The Gamer's Quarter

[EightBit]

Yeah, this might seem stupid, but I'm kinda curious what individual people cosnider to be the essential parts of a game. Are videogames just interactive entertainment, or is there something else that is required? Some rules or boundries that, if broken or stepped out of, negate said product from being considered a game?

[Mister Toups]

A miserable little pile of secrets!

[dhex]

Perhaps the same could be said of all entertainment...

[Master Fighter]

[Szczepaniak]

I tried attatcking this from various angles, typed a dozen different multi page posts before realising.... I got nothin'.

The problem is, this is a very loaded question, much like the old chestnut "What is the meaning of life?"

The problem isn't the question, its that its actually about a dozen different questions rolled into one.

Define a videogame.
Define a marketable one.
Define a good and a bad one.
Define different genres.
Define different design ethos and styles of game.

The dictionary has a nice description:
Manipulation of images on a screen with a control device.
(me, paraphrasing the Oxford british dictionary)

And from such simplicity we have the marvels of today. Actually, I really like the dictionary explanation.

[EightBit]

I think maybe I didn't phrase the question correctly then.

I guess what Im saying is, strip a game to it's core elements, and what do you have? I find its usually something that requires atleast one of three things. Skill, luck, and.. and something else. I can't remember. These cold meds are fucking with my head.

Lemme give an example. If you flip a coin, its just a game of luck. A 50-50 shot of whether it'll land heads or tales right? There is no skill involved at all. Now a single hand of Black Jack is similer. There really isnt much strategy you can use in a single hand, because it pretty much comes down to luck. Over the course of many hands, you might be able to utilize a strategy(which I would consider a skill), but there is still a bit of luck involved.

I kind of have my mind set on what constitutes a game, what its core elements are. I just didn't want to piss in the water before anyone took a drink.

I did read that dictionary definition, but I somehow feel that its inadequate. I mean, using that definition, I could make a game where you control a character that walks around a room and does absolutely nothing else. Thats it. Just walk around the room. Not much of a game is it? There isn't reward, there isnt punishment. There is nothing on the line, and even if there were, there isnt any skill or luck to hope for to pull you through it.

Do games require a winning condition? Does there need to be a begining and an end? Are there certain defining characteristics that spereate a game from say, a movie? Most of the time in a game Im just going from point a to point b just like in a movie. I can pause it just like a movie. The thing that seperates it from the movie is that I am forced to become an active participant, using skills or chance, in order to reach point b.

[dhex]

[Mister Toups]

I tend to shy away from any intrinsic definition. The answer to "what is a game" is really a question of "why do we play games", or "why do we make games in the first place".

I plan to write my next article vaguely about this topic so I'm going to save it for the match, as it were.

[EightBit]

[ajutla]

If you want me to type up a nine-page reply to this where I talk about chess, you know, I can do that.

[EightBit]

Hah! Go for it.
_________________
The Bitter Journals

[Mister Toups]

[ApM]

Mario Battle No. 1.
Download link.

You can argue all day about whether that's a "game" or not, but in the end, does it make a difference, or is it just linguistic bickering? You can't come up with an exact definition which includes everything that you think is a game and excludes everything that you don't, and even if you managed it, someone else would come along and disagree with it, strongly.

My current philosophy is to enjoy things that are awesome. You can take a game apart and say, "This is what makes this awesome!", but you can't take all games apart and say, "This is what makes EVERYTHING awesome."

[SuperWes]

My definition is that a game is an entertainment product with a set of rules and one or more goals. But I also think that creating a definition of what a game is limits what a game can be, and that it's better left undefined. As soon as you define something you strip away the possibilities of what it can become.

-Wes
_________________

[dhex]

sodomy is a game. discuss.

in all seriousness (outside of the SOTD derail attempt, RIP) fixating on the particulars of a hobby is a good way to pass the time. it is not a great way to get specific answers, however.

we all know what a game is, enough so that people can set up websites centered around them. problem largely solved.

[Blazehedgehog]

To me, I define a game as an action inflicted on an imaginary state - where I can comfortably have an adventure without actually risking any personal damage to myself. Case in point: playing with action figures is something of a game. I make up the world, I make up the characters, and I set them off on a quest. The game ends when I get bored enough to stop.

A videogame does this, but to keep the player interested in the quest, it introduces challenges, twists,and gimmicks to keep the player's interest longer. Rather than playing with Action figures, where I control the danger level directly, a videogame raises the danger level under it's own accord and forces me to adjust to it. If I fail to adjust, I get a game over, and try again. It's this unexpected element that makes videogames largely more interesting than playing with action figures: I don't know what's going to happen next. It keeps me from disliking the game itself by making me believe that every failure I incur is one of my own fault, and it encourages me to get better through the act of bonuses. These bonuses are kind of like the game patting me on the back for being a good player - and the bonuses range from simply extra points to powerups, extra lives and more.

The more bonuses I aquire, the more I feel I've accomplished, and the better I feel about myself as a player. A slowly rising difficulty curve proves that, as my skills increase, so does the game's challenge, keeping me in the proverbial "sweetspot": hard enough to where I still feel rewarded for winning, but easy enough so that I don't get too frusterated and stop playing.

That's about as generalized as I think the definition of a videogame gets, I think.
_________________
Webpage | DeviantArt | MP3

[Szczepaniak]

I still like the whole "manipulation of images on a screen with a control device" answer.

I mean seriously, doesn't that define every game from FIFA and Manhunt to Shenmue and Mother 2?
(heh, two crappy games and two classics mentioned side by side.... ooooh the sacrilege!)

[ApM]

Doesn't really include Zork, does it?

Unless your interpretation is broad enough to include, I don't know, Notepad. It undoubtedly includes, say, Photoshop.

Which you might even want to include, if you want to get nitpicky. Because, really, it boils down to the intent of the player. If someone approaches something and plays with it as though it were a videogame, you might as well call it a videogame. If someone wants to amuse themselves with cut and paste in Notepad, who are we to judge? If someone wants to look at the Slashdot moderation system as a MMORPG, why wouldn't that be valid?

Anyway. I imagine you all get the point.

[SuperWes]

It also doesn't include chess, checkers, go, or D&D, all of which are undoubtably games.

-Wes
_________________

[Szczepaniak]

I know, thats why the definition I posted reffered to videogames which are played on some kind of screen, ie: TV or monitor

Brings up another question.
Is Mario Paint a videogame?

[Sushi d]

[Persona-sama]

Main Entry: 1game
Pronunciation: 'gAm
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English gamen; akin to Old High German gaman amusement
1 a (1) : activity engaged in for diversion or amusement : PLAY (2) : the equipment for a game b : often derisive or mocking jesting : FUN, SPORT <make game of a nervous player>
2 a : a procedure or strategy for gaining an end : TACTIC b : an illegal or shady scheme or maneuver : RACKET
3 a (1) : a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other (2) : a division of a larger contest (3) : the number of points necessary to win (4) : points scored in certain card games (as in all fours) by a player whose cards count up the highest (5) : the manner of playing in a contest (6) : the set of rules governing a game (7) : a particular aspect or phase of play in a game or sport b plural : organized athletics c (1) : a field of gainful activity : LINE <the newspaper game> (2) : any activity undertaken or regarded as a contest involving rivalry, strategy, or struggle <the dating game> <the game of politics>; also : the course or period of such an activity <got into aviation early in the game> (3) : area of expertise : SPECIALTY 3 <comedy is not my game>
4 a (1) : animals under pursuit or taken in hunting; especially : wild animals hunted for sport or food (2) : the flesh of game animals b archaic : PLUCK c : a target or object especially of ridicule or attack -- often used in the phrase fair game

[DonMarco]

[backspace]

I've wondered the same thing and here are the conclusions/research i have done:

First we must ask the question, what is the purpose of games? Games are a way of learning. One reason the brain evolved was to let animals analyze situations rather that just reacting to stimuli. It let them test out metal models of various situations without having to take the risk of being in one. Games evolved for the same reason. To let animals learn and develop mental models without the need to expose themselves to real danger. This, to me, is the very heart of why we play games. To learn.

Now on to the question of what a game is. A game is basicly any situation in which you must make decisions, according to game theory. There are 2 main feild of game theory. The probabilistic theory developed by john nash and the deterministic theory by john conway (atleast these are the 2 biggest contributer's to their respective feilds of game theory that i know of).

Nash's theory involves making a decision when you don't know what the outcome will be, specificly when you and another 'player' must each make a decision without knowing what the other decideds, such as rock, paper, siccors. There are about 6 or 7 assumtions you have to make to analyze a game using this theory, and while i don't remember all of them right now, they include 'results that are quantifiable, and a desire to maximize your results.' and 'your opponent is as smart as your or smarter.' The basic tactic in this game theory is to assume your opponent can always second guess you thus the only strategy that he can't guess is a random one. So it boils down to a way to assign each choice a probability that you should pick it with (including never). This ties back to basic probability which is also the way to analyze games of luck or factor luck into a game with opponents (and treat the random element as another player who will select one if it's possible outcomes with equal proability).

Conway's theory is for games of 'perfect information' such as chess (although it can't actualy be used for chess). These are games where every player knows everything about the state the game is in and players take turns making decisions. These games can be fully analyzed and evaluate to 1 of 4 possiblites: The first player always wins, the second player always wins, the player on side 1 always wins, the player on side 2 always wins. The analysis involves building a decision tree which incorperates every possible decision either player can make an any state of the game. if there is one path in the tree that ensure's victory for a certain player it is called a 'winning strategy', however there is a system inplace for adding games of diffrent values to determine the over all winning strategy (assuming players can only move once in one of the 2 games added together).

I'm sorry if that doesn't make sense, but it's been awhile since i read all this stuff. Anyway, those don't incorperate all games, but they include most and atleast provide a basis for ways to attack the question.

[dhex]

let's be a bit more realistic:

games came out of two directions - human's need to create silly things to fuck with people, and, more importantly, training for war.

[nICO]

Without spending anytime thinking about it, here's my brief definition of a videogame.

A videogame is a box of computer code. Meaning and/or motivation are offered from the game itself through the manipulation of the objects inside.

In this way, Notepad could not be a game because it offers no motivation. And yes, I know that you could say it does or that meaning/motivation is always brought by the player and the game simply tries to play with that, to which I would not stubbornly stick by my quick, simplistic definition.

[EightBit]

Wow, I like all the great responses.

ApM, that Mario Battle article was very interesting. Though I'd argue that the interactive environment presented to the player wasnt an actual game, and that the players themselves created a game for themselves within its confines.

The whole idea for the discussion game about from me talking with various friends and my feeling that some of the games out there aren't really games. Interactive entertainment sure, but not a game. It also came from the creeping feeling that gameplay is more and more taking the back burner to every other aspect of game design in the industry right now and I felt like exaggerating it a bit to see what people would think. Seems like most people feel that even without a "game" portion to a videogame, they would still consider it a game.

One of my friends related a story about the Wow beta that he didnt get into. Desperate to see the game, he set up his own game server and just walked around the world. There was nothing to do, and nothing to interact with save the environment, and yet he still considered it a game. I didn't want to set down solid rules that everyone should follow for deciding whether a game was a game or not, just open the floor for some friendly discussion and maybe a little debate.
_________________
The Bitter Journals

[nICO]

Well, it looks like the IC forums have been deleted. Anyone want to continue the most recent discussion here? I had a post written up, but when I went to post it the forum was gone. So I just saved it do post later. I guess I'll just post it here since it looks like IC will be down for a few weeks.

[dhex]

off topic, but i like the whole cult leader thing IC folks were getting into. it's good stuff.
_________________

[Mister Toups]

You're mixing up content with context. The context of a word processor is grounded in reality and practical purpose. You use a word processor because you need to draft a document. That's the context. There's nothing more to it than that. All your interactions with the machine are entirely practical.

Think of it this way. Whether I'm playing Quake or browsing the internet, I'm still pushing buttons and clicking my mouse, and the computer responds to those actions. There's no difference inbetween the inherent nature of those actions. In the most abstract possible terms, the difference is that the context, or the premise for moving the mouse around is artificial.
_________________
where were you when nana komatsu got a wii?

[nICO]

Yeah, that's one of the things I thought you meant. So by this logic, it would follow that your interactions with a machine when playing a game are NOT practical or grounded in reality. Right?

The thing is, they are. To give an example, you might type up a document in Word to make your boss happy. The practical purpose would be making your boss happy and getting paid. Someone might beat MGS2 to make their friend happy, to have something to talk about, to have fun, and to not be bored. The practical purposes would be making their friend happy, having something to talk about, having fun, and not being bored.

The premise for moving a mouse around in Quake for me is to beat the game. That's not artifical and it's grounded in the real world.

At the core, I'm not sure we're really disagreeing. I just think the way Guardian put it basically has the same result while being much simpler and less ambiguous.
_________________
Brauner: Damn you, humans... You selfishly start wars and despoil the earth. Perhaps justice wasn't on my side but I will never admit that it was on yours.

[Mister Toups]

How did Guardian put it?

From what I recall it was pretty different from what I mean.
_________________
where were you when nana komatsu got a wii?

[nICO]

He talked about "designer intent" for a while. I never really figured out why it was necessary, though. But his argument basically boiled down to a one-liner he made...that a game plays you back.

Which I guess is different from what you're saying... But everyone is ending up at the same place, obviously. We don't disagree on what a game is, just ironing out a definition.

I mean, we all know what a game is, but being asked to explain it is one of the hardest questions to be asked.
_________________
Brauner: Damn you, humans... You selfishly start wars and despoil the earth. Perhaps justice wasn't on my side but I will never admit that it was on yours.

[dhex]

[Mister Toups]

Yeah. If you can't see the distinction, well. Maybe you play too many videogames.
_________________
where were you when nana komatsu got a wii?

[nICO]

Nah, I only play them a couple hours a week. It's much more likely that the problem is I spend too much time typing documents, whether for school, work, or fun. Too much time in front of a computer monitor really does mess with your brain...

I already said why I think the premise for beating a game is grounded in the real world with the examples I gave with MGS2 in the paragraph directly prior to the Quake line...which was really unnecessary in retrospect.

But, I mean, I hate to keep arguing about this since I don't really care. I don't quite think your definition, which I realized actually isn't even posted on this site, is wrong or anything...I just think it's too ambiguous and doesn't quite hit the mark. And, well, I had a week off before I started my new job today, and I needed something to do when I was online.
_________________
Brauner: Damn you, humans... You selfishly start wars and despoil the earth. Perhaps justice wasn't on my side but I will never admit that it was on yours.

[Mister Toups]

To put it another way: the reason someone plays a game is to play the game itself. No one uses Word for the sake of using Word. But I sure as hell play Earthbound for the sake of playing Earthbound. The context of a videogame is entirely self-contained.

How about that?
_________________
where were you when nana komatsu got a wii?

[ajutla]

[Mister Toups]

The only problem is that it kind of rules out certain multiplayer games...

Which is fine by me!
_________________
where were you when nana komatsu got a wii?

[Bai]

Yeah good question actually, one I bet will be raised many times on these forums! Thought I'd throw my two cents in before the thread gets stale.

To me, videogames are primarily a way of experiencing other worlds. They achieve this by projecting the player into virtual space through use of an avatar or, with more recent titles, first-person subjectivity. The player is then invited to negotiate and interact with the internal logic of the game 'world' and, quite often, a problematised game space (resue the princess, find the key, eat the ghosts). Sometimes the gameworld logic and its purposes are almost interchangeable with real life. Shenmue's forklift driving comes to mind. Other times they are more abstract. For example, in Pokemon your goal is to collect, train and battle monsters, far removed from the everyday cycle of eating, sleeping, working/studying and playing that most of us 'play' out in our 'real lives'.

By experiencing different worlds governed by different logics, videogames alter the way we perceive, relate to and interact with our immediate, actual world. I remember reading a gamer's comment on the internet: she compared Tetris to cleaning up her desk at work. At a train station in Sydney, I saw a kid walk down the exit ramp and playfully touch the railings, remarking that, had this been Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3, he would have grinded them rather than walk down the ramp (and that the 'trick' score would have been substantial). To me, this indicates the persistence of simulation and how play doesn't always end when we turn off the console. We absorb the game rules and the logic they operate on and project them into actuality. Games change the way we see the world and this, to me, is enough for them to qualify as art.

I'd also argue that videogames offer new ways for storytelling. At present, 'narrative' might consist of on-screen dialogue (Final Fantasy) or cinematic cutscenes (Metal Gear Solid) but these barely scratch the surface of what can be achieved. Ico, which constructs the protagonist's empathy for princess Yorda by forcing the player to rescue her repeatedly as part of the gameworld rules, is a more subtle and effective example of storytelling through 'play'. Catchphrases like 'interactive narrative' and suggestions that videogames might constitute the first 'democratic art form' are nice, but I think we can go much further in this area.

[Shapermc]

I don't know why I never linked this earlier:

http://www.buzzcut.com/article.php?story=20050609180139369

[SuperWes]

The more I think about what the definition of a game is the less I want one. By defining a game, the potential for gaming future is immediately narrowed. What if a games is, "a way of experiencing other worlds by projecting the player into virtual space through use of an avatar or first-person subjectivity." If this is true, games that don't really contain a "world" or "avatar," such as Tetris, Chess, or Jezzball are mostly ruled out. The same goes for any definition that requires a storyline or narrative. What about definitions that require goals? Then games like Tale of the Sun, SimCity, and Mario Paint are mostly ruled out. I'm not saying that the discussion isn't interesting or needed, but I'm saying that the worst thing we can do is settle on any of them.

-Wes
_________________

[Shapermc]

Did you read the article I linked to? I think he does a good job with the subject and even states that trying to define it is silly.

[dhex]

what's the deal with all the "what is a game?" talk?

though i think such methods for jurisprudence are bad, i'm going to side with potter stewart on this one.
_________________

[Bai]

Hey Wes. It seems I was vague so I'll elaborate a bit. My concept 'world' doesn't mean a literal world with ground, air and sky. I meant a broader idea of world, a generic gaming 'space' where play unfolds. Roughly speaking, everything that exists within the television screen ('frame' might be a better word) would be the 'world'. Just as the 'world' of Zelda is Hyrule, the 'world' of Tetris is the window containing the falling blocks. The chess world would be the chess board. As mentioned, gameworlds may resemble our world (Jet Set Radio, Halo, Civilisation) or be totally abstract (Pac Man, Frequency, Dance Dance Revolution).

I'll expand 'avatar' to include second-person perspective where the avatar is a literal you, the player. So you (the avatar) would exist in the world as the sum of your played actions. This would covers games like Tetris, Chess or Jezzball and games that use an 'eye in the sky' perspective (Starcraft, NBA Live, etc.).

As for 'narrative', I'm describing the progression of game-related events, not a literal storyline with characters, etc. David (from the Buzzcut.com article linked by shapermc) phrased it better, calling it the "unfolding of pattern[s] over time", like an algorithm. This better describes open-ended ('sandbox') videogames like Mario Paint or Sim City.

I don't think the future of videogames will narrow if we define 'videogame' because definitions are contestable and rejectable. Rules are rarely restrictive in art. Debussy wrote experimental, transcendant music despite his classical music training. But it's difficult to think outside the box if there isn't one to begin with (or if we're unsure where the boundaries are). The struggle to define videogameness academically will produce a body of theory and a conceptual framework for developers to explore creative possibilities. This would expand the potential for videogames and produce better-designed games since developers would be conceptually stronger and (hopefully) be engaging critically with videogames and thinking about them more. To me, this question ('what is a game') works best as a starting point for academic inquiry and videogame theory rather than trying to derive a permanent definition.

We often take academic work for granted but it's the boring, 'official' theories that make unofficial, alternative art possible. Like David (Buzzcut.com), I believe that philosophical inquiry into videogameness is the answer to the industry's current design crisis.

[disneyland]

The thread question should be: "What is a good game?"

Because I'd answer, "Something I want to play."

- DL

[Mister Toups]

[Shapermc]

[dhex]

how do you know shenmue is a good game if you've not only never played it but don't ever want to?
_________________

[disneyland]