Quote Originally Posted by NathanH View Post
"Dear Esther is good without being fun, Dear Esther is a game, therefore there exists a game that is good without being fun, therefore games can be good without being fun". It is critical to this argument that Dear Esther is a game, therefore if I disagree with that designation then the entire argument collapses.
But this in itself seems a bit limiting. For instance - If I say X is a good example of a game, and you don't believe X is a game, by your criteria, then for you my entire statement collapses. It would mean that in every case where Dear Ester is being brought up here as a game, you'd simply think, well it's not a game, so this conversation can't continue beyond that thought. It sounds like a stumbling block for any conversation about a game where it's status as a game is not being discussed foremost. Sure, you thinking is completely logical from a philosophical perspective, but I'm still not convinced that a) this chain of thought is actually being followed when it actually comes to discussing games, and b) whether it would be a good thing to do so anyway.

In any case, you've clearly put a lot of thought into it, and I'm not knocking it. As a man who once had to play a game called 'paint-pot racing' in a period of absolute boredom, I'm pretty sure the criteria of what makes a game or doesn't is always going to be a somewhat vague process.