-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Where does "Game" begin and end?
- Thread starter sprsk
- Start date
ZealousD said:
By having parts that aren't fun, that can actually make something fun. For instance, difficult games make you lose a lot which over time can be frustrating. However, by clearing or "beating" these obstacles you feel a sense of accomplishment. Sometimes a game can be work, which by all means isn't fun.
ZealousD said:
Still not comfortable with this idea of "purpose."
It's like saying a painting is only a painting if the painter intended it to be pretty. Sure, whether you think it's pretty or not is subjective, but if the painter didn't intend for the painting to be pretty then it's not a painting. Prettiness needs to be the intent of the work for it to be a painting.
Lostconfused
Member
Campster said:
The purpose of the painter was to paint, the prettiness of the painting might be a byproduct of the painters love for the art.
Unless you are talking about commissioned work, then that just might be the money.
Lostconfused said:
Right, and the purpose of the designer is to design a game. Whether his intent is for it to be "entertainment" or not is irrelevant in what we call the product of his work, just as the painter's purpose is to paint, not to make something that's "pretty."
The idea of an objective decision protocol for games, i.e. one that can separate that which is a game from that which is not a game in the absence of human judgment, may have to be abandoned. Therefore, I propose that this thread be devoted to the enumeration of all games and non-games for future reference in this matter.
I will start. TIE Fighter is definitely a game, not just a space combat simulator.
Oh no, not at all. I'm saying that I personally played this particular space combat simulation and I was able to determine that it was a game, so it can be added to the list of games.
I will start. TIE Fighter is definitely a game, not just a space combat simulator.
Campster said:
Oh no, not at all. I'm saying that I personally played this particular space combat simulation and I was able to determine that it was a game, so it can be added to the list of games.
Lostconfused
Member
Campster said:
/sarcasm
It really depends. Not every single person out there has exactly the same motivations. I am sure there are people that paint because they love to do that, some that want to create a beautiful painting and some might do it just to get money. Honestly i dont know about game designers, *cough*DenisDyack*cough*.
TwinIonEngines said:
You're begging the question that space combat simulations are games.
Lostconfused said:
But my point is that the designer's motivations are immaterial. They have no bearing on whether their work is or is not a game. The painting produced by the painters who are doing it for money, by the painters doing it for the love of doing it, and the painters who wanted to make something pretty are all still paintings.
Lostconfused
Member
Campster said:
Yes you are right, probably. Its just that you can turn almost anything into a game if you want.
- Competitive games, against yourself, an AI, human opponents or even animals.
Based on learning and/or execution of a skill (edit
,sometimes involving luck, virtually always including a set of rules that determine the conditions of winning -- and therefore an end -- and x amount of other things having to do with the game.
- Pretend/acting games, can be played alone, with other humans, possibly animals and AIs as further participants.
No clearly defined goal except maybe 'acting good', while "good" is defined prior to playing or made up while going along. Other possible conditions deemed 'good', like a believable performance depend on the imagination of the participants. No strict end unless the scenario or characters lend themselves to it.
Can't think of anything that would not fit in these two categories, overlapping included.
Based on learning and/or execution of a skill (edit
,sometimes involving luck, virtually always including a set of rules that determine the conditions of winning -- and therefore an end -- and x amount of other things having to do with the game.- Pretend/acting games, can be played alone, with other humans, possibly animals and AIs as further participants.
No clearly defined goal except maybe 'acting good', while "good" is defined prior to playing or made up while going along. Other possible conditions deemed 'good', like a believable performance depend on the imagination of the participants. No strict end unless the scenario or characters lend themselves to it.
Can't think of anything that would not fit in these two categories, overlapping included.
I think some of the struggles with the definition and understanding of "game" here arise from the conflation of "game," "play," and "entertainment" (all noun forms).
Ludologist/game scholar Jesper Juul provides a thoughtful discussion of the features of his "classic game model" (which also considers, and fairly criticizes, many previous definitions that I won't go into here) that might at least elucidate some of the latent and patent ambiguities here. His model is usefully presented in the context of a work considering how the traditional model applies to video games (although I'd argue that video games deviate even less from his model than he asserts):
1. Rules: Games are rule-based.
2. Variable, quantifiable outcome: To work as a game, the rules must provide different possible outcomes.
3. Valorization of outcome: The different potential outcomes of the game are assigned different values, some positive and some negative.
4. Player effort: Games are challenging; the player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome. Juul (fairly I think) includes chance-based gambling in his several "borderline cases" of activities that contain several, but not all of his features of "games."
5. Player attached to outcome: The player is emotionally attached to the outcome of the game in the sense that player will be a winner and "happy" in case of a positive outcome, but a loser and "unhappy" in case of a negative outcome. This is obviously one of the fuzzier elements of his model, and I think something that jibes with some of the conflict we've seen here regarding whether games have to be "fun" or "entertaining." I don't believe one his to feel positively about a game at any point for it to qualify as a game, but I think the concept people are grasping it is that there has to be some underlying motivation that allows the fiction of the game world to exist. That is, something that makes the valorization of outcomes meaningful such that the necessary play can exist. Otherwise, we once again fall into free play effectively without rules (in that even if people follow the rules, if they have no motivation to reach the "positive" goal, their effort will not be guided in a manner that allows the "game" to exist).
6. Negotiable consequences: The same game can be played with or without real-life consequences. A wonderfully simple feature that knocks out so much of the activities that people try to label as "games" simply by attaching the moniker. You may make a "game" out of trying to break out of a prison, or playing the stock market (with real money), but whatever terms you use, and whatever parameters and methods of recording you employ, you are not playing a "game" since your actions have non-negotiable real-world consequences. That is, you are (necessarily and immutably, until you stop) breaking out of prison and you are investing your money in the stock market.
I highly recommend Juul's book, Half-Real: Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds to anyone even remotely interested in these sorts of discussions about games.
Ludologist/game scholar Jesper Juul provides a thoughtful discussion of the features of his "classic game model" (which also considers, and fairly criticizes, many previous definitions that I won't go into here) that might at least elucidate some of the latent and patent ambiguities here. His model is usefully presented in the context of a work considering how the traditional model applies to video games (although I'd argue that video games deviate even less from his model than he asserts):
1. Rules: Games are rule-based.
2. Variable, quantifiable outcome: To work as a game, the rules must provide different possible outcomes.
3. Valorization of outcome: The different potential outcomes of the game are assigned different values, some positive and some negative.
4. Player effort: Games are challenging; the player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome. Juul (fairly I think) includes chance-based gambling in his several "borderline cases" of activities that contain several, but not all of his features of "games."
5. Player attached to outcome: The player is emotionally attached to the outcome of the game in the sense that player will be a winner and "happy" in case of a positive outcome, but a loser and "unhappy" in case of a negative outcome. This is obviously one of the fuzzier elements of his model, and I think something that jibes with some of the conflict we've seen here regarding whether games have to be "fun" or "entertaining." I don't believe one his to feel positively about a game at any point for it to qualify as a game, but I think the concept people are grasping it is that there has to be some underlying motivation that allows the fiction of the game world to exist. That is, something that makes the valorization of outcomes meaningful such that the necessary play can exist. Otherwise, we once again fall into free play effectively without rules (in that even if people follow the rules, if they have no motivation to reach the "positive" goal, their effort will not be guided in a manner that allows the "game" to exist).
6. Negotiable consequences: The same game can be played with or without real-life consequences. A wonderfully simple feature that knocks out so much of the activities that people try to label as "games" simply by attaching the moniker. You may make a "game" out of trying to break out of a prison, or playing the stock market (with real money), but whatever terms you use, and whatever parameters and methods of recording you employ, you are not playing a "game" since your actions have non-negotiable real-world consequences. That is, you are (necessarily and immutably, until you stop) breaking out of prison and you are investing your money in the stock market.
I highly recommend Juul's book, Half-Real: Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds to anyone even remotely interested in these sorts of discussions about games.
-Not interactive? Not a game. It could be a non-game reward within a game, though, such as cutscenes.
-No set of goals? Not a game, but a toy. See Electroplankton.
-Have to invent my own goals? See above. The Sims, for example.
-No method to measure relative success or skill? Not a game. There aren't many examples of this, probably because if the title doesn't measure my skill on its own, it's probably also a title where I have to invent my own goals, which already makes it a non-game.
-No set of goals? Not a game, but a toy. See Electroplankton.
-Have to invent my own goals? See above. The Sims, for example.
-No method to measure relative success or skill? Not a game. There aren't many examples of this, probably because if the title doesn't measure my skill on its own, it's probably also a title where I have to invent my own goals, which already makes it a non-game.
Do some reading on Ludology and check out a book called Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman. It's not comprehensive, but it's a good place to start.
There's a crap load of research and discussion that's been going on for a while now about this. The field is still very young though.
There's a crap load of research and discussion that's been going on for a while now about this. The field is still very young though.
I do think there's an intrinsic difference between defining "What is a game?" and debating the borders of broader topics such as game design or the academic study of games.
I'm hard pressed not to agree that the academic definition of game holds up well for traditional notions of what games are - interactive systems with quantifiable outcomes.
But both academia and design alike can't concern themselves exclusively with competitive games with winstates; The Sims and MMOs and GrandTheftAuto are all some of the biggest and most talked about titles in either field.
In that sense, I think there's a contextual difference in the meaning between "I design games" and "Quake 3 is a Game, Sim City is not a Game." I.E., Will Wright is a game designer, but what he produces is not academically classified as a game.
I'm hard pressed not to agree that the academic definition of game holds up well for traditional notions of what games are - interactive systems with quantifiable outcomes.
But both academia and design alike can't concern themselves exclusively with competitive games with winstates; The Sims and MMOs and GrandTheftAuto are all some of the biggest and most talked about titles in either field.
In that sense, I think there's a contextual difference in the meaning between "I design games" and "Quake 3 is a Game, Sim City is not a Game." I.E., Will Wright is a game designer, but what he produces is not academically classified as a game.
kame-sennin
Member
AstroLad said:
Could you clarify this? For example, how would Russian Roulette fit into that definition?
kame-sennin said:
I believe the difference is the same one between playing Call of Duty and going to war. You can make a Russian Roulette game where no one dies, but as soon as you're playing with live ammo it's not so much a game as a random death generator.
GreggTheGrimReaper
Member
GT/Forza is a where a "game" ends and becomes a way to train for trackdays 
Russian Roulette is more of a dare or a bet, as it is completely luck based. There are certain 'games', or rather toys, where you don't know when a mechanism will go off and the sole attraction of it is the thrill of not knowing who'll be the one to set it off.kame-sennin said:
However, defining games by the possible consequences doesn't really work because you'd have to draw the line with no basis whatsoever. You could die playing tag for all you know, doesn't make it any less of a game.
Another thing is that games never stop being games, even though the labels change. Sports or any other -- let's say serious competition -- you name it, are, at their core, still games. Doesn't matter if the label or the possible consequences changed, however positive or negative, they're still games. Think of StarCraft competitions in South Korea. It still just a game, but the whole scope of it with sponsors and professional players elevated it to another level.
It's a tricky line. I'd say that Sim City isn't a game in and of itself, but because people make up their own games within the context of the activities that Sim City allows for, it can be difficult to avoid treating it as one. If Will Wright is anything, I'd say he's less a game designer than a designer of game design tools.Campster said:
Jiggy37 said:
I agree with that. There's nothing that says players can't provide their own values or modify existing values. That is the entire basis of folk games, after all. I agree with Will Wright that Sim City taken on its own merits, though, is not a video game. He calls it a "toy" but I find that word a bit too freighted, and I'd prefer to refer to it as "play."
AstroLad said:
I think he chooses the word "toy" because it's a bit more formal than "play." Girls sitting around at tea parties are engaged in play. Kittens randomly tackling each other are engaged in play. There aren't any hard and fast rules; no well defined boundaries for the simulation.
A toy is more formal - there are certain things it can do and certain things it can't do. Toys also tend to carry with them a very specific metaphor - soldiers, cars, dolls, teacups, etc. Sure, hoola hoops and yo-yos lack a metaphor, but there's still a certain number of things they can do. When you're playing with a Yo-Yo you're interacting with a much more formal system than if you were playing house.
Campster said:
It sounds to me more like you're referring to "free play" than the broader category of "play." But that's a whole 'nother can of worms. The only salient point for me is that SimCity can be made into a game in the spontaneous folk game manner.
FWIW, I don't think "toy" is a great word, but the strongest argument for its use is that it's a little less awkward as a noun for these purposes.
"Formal" doesn't really jive with me, but I see the point. However... Do these go out the window when you start engaging in "play" with them? (See where I'm going? XD) A fake tea set is a toy, something those girls you mentioned would play with. The kittens could play with a rubber mouse or something.
Toys are playing tools, instruments. Much like anything else, possibly part of a game.
Are games strictly abstract then? (Disregarding things you might use.)
Toys are playing tools, instruments. Much like anything else, possibly part of a game.
Are games strictly abstract then? (Disregarding things you might use.)
The funny thing is that "game" and "play" are one and the same word in German; "Spiel".
I completely disagree. Without the concept of winning or losing -- or, as others have said, "a set of quantifiable, differentiable end states" -- you don't have a game. There are other factors, of course, but this is a big one.sp0rsk said:
(I know we've had this discussion before on the board, and I know I posted at greater length about it at that time.)