/vr/ - Retro Games

>>5130815
>Those that do usually base their assessment solely on the basis that it is sold and distributed like a videogame.
Or because the creators call it a video game, people who play video games call it a video game, and the only people who actively refuse to call it a game are people who have an agenda to separate out things that they don't like by saying that it's not a game. IF includes Zork and every Infocom game that are all undeniably "games," so to imply that calling something IF is mutually exclusive from being a game is just wrong.

>This is a case where the real problem is that we lack a better term that is commonly used and accepted.
There is no problem here except the problem you are manufacturing. The only time this kind of argument ever comes up is when people who don't like certain games want to sound authoritative. The only exception is when storefronts like Steam have to decide what they should sell, and that's purely in the stark context of "does this thing not actually intend to be a playable game."

>Gameplay in this case is clearly referring to the technical details of doing crossword puzzles on the website. Let me know when you've actually seen someone refer to doing the Sunday crossword in actual newsprint as "playing a game."
Here's the first page of an academic paper referring to crossword puzzles as games.

>The more realistic videogame portrayals of reality become, the more important it is to be able to identify actual game elements and distinguish them from the scenery and narrative.
Why? What about realism makes us need to decide what a game is? Was there never scenery and narrative before TressFX?

The more you try to solely grasp onto necessary and sufficient characteristics, the more it turns into a Wile E. Coyote chasing the Road Runner where more examples appear that make it slip away. Who cares? If a creator sincerely intends for their thing to be a game, let it. Then we can just talk about if it's a good or bad one.