Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 70
  1. #41
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus soldant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    4,452
    Quote Originally Posted by Capt. Eduardo del Mango View Post
    I reckon this one is close enough to the 'what is art?' discussion to deter anyone from spending too much time on it.
    Actually it isn't. What most people really argue over when it comes to "Is it art?" is not so much whether or not something is art, but whether it is good or worthwhile art. A game has a definition, just like a phone, or a washing machine, or a tablet computer has a definition. There's considerable scope but you can draw a line between different things. For example a movie is not a game, an interactive walkthrough of a house for sale is not a game, but Snakes and Ladders is a game.

    Quote Originally Posted by sirgoit View Post
    If I was to call it 'Dig the Hole' and give a goal of digging the best darn hole possible then would you then consider it a game?
    Maybe. Depends on what the rules are, what constitutes "best darn hole", if there's any opposition or challenge, etc. Just me digging a hole hoping to make a really awesome hole on its own can constitute playing, but not really a game.

    Quote Originally Posted by magnolia_fan View Post
    But let's look at what dictionary.com has to say about the subject: [...] The cambridge dictionary. [...] Merriam-webster dictionary:

    I think Dear Esther fits the "video game" definition perfectly
    Did you notice that all those definitions basically say "A video game is an electronic game..."? When you define a word, you can't use that same word in the definition. Those definitions are basically like me saying "An office chair is a chair used in a office-style work environment." What is a chair? If I don't know what a chair is, the definition means nothing. What is an office? How can I know what kind of environment it's referring to if I don't know what an office is?

    Your definitions don't actually prove Dear Esther is a game, because they don't define what a game is. Here, let me do your job for you from Dictionary.com:
    noun1.an amusement or pastime: children's games.

    2.the material or equipment used in playing certain games: a store selling toys and games.

    3.a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or enduranceon the part of two or more persons who play according to aset of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that ofspectators.

    4.a single occasion of such an activity, or a definite portion ofone: the final game of the season; a rubber of three games atbridge.

    5.the number of points required to win a game.
    Pay particular attention to number 3 there... note that it is competitive. Look at all the other definitions and you'll see they're similar, hence where I came up with my criteria. As such, Dear Esther is not a game.

  2. #42
    Lesser Hivemind Node Keep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Library Bar
    Posts
    607
    Cards on the table, here's my ultra-inclusive definition of a game: a formal system that you can affect by interacting with.

    Now Dear Esther, it's splitting people because of the nature of the interaction available.

    Seems some people feel about it like they would about a photographer moving around the edge of a football pitch taking photos of the action. No way is he playing right? It's demeaning to the real players to grant him that status.
    Because? The action is going to turn out the same way with or without him. He's not really affecting anything.

    Same with Dear Esther. You the player don't really change any outcomes.

    But I think what other people feel is this, that the "object being affected" is you, the player. And some people are noticing hey, if I played it a different way to how I did, if I didn't explore, or I skipped this or that bit, I would have ended up responding differently. I woudn't have been moved the way I was.

    And so, minimal as it is, that does make it a game to them. The player, through using the system itself, is influencing the result.

    And I can understand wanting to refuse that, and say no, the player can't be a part of the formal system that gets affected, that's the difference between Dear Esther and a "real" game.
    But to be honest I can't conceive of a game that doesn't insist on being a pre-scripted "trick" that depends on the player's response for acquiring its value. And the more I think about it, the more I don't want to conceive of such a game.

  3. #43
    I can (and will) post the definitions of "game" for those arguing about the subject:

    dictionary.com
    an amusement or pastime: children's games.
    merriam-webster:
    activity engaged in for diversion or amusement
    cambridge:
    an entertaining activity or sport, especially one played by children, or the equipment needed for such an activity
    So it's basically an "activity used for amusement." And video game is the same, using (basically) computers.

    But who's better to define if Dear Esther is a game than the guys who created it? I'm not going to say it's a game because it was made using an engine. People are using UDK for architectural presentations, either interactive or video, so that proves that something made with an engine is not a game. But...

    As a_bullet stated, it started as a mod using Source. Now let me add they used a gaming website to post it (IndieDB). To them, Dear Esther must be a game.

    They got Indie Fund to back the commercial release. I don't know who approached who, so I'll just assume thechineseroom contacted Indie Fund first. Indie Fund only backs games, so it must be a game.

    From thechineseroom's official website:
    thechineseroom is an independent game studio based in Brighton, UK
    We make first person games. These include the cult indie hit Dear Esther. We are currently developing two new games: Everybody's Gone to the Rapture, and Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs. Both are due this year.
    Sounds like they make games.

    Dear Esther joined the IGF competition. Everybody knows that joining the IGF means the developer submitted their games, because IGF never contacts developers saying "hey, maybe you know who we are, can you submit your game?" So, if thechineseroom submitted DE to a gaming contest, they must think it's a game.

    It's sold on Steam, a marketplace for games.

    It was aimed to gamers, not people into "digital comics" or "interactive comics" or "film" and "novels."

    thechineseroom knows and openly states Dear Esther is a game, but either a game is not the right medium to present this story, or the developers could've spent more time designing the game. The thing is DE fanboys have problems thinking that there may be room for improvement for this game because consider it to be perfect (I did read some reviews after writing my blog, and I found funny how many people ranted at poor reviews, saying the reviewer was "stupid" because he didn't get how brilliant the game actually was).

    As for me, I see they are working on the next Amnesia game and I can't help to wonder of this new Amnesia game will be about holding W during 2 hours while you "see scary stuff" and board circuits on walls. If I wanted that, I'd ride one one of those Universal Studios things carrying a keyboard with me so I can hold the W key all that time. Maybe this last idea is a little bit too much, but I think some indies are too focused on "making their art" that they forget "games are games" even if all you have to do is walk.
    "So dark le con of man"

  4. #44
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    362
    Quote Originally Posted by Keep View Post

    Same with Dear Esther. You the player don't really change any outcomes.
    Well I can see what your saying. Watching a walkthrough of a game isn't the same as playing a game. But is Dear Esther a game?

    Would I get anything from playing Dear Esther or should I watch a walkthrough? Is there a difference in this case?




    Query/SPOILER < doubtful?


    Why does the torch beam have a smilie? Do I need to buy the game(?) to find out? @1:09 - 2:09

    Last edited by Heister; 19-03-2012 at 01:35 AM.

  5. #45
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Skalpadda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,295
    Quote Originally Posted by Heister View Post
    Would I get anything from playing Dear Esther or should I watch a walkthrough? Is there a difference in this case?
    Would you find it more enjoyable if you were in control of the character and could decide on where to go and when, what things to pay attention to, etc? Would the fact that the narration and some other elements are randomised and thus somewhat specific to your play-through matter?

    It's pretty much the same considerations you'd have to give any other question of "should I play it or watch a let's play?"

  6. #46
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus soldant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    4,452
    Quote Originally Posted by magnolia_fan View Post
    I can (and will) post the definitions of "game" for those arguing about the subject:
    You're just picking the first line and claiming that's the definition. I already posted the full definition from Dictionary.com. I can do it for all the others because they're all fairly similar.

    Quote Originally Posted by magnolia_fan View Post
    As a_bullet stated, it started as a mod using Source. Now let me add they used a gaming website to post it (IndieDB). To them, Dear Esther must be a game.
    Tale of Tales' "The Graveyard" was listed as a game, and it has even less interactivity than Dear Esther. Is it a game?

    Quote Originally Posted by magnolia_fan View Post
    It's sold on Steam, a marketplace for games.
    Lots of things that aren't games appear on Steam.

    Quote Originally Posted by magnolia_fan View Post
    It was aimed to gamers, not people into "digital comics" or "interactive comics" or "film" and "novels."
    Podcasts can be aimed at gamers. Does that make podcasts games? No, wait, don't answer that. Although this raises a point: it's a marketing strategy. Tale of Tales for example know that nobody would buy The Path or The Graveyard as a short film, because quite frankly they're laughably bad and ridiculously clumsy. But call it a "game", hold it up next to Modern Shooting 3: Call of Extreme Honourific Master Sergeants and watch people go apeshit over how "deep" it is... and then sell it for money. And scorn gaming as a medium while you're at it.


    Also:
    Quote Originally Posted by Heister
    Would I get anything from playing Dear Esther or should I watch a walkthrough? Is there a difference in this case?

    This I think is the most damning aspect of Dear Esther and all of its kind. If you watch a video (that is entirely non-interactive) which walks through the "game", you don't lose much from "playing the game". A walkthrough of something like MW3, which is still highly linear and filled with cutscenes that play out without your intervention, does lose something because the player isn't playing any of the combat sequences, misses out entirely on the challenges posed by those sequences, and doesn't have a chance to experience any of that. The experience does change in that case. In a walkthrough of Dear Esther though you don't lose anything, everything plays out the same, it's just that someone else is doing all the moving for you. If you just sat there and watched the whole thing while the engine moved you along without input you'd get essentially the same experience.

    Dear Esther comes closer than others due to the slightly randomised nature but at the end of the day as people have already admitted you're just triggering sequences, and doing nothing outside of that. As Heister said, watching it is pretty much the same as playing it. Nothing you do really has any impact on the "game" at all. It's an interactive art sequence. That doesn't make it bad. That doesn't make it inferior to games. That doesn't make it any less important. But it does distinguish it from a game, and like I said, when taken as not being a game you can praise it for its artistic merit. But taken as a game it's a bad game because it has no gameplay.

    Interestingly Heavy Rain on the PS3 walks a fine line too, though it might lean more towards "game" since the "player's" actions do have an impact on how the story plays out, and it does present some challenges to the player.

  7. #47
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Skalpadda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,295
    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    Dear Esther comes closer than others due to the slightly randomised nature but at the end of the day as people have already admitted you're just triggering sequences, and doing nothing outside of that. As Heister said, watching it is pretty much the same as playing it. Nothing you do really has any impact on the "game" at all. It's an interactive art sequence. That doesn't make it bad. That doesn't make it inferior to games. That doesn't make it any less important. But it does distinguish it from a game, and like I said, when taken as not being a game you can praise it for its artistic merit. But taken as a game it's a bad game because it has no gameplay.
    "Just triggering sequences" could be used as a description for many, many games.

    But you're just arguing degrees here; It's not challenging enough to be a game, your actions don't affect the experience enough to be a game. I don't think that's a useful way to define something unless you can specify that threshold.

    It's also really weird that we'd construct more rigid rules for what counts as a game in video games than we would a game in real life. I worked as a preschool teacher for a couple of years and played and watched others play lots of games every day and a lot of them would seem to fail your criteria for what a game is. I'd much rather have an inclusive than an exclusive view of what games are.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    You're just picking the first line and claiming that's the definition. I already posted the full definition from Dictionary.com. I can do it for all the others because they're all fairly similar.
    (...)
    Podcasts can be aimed at gamers. Does that make podcasts games? No, wait, don't answer that. Although this raises a point: it's a marketing strategy. Tale of Tales for example know that nobody would buy The Path or The Graveyard as a short film, because quite frankly they're laughably bad and ridiculously clumsy. But call it a "game", hold it up next to Modern Shooting 3: Call of Extreme Honourific Master Sergeants and watch people go apeshit over how "deep" it is... and then sell it for money. And scorn gaming as a medium while you're at it.
    yeah but mostly because there's no point on quoting a definition related to sports.

    What you say about marketing strategy is somewhat of what I mean when I say they decide to call it "a game," "an interactive experience," "an interactive story" based on the conversation. Seen like that, i'd be inclined to think DE suffers from identity crisis.

    "Deep" games are not something new. Personally I find the (old) Silent Hill games deeper than modern "art games" even if some may see them as "games about killing monsters." Again, as you say, it's like some marketing strategy to appeal to some people, or proving "what else" games can be, or whatever. But I can't help to think all this is some sort of obsession to show that games are art (I may be wrong, but again this is just the impression I get).

    But for whatever reason, the developer categorizes DE as a game, even if the level of interactivity is almost zero.

    I've said this before, I do believe Dear Esther is a good experiment. I do hope the guys at thechineseroom take the time to gather what people say about it (good or bad) and use that input for their next games and don't end up thinking their product is perfect because it repaid the Indie Fund investment in a few hours (I think?). I'd certainly hate to see the next Amnesia game play (or "unplay"?) like Dear Esther.
    "So dark le con of man"

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Heister View Post

    Why does the torch beam have a smilie? Do I need to buy the game(?) to find out? @1:09 - 2:09

    Spoiler alert:

    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    The torch beam you mention is actually Esther's face.
    "So dark le con of man"

  10. #50
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus soldant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    4,452
    Quote Originally Posted by Skalpadda View Post
    "Just triggering sequences" could be used as a description for many, many games.
    That's true, but they have many other elements that make them actual games. Lots of people argue that MW3 for example is one long sequence of setpieces but it has clear gameplay in that you shoot other people with angry exclamations of righteous anger while waving American flags or something.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skalpadda View Post
    It's also really weird that we'd construct more rigid rules for what counts as a game in video games than we would a game in real life. I worked as a preschool teacher for a couple of years and played and watched others play lots of games every day and a lot of them would seem to fail your criteria for what a game is. I'd much rather have an inclusive than an exclusive view of what games are.
    They probably do conform to what is considered a "game", just that it isn't readily apparent. It's sort of like how a binding simple contract can have all of the legal requirements even though it isn't readily apparent to the parties involved. However the other possibility is that they're actually just playing, which doesn't necessarily involve a game. I can play with a balloon for example by tossing it idly around with no real objective, rules or purpose. That doesn't mean I'm playing a game with the balloon, but I am playing with the balloon all the same.

    Again the reason why I think the distinction is important here is because if you decide to accurately assess things like Dear Esther as games, then they must score low because their gameplay is non-existent, or to be overly generous it's minimal. As a piece of interactive art though there's zero expectation for gameplay and thus it can be assessed on its artistic merits alone. And interestingly that's exactly what people do when they praise Dear Esther. Nobody talks about the AWESOME WALKING ACTION or anything like that.

    In fact it can work to the piece's detriment in some cases. Take The Path for example. When each girl finally gets to Grandma's House, they have to walk up the path to get to the front door... which takes about fifty thousand years because the character's walking speed is absolutely glacial for no apparent reason. If it was shown as a short movie, perhaps condensed, it might be poignant. As part of a 'game' it's tedious, tiresome, and frustrating.

    Quote Originally Posted by magnolia_fan View Post
    yeah but mostly because there's no point on quoting a definition related to sports.

    It doesn't apply specifically to sports, though sports clearly count as games.

    Quote Originally Posted by magnolia_fan View Post
    What you say about marketing strategy is somewhat of what I mean when I say they decide to call it "a game," "an interactive experience," "an interactive story" based on the conversation. Seen like that, i'd be inclined to think DE suffers from identity crisis.

    An interactive story or "experience" (as much as I'm tempted to label that as being 'hipster art terminology') is a more accurate description though. Actually that's pretty much what I'd call it.

  11. #51
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Skalpadda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,295
    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    That's true, but they have many other elements that make them actual games. Lots of people argue that MW3 for example is one long sequence of setpieces but it has clear gameplay in that you shoot other people with angry exclamations of righteous anger while waving American flags or something.
    Sure, but then we're back to constructing definitions based on the degree with which different aspects feature in the game which, to me, feels rather clumsy and unsatisfying. "Must have X amount of challenge/goals/interactivity to be a game" is a really hard to define criteria and it's impossible to get people to agree on what the value of X should be.

    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    Again the reason why I think the distinction is important here is because if you decide to accurately assess things like Dear Esther as games, then they must score low because their gameplay is non-existent, or to be overly generous it's minimal. As a piece of interactive art though there's zero expectation for gameplay and thus it can be assessed on its artistic merits alone. And interestingly that's exactly what people do when they praise Dear Esther. Nobody talks about the AWESOME WALKING ACTION or anything like that.
    I don't really see why considering Dear Esther a game would lessen it in any way. Games are the sum of their parts and even if you don't consider things like story and world and how they're presented to be game mechanics they're still important parts of the whole. STALKER SoC is cherished for it's world and atmosphere more often than for its combat mechanics. Does that make it a worse game than if it was the other way around?

    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    They probably do conform to what is considered a "game", just that it isn't readily apparent.
    The irony.

    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    I can play with a balloon for example by tossing it idly around with no real objective, rules or purpose. That doesn't mean I'm playing a game with the balloon, but I am playing with the balloon all the same.
    I would argue there needs to be some purpose behind something for it to be called a game. Randomly hitting a balloon wouldn't qualify, whereas if you (for example) try to keep the balloon airborne or try to hit something else with it it would.

  12. #52
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus soldant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    4,452
    Quote Originally Posted by Skalpadda View Post
    I don't really see why considering Dear Esther a game would lessen it in any way. Games are the sum of their parts and even if you don't consider things like story and world and how they're presented to be game mechanics they're still important parts of the whole. STALKER SoC is cherished for it's world and atmosphere more often than for its combat mechanics. Does that make it a worse game than if it was the other way around?
    STALKER SoC is undoubtedly a game though. It very obviously has gameplay. It conforms to the concept of a game. More than that, the world also has meaning within the context of gameplay, such as the beautiful but deadly anomalies. If you stripped away all of the rest of STALKER so that you just walked around the world, you wouldn't have a game. Games are the sum of their parts but Dear Esther, The Path, and similar titles don't have gameplay. If you're going to assess them as games, then you have to accept that gameplay forms a part of that assessment, and is actually integral to something being a game.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skalpadda View Post
    The irony.
    There is no irony here. You've given a completely nondescript response saying that kids play "games" that apparently don't conform to what I suggest constitutes a game. I suggest that they actually do and you just don't know what the game is, OR that they aren't in fact games and are just kids playing. If there's no clear example I can't provide a clear opinion. It doesn't contradict my stance on Dear Esther at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skalpadda View Post
    I would argue there needs to be some purpose behind something for it to be called a game. Randomly hitting a balloon wouldn't qualify, whereas if you (for example) try to keep the balloon airborne or try to hit something else with it it would.
    That's right, if I applied rules and a challenge or opposition I get a game. I structure the play and thus get a game through the creation of gameplay. If we take that away, it stops being a game. If I take away the interactive part of Dear Esther and put it as a movie, nothing is ultimately lost. The player's movement is ultimately meaningless, by which I mean if you just changed the medium you wouldn't actually lose anything, because Dear Esther's only real elements are aesthetics and story. The interaction is peripheral to the issue. Thus I can watch a "Let's Play" and really gain nothing more from actually "playing" it myself.

    If you're prepared to accept that playing with a balloon turns into a game when you apply proper structure to it, then you can accept that a person can logically view Dear Esther as not being a game because it lacks these elements. The argument for it being a game basically boils down to "Well, some people have called it a game and it's marketed as a game, and yeah I want it to be a game." I can market a dog as a cat but it's still a dog on objective analysis.

  13. #53
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,563
    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    You're just picking the first line and claiming that's the definition. I already posted the full definition from Dictionary.com. I can do it for all the others because they're all fairly similar.
    Err, that's how dictionaries work. Every numbered line is a different unique definition, you don't have to satisfy them all.

    This I think is the most damning aspect of Dear Esther and all of its kind. If you watch a video (that is entirely non-interactive) which walks through the "game", you don't lose much from "playing the game".
    That would be damning if it were true. I don't think it is at all. Adding the interaction fundamentally changes the nature of it. I see it as somewhat akin to the difference between watching a movie and reading the script.

  14. #54
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus soldant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    4,452
    Quote Originally Posted by deano2099 View Post
    Err, that's how dictionaries work. Every numbered line is a different unique definition, you don't have to satisfy them all.
    So by that logic the first definition is always the correct definition? Come on, you know that wasn't my point.

  15. #55
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Skalpadda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,295
    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    STALKER SoC is undoubtedly a game though. It very obviously has gameplay. It conforms to the concept of a game. More than that, the world also has meaning within the context of gameplay, such as the beautiful but deadly anomalies. If you stripped away all of the rest of STALKER so that you just walked around the world, you wouldn't have a game. Games are the sum of their parts but Dear Esther, The Path, and similar titles don't have gameplay. If you're going to assess them as games, then you have to accept that gameplay forms a part of that assessment, and is actually integral to something being a game.
    That's not what I was talking about. I was responding directly to your assertion that if you judged Dear Esther as a game it would suffer for not being "gamey" enough, and giving an example of a game where, for many people, what you would define as the game part isn't the major factor in how they judge the game. To put it in another way: If I go for a walk in STALKER it's very possible that I won't encounter any anomalies or enemies. Am I then not playing the game?

    As for Dear Esther not having gameplay, I'll direct you back to my post on page 2 which has a couple of direct questions regarding exactly that.

    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    There is no irony here. You've given a completely nondescript response saying that kids play "games" that apparently don't conform to what I suggest constitutes a game. I suggest that they actually do and you just don't know what the game is, OR that they aren't in fact games and are just kids playing. If there's no clear example I can't provide a clear opinion. It doesn't contradict my stance on Dear Esther at all.
    Since I'm arguing from the position that Dear Esther is a game, there is and it does ;).

    I was referring specifically to the criteria you mentioned earlier: Goals, interactivity, challenge, rules. To take an easy example: I have a dice and a friend, we take turns rolling the dice and whoever gets the highest number wins. So there's a goal, interactivity and rules but there's no challenge to overcome since the outcome is random and I can't influence it. Next up we play a game where we pretend to be frogs. There's challenge (being a frog isn't easy), interactivity and rules but no set goal beyond entertaining ourselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    That's right, if I applied rules and a challenge or opposition I get a game. I structure the play and thus get a game through the creation of gameplay. If we take that away, it stops being a game. If I take away the interactive part of Dear Esther and put it as a movie, nothing is ultimately lost. The player's movement is ultimately meaningless, by which I mean if you just changed the medium you wouldn't actually lose anything, because Dear Esther's only real elements are aesthetics and story. The interaction is peripheral to the issue. Thus I can watch a "Let's Play" and really gain nothing more from actually "playing" it myself.

    If you're prepared to accept that playing with a balloon turns into a game when you apply proper structure to it, then you can accept that a person can logically view Dear Esther as not being a game because it lacks these elements. The argument for it being a game basically boils down to "Well, some people have called it a game and it's marketed as a game, and yeah I want it to be a game." I can market a dog as a cat but it's still a dog on objective analysis.
    But Dear Esther would lose something if you just made it into a film. It would lose the intimacy of an experience in which you have agency (limited though it may be, but there we're again back to arguing degrees which is a question you haven't addressed). To name concrete examples, you wouldn't be able search for the path up from the beach, you wouldn't be able to make the decision whether to explore the little caves or head off along the path to the left (or both) at the start chapter four and you wouldn't have the option to enter Jakobsen's house in chapter two. It would no longer be your experience of navigating the island and unlocking the story; it would be your experience of watching the film of someone else navigating the island and being told a story.

    Also, I haven't made any arguments relating to what people call it or how it's marketed, that's a stupid way to define what something is. I've given concrete examples relating to the criteria you've set for it as well as described my own views on what a game is.

  16. #56
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,563
    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    So by that logic the first definition is always the correct definition? Come on, you know that wasn't my point.
    No, the first definition is a correct definition. So is the second one. And the third one. I'm not entirely sure what you point was. You were using the third definition, someone else was using the first definition, they're both valid. They're slightly different things, sure, but they're both defined as a 'game'. You can't say that a potato isn't a vegetable because one of the definitions of vegetable is "a person in a vegetative state" and a potato doesn't fit that.

  17. #57
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    362
    Quote Originally Posted by deano2099 View Post
    No, the first definition is a correct definition. So is the second one. And the third one. I'm not entirely sure what you point was. You were using the third definition, someone else was using the first definition, they're both valid. They're slightly different things, sure, but they're both defined as a 'game'. You can't say that a potato isn't a vegetable because one of the definitions of vegetable is "a person in a vegetative state" and a potato doesn't fit that.
    Would this concept for a game count as a game if I made it?

    Game engine: Source
    Title: Pointless/Unchallenged/Draw The Line
    Price: 10
    Game starts and everything is black. Only visible things are a winding line from your position to a red light in the distance.
    Some guy talks, triggered at certain points along the line. He recites parts of The Long and Winding Road by The Beatles.
    Controls - W and mouse.

    Would that concept count as a game? I'll use the Source engine, I'll sell it on Steam and I'll charge 10 for it.

    Please don't answer yes.
    Scratch that. If there's enough interest...

    Concept art -

    Last edited by Heister; 19-03-2012 at 02:56 PM.

  18. #58
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,563
    Yes, by some definitions. It's very different to what we'd traditionally consider a game to be, but y'know, it's the closest word we have right now. Also I'd argue Dear Esther and this have more in common with Call of Duty than Call of Duty has in common with Ludo or Chess.

    The fact that it's shit doesn't enter into it. The DaVinci Code is still a book and JedWood still make music.

    And replacing it with a video of someone playing it would still fundamentally change the experience, in my opinion.

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Heister View Post
    Would this concept for a game count as a game if I made it?

    Game engine: Source
    Title: Pointless/Unchallenged/Draw The Line
    Price: 10
    Game starts and everything is black. Only visible things are a winding line from your position to a red light in the distance.
    Some guy talks, triggered at certain points along the line. He recites parts of The Long and Winding Road by The Beatles.
    Controls - W and mouse.

    Would that concept count as a game? I'll use the Source engine, I'll sell it on Steam and I'll charge 10 for it.

    Please don't answer yes.
    Scratch that. If there's enough interest...

    Concept art -

    Add some Enya music and killer marketing, and you can sell it for $15 on PSN :D
    "So dark le con of man"

  20. #60
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    362
    Quote Originally Posted by magnolia_fan View Post
    Add some Enya music and killer marketing, and you can sell it for $15 on PSN :D
    :D
    First Person Strollers are going to be the next big thing in gaming. I can see it now. Railworks amount of dlc. The Lake District. Snowdon. The Cairngorms pack. Think of the monetary possibilities. Want to enter that range over yonder? Buy a stile.

    If the player has a backpack with some survival equipment and the game has some randomized weather conditions...
    Last edited by Heister; 19-03-2012 at 08:58 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •