The only people that I've heard say The Walking Dead isn't a game are people that haven't played it.
Instead of arguing what is a game, we could argue what is not a game.
q: can i play it on my pc or console?
a: yes
it's a video game
[QUOTE=tempunary;44205774]q: can i play it on my pc or console?
a: yes
it's a video game[/QUOTE]
I can play DVDs on my PC/Console
[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;44205807]I can play DVDs on my PC/Console[/QUOTE]
you're not making the actors move with a controller/keyboard
well you do have a play and pause button
wrekt
The problem is that due to the term "game" being turned into such a gray, undefinable zone like "art", you really can't do much with it.
Just like Modern art being compared to classical paintings, Yes Gone Home is a game, but it's neither a good video game nor a fun video game.
There's a level of interactivity required in video games more than any other medium. If the game has that certain level of interactivity or higher it is a game end of story.
[editline]12th March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=minilandstan;44208219] Yes Gone Home is a game, but it's neither a good video game nor a fun video game.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you but you can't state that as a fact.
[QUOTE=minilandstan;44208219]The problem is that due to the term "game" being turned into such a gray, undefinable zone like "art", you really can't do much with it.
Just like Modern art being compared to classical paintings, Yes Gone Home is a game, but it's neither a good video game nor a fun video game.[/QUOTE]
Except some people found it fun. There are different ways to attain fun and that connection and pigeon holing that kind of shit is stupid.
I determine videogames as anything that require user interaction.
[QUOTE=General J;44208350]I determine videogames as [I]anything that require user interaction.[/I][/QUOTE]
A George Foreman fat-reducing grill requires user interaction.
Is going to an art museum a game?
[editline]12th March 2014[/editline]
I feel that in order for something to be a game, it must mandate an intent on the user to be engaged in 'play' with the medium. Play refers to a concious activity with the medium noted by either imminent or transcendent goals, and the attempted completion of those goals.
[editline]12th March 2014[/editline]
For example, if we went into Proteus to play and found that no matter what we did with the controller the camera and gameplay would be the same - that would not be a game, that would be a film. But it is because we as controllers have a stake in the content of the medium and can devise goals for ourselves and complete them in that medium that makes it a game.
[QUOTE=Swilly;44208307]Except some people found it fun. There are different ways to attain fun and that connection and pigeon holing that kind of shit is stupid.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but at the same time there's a certain level of respect that validates certain opinions more than others. You'd be more willing to accept the opinion of a master artist who paints beautiful works than a hipster who took a shit on the ground and stuck a little American flag into it. I'd find more comfort in basing the term around the opinions of those who are people who have contributed most to the medium, or rather, Hardcore gamers than the shallow consumer driven casual audience. Would you rather listen to the people who built the medium, or the people who feed on it like a parasite until the actual individualism the medium has is sucked dry?
I found a hard time following the lot of it because he kept using Walking Dead and Animal Crossing as examples of "not games," where I never heard of either ever being considered of such. They very much clearly are games, and do have a "winstate," just like MMO's do; rather than a long term, ultimate goal, it's multiple, short term goals, sans Walking Dead, which has completion of the story. How can he even say "Half-Life 2 doesn't have a win-state." There's a very clear goal of when you complete the game, which is incomparable to standing the the train station.
I have a hard time putting things like Dear Esther and Gone Home into the same category of games. To me, they're an immersive story put into a game engine. You're only witnessing a story unfold in front of you as you float through it. Proteus even less so: it doesn't even have a story. I can very easily call it an art piece, as I can the latter two, because it creates a world for you to explore, but there is as much as a goal as there is for reading a book, or watching a movie.
Of course they're not in the same category of games. The debate is to whether or not they're games (they are)
This is why i don't ask what is a game and just ask what is good. Sometimes an art game is good, sometimes a first person shooter, role-playing game or fighting game is good. Its all about what it's intentions is and if it succeeds at it.
[QUOTE=tempunary;44205774]q: can i play it on my pc or console?
a: yes
it's a video game[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=tempunary;44205926]you're not making the actors move with a controller/keyboard[/QUOTE]
hah, you just debunked your own logic.
animal crossing isn't a "posterchild for non-games." i never heard it being called "not a game" ever.
it's a bunch of seamless mini-games wrapped up into a town simulator.
This is probably one of his weakest videos because by the end, I have no idea what he argued.
He seemed to keep flipping between game X is not a game because a rule I don't agree with and then game X is a game because of a rule I don't agree with. He was playing devils advocate the whole time it felt like.
He also lept to strange conclusions when coming up with examples.
"Anything that needs interaction" to "Interactive software for the point of fun" Which suddenly excludes card games and board games? ok, then why add on the software part, no one asked for that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.