lead to an answer that is even more vauge than the current ones proposed.

 

[Tiktaalik]

But where do you draw the line in terms of complexity between a toy and a game?

I don't know. Perhaps you could label something as a toy if it only has a single layer of interaction. For example, I touch the pudding and it makes a noise. That's it.

 

[Ghengis Cohen]

Yes, true, but you know you're making it more complicated than it needs to be. I mean, there are entire books written on each half of my sentence (game and play) and their definitions. He wasn't asking for the semantics of the definition. Going into such semantics will just lead to an answer that is even more vauge than the current ones proposed.

This is pretty much academia has been boiled down to these days, unfortunately.

 

[Shapermc]

But where do you draw the line in terms of complexity between a toy and a game?

You can engage in play with a toy, but it doesn't become a game until it has a goal.

I remember an episode of the Simpsons where Homer challenges Bart to a "race" in clicking ballpoint pens. There is no set goal, but there should ultimatly be an end. This is where confusion would come from. Not touching pudding.

Were you to set an arbitrary goal of seeing how many times you can make the pudding make a noise in a certain time limit it could be turned into a game though. Were the toy just presented and when it popped up on the screen you were given the instructions of "win!" there would be confusion, but it would be a game (with the goal to "win!").

This is pretty much academia has been boiled down to these days, unfortunately.

Yes, it is. We are a bored culture.

 

[Tain]

Well I'm not offended, just curious. And it's annoying, as well, to see someone dismiss an interesting looking piece of entertainment because it's a "non-game".

If they want something more traditional, they want something more traditional.

 

[the year 20XX]

sorry

Yes, true, but you know you're making it more complicated than it needs to be. I mean, there are entire books written on each half of my sentence (game and play) and their definitions. He wasn't asking for the semantics of the definition. Going into such semantics will just lead to an answer that is even more vauge than the current ones proposed.

And then try to figure out the meaning structure of the word 'game' for every speaker of English! BECAUSE IT'S DIFFERENT! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

In short: there is either no answer or an infinite number of answers.

 

[Campster]

You can engage in play with a toy, but it doesn't become a game until it has a goal.

I remember an episode of the Simpsons where Homer challenges Bart to a "race" in clicking ballpoint pens. There is no set goal, but there should ultimatly be an end. This is where confusion would come from. Not touching pudding.

Were you to set an arbitrary goal of seeing how many times you can make the pudding make a noise in a certain time limit it could be turned into a game though.

I'd agree if we're using Gonzalo Frasca's definitions as set forth in Videogames of the Oppressed. If we want to make distinctions between ludic and paidaic systems that's cool, and I totally see where you're coming from.

But at the same time, I'd also have a hard time knowing that if I said "games" in an academic context it wouldn't include The Sims, Animal Crossing, Pac-Man, GTA3, World of Warcraft, or Tetris. These are some of the most important "games" of all time, and I don't know if moving them to a seperate category benfits anyone doing game design or game research.

It all boils down to semantics, to a degree - do we cut interactive systems into paidaic and ludic systems and designate them "games" or "toys" based on their possession of a winstate, or do we seek to find a definition of "game" that includes everything we could possibly consider a game? *shrug*

 

[R-User!]

I threw that in there because I knew if I didn't that would be the only reply I'd get.

But enough talk! Have at you!

"Hoh-hoo-haa!"

 

[Andonuts]

You can engage in play with a toy, but it doesn't become a game until it has a goal.

I remember an episode of the Simpsons where Homer challenges Bart to a "race" in clicking ballpoint pens. There is no set goal, but there should ultimatly be an end. This is where confusion would come from. Not touching pudding.

This conversation is interesting because it begs the question: how explicit must the goal be? If you're playing mario bros and you decide that you'd rather see how long you can survive a turtle shell bouncing back and forth between two walls, are you engaged in playing a game? If you choose your own goal that exists within the framework given to you but is not explicitly laid out by the game as an objective, what territory does that lie in?

 

[Shapermc]

This conversation is interesting because it begs the question: how explicit must the goal be? If you're playing mario bros and you decide that you'd rather see how long you can survive a turtle shell bouncing back and forth between two walls, are you engaged in playing a game? If you choose your own goal that exists within the framework given to you but is not explicitly laid out by the game as an objective, what territory does that lie in?

If you want to beg the question we might as well just admit to the circular argument right now and admit defeat. Also, you mis-used "begs the question."

So I will reply: is "how long you can survive a turtle shell" a goal? Simply put, yes it is. Are you avtive or engaged in this goal? Yes, you have to jump and move. Is it a game? Yes. Is it what the programmers/designers/director/man-in-the-chair intended, or the "real" goal of the game? Who knows.

Anyways, I hear you're a twat.

 

[Andonuts]

If I'm a twat you're a member.

 

[Shapermc]

for all the wrong reasons ;_;

 

[Pimpbaa]

I think the term/genre non-game should be changed to non-gamer games (games that appeal to people outside the usual gamer demographic)

 

[Andonuts]

You mean casual games?

Alternatively things which either are
a) not wastes of time (brain age)
b) so transparently a waste of time that it doesn't matter (tetris, bejeweled, etc)?

 

[dbish]

A game to me is one that challenges the player; where defeat or failure is possible if victory is not obtained. A risk/reward proposition. I suppose in this aspect, Brain Training passes the test, because as I understand it, it is possible to answer questions incorrectly, thus the player is being challenged on an intellectual level.

And other similar quotes -

Doesn't that make this a non-game?:



Oh yeah...I went there.

For a more serious answer, I don't consider some things "video game" and some things "not". There are just more arcady, hard games (ie DMC) and games more at the opposite end of the spectrum (ie Big Brain Academy, Nintedogs). Obviously there is then a bunch of games in the middle.

The whole "casual/hardcore" thing works too, I guess, but that tends to make people sound like elitist a-holes IMO

 

[Oblivion]

A game is an activity that I derive enjoyment from. That's it. Sorry guys. Non games don't exist.

[/thread]


If Nintendogs isn't a game, then I guess neither is the Sims.

If Brain Training isn't a game, then I guess neither is Jeopardy.


Is Tetris considered a game guys?

 

[Andonuts]

How about gambling? Is the roulette wheel a game?

 

[wellsed]

A WINNAR IS YOU!

BUT OUR GIRAFFE IS IN ANOTHER CASTLE!

More seriously, I was thinking about this two days ago. I reached a conclusion as follows.

Games, video or otherwise, are a means of entertainment. But so is reading, movies, music, etc. Thus, games have some defining characteristic not present in other forms of entertainment, something to set them apart.

Games have INTERACTION.

Movies, books, music, and other forms of entertainment have action-response. You do something and receive a response. Even simple games like solitaire or crossword puzzles have response: your action opens new actions, or your action is incorrect and closes off possible actions.

Everything I can think of leads me to the conclusion that that is the distilled separating characteristic of games, video or otherwise. Video games speed up the interaction and lower the barrier to providing actions for the player. I can, theoretically, play a football game on a console much, much easier than going outside and playing football with a group of friends. A video game version of Soduku provides instant response when I input a number, instead of having to calculate if I'm wrong myself. A videogame version of Soduku can generate new puzzle tables instead of having to wait for a new publication or be creative myself.

Thus, all games are about some form of INTERACTION, but video games lower the barrier of entry of actions and increase the rate of response. It allows one to INTERACT more often and in many more ways.

 

[wellsed]

A game is an activity that I derive enjoyment from. That's it. Sorry guys. Non games don't exist.

I enjoy reading books and watching TV. I don't consider them games.

Unless watching TV also involves drinking

 

[wellsed]

Masturbation is a game?

Nintendo, I think I've got an idea for your next hit franchise!

Waggle controls, indeed!

 

[Andonuts]

BUT OUR GIRAFFE IS IN ANOTHER CASTLE!

More seriously, I was thinking about this two days ago. I reached a conclusion as follows.

Games, video or otherwise, are a means of entertainment. But so is reading, movies, music, etc. Thus, games have some defining characteristic not present in other forms of entertainment, something to set them apart.

Games have INTERACTION.

Movies, books, music, and other forms of entertainment have action-response. You do something and receive a response. Even simple games like solitaire or crossword puzzles have response: your action opens new actions, or your action is incorrect and closes off possible actions.

Everything I can think of leads me to the conclusion that that is the distilled separating characteristic of games, video or otherwise. Video games speed up the interaction and lower the barrier to providing actions for the player. I can, theoretically, play a football game on a console much, much easier than going outside and playing football with a group of friends. A video game version of Soduku provides instant response when I input a number, instead of having to calculate if I'm wrong myself. A videogame version of Soduku can generate new puzzle tables instead of having to wait for a new publication or be creative myself.

Thus, all games are about some form of INTERACTION, but video games lower the barrier of entry of actions and increase the rate of response. It allows one to INTERACT more often and in many more ways.

This is hairy territory too, of course, because of the nature of interaction. For instance: if a movie sequence has absolutely no meaning to the viewer, is it entertaining? Can a movie sequence have meaning unless the viewer responds to the information by interpreting it? Is this not a form of interaction in and of itself?

The difference is that games are a two-way street -- your interactions change the game and then the game will react differently to you based on your actions. If you're watching a horror movie and start laughing, it doesn't become a comedy.

 

[MickeyKnox]

This is hairy territory too, of course, because of the nature of interaction. For instance: if a movie sequence has absolutely no meaning to the viewer, is it entertaining? Can a movie sequence have meaning unless the viewer responds to the information by interpreting it? Is this not a form of interaction in and of itself?

The difference is that games are a two-way street -- your interactions change the game and then the game will react differently to you based on your actions. If you're watching a horror movie and start laughing, it doesn't become a comedy.

No its not.
For there to be interaction there needs to be a back and forth between no less than 2 parties, just because you can/have to process the information dumped on to you, it does not change the fact that you have no way of filing the second part of the equation.

 

[Gearharaden]

A game is a game. It's software entertainment that involves immersion into a world that offers more interactivity than other forms of entertainment, but lacks commitment or serious tone to how the game is played. People who play games seriously or declare themselves as pro aren't really fooling anybody, nobody worthwhile at least.

A non-game is something that simulates real life in a certain aspect, but simplifies or cheapens the experience into a digestible and low-cost entertainment medium, and since video games in certain cases require the amount of interactivity simply living your life, the people who create these simulations use video games because the gap left is shortened.

Games like the Sims, Nintendogs, Flight Simulator, and other games of a similar genre are not in fact games since the gameplay consists of, more or less, what you'd end up doing if you were to actually try the simulation in real life. Regardless of how real some simulations attempt to be, we still can't use them as an applicable form of training.

Having hours of Flight Simulator X isn't going to get you on the fast track to touring the sky anytime soon. Therefor we still classify them as games, just as non-games because it's simulating something we can do without video games.

Brain-Age is an example of a game comprised of simple thinking tasks we may or may not actually preform in real life, but the game does a great job of simulating it.

A video game is like a movie of drama, action, romance, comedy, etc. A non-game is comparable to a documentary, lecture or something similar.

Regardless, that's the distinction between games and non-games, at least the way I see it.

 

[Dragmire]

Non-games are intended to get new people to play videogames. They're just so radically different that regular gamers see them as alien and become hostile because their games were there first.

Masturbation is a game?

Nintendo, I think I've got an idea for your next hit franchise!

Nintendong?

 

[MickeyKnox]

A game is a game. It's software entertainment that involves immersion into a world that offers more interactivity than other forms of entertainment, but lacks commitment or serious tone to how the game is played. People who play games seriously or declare themselves as pro aren't really fooling anybody, nobody worthwhile at least.

A non-game is something that simulates real life in a certain aspect, but simplifies or cheapens the experience into a digestible and low-cost entertainment medium, and since video games in certain cases require the amount of interactivity simply living your life, the people who create these simulations use video games because the gap left is shortened.

Games like the Sims, Nintendogs, Flight Simulator, and other games of a similar genre are not in fact games since the gameplay consists of, more or less, what you'd end up doing if you were to actually try the simulation in real life. Regardless of how real some simulations attempt to be, we still can't use them as an applicable form of training.

Having hours of Flight Simulator X isn't going to get you on the fast track to touring the sky anytime soon. Therefor we still classify them as games, just as non-games because it's simulating something we can do without video games.

Brain-Age is an example of a game comprised of simple thinking tasks we may or may not actually preform in real life, but the game does a great job of simulating it.

A video game is like a movie of drama, action, romance, comedy, etc. A non-game is comparable to a documentary, lecture or something similar.

Regardless, that's the distinction between games and non-games, at least the way I see it.

The only problem with that analogy is that documentaries are a genre of film making just like the others, as such you can't disqualify a simulation game from the medium simply because it doesn't fit into one of the other genres in the medium.

People classify nintendogs and braintraining as a Nongame with the intention of simply ascertaining their genre, which is a game that offers a very different experience from what we are accustomed to.

It doesn't make them any less of a game based on the definition of a video game being an interactive piece of digital code that presents you with a challenge to solve and the means to solve it.

The advent of the use of the designation Nongame, is simply the gaming audience's way of classifying a game that does not offer the traditional/expected challenge and tools to solve said challenge as other games like RPGs, FPS, Action, Adventure etc...

It has taken a negative connotation because people feel as though the experience is not up to the standard they have set in their minds of what their interactive digital entertainment experience should be. And it's my theory that the main reason there is a negative reaction to this genre is that people are afraid there will be more of these types of games and less of the kind that meets their standards, this is compounded by the fact that the nongames are becoming a phenomenon that sells really well at a price near that of other games.

 

[ShinNL]

For something to be a game (board, video, and even sport) there needs to be 3 components.

First there needs to be an Action on the part of the player or user. This could be:
• Pressing a button
• Moving a playing piece
• Running down a field.

Next there must be a Challenge...
• Pressing the button at exactly the right time.
• Moving your playing piece to the safest location.
• Running faster then your opponent.
On the opposite side of this spectrum is Chance... Gabbling is a great example of this. Some games will use a combination of both.

Lastly there needs to be Reward.
The Reward is what makes the Action and Challenge/Chance so motivating to the player and if you succeeded the reward that is gained is that much more valuable.

Also if you remove Challenge and Chance leaving the user with Action and Reward you get most pieces of software. Action == Type in a web address in Firefox
Reward == Webpage is displayed.

A game is:
• Action
• Challenge or Chance
• Reward

So you be the judge. Does Nintendogs fit into this model?

How did this not end the thread already? No Challenge or Chance = no game.

And defining videogames from all other games can't be that hard. There you have it people, a definition. You can't argue with definitions. You just can't. Really. You can't. Okay?

 

[Barry Lightning]

is chess really a "sport?"

 

[DDayton]

I thought a game was an activity, with rules, which allowed folks to compete to have fun?

I know there is a much better definition that I am but skirting around, but it escapes my mind at the moment.