Video game. Noun. A game played by electronically manipulating images produced by a computer program on a monitor or other display.
Video games are more diverse than they've ever been. As the market matures, we're starting to see new ideas introduced that challenge the very rules upon which the industry has been built. But, as with any and all change, there is unrest – and some titles are being treated like they don't belong in the sector at all. The question is: what does the term 'video game' even mean in this day and age?
Not too long ago, this was easy to identify. Video games existed on computers, consoles, or arcade cabinets. They required you to push buttons in order to prompt on-screen actions. You'd earn points for performing well. Making a mistake would cause you to lose a life. Running out of retries would result in a 'Game Over' screen. Depending on the release, you'd then need to start the game again.
But how long has this really been true? As far back as 1996, titles like Resident Evil bucked many of these concepts. You'd still push buttons to manipulate on-screen actions, of course, but your progress was rewarded by narrative rather than points. You could create save states so that you never ran out of lives. These were different kinds of video games, but still video games all the same.
So if the industry has gone through this kind of change before, why does the debate still rage? By definition, video games are "games played by electronically manipulating images produced by a computer program". And yet, Everybody's Gone to the Rapture – a game played by electronically manipulating images produced by a computer program – is, according to some, not a video game.
Perhaps the operative word here is 'game'. According to definition, a game can be one of two things: "a form of competitive activity or sport played according to rules" or "an activity that one engages in for amusement". A title like Space Invaders fits both of these definitions with ease, but something more contemporary like Proteus only really subscribes to one of the above ideas.
This is because there are no real rules outside of the controls, and there's certainly not a competitive component. But if a game – and, by extension, a video game – can be defined as something that "one engages in for amusement", then by that measure would we describe an experience as simple as a magic eye puzzle – if rendered by a computer program – as a video game? Tricky.
Perhaps it's a question of mechanics instead. A title like The Unfinished Swan shares many similarities with Dear Esther, from its first-person perspective to its narrative focus – but it requires you to fling paint and other items in order to progress. In essence, there's a clear objective that extends beyond simply walking from A-to-B and absorbing the atmosphere interactively.
But surely it's that mere act of interactivity – no matter how rudimentary – that alerts us to the fact that we're playing a video game. A release like Beyond: Two Souls may focus heavily on cinematics and cut-scenes, but the fact that button prompts have an impact on the outcome of these surely suggests that we're playing a video game rather than simply watching a movie.
Why, then, do some object to these types of experiences being labelled as video games? Is it perhaps due to the fact that they don't find value in these titles, and thus look for a way to undermine them? Or is it a fear of change that prompts this kind of reaction – an underlying worry that one day video games could represent something different to what they did yesterday?
It's an interesting topic, and one that the above paragraphs have come no closer to solving. The English language is very clear in defining what a video game is, but perhaps it's our perceived notion of what a video game should be that's preventing us from settling upon a firm conclusion. All we know is that with the industry changing by the day, this is a debate that's going to rage on.
What do you think makes a video game a video game? Would you argue that experiences like Everybody's Gone to the Rapture are not video games, and why? Are there a set of rules that all video games should subscribe to, and what are they? Come to a conclusion in the comments section below.
Comments 30
Walking Simulator's are games. Plain and simple. You interact with the environment by walking around it and exploring it. It can't be replicated with a movie or book. Exploring an environment and discovering a story is met with applause is many games with other mechanics, because the narrative could only be done like that in game. Yet, when a game focuses solely on telling a story in way only a game could, it gets criticized for not being a game. Bit a of a double standard isn't there? Not all parts of the gameplay involve pushing sqaure to attack.
It is very easy to be pretentious about this subject but as far as I'm concerned a video game is something I play that I find fun and challenging on a physical and mental level. If either of those two are missing then inn my mind it becomes another form of entertainment that could be expressed in another format.
For example some people love puzzle video games, but in my mind I would rather play a crossword puzzle or buy a puzzle book. My wife however loves them and prefers them over traditional puzzle. I think this topic is subjective and should be discussed as such.
@PAppleyard Would you say that puzzle games aren't video games, then?
Like I said I think that it's subjective. I'm not sure I can answer that question for certain. I'm basing my answer purely on the feel I got as a child when I played Asteroids in the arcade. If I get that same adrenalin rush then in my mind it's a video game. For someone else looking at pretty images and listening to involving sounds would quality as a video game.
Edit - maybe I would call a lot of new video games electronic entertainment... or something similar.
People often criticise Telltale games and often disregard them by claiming they are not games. I will admit they are light on gameplay. However they generally tell a fantastic and intriguing story. As a player I fully support Story over Gameplay. I love to get lost in a games story and lore. Metal Gear Solid 4 is often chastised due to the large number of cutscenes. However that's one of my favourite games of all time.
@JoeBlogs An interesting perspective. Would you define something like Heavy Rain a game under these parameters? That's a game that throws obstacles and challenges at you, but progresses whether you triumph or not.
No right or wrong answers here, I just think it's a fun discussion!
I think anything you can play on a video game console is a video game, to me the question is just what you value in a game. Something like Telltale's games, Life is Strange, Heavy Rain, Beyond, Until Dawn, Rapture, hell even The Last of Us are all more story focuses but that doesn't mean there isn't any gameplay. It's just a matter of how much there is. Metal Gear Solid 3 is my favorite game of all-time, but I have several friends who refer to it as 'Movie Gear Solid' and I totally understand why they take that stance, it doesn't have as much gameplay as they, or even I, would like.
Gameplay is always king so if I have to choose between a gampeplay-focused game like Super Mario or a story-based game like The Wolf Among Us, I'm going with the Mario series every time. Story is awesome as well, but there needs to be a balance with gameplay. I think Uncharted balances things brilliantly, MGS V: The Phantom Pain also seems to take things back to MGS 1 where there is a great balance between playing and watching.
I don't think there's a proper way to really quantify what is a game or what isn't. We have idiotic terms like 'hardcore' and 'casual,' 'games' and 'interactive experiences' because we aren't smart enough to come up with better descriptors. Different strokes for different folks though, and to me, if it's something that can be played, it's a video game.
@PAppleyard Your logic is flawed though. You're judging if soemthing is a game based on if you find it fun. That's like saying a book you don't enjoy isn't a book because you don't like it. It just doesn't work that way. A book is a book; whether you think it's good is irrelevant
@Jaz007 Yes, in many ways your correct. I however don't feel a video game can be as easily defined as a book or many other objects can due to its non physical nature. Hence the reason that it is a very difficult subject to agree on.
Games like The Walking Dead, Phoenix Wright, etc still are considered games to me. They are on a screen, you minipulate the images and the outcome by pushing buttons if it was a movie you would have no control of it and you would just sit and watch it.
What about the old text based PC games form the early 80s? People consider those video games, and there is even less "gameplay" in those. Or the old point and click games? What about Carman Sandiego? Oregon Trail?
I think the ones that are claiming stuff like TWD and Everyone's gone to Rapture are young ones who grew up in the PS One era so nature there weren't too many text based games then.
@Tasuki I'd say even later than the PS1 era. Most people from that era would be in their twenties at this point. I'd say PS2 and possibly early PS3 era where people are still young enough not to remember them old classics you mentioned.
I think this is a very grey area and certainly not a 'black and white' concept. I guess to a degree, I consider something to be a 'game' if it has a lot of interaction, imput and 'game play'.
Things like the Walking Dead, The Wolf Among Us etc are more interactive stories in my mind. They remind me more of the 'choose your own adventure' books. Pressing a few buttons to select your dialogue options to me isn't a game. I know these offer a little bit more than that but I really don't think they are 'games'.
That doesn't mean I don't think they have a place but compared to something like 'Space Invaders' or 'Asteroids', despite their basic controls and mechanics are 'games' and offer more 'game play'. The Witcher 3 can offer a very rich and rewarding storyline where your decisions impact the final outcome and yet offer 'game-play' too.
Story maybe quite important and for me it often is, but if the game-play is poor or non-existant, I really don't care about the 'story' in a game. It does enhance the overall experience and I do think the two can be linked, but you can have a great game without a great or even any story.
As I said they have a place and you can have a great story without any game-play - that's where books and movies come in. Consoles can provide a different story telling experience but I don't consider these 'games' myself.
I know someone mentioned the text based adventures and the old point and click ones too. I don't really consider these games either but earlier forms of 'digital' experiences.
As I said its a very grey area and subjective too. What I may not consider a game, to someone else it is...
Lol, so Rapture can safely be labeled as interactive media. It is not competitive and surely does not bring me enjoyment. Really though, who cares? Different strokes for different folks:)
While I haven't played some of the more disputed games, I do think they are games at least.
I may not like David Cage's games much, but that's more because of how ridiculous they get with the stories than lack of gameplay. I feel it's the interactivity of games that make them,you know, games. In the Walking Dead comics or show, you can't save who lives or dies. In the game, you can (though this could be a disputed example). In games, the player matters, while in books, movies or shows you just watch what unfolds, you're not Rick Grimes or Oliver Queen. As long as games have that interactivity, they're games.
From Air/Sea Battle on the Atari, to The Witcher 3, a videogame is an interactive experience, controlling a sprite, 3d model or floating camera (for first person viewpoints) in an environment built by the programme.
Each person's idea of interaction and control, varies massively depending on their own subjective ideals, with gaming history and age group arguably influence opinions too.
Not that anyone knows better than anyone else, just that time and other factors create a million different attitudes towards what someone constitutes as a game.
I remember playing "The L Game" on computers at school. At the time, interactive adventures tended to be text based, with the creation of the world, similar to a book, with imagination needed rather than 1080p 3d modelling we have now, but it did its job and well too.
But look at it know and well, it probably would be played for about a minute or two before we look for something more interactive or interesting. Its not that the game has got worse as such, but technology has changed/advanced, and with it our opinion on what a game "should" give us.
As computer power has helped to grow visuals and take you to these worlds via your screen, the essence of interacting in a made up world is still the same. Its the level of that interaction that has arguably changed since gaming's inception.
I personally don't have a problem with say, Everyone's Gone To The Rapture or Ether (which i enjoyed to be honest) but I can appreciate peoples differing ideas of what they see as a "game" and why they look at those mentioned as mere walking sims.
I think if anything, the tech and hardware side of gaming has inadvertently skewed modern attitudes, due to the limitless possibilities, while expectations have understandably been heightened too.
However, the reality is, it doesn't matter about the tech, the power, although it certainly helps, buts how it plays.. Which probably explains why i still play Streets Of Rage 2, Sensible Soccer and Starglider every now and again....
Non-issue: The Debate
@get2sammyb
Wow, that was a really good article and intriguing food for thought. It all logically makes sense- a game is a game, right? Yet why is it my inner self sees some games as "less game" than others?
Maybe the answer lies in the question. Maybe it's because the degree of interaction and necessary skill is but a fraction of other games. Maybe we take pride in our video game playing prowess, and for others to play these cinematic games with absolutely no skill involved and still stand under the same gaming umbrella as us works on our self pride. I'm not saying we as in you or I, but rather the collective "we".
I think we pride ourselves in our car driving, gun shooting, goomba stomping abilities, and when we see the masses playing these skill-less cinematic games and getting the same gamer card credit as us, it bothers us, so as you said, we undermine those games' credibility.
@get2sammyb
I liked Rapture, currently on my second play through. But its not a 'game' there is no being better, competition, control. I am as good at the game now as I ever will be. I cant say that about any other 'game'.
@Tasuki text games are puzzle games, you have your typical parser of north. Look. Use. Wait. Hit. Commands but the writers can put in extra verbs as they see fit. Most text games are hard, meaning that you might not make it to the end so you have challenge.
The problem I have (although menial) is that these 'games' are trying to imitate tv. If I want tv I can put that on instead. Journey is a game as there are puzzle sections, Telltale games are games as you have to interact with stuff, Rapture could just be a radio show - a really good one mind - but a radio show none the less. Raptures fine as a one off experience but I don't want a similar game set in a new place. You don't do much at all - and that's why I'm a gamer. To Play Games.
the one I don't get is when pure Visual Novels with no interactivity are called games... I don't talking about the likes of phoenix wright and daggarompa that have gameplay.... I'm talking about the likes of Umineko and Higurashi that have no gameplay whatsoever... I don't see how those can be considered games even though I love them
The definition I have been given by my lecturers and course materials is that a video game is something like any other game (Completion of a set task against a set of rules that define success of failure, i.e. death or failure to examine objects etc.) that is simply played electronically. Fundamentally there is no difference between something like Solitaire on your table and Goat Simulator. Both amuse, both have rules and limits that define how you play.
Someone said it best when they said you can have a great game without any story (ex. rocket league etc.) but you really can't have a great "story game" without some form of gameplay, competitive or reward based or otherwise. This is all my opinion of course and I also like to play story heavy games fairly often. I just think we should label them as such, calling "rapture" interactive media does not diminish it in anyway, it better describes what it is. Calling it a walking simulator though, we'll that does kinda diminish it.
@PAppleyard I'll change the example to something digital then. What about a movie? A movie, no matter how terrible, is a movie.
@JoeBlogs It still would be a book, just a gag book. That or a really terrible book- perhaps both : P.
I'd reluctantly group video games, puzzles and novels together as equally valuable/stimulating, but in different ways.
VGs show us a specific vision distinct from our subconscious, like someone else's dream. Very ethereal.
Novels inherently rely on our imaginations to call upon our subconscious for content, making reading one a highly subjective experience, like a dream of our own. Also ethereal.
Puzzles are pure conflict/resolution, but without any real context for application, like the part of a dream "outside your knowledge." Very zen, and qually ethereal.
Then you snap back to reality and it's like you've been on Mars.
My favorite thing is a video game with books and puzzles in it, like The Elder Scrolls and Silent Hill.
Guys...I need some help I just bought a japanese ps4 that said's for 2.50 firmware, and I download the firmware 800mb and I can't get into it......is there a bigger file for it mayb I downloaded the wrong one.
Labels eh? We love classifying stuff an putting it in boxes.
Oooo, I love this topic! Definitely had a lot of conversations on it while I was taking my major in Game and Interactive Media Design. And before you say it, I hardly proclaim myself an expert on this just because I went to college to study game design and theory. Hardly. Just thought I should chime in.
My personal definition for something to qualify as a video game is "a virtual, interactive experience that imposes rules on the player that help create conflict, competition, or challenges in some form." Notice how I don't say that a video game has to be "fun." Fun is entirely subjective and something that fluctuates throughout our experience with any given game, so we get into a whole relativistic mess if that's a qualifier for making something a video game.
The reason why I stress conflict, competition, and challenge is that video games have had one or more of these aspects created by its mechanics and rules since the dawn of Asteroids. Whether it be a title with puzzles, shooting, trivia, platforming, and what have you...all of these things are what drive us to play games. We want to be challenged, and we want to be challenged continuously in any way possible (predictability breeds familiarity, destroying fun in classic "games" like tic-tac-toe). That is what games are about. Even Flower!
This is why games like Dear Esther and Proteus are, in my opinion, not video games. They are walking simulators. There is no interaction or challenge in those games. You merely walk around in a space and have things shown or explained to you. You don't truly interact with the game at all...you're just along for the ride. However, I believe Everybody's Gone to the Rapture, Gone Home, and The Stanley Parable are definitely video games. Mostly. They tread on the fence with their intensely light emphasis on interaction, but they involve challenges in some ways with interactable environments, decision-making, etc.
I get confused though when people think that saying something isn't a video game is a bad thing. I enjoyed Dear Esther, but I certainly wouldn't call it a video game. It was a visual novel walking simulator, and there's nothing wrong with that. Even Minecraft isn't a game if you play it on the Creative mode! It's just a creative spin on building with Lego bricks. But it can still be fun as are many games and activities that aren't video games. Now, on Adventure mode, Minecraft then becomes a video game because challenges arise in various forms. It's not just about building blocks anymore. You have to fight, plan, and survive.
Anyway, hope those are some interesting thoughts to contribute. Nice, relevant topic to write on, @get2sammyb! Enjoyed your brief yet succinct coverage of this debate.
I'm in the 'any input' is a game, much in the same way we input into a board game, snakes and ladders is a game with little agency (other than cheating and fixing the dice!).
Video game is just a combination of words and, as such, is just a convention. If video games started out with Everybody's Gone To The Rapture instead of Pong, now we'd be probably debating whether Space Invaders is a video game or not.
What I'm trying to say is that the expression "video game" was created at a time when it could only indicate a few playstyles because of hardware limitations; as limitations grow thinner and thinner creativity finds new ways to express itself, defying the very definition of the medium which was given when it all began.
Sammy, a video game is just a game played on an electronic device with a screen of some sort.
So "Everybody's Gone To Shropshire" isn't a video game, because there's no gameplay in it. And by that I mean there's no rules or win conditions or puzzles or enemies. It's just a story told via a walking simulator.
No harm in that if you like that sort of thing (I don't, but you pays your money and takes your choice), nevertheless words mean things and there's a difference between games and what we might call electronic experiences.
I think we'll see more experience-type products on Morpheus. VR lends itself well to that sort of thing.
I still won't buy "Everybody's Gone To Some Hipster Studio in Brighton" though, because I'm stubborn and like my electronic entertainment to be a challenge of some sort.
I think the simplest way I can put it is this: If there is electronic input that changes the outcome on a display, it is a video game.
Think of it this way.
Looking at a coin is not a game.
Flipping a coin and guessing the outcome however, is a game.
Looking at a dice is not a game.
Looking at someone else rolling a dice is not a game.
But in either case again, guessing the outcome is a game.
In the same way, watching a movie is not a game.
However, when you get to manipulate the characters, scenery, and most importantly outcome in any way, it almost certainly becomes a game.
I would be hard pressed to say that an interactive movie that prompts you once to make a decision which changes the ending scene is a game, but it certainly comes close.
"Interactive novels." Can still easily be games, as long as you get to manipulate the view, the parts of the story told, or effect the world in any way.
I can see why some people don't count certain digital experiences as games, but honestly what defines a video game is interactivity and a change in outcome, and that's really it.
How much gameplay a game has obviously varies greatly, but if there is GAMEplay to be quantified, such as in Rapture, it is a game.
P.S. @themcnoisy I like that you said you were on your second PLAY through of Rapture, but it was not a game.
Not picking on you BTW, just an observation I thought you would appreciate looking back.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...