How would you define a game?

[malkav11]

@krayzkrok

I certainly don’t agree that the experience is identical to watching a YouTube playthrough. There is agency involved because the story plays out at the pace that I dictate. For example, I spent forever in those caverns taking screen grabs because it was such a beautiful place, and I stood for minutes on end on the cliff tops listening to the wind howling because its sense of place was so evocative. Some random YouTuber is going to skip all that interesting stuff. It’s odd because, despite lacking the gameplay elements that you mention could turn it into a “game”, it was one of the most memorable interactive experiences I’ve had. Adding gameplay elements would have changed what it was trying to achieve. I’d argue it was certainly a game, however, because I believe the definition can be broad enough to include experiences that do more than just amuse us.

[edit]Just to add, I think that a lot of the “game” in Dear Esther is figuring out what it all means, both as you’re playing it and once you’ve finished it. There’s a lot of overlap with puzzle games in there.

I would agree that the definition of game can and should include titles that are not about amusement or making us feel good. I disagree that this means it should include Dear Esther. A better example of something that is definitely a game and definitely not about having fun is Pathologic.

[Zeitgeist]

For me, a game must have a goal. It can either have a definitive ending (when you “beat” it) or the goal is to reach some kind of high score. Also, there must be some sort of obstacle to overcome on your way to the goal.

[J_Thomas]

A competitive activity governed by a set of rules.

[Mr_Zero]

An activity which features rules and challenges.

[peacedog]

@Jab

I’m not a fan of the term “interactive stories” when describing games as it seems like a contradiction. If the story behaves the same way every time, then how can it be interactive? With exception to the concept behind “choose your own adventure design.”

Regarding titles like Minecraft or Simcity and The Sims, I see them as sandbox titles. But they are in a sense more of a toy or a toolbox, where its the players job to define the content and gameplay. But this once again brings up the issue that there are so many variations when we talk about game design that’s hard to try to come up with a formal definition of a game.

I can’t for the life of me figure out why we stopped using the term “toy”. It used to be applied to titles like RCT (“software toy” was often used in fact), and it’s a great monniker. The glory in a game like RCT was always the sand box mode; the campaigns were not precisely afterthought but neither were they the meat of the game.

[anymunym]

@peacedog

Greg Costikyan wrote my favorite ever piece about this subject, but I can no longer find a version of it online.

Assuming you mean I Have No Words & I Must Design, there’s always the Internet Archive: 1994 version and 2002 version.

Personally, I would agree that the dictionary definitions are fine, but for the record, Costikyan’s definitions are

@Greg Costikyan in 1994

A game is a form of art in which participants, termed players, make decisions in order to manage resources through game tokens in the pursuit of a goal.

and

@Greg Costikyan in 2002

[A game is] an interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle toward a goal.