What counts as a video game?

[Kayzee 4,032]

I think you and I are discussing slightly different things. You are talking about simulators as a genre. Genre is a tricky and vague thing at the best of times. People still argue over the diffidence between JRPGs and WRPGs, or even if there is a difference, and we have some truly nebulous genres like Action-Adventure that games seem to be just thrown in when they have no idea what else to do with them. The term "simulator" has been used to cover everything from tactical rpgs to wacky physics comedy games. Really it's fair to say that most game in the "simulator" genre are indeed trying to model some real life thing however abstract, but that isn't always the case.

 

I am really talking about simulators more as a medium. Maybe simulator isn't quite the right word, but the basic idea is a program that simulates an environment. This is in contrast to a "game" where the program is mostly concerned with rules and goals. And like I said, these overlap a lot, but are different things. Going back to the question of art, a simulator as a medium used for art attempts to create an environment that will induce a particular experience, usually a emotional or thought provoking one. For example, the way horror games create dark and spooky environments to explore, places filled with monsters and danger, places where you feel the horror around you. Using the medium of games by contrast, horror comes from things like the conflict of monsters being able to attack and kill you, not having enough ammo, slowly having your resources being whittled down until you are desperately looking for the next checkpoint.

 

But like I said, these are artistic ways the medium is used, not really good ways of defining the medium it's self. Simulators and games as mediums can be used simply as simulators and games and not for any real artistic reason. I suppose that is one way you could define simulators as a genre, something that uses simulation elements not to make an artistic impact, but simply for the joy of messing around with the simulation elements. But there are probably too many examples that run contrary to that.

Edited February 14, 2015 by KilloZapit

[+ Chaosian 617]

Yes indeed, they are different tangents. Simulators, and the Simulator Genre of video games do have their distinctions.

 

Related to what you're saying, I'm not sure I see true Simulators those I think you're referring to, as a medium - that is at least, a creative, high artistic, medium like books, film, or video games. There just isn't room for art. Things like climate simulations, Lorez attractors, market simulations, they're all Simulators, not games meant to be enjoyed, they're not designed to grant entertainment or enlightenment. They deal in objective facts, empirical numbers, and simulate environments like to you say, are done so with as little creative bias on the part of the creators. If there is artistic tones to them, then they easily their original purpose - usually, analysis of some kind. Maybe you could vouch for there being art in how it formats or exports it's data, but that's stretching things pretty badly.

 

Farming Simulator, Microsoft Flight Sim, or maybe ARMA on the other hand, are all video games (or whatever you want to call them) of the Simulator genre, and while they are all artistically designed to emulate their subject matter accurately, do so for the purpose of enjoyment. They all have room for artistic and creative expression, because the authenticity of the simulation doesn't have to fulfill a purpose.

 

On these lines, I can't think of any real "Horror Simulators", SCP 087 Staircase Simulator be damned...

In my opinion, and I could be misinterpreting you, but just because something simulates an environment or sets up a message, emotion, or mood to feel, doesn't mean it is a Simulator. If that were the case I'd think any video game that has a single state simulates some kind of environment.

[Kayzee 4,032]

Of course there is room for art. Anything can be art. Anything. People have presented soup cans and toilets as art. People have taken dead bodies and cut them up and preserved them as art. Not are simulators are art, and not all games are art. And not all simulators are intended to be thought of as "video games". Besides I am using the term simulator in a different way then you are and maybe there is a better name for it.

Another way to look at it is like in GNS Theory. GNS Theory details three different types of people who play tabletop RPGs, but I think it is actually a good way of thinking about how video games are designed. You have "Game" elements, "Narrative" elements, and "Simulation" elements. Naturally this isn't a perfect system but it works. But you can, and do, have video games that are extremely lopsided to the point where they could have no game or narrative elements at all (it's a little hard to do video games with no simulation elements because, well, they are programs). And people like and respond to different mixes of the three.

That is one reason why I am not sure I like the term "video game" actually, because, as I said before, it covers a lot of things that can't be rightly called games by most people. It doesn't really matter though, because thats just how the medium has evolved. Now when we say video games we are really talking about a complex mix of things that could include any type of software made for entertainment or art. Well any software except totally non-interactive demos anyway.

[+ Chaosian 617]

Of course there is room for art. Anything can be art. Anything. People have presented soup cans and toilets as art. People have taken dead bodies and cut them up and preserved them as art. Not are simulators are art, and not all games are art. And not all simulators are intended to be thought of as "video games". Besides I am using the term simulator in a different way then you are and maybe there is a better name for it.

Maybe I'm taking you too literally, but as much as I am a proponent of this school of thought, not everything humans do, touch, and make, can be art and especially not high art.

To have Google define art for me, art is "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power." That just doesn't fit the ticket of what a simulator is (at least for me). True simulators are like very large and complex math equations, and math equations are explicit, raw, and have no room for either creativity or interpretation. Everything that a math equation is, is laid out on two sides of an equals sign - just like everything in a simulator is on two sides of an end state.

On the other hand, I can't think of a game that isn't art. Maybe you could elaborate on that one?

 

I haven't heard of GNS theory, but I can't really dispute it. The simulation here you speak of though is closer to games that are "immersive", which, while I can see being closely related, isn't enough to distinguish them from any other kind of game, in a medium sense.

 

The kind of simulators I'm thinking that you are speaking of, I guess would be like a sub-set of what I would consider video games as a whole. But again, the boundaries of both are pretty muddy. As for the term "video game", I'm not a fan either, considering how "games" implies having fun, and many games now aren't about fun - and how in a few years / decades we might not even really have the whole "video" thing...

I'll continue to use the term though, because saying "interactive narrative" makes people look at me funny. How many medium names are also dated though? What was the last "movie" you actually saw shot on "film"?   

[Kayzee 4,032]

There are schools of thought that says math it's self is a useful fiction and is much a product of human creativity as anything else. After all, math is just the result of playing with axioms. But that's not really the point. Math is used in art all the time, and it is no more valid to say it isn't creative to play with the mathematical features of music scales or perspective then it is to say it isn't creative to play with algorithms and formulas. Nor is it valid to say it isn't creative to play with rules and goals in games by the way.

 

And even that is kind of besides the point because often (maybe always) art doesn't have to do with the object as much as the subject. Heck that was practically the whole idea of the Dada movement. It's your reaction to the thing and the artists intention to invoke a reaction that matters, nothing else. If you make a graph chart with some intention to lead people to a conclusion, that is art. If you fart as a joke, that is art. In short, if you say anything can never be art you are as wrong headed as those who said games can never be art, heck there were people who said movies could never be art. Anything can be art. Anything. Doesn't matter what it is, how it was made, you spin it the right way, it's art.

 

And as for "high art"? That's just a matter of what is popular and given accolades. That's all it is. High art is just art that has art critics or snobs get into arguments over the details or it's meaning. It's just stuff that gets papers written about it. That's it. That doesn't mean stuff that doesn't somehow doesn't count, or even that stuff that does is necessarily "better". I have read fanfiction that is better then most novels for goodness sake. It's not completely meaningless, but it isn't a good judge of what should be counted either.

 

Though the question of what counts as "video games" doesn't really necessarily have to do with art at all so maybe bring it up is kind of pointless, except to point out that art doesn't necessarily have to do with it.

 

Also: I should point out in GNS Theory, it's more that simulation is a tool that helps create "immersion", but narrative can do the same thing for people. They are just two paths people tend to take, not necessarily goals they try to reach.

 

Also also: I guess I should say though, that I think of my idea of "simulators" as an different medium from "video games" in the same way I think of "games" as a different medium from "video games". What we call "video games" is a combination/superset of mediums that uses tools from games, simulation, and narrative (and film, and animation, and radio drama sometimes, and so on). Not many people just design "pure" simulators and sell it as a "video game", and most "pure" simulators don't end up as artistic. That doesn't mean simulation as an artistic medium is not a thing, it's just that people have become so used to the rubric of "video game" that they tend to end up a bit closer to a game. But there are plenty of games I feel that once you get past a thin game wrapping, they have the heart and soul of a simulator. Some don't even bother with the wrapping.

Edited February 16, 2015 by KilloZapit

[+ Chaosian 617]

There may be schools of thought, but I'm not a subscriber to those schools of though. People can preach death of the author, but Math is used indeed, for axioms, and for proving further axioms. There may be room for math in art, but there isn't room for art in math - and it is the same for true simulation. Yes, I suppose "anything can be art" in that anything can be declared or interpreted as art, but that is a feature of the viewer, not a feature of the things you are interpreting. Art is an action of expression done by creators, and not a label for consumers place on things. In the developmental process, as soon as you start being artistic or creative with axioms, and deviate from facts, you no longer have the accuracy and reliability to call them facts any more. For simulators, this means you are simulating fiction, and are hardly even a "simulator" anymore - it's just a simulated environment.

 

In the same way, I understand how you can be critical of the term "high art". Unlike "art", "high art" is a term given to consumers over entire mediums of creative work. Wither a medium can convey complex enough thoughts to promote emotional or thoughtful reactions, it's for consumers and consumers of a certain caliber to decide. The definition is completely arbitrary, but isn't that kinda like pretty much everything we've spoken of so far? How is the nature of if something is a video game or not, or a simulator or not, what a game is, what a simulator is - how is any of that more that the just the opinions of people?

 

Yes, the whole subset/superset of mediums is indeed, overly complex; a lot more like web or Venn diagram with thousands of exceptions, than a bulleted list. I think part of the problem between our discussion here though is this arbitrary nature of our definitions and of how our definitions of simulator greatly differ. As I see it, there are what I have called "true simulators" which are non-artistic and used to process often real world scenarios as accurately as possible.Then by contrast is loose but far more artistic simulator genre of video games - ARMA, Farming Simulator, Minecraft (if you want to call it that). I can't think of much middle ground at the moment, exceptions included. Despite our continued writing, I'm not really getting a concrete definition of what you see a simulator, or simulators, as.

 

No though, I suppose the question of "art" has little to do with the original question, but neither does the nature of "simulators", especially when the original question was "is Five Nights at Freddy's a video game"? In the end it just boils down to just a marginally more structured "because I don't like it" nature of these sorts of things.

 

...

This forum really doesn't have a rule against straying from original post, does it? I kinda like, but it's also kinda awful and turns topics esoteric and rambling. At least it's not a flame war.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Chaosian

[Kayzee 4,032]

Well, we are going to have to agree to disagree on the point of art and math, I think you are just a bit too dismissive of the inherent creativity of people's framework of facts. Even if the facts don't change, and even if each fact leads to another, it takes a creative mind to see it, and there can be more then one formulation of it. Expecialy when it comes to computer science. We have Turing Machines, Lambda Calculus, Recursive Functions, Cellular Automata (all of which I would like to wikipdia eateries for, but I am sleepy), all of which are equivalent, different formulations of the same thing. You have so many different programing paradigms. functional, impactive, object oriented... even outside that with pure math there are many ways of doing the same idea in different ways. You need creativity, even if you are just discovering facts. Let's go beyond even math into pure semantics, pure philosophy, the whole foundation of logic that math relies on. Does this mean math is fiction? Not necessarily. It does however mean it's creative, at least with how we formulate it.

 

Besides that through, as I have said before, I just see simulators as programs simulating abstract models, usually in terms of video games simulating a world. You get way to caught up on this reality thing. Reality doesn't matter. You can use any model you want, realistic or not. In fact the big problem is that simulations are NEVER realistic. You use abstract mathematical models. When someone is designing a plane and simulate the design do they model every quantum event in every air molecule? No because that would be stupid. They select a "model" that works for what they want to do. There are approximations not facts. And someone needs to create the model. How can creating a model not be art? Your picking and choosing what you want, how the simulation will work, what is important. It's a creative process like everything else. It can be used to make art like everything else.

[+ Chaosian 617]

And now I'm wishing for a few wikipdia eateries myself, ah well, what can you do.

 

I think, after our whole conversation, seeing here a few things out on the table, I will probably have to concede here - baring a few caveats. I will admit, there is inherent creativity and room for art in programing languages, as these things do not emulate anything that occurs in nature. Programming is entirely a human product, and while there might be a wholly finite number of ways to achieve the outset goal, there is creativity and ingenuity required in deciding the sequence to write and execute the code. One cannot argue that just because there is this finite number, does not mean that the act of finding or weighing one does not require what we would both attribute to as creativity. I might add, that I'm personally not sold on the idea that "infinity" exists in any context.

While I would greatly hesitate to call anything that uses code in any way art, as I think that is being far too accepting and inclusive for it's definition to still carry and semblance of value - it would not be my place to declare what is and what isn't art, as that is for all potential artists to decide and declare of their works.

 

I do think however your definition of simulator is too inclusive and dated however, not unlike the kind of thing I alluded to before as being something out of an 80s Science Fiction story. I hadn't asked Google to define simulator for me until now, and it didn't find much grounds of agreement with what I saw your definition being, but of course, everyone is entitled to their own arbitrary definitions of things - aggregate search definitions can be damned too. I will stand that a simulator should, by definition, be concerned with a level of accuracy to reality, because if we are not simulating reality, we are simulating fiction. It is my belief that we cannot "simulate" non-reality, we merely depict it.

On that note, I'd like you to show me where I said that simulations had to be perfectly accurate to reality. I'm not entirely certain why you might think otherwise but like "simulator" or "video game", "realism" is a sliding scale. The closest approximation that can be reasonably afforded for the efficacy of the simulation's purpose is all that can be expected - any more then your simulation is filled with waste data, any less and your simulation is inaccurate, and faulty. If you want to call the decision process as to where you want to call that line art, then I suppose that's fine by me. If you're an artist and you want to cast the net and call deciding what shade of grey to color the cells in cellular simulations "art", then I guess who am I to argue?

 

I suppose this is where the question of high art comes in, but I have the sneaking suspicion that isn't on the itinerary today, ah well, what can you do.

 

 

Edit: also, woew 200 posts!

Edited February 16, 2015 by Chaosian

[Kayzee 4,032]

I think when it comes to value, I think the distinction between "good" art and "bad" art is much more important then arbitrarily declaring that things aren't art at all. Or in other words, art is a method of looking at things and a basic rubric for judging them based on how they effect you by design. Things that aren't designed to effect you cannot be judged in this way, so therefore are not art. Things that are designed to effect you but don't do a good job are "bad" art. Things that are designed to effect you and do their job are "good" art. That is all there is to it in my opinion. In some ways, art is more a judgment of the artist and the viewer then it is of the thing it's self, but art does rely on tested techniques that can be more or less objectively judged. A painting can be judged for example on it's use of color and how it invokes a particular mood with it. 

 

I guess I have to admit I am confusing the issue a little bit. Really what I am looking for is something a lot more abstract then a simulator as such. Let's look at it another way. Imagine game sprites that live in a virtual world and philosophize about reality in the same way we do. Would it be logical for them to think in the same way we do? Suddenly old philosophies discarded in our world  like platonic forms and the Pythagorean belief that everything is numbers make a hell of a lot more sense, and the basic metaphysical ideas about how the world works is different. A good example might be the Discworld books actually, a series where the logic of stories is a metaphysical truth. Could you construct a world that is just as internally consistent as ours this way? If you could, how would you be able to tell it was any less "real" then ours? Well you might answer you couldn't, and there would always be some flaw, and that's fine, you are probably right. But if you try you can probably get a lot further then you might think.

 

You ever seen the Matrix movies? Let's assume for a moment, that you are a creature living in a Matrix, in a computer simulation that you spent all your life inside this simulation. Now the question is, would you actually be able to tell that any of the physical laws that hold in a simulation are real laws? Let's assume all your life you live in a game world where everything is made up of polygons or voxels. This is the laws of physics to you, not a abstraction of a real world. To you this is real. Why would the computers have to pretend that atoms existed? It's simpler just to have the people in the simulation be taught all their life that the abstract simulation IS the reality. The simulator is not simulating the reality of the world outside it, it is simulating the "reality" of the world inside it.

 

That is closer to what I am talking about, internal reality vs external reality. Creating a false but internally consistent world. If it is a bit science fictiony, that's because science fiction often tries to do the same thing. It's all about creating a believable world that relies as much on it's own internal logic as possible. The difference is, when you write a book or make a movie this world is being "simulated" in the author's head and you just read the result. With a video game you can make an external process do it in real time, you basically take the world form someone's head and make the world just a little bit "real". That is the essence of what I mean by simulation. And yes, most video games try to do that to an extent, some more then others.

[+ Chaosian 617]

If you want to go by the fact that anything can be declared as art, then I suppose I'll readily agree with your definitions of "good" and "bad" art. You are correct in muddying the issue though, when it seems that you would care to talk about good and bad art, and yet not high art. Though there may be some semantic differences based on how high you raise your pinky when you talk, the two conversation end up being about the same thing.

 

That's a bit outside the point though. As for what we had referred to as "simulation", it's perfectly fine arguing the idea that reality is a relative notion to the subject. Heck, I recall not too long ago some theory flying around that our entire existence might just be a simulation. I'd link an article, but I can't seem to find one for some reason. But if reality is subjective, then simulation is as well, because, as I'm sure you're tired of me reiterating, simulation is by definition an attempt to model reality. There is no other word for doing that, that's what it is - there is no "real-ation" or whatever that could take it's place. What could be contributing to the confusion of the whole matter, is that while a "simulation" attempts to mimic reality, to "simulate" something, or an act of "simulating" something doesn't necessarily. In that respect I can understand you. I can easily attempt to simulate a bird flapping it's wings with my hand, or I can simulate a game world in RPG Maker. While simulating something though, neither my hands nor my game are simulations. Definitely confusing. As for what to call something that is simply an "internally consistent world" I wouldn't argue over their existence or their place as art, but I couldn't say for certain what to blanket call them, there is no word yet that accurately seems to fit. At least, no definition, that I'm aware of.

[AnarchCassius 29]

Time for a radically different opinion!

But if reality is subjective, then simulation is as well, because, as I'm sure you're tired of me reiterating, simulation is by definition an attempt to model reality. 

 

I'm normally pretty fond of Wikipedia but I can't agree here. They're taking one definition from a paper in 2001. That's not word of god.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/simulation

 

 

 

There is no other word for doing that, that's what it is - there is no "real-ation" or whatever that could take it's place.

 

Yet people refer to "simulated reality", now they refer to "ATM machines" too so that's not a perfect argument but neither is yours. We don't have a word for smashing a banana in someone's face; not every concept has a word in every language.

 

The idea that a simulation has to model reality seems inherently flawed. Much scientific simulation involves working with what-ifs... if the laws of physics work like this how would a galaxy unfold. The simulation isn't trying to model reality, it's enacting a model which can then be compared to reality and in turn test the validity of the model as a model of reality. However the simulation was never attempting to model reality, only a particular theory about how it might work.

 

In fact I'd say more often than not a simulation attempts to simulate a model that diverges from reality is some way, in order that we can contrast that change with the observed state of affairs. The best definition of simulation I can supply is an enactment of a model.

 

All that is really required for a true simulation is an internally consistent model. Enacting that model is a simulation, the tools you used to do it are your simulator.

 

Yes, your hand IS a simulation of a bird when you flap, if not a very good one.

 

I wonder as to where the line is drawn with Simulators though

 

 

I would actually have to argue that all games are simulations. All true games enact a model set of rules, more often than not those rules are themselves a model of reality anyway. Chess is a simulation of war. Even a traditional card game is a simulation of an abstract mathematical system.

 

What makes them games is that you can win them or at least score. If a given simulation is also a game then the model itself has a built-in scoring nature. Can we apply game theory to develop a strategy?

 

I can actually far more get behind the argument that say, World of Warcraft is not truly a game, than that it is not truly a simulation. Fighting a battle in World of Warcraft is a game. Playing in the Battleground levels is a game. Attempting to clear a dungeon with a raid party is a game. These are all things you can apply a strategy to and score. But World of Warcraft in it's entirety requires a player's interpretation of it to make games, much like we can play games in our own reality but their rules are not built into our universe. (Okay so in Warcraft the Battleground ARE built-in... but they are contained within WoW, they are games within a simulation).

 

WoW isn't a game, it's simulation software for playing games in. Call of Duty isn't technically a game, but playing a round of Deathmatch is.

 

Does that mean simulation can be art?

 

No.

 

Since the simulation is the enactment of the model, then there is only room for art in the model itself, otherwise your simulator is simply broken/ineffective.

 

Now here's a question, can Simulationism can be properly equated with Simulation or is it more diverged than that? Simulationism DOES seem about modelling reality. Not perfectly or exactly, but think about it... Tetris can rightfully be called a simulation of a 2d dimensional universe with very strange laws of gravity and particle interaction. However if we made Tetris way more complex, made it a full on open world... but kept it Tetris, I don't think it would be proper simulationism. A whole universe a blocks interacting according to their natural laws. No matter how detailed and complex that world, no matter how intricate it's not going to feel remotely like the reality we know.

 

One the other hand very Gamist games are still simulations, Chess is hugely Gamist but it's a classic simulation example.

 

I think the nature of the computer as simulation tool has slowly twisted our perception. We continue to call this sort of software "games" long after they began to deviate from the traditional concept of a game and because we can play games with them the difference is not widely noticed.

Edited February 17, 2015 by AnarchCassius

[Kayzee 4,032]

I guess high art is just art that is well respected or understood. It's art that people have developed enough of a language and a following of critics to easily define and discus. Pantings, literature, and even film can be high art because they are able to be deconstructed and discussed easily. Video games are emerging into that category, people are starting to take them more seriously as critics or academics, people are figuring out the language they should discuss them in. Terms like "ludonarrative dissonance" are being thrown around more and more. All that said, I simply don't think it's that important. Don't get me wrong, it's nice, and often useful in discussing and creating, but not necessary. People will create art wither it's "high" art or not.

 

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on the point of simulations. But to be fair, to me "reality" is basically the same thing as "internal consistency" anyway. I just don't see another good way of defining it. Therefor, modeling "internal consistency" is the same thing as modeling "reality", or at least modeling "true" things of only in an obtuse way. Heck if you don't think math is fiction, I don't see how you could really argue math doesn't work in the same way. That is a bit needlessly metaphysical and out there, and maybe doesn't capture the point I am trying to make.

 

I guess what it comes down to is "Simulation" vs "Emulation". "Simulation" is not the same as "Emulation". Simulation works on abstract models to, well, simulate them. To act as if they were the real, to show what would happen if you do this, or do that, if you tweak this, or tweak that, and so on. Emulation on the other hand is when you can have a system that can replace a thing, aka you have a already existing system and you want to create something that acts exactly like that thing to the point you can't tell the difference. You can play with a simulation, you can alter the model and alter the perimeters to see different effects, with emulation you can't, the system you use is fixed. What you are talking about is not as simulation, it's a "reality emulator". You have a fixed system you are trying to emulate.

 

Also: @AnarchCassius, yes, the artistic part of a simulation is the model it's self and how that model is put together. The thing is however, that when programing it is often hard to separate what is the simulation and what is the model. Take object oriented programing with a class structure. The objects act as both a model for, and implementation of, a program. Sure the code inside the methods do the real grunt work, but that code is highly dependent on the abstract model class structure. It doesn't matter if it all translates down to machine code in the end, the model structure is a essential part of the completed program. Design is as much an important part of a program as implementation.

 

Plus, I still think that since everything creative can be art, there is no reason the actual raw code couldn't be anyway. I admitting may be a little bias though given how much scripting and stuff I have done, but I don't think you can do programing without a little artistry. :3 There is not just one way to do programing, and there are always creative people who push boundaries and find different things. Sometimes, maybe most times, despite what you may think there isn't necessarily one right way to do every problem, especially when the problems are more abstract and broad. You need to get creative to salve problems sometimes. Even if you do it "wrong" you can find new things and learn.

Edited February 17, 2015 by KilloZapit

[+ Chaosian 617]

"Agree to disagree", eh? There's a kind of wisdom there, I think...

As my way to move away from this Topic after its third (or is it the fourth?) consecutive day of back and forth responses, I'd say that what really sticks out to me here is that we now have three voices on the matter, all with both significant overlap and major differences in philosophies. Between the three of us, there will probably never be a consensus. Again, I would attribute this to everything we're talking about being completely subjective.

 

As an example, I do enjoy how cyclic this is all being, with it returning to the nature of what is or isn't a game. AnarCassius, to use a logic KilloZapit used earlier that I agreed with, in a different context, how can "World of Warcraft" not be a game, if it's component parts are games? There would be no "Call of Duty Deathmatch" if you didn't have the package that is "Call of Duty". I said before that games are not made in voids, and I still believe that they, and their parts, cannot be evaluated in voids. At the very least, I think you could argue for them as being part of some greater metagame that is "Call of Duty" or "World of Warcraft".

You don't need to respond to that thought, I'm fairly confident that you do have a response that makes logical sense, it's just a further example of how subjective this whole thing is.

 

So... LordSquirrel... to actually try to answer your question. None of what we've been talking about really matters, because as you can see, it's all completely, 100%, subjective - just like pretty much everything else when you start talking about it. There are no absolute truths that we can look to nature for over wither something is a video game or not, or wither something is art or high art or not, or what art or simulation or emulation or anything is. It's all just a big slew of opinions, and there are no real right or wrong answers - just interpretations. Whatever you believe, is fine by me.

 

...

That is, except for the person who said FNAF2 wasn't a game, that guy's just an ignorant tosspot.

[AnarchCassius 29]

 

At the very least, I think you could argue for them as being part of some greater metagame that is "Call of Duty" or "World of Warcraft".

You don't need to respond to that thought, I'm fairly confident that you do have a response that makes logical sense, it's just a further example of how subjective this whole thing is.

 

Well I'm going to keep if fairly short but say that I like that. Metagame works perfectly. There isn't a game per se you can nail down but the collection of minigames and their interactions creates a definite metagame. The card pool of CCGs and the collecting and trading thereof is also commonly called a metagame so I think the term works well.

 

Calling WoW not a game doesn't seem right, and there is a strategy that emerges. Designing a character that could play well in a dungeon or in the practically Deathmatch Battlegrounds was a thing in and of itself and while hard to score does determine strategy.

[Kayzee 4,032]

Hehe I wrote a song based on what I said before about programing and art.

[jomarcenter 0]

Video games is like a interactive media that you can relate and join in.

[Cait 385]

I think when people say X isn't a game, you really have to change what they are saying into something else. "I don't think like X, or play those types of games" rather than the line they typically give, "I don't think X is a game". I notice that people tend to speak for the majority, or everyone agrees with them when they disagree with something or even God agrees with them, when it's only them.  I don't think that they disliking anything isn't necessarily bad, but I do feel that people should give their opinion as their opinion.  That being said, games are thing that have skill, luck with rules, and video games are electronic games with rules and are interactive.  So, even if that person didn't like the game, it was still a game, but I do know that there are visual novels.  I have no idea, if you could consider those video games or what. 

[Kayzee 4,032]

I just think people are too hung up about what is or isn't a game in the first place. They may be entirely correct that something isn't a game. Does that matter? This is why we need better terms then "video game", because being a game is not really important anymore.

[Radiant Arin 412]

A video game, in my definition, is something you can pick up with a controller and play.

[Cait 385]

The definition for games in Oxford dictionary is "A form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck." and the definition for video games is  "A game played by electronically manipulating images produced by a computer program on a television screen or other display screen." Now, the thing is according to that, even Visual novels are games or might not be, if you question if your manipulate images at all. Do I think that it needs to be expanded upon, I think so, but only a little bit to address visual novels.  They are sort of a mix between a game and a book. Some visual novels apparently are considered games, because they have game play, while others do not have game play. 

[+ Chaosian 617]

The definition for games in Oxford dictionary is "A form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck." and the definition for video games is  "A game played by electronically manipulating images produced by a computer program on a television screen or other display screen." Now, the thing is according to that, even Visual novels are games or might not be, if you question if your manipulate images at all. Do I think that it needs to be expanded upon, I think so, but only a little bit to address visual novels.  They are sort of a mix between a game and a book. Some visual novels apparently are considered games, because they have game play, while others do not have game play. 

 

I'm not getting into the conversation again- dear god-

But, I don't think mish-mashing dictionary definitions is going to really solve the problem. Yeah you might call Five Nights at Freddy's a video game because it is decided by "skill, strength, or luck" and is delivered to you by though an electronic means, but the definition is a lot more narrow than what video games have come to mean. There is no skill, strength, or luck in visual novels. There is little to no skill, strength, or luck in Minecraft - especially in creative. Essentially no skill, strength, or luck in The Walking Dead, Journey, Mountain, or the Path - and yet we still encompass all these under the larger whole as video games. Visual novels might get a free pass though, as they're more like a branch or offshoot genre.

Semantics, semantics.

[Stratomsk 15]

This really is an interesting discussion. What is a game, Genre distinction and dissonance, definitions and subjectivity.

 

It all comes back the intrinsic rulesets that can be found in all video games. It requires interactivity as a direct result that conflict the purposes of the player to proceed and the game holding them back in some way.

 

Visual novels are a unique case, but can still be considered video games. The reason for that is that many have direct consequences for your actions that affect the story in ways a regular novel would not be able to accomplish. Simply flipping pages in a VN isn't enough to qualify it as a game. In those games, you are attempting to get the best endings, best relationships, etc that you can get. That is a competition between the player that is attempting to progress in the game the best way possible and the game that holds them back.

[AnarchCassius 29]

I actually am working on a VN with a combat engine.

 

In the VN world we call a "game" you just flip through with no choices a kinetic novel (it's a moving comic) and no, it's not really a game. Technically Visual Novel is not great jargon since kinetic novels are visual and visual novels are kinetic, for that matter you'd think visual novel and graphic novel would be interchangable, but those are the terms.

Edited February 17, 2015 by AnarchCassius

[LunarProxy 3]

The definition for games in Oxford dictionary is "A form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck." and the definition for video games is  "A game played by electronically manipulating images produced by a computer program on a television screen or other display screen." Now, the thing is according to that, even Visual novels are games or might not be, if you question if your manipulate images at all. Do I think that it needs to be expanded upon, I think so, but only a little bit to address visual novels.  They are sort of a mix between a game and a book. Some visual novels apparently are considered games, because they have game play, while others do not have game play. 

It's interesting, since many VNs include multiple endings and choices.  This could be considered skill to reach the 'best' ending, or the desired ending.  However, then there's some that only feature one ending, and even have no choices.  It seems silly to separate VNs this way, but in technicality by that definition, VN #1 is a video game, while VN #2 isn't.

 

Of course, Kamidori Alchemy Meister is the best VN of all time, and that's certainly 100% a game, so whatever.

[Kayzee 4,032]

Visual Novels I think are interesting to talk about because they can either count as games or not. Some not only have branching paths, but stats or an inventory. Others are completely linear and are just a different way of telling a story using sprites and text.