Support NeoGAF

[sprsk]

Before you guys get started, this isn't a NON GAMES WOWOWOOOWOWOO thread.

I'm just curious as to what you guys think the basic idea of "Game" is, and when does a game or software or whatever, stop being a game?

This question I pose to the denizens of GAF. (And for God's sake keep it civil.)

 

[lynux3]

A game stops being a game when you feel like it is a chore.

 

[rakka]

nvm

G and E, just like everyone else said.

 

[maxmars]

Personally I have drawn the following line: a game stops being a game when it's not interactive anymore. It's the interactivity that defines a game.

 

[Cheeto]

There is no line. Non-Games as you guys call them, are games. They are different types of games...that is all.

 

[JonathanEx]

Begins at G, ends at e.

or

Ends with Brain Age

or

If you're doing stuff that causes stuff to happen, it's a game. Board game: do stuff like roll dice, movie pieces. Video game: press buttons, stuff happens. Oh, and it ends when you're not doing stuff, or it's trivial stuff like navigating a DVD menu.

 

[Littleberu]

Personally I have drawn the following line: a game stops being a game when it's not interactive anymore. It's the interactivity that defines a game.

So doing math homework is "gaming", because you're interacting?

 

[Ponn]

A game stops being a game when you feel like it is a chore.

pretty much. And thats the problem with distinguishing non-game from game. Too many people and everyone has their own opinions and thresholds. Hell, Japanese play massive online games about going back to school and think its fun.

 

[rakka]

So doing math homework is "gaming", because you're interacting?

Must be.

 

[dionysus]

Basic elements of video games, all must be present.

1. Entertaining
2. Interactive
3. Visual and Audio delivery
4. Causality: Related to interactive, a players interaction must have some effect on outcome in the game
5. Isolation: Player's interaction has no effects outside the game on other people (unless other people are in the game), evironment, or the world. This is to preclude real sports and other types of entertainment. Player's actions are limited to the digital domain.

 

[maxmars]

So doing math homework is "gaming", because you're interacting?

Yes, of course. Why not? Manually calculating a torpedo solution in a sub sim isn't any different.

 

[Blue Geezer]

it starts at G and ends at e.....




*hides*

 

[Confidence Man]

When it's the means to some other end, like fitness or education.

 

[Cheeto]

So doing math homework is "gaming", because you're interacting?

If it's..."See how fast you can get your math homework done." or "How many problems can you do in 5 minutes"

Thats a game.

 

[Metaphoreus]

A game stops being a game when you feel like it is a chore.

Does that mean that a poorly-designed game isn't really a game at all? This would make it possible for a game to not be a game simply because it isn't fun; in other words, a bad game wouldn't really be a game.

While we're trying to come to a definition of game, though, here a few of my thoughts:

A game must be played by at least one person; therefore, it is necessarily interactive.

A game must be designed in such a way that the player is intended to receive some pleasure or satisfaction from playing the game. This requirement expands lynux3's so that a game doesn't have to be fun; its creators need only have intended for it to be so. The idea here is that a game is a leisure activity; while it can be added in to make non-leisure activities more enjoyable, it nevertheless retains its leisurable characteristics.

Generally, a game operates according to a set of rules; I can't actually think of any games that don't operate according to a set of rules, but in case there is one or two of them out there, my "generally" allows me to remain correct in stating this. It is achieving the goal of the game by playing according to the rules that is the ultimate source of satisfaction within the game--though the act of playing may also be enjoyable on its own merits.

I'll leave it at that for now and expand on it later if I think of anything else or need to clarify/qualify my position. Though perhaps the following question should be taken up in this thread: Why isn't (or is) Microsoft Word (for example) a game? What distinguishes it from games? At what point do "non-games" (in the common NeoGAF usage) actually cease to be games?

 

[rakka]

If it's..."See how fast you can get your math homework done." or "How many problems can you do in 5 minutes"

Thats a game.

Not a very fun one though.

 

[JonathanEx]

If it's..."See how fast you can get your math homework done." or "How many problems can you do in 5 minutes"

Thats a game.

So, it's something interactive, with a goal?

Spoiler

acww only pretended to have goals, nongame confirmed

(snip)

Well, now you've just gone and answered it perfectly, leaving no fun for the rest of us

 

[sprsk]

I think interactivity, and rules are good "features" that define what a game is. Obviously if there is no interaction then it's just a movie.

I think all ideas relating to what the user thinks are totally bunk and have nothing to do with anything.

 

[maxmars]

Why isn't (or is) Microsoft Word (for example) a game?

Office apps can be used to play games, yes, e.g. somebody sent me through email a list of pictures of famous people which you have to guess (excel-based), that was certainly a game with a score.

Maybe you could say that Office is a gaming platform more than a game, because it's programmable.

 

[Ponn]

I think all ideas relating to what the user thinks are totally bunk and have nothing to do with anything.

Sounds like an opinion to me.

 

[sprsk]

Sounds like an opinion to me.

Well, yes. But why should what I think about a certain game or what joy it gives me have anything to do with it's classification as a game?

 

[Lostconfused]

I think interactivity, and rules are good "features" that define what a game is. Obviously if there is no interaction then it's just a movie.

I think all ideas relating to what the user thinks are totally bunk and have nothing to do with anything.

A goal should be part of the rules i guess, since pretty much all games are that the person is trying to achieve a certain goal by functioning withing the limits of the rules or you can cheat.

 

[Ponn]

Well, yes. But why should what I think about a certain game or what joy it gives me have anything to do with it's classification as a game?

It doesn't, just like people thinking a game isn't a game or non-game doesn't change its spot on the shelf from the games section to education department with books and pencils and notebook paper.

You're asking the fundamental question though of what a person considers to make up a game, and unless everyone suddenly becomes a robot you can't just sweep peoples feeling of boredom or tedium under the rug and define it as "bunk". You're question was flawed to begin with if you ask a question and then start putting up disclaimers and clauses to what people can answer. If thats the case I suggest

dictionary.com subject Game

otherwise the definition of what a game is, is going to be personal and vary from person to person.

second edit: as this thread goes on its pretty clear the ulterior motive of defining non-games as games regardless of what you wrote in the OP. I don't know about everyone else that uses the term of non-game but when I use the term I don't mean it as the game in question is not a "game" but its just grown to mean a specific genre that has erupted that is not traditional video gaming. Actually closer to edutainment.

 

[Campster]

The traditional academic definition is a formally defined interactive system with a quantifiable outcome.

And even that's too specific, since you're operating under the presumption that a winstate (or other mathematically quantifiable outcome) is somehow necessary. I don't see what the quantifiable outcome of SimCity is.

Sid Meier always said a game was a "series of interesting choices," but that is better game design advice than it is a definition of what games are.

Johan Huizinga had an elaborate breakdown of games and play in Homo Ludens, but that's more from a sociologist's standpoint. Still, he was an important figure in helping shape the study of games - we still use concepts like the magic circle.

 

[ziran]

I think a videogame is something which tries to be enjoyable by challenging the player to overcome obstacles to progress through the experience, and may or may not have an ending.

The only things I wouldn't consider games are functional titles like Cooking Navi or My Housekeeping Diary (although I've only read about them, not used them first hand).

 

[sprsk]

The traditional academic definition is a formally defined interactive system with a quantifiable outcome.

And even that's too specific, since you're operating under the presumption that a winstate (or other mathematically quantifiable outcome) is somehow necessary. I don't see what the quantifiable outcome of SimCity is.

Sid Meier always said a game was a "series of interesting choices," but that is better game design advice than it is a definition of what games are.

Johan Huizinga had an elaborate breakdown of games and play in Homo Ludens, but that's more from a sociologist's standpoint. Still, he was an important figure in helping shape the study of games - we still use concepts like the magic circle.

Yeah, I don't think winning or losing has anything to do with the definition of a game.

 

[Brashnir]

A game must have all the following elements.

1) Must be intended as entertainment. The actual quality of the entertainment is subjective and therefore irrelevant.

2) Must require some form of interactivity from the player, whether it be moving a character through a game via dexterous movements or making strategic decisions at a slow pace

3) Must include some sort of challenge to overcome, whether this is another player, or in the case of most video games, puzzles or AI from the computer. Challenges can be anything from completing a puzzle adventure, winning a fight, or building a large city. The actual difficulty of the challenge is irrelevant, there just needs to be some form of challenge, obstacle, or conflict present.

That's it. If it meets these qualifications, it's a game. Brain Age is a game. It's intended as entertainment, it requires the player's interaction, and there is a scale of player quality, which is the challenge.

 

[sprsk]

A game must have all the following elements.

1) Must be intended as entertainment. The actual quality of the entertainment is subjective and therefore irrelevant.

When I teach a class and when we play learning games, are they not games?

 

[maxmars]

Yeah, I don't think winning or losing has anything to do with the definition of a game.

Also, a goal can always be created. E.g. land on top of a carrier outside San Francisco in Flight Simulator (a game with no goals per se).

 

[Brashnir]

When I teach a class and when we play learning games, are they not games?

The purpose of learning games is teaching through entertainment, is it not?

 

[dionysus]

When I teach a class and when we play learning games, are they not games?

I think we are fast approaching "It depends on your definition of 'is' is..." territory.

 

[Chairman Yang]

When I teach a class and when we play learning games, are they not games?

Yes, but those are intended to be entertaining (to fulfill the larger purpose of education, of course).

 

[sprsk]

The purpose of learning games is teaching through entertainment, is it not?

http://www.painstation.de/new/index.html
Not a game?


I hardly call getting an electric shock entertaining.

 

[Campster]

I'm not comfortable with any definition that relies on the creator's intent. If I make a combat flight sim with the intent of simply modelling real world flight mechanics and combat maneuvers simply as a programming challenge, and then you sit down and play it, are you not playing a game?

 

[ElectricBlue187]

i think a 'video game' is a interactive experience in which a person attempts to reach some kind of goal or outcome based upon what he sees and hears and feels

that broad enough for ya?

 

[pswii60]

The game begins after the wonderul, polished and long Weta-studio Andy Serkis-acted Heavenly Sword cutscene and ends before the next one. Repeat and rinse.

Spoiler

Still day one instapurchase

That's if we're talking about a specific video game. The definition of 'game' is in the dictionary, and if it fits, you're good to go.

 

[Brashnir]

http://www.painstation.de/new/index.html
Not a game?


I hardly call getting an electric shock entertaining.

negative reinforcement can be part of the challenge to overcome in a game. Just as experience loss is a game mechanic in some MMORPGs.

Sure, that's going a bit far into the realm of negative reinforcement for most people, but its inclusion doesn't preclude something from using it as part of a game.

 

[Chairman Yang]

I'm not comfortable with any definition that relies on the creator's intent. If I make a combat flight sim with the intent of simply modelling real world flight mechanics and combat maneuvers simply as a programming challenge, and then you sit down and play it, are you not playing a game?

You are, but in that case, you can say that the player is the creator of the game. They'd just be using the engine as a means towards that end.

 

[JonathanEx]

http://www.painstation.de/new/index.html
Not a game?


I hardly call getting an electric shock entertaining.

You get all those party games where you get shocks if you say get something wrong. People volunteer to play those for entertainment.

 

[widgetraf]

You get all those party games where you get shocks if you say get something wrong. People volunteer to play those for entertainment.

Russian Roulette anyone?

 

[Lostconfused]

negative reinforcement can be part of the challenge to overcome in a game. Just as experience loss is a game mechanic in some MMORPGs.

Sure, that's going a bit far into the realm of negative reinforcement for most people, but its inclusion doesn't preclude something from using it as part of a game.

It can be part of the game, but that doesn't mean the person experiencing will think of it as a game, they just might think its a form of torture. Well i guess its doesn't become torture until the person has no choice in weather they are free to continue that experience or not.

 

[phil_fish]

a game is a toy with rules.

 

[mrklaw]

Am I having fun? If so, its a game.

Although I can have enjoyment from watching a movie, its not really 'fun'. Games are 'fun'.

Its not just the interaction - rolling a dice is a game but the bits where you wait for others to have a turn aren't? Of course they are, its the whole experience.

 

[radjago]

There are lots of related ideas that are being thrown together here. Games of all sorts exist outside of the digital domain, as do toys, interactive experiences that aren't games, and forms of play. Taking ideas from those and implementing them in software is how video games come together.

What about serious games? Their goal is to instruct or inform, not to entertain. Do they cease to be video games and become some other form of interactive electronic media? The growth of non-games reminds me of the explosion of multimedia software that formed around the growth of CD-ROMs in computers. Most of that stuff was interactive, but I wouldn't call them games. However, most of what people are calling non-games these days are still games, no matter how casual they may be.

 

[Like the hat?]

A game stops being a game when you feel like it is a chore.

IAWTP

 

[Ranger X]

To me a game is something with rules that you do for fun. Everything is pretty much either "work" or a "game".

 

[SonSon2]

A game is more or a less a set task before you. Even if that "task" is do nothing in particular. It doesn't matter if it's fun or not. That has nothing to do with it.

A game begins when you choose for it to begin. It ends when you choose for it to end.

 

[disappeared]

I think that when a game manages to entertain and keep the player(s) occupied, it's done its job. If a steep difficulty or tons of repetition is involved, it really detracts from the exteprience and becomes more of a chore for the participants. Whether you're stacking blocks in Tetris, infiltrating an enemy stronghold in Splinter Cell, or in a teacher's case playing a verb/noun activity to help the students learn a new language - it's all relative to an interactive experience.

 

[ZealousD]

Personally, I think that a game just needs a couple basic elements.

1.) Entertainment.
2.) Interactivity.
3.) Some kind of input and output device.
4.) Goal-oriented.

Brain Age is a game because it's interactive, you have input and output, you can get some entertainment out of it, and you're striving to improve your brain age. Jam Sessions however, is not a game because it's not really goal-oriented.

 

[Lostconfused]

There are lots of related ideas that are being thrown together here. Games of all sorts exist outside of the digital domain, as do toys, interactive experiences that aren't games, and forms of play. Taking ideas from those and implementing them in software is how video games come together.

What about serious games? Their goal is to instruct or inform, not to entertain. Do they cease to be video games and become some other form of interactive electronic media? The growth of non-games reminds me of the explosion of multimedia software that formed around the growth of CD-ROMs in computers. Most of that stuff was interactive, but I wouldn't call them games. However, most of what people are calling non-games these days are still games, no matter how casual they may be.

Well i agree with the word "non games" being throw around too much. Yeah brain age is a game but when Miyamoto mentioned the DS software with cooking recipes, yeah thats not a game.