/vr/ - Retro Games

[Anonymous No.5128874]

Is death or some other threat of failure necessary to enjoy a game?

[Anonymous No.5128891]

>>5128874
For it to be considered a game, yes.

[Anonymous No.5128908]

>>5128891
So Wario Land 2 & 3 aren't games?

[Anonymous No.5128913]

>>5128874
You absolutely need some end goal and something to prevent you from getting there.

>>5128891
Do you consider ending up in a situation where you can neither back track or progress to be failure? Not as basic as being stuck by making the wrong choices or just sucking at the game. What if in an open ended game where you need to interact with an npc for the game to progress and the npc ends up dying accidentally, through no fault of your own(say RNG) before that can happen. As a hyperbole, just for the sake of discussion.

[Anonymous No.5128923]

>>5128874
No. There are lots of great adventure games that have absolutely no way for the player to "fail". Likewise, a number of games challenge the player to get as many points as they can within a specific time limit, or to complete some task in as little time as possible, with no way to actually "fail" at anything other than beating your old record.

[Anonymous No.5128929]

>>5128908
I never liked the immortality gimmick in those games. In the end it mostly boiled down to having to pass long sequences without taking a single hit, since that would send you back to the start in some way. Made the bosses incredibly frustrating too. I was glad they dropped it for WL4.

[Anonymous No.5128932]

>>5128913
>What if in an open ended game where you need to interact with an npc for the game to progress and the npc ends up dying accidentally, through no fault of your own(say RNG) before that can happen. As a hyperbole, just for the sake of discussion.
>hyperbole
I see you haven't played The Hobbit

[Anonymous No.5129059]

>>5128913
>What if in an open ended game where you need to interact with an npc for the game to progress and the npc ends up dying accidentally, through no fault of your own(say RNG) before that can happen.
It depends. Honestly that just sounds like a very poorly designed game. But in theory, you could have a game where you have to make odds-based decisions. "RNG=Bad" is a frustratingly oversimplified criticism lately.

An open-world RPG works best as more of a world simulator where the goals should be general and not have a fixed progression. Within an open world simulator, the combat subsystem forms a game of its own. I barely consider Skyrim a game, for example. Mostly it's a roleplay sandbox that has some games inside to give a little meaning to everything else.

[Anonymous No.5129065]

Depends On The Game

[Anonymous No.5129073]

>>5128908
Those still have failure, as getting hit in any room will generally reset whatever you were trying to accomplish.
It is a good example of not needing "death" for failure to exist, though.

[Anonymous No.5129097]

>>5128908
I have never played WL2&3 so I don't know.
If it's puzzle-focused, I might not consider it a true game depending on the details. A puzzle by itself is not a game, it's just a puzzle.

I should also note that "some other threat of failure" can sometimes involve end states that aren't blatantly obvious as being failure. For example, in a game oriented around scoring, there might not need to be any death mechanic. Failure state is simply losing to a competitor (or your previous high score). Failure also doesn't have to be punishing. When you play hide-and-seek, if you're found and caught, that's "failure" but the consequence is that you're now IT, which is actually more fun than hiding and running away. But instinctively, kids understand the game and the failure mode. They play it straight and try to avoid getting found or caught.

[Anonymous No.5129120]

>>5128874
>>5128891
No.

[Anonymous No.5129184]

>>5129097
>When you play hide-and-seek, if you're found and caught, that's "failure" but the consequence is that you're now IT, which is actually more fun than hiding and running away. But instinctively, kids understand the game and the failure mode. They play it straight and try to avoid getting found or caught.
What kind of faggot kid actually LIKED being "it"?

[Anonymous No.5129238]

>>5129097
>>5128891
No, you're defining the term game more narrowly than it actually is.

[Anonymous No.5129271]

>>5128874
Dragon Quest doesn't really have failure. Sure, you lose money and items, but you still keep whatever EXP you gathered, as well as your progress.

Not every game needs to fit in a tiny little box of categorization.

[Anonymous No.5129439]

>>5128891
LucasArts adventure games are WHAT, then?

Fucking casuals.

[Anonymous No.5129454]

>>5129439
> In Full Throttle's case a wall kicking simulator.
> In The Dig's case it's a fucking alien bone simulator.

Also Monkey Island despite it being easy, will fuck up any non english speaking person. (Monkey Wrench and Red Herring come to mind).

[Anonymous No.5129479]

Not necessarily, but I'd say it is niecessary for almost all games.

For the ones that don't, there needs to be some kind of mental activity to do that it is possible to not figure out.

Like for example, there's no way to 'lose' at solving a rubiks cube, i.e. you can't rotate the cube into a position that can't be solved, but you can just... not succeed at finding the solution. It's not a failure per se, but there is a diffiuclty that you have to overcome in order to 'win'.

[Anonymous No.5129503]

[Anonymous No.5129504]

>>5128874
Is it even a game with a lose condition? Does a game need both a win and a lose condition to be considered a game?

[Anonymous No.5129506]

>>5129504
*without

[Anonymous No.5129543]

>>5128874
>threat of failure

Yes. That's why it's called a game. If you can't lose, then it's not a game. It's a "movie" or "experience" or some shit.

[Anonymous No.5129547]

>>5129439
Puzzle solving. Is building a puzzle considered playing a game? Not really. If you really wanted to call it a game, though, I guess you could argue that getting stuck and being unable to progress is a type of failure.

[Anonymous No.5129554]

>>5129120
Sorry, I'm not an effeminate faggot.

[Anonymous No.5129664]

Necessary? No. But it is easier to make a broadly enjoyable game if you include the threat of failure.

[Anonymous No.5129670]

>>5128874
A game must have a failure state inorder to qualify as a game. Otherwise its just an experience, and experiences are almost always linear, cinematic stories which would function exactly the same if they were portrayed in a none interactive piece if medium such as film.

Death is an easy to grasp failure state. You could replace it with something else, rename it but the desired "you failed so start again" failure state would persist.

[Anonymous No.5129678]

>>5129554
Jeez, grow a fucking pair.

[Anonymous No.5129703]

"What are games," like "what is art," is one of the most boring fucking conversations imaginable because it's bookkeeping at best and gatekeeping at worst.
If you're bookkeeping, you end up with a list of supposed qualities that don't meaningfully change anything because you either exclude things that any average person would consider a game (like the dude in this topic saying that puzzles aren't really games) or you make boxes that no self-respecting designer would keep himself in and no enthusiast of games would limit himself to playing.
If you're gatekeeping, you get to say things like "that isn't a game" to sound more objective than if you just said "I don't like it."

[Anonymous No.5129726]

>>5129703
>gatekeeping
there's that hot new reddit shibboleth again

[Anonymous No.5129738]

>>5129547
Ahem.
>>5129238

[Anonymous No.5129807]

>>5129547
>Is building a puzzle considered playing a game?
yes?

[Anonymous No.5129817]

>>5129554
Apparently you're an idiot though.

[Anonymous No.5129819]

>>5129817
I'm not the faggot playing pseudogames for girls.

[Anonymous No.5129820]

>>5129670
>A game must have a failure state inorder to qualify as a game

Incorrect.

[Anonymous No.5129821]

>>5129819
Your not liking it or it being preferred by girls has no bearing on the fact that it's a game. That's why you're an idiot. Fir getting all triggered over not understanding English.

[Anonymous No.5129828]

>>5129184
One who liked playing the role of the predator?

[Anonymous No.5129908]

>>5129503
Not /vr/.

[Anonymous No.5129953]

[Anonymous No.5130049]

[Anonymous No.5130149]

>>5128874
Of course not. What a dumb question.

[Anonymous No.5130157]

>>5130049
I think you can conceivably fail and get BAD END in that game, but you pretty much have to actively try to do so.

[Anonymous No.5130238]

>>5129807
>"What are games," like "what is art,"
Definitions of art quickly get pretentious as fuck because everyone is desperate to show off. Everyone completely ignores how the term is actualy used in a practical context and the discussion becomes pure wanking.

Meanwhile, people use the term 'game' all the fucking time for practical purposes so it can be helpful to think about the specific semantics around what people mean when they use the term. It's not about gatekeeping either. Sorry if you're butthurt that people don't consider Gone Home a game. It's about being able to communicate effectively with other people.

>>5129238
>dictionary-linking
Yes, there is a broad definition of "game" that is very inclusive. You can use the word "game" in the sense that if you are "playing" anything, it's a game. Like playing peek-a-boo with infants or fetch with your dog. But in the context of videogames, the narrower definition is more appropriate and it should be obvious that's the one I used. In fact your png even includes a more appropriate definition (a contest with rules).

>>5129738
Stop being a drama queen for a moment and think about how language is actually used. Have you ever heard someone say "hey lets go play a game of 500-piece jigsaw puzzle?" No, you haven't. Is a Rubik's Cube a game? No, it's a puzzle toy. Hangman is a word puzzle but it's also a game. Note how Hangman has a set of rules for the player and defines a failure state.

Generally speaking, it's very rare for any leisure activity to be considered a "game" if there are no rules for a competitive element, unless you're talking about games for infants and toddlers. Party games have winners and losers, even if the outcomes are heavily based on luck rather than skill. Even Millennial "everyone wins" games usually still take the form of a competition, just that losers are awarded prizes as well as the winners to make sure no one has their feelings hurt.

[Anonymous No.5130248]

>>5129820
While it's technically possible for a game to lack a failure state, almost all games either have a failure condition or are a multi-player competition.

Whatever game you're thinking of most likely either has a failure state you just did not recognize, or else is only called a game because it's a computer program not used for work.

>>5129439
It's conceivable that there are some games that really do make sense to call games, but don't have an obvious failure state or competitive angle. While these edge cases are curious to examine in detail, their existence doesn't nullify the general distinction between puzzles, VR simulators, and actual games defined by rules and a competitive element. Most activities that lack these elements are not games and shouldn't be called as such (unless you're using the broad definition appropriately, which you probably aren't).

[Anonymous No.5130251]

>>5129479
A Rubik's Cube isn't a game, though. A game might be: solve this Rubik's cube before I solve mine.

[Anonymous No.5130262]

>>5130157
>>5130049
Games with a failure condition that is extremely rare to actually see still count, so long as the only reason you never see the failure state is that the game is very easy to win. So long as the player is aware of the rules and takes actions to avoid failing, it still works.

[Anonymous No.5130404]

>>5130251
Wrong, a Rubik's cube is a puzzle game because it has a built in challenge and goal.
A ball is a toy.
A Rubik's cube is a game.
Sim City is arguably a toy.
Sonic the Hedgehog is inarguably a game.

[Anonymous No.5130416]

>>5130262
>Games with a failure condition that is extremely rare to actually see still count,

Of course they still count. A failure state isn't a requirement in something being a game.

[Anonymous No.5130421]

>>5130404
A ball is a toy you can play a game with. A rubix cube is a puzzle which is played as a game. You define the word too narrowly. >>5129238

[Anonymous No.5130434]

>>5128874
Donald Duck's only threat of failure is to not catch that lemon and doesn't get paid for it.

[Anonymous No.5130436]

There are lots of racing games that are time based, not failure/position based.

The only goal is to get the fastest time you can, but there's no way to fail.

[Anonymous No.5130458]

>>5130434
But do you enjoy the game?

[Anonymous No.5130480]

>>5130421
holy shit stop linking that post dumbass it doesn't support your point the way you think it does.

[Anonymous No.5130487]

>>5130480
I only did it the once, and of course it does. There are people claiming the term 'game' has a much narrower deffinition than it does. You can have this if you'd rather, but it's all the same. Games aren't necessarily limited to things with rules and fail states. Implying they are just makes you look like you don't know English very well.

[Anonymous No.5130497]

>>5130487
Not him but stop. Dictionary definitions aren't everything. Sometimes they're useful, sometimes, such as here, they're not. You know who often thinks they are absolute truth? Little children. Little children often think that and go around flashing dictionary definitions. The only thing you're showing here is you have the mental age and linguistic ability of a small child.

[Anonymous No.5130501]

>>5130404
>A Rubik's cube is a game.
It is a puzzle. It can be played as a game if you define rules for a game to be played with it.
>Sim City is arguably a toy.
Argued by a retard maybe. "Toy" strongly implies a physical object and very few computer programs can be called "toys" in the literal sense. Sim City is a simulator and sandbox.

>>5130416
>Of course they still count. A failure state isn't a requirement in something being a game.
I mean count as a failure state. Please try to at least pretend like you can read English better than a 4th grader.

Once again, just because you're too stupid or lazy to articulate the failure state of a particular game doesn't mean it lacks one.

[Anonymous No.5130541]

>>5129439
>Monkey Island
But, you CAN die in Monkey Island!

[Anonymous No.5130542]

>>5130436
If you're playing it to beat your best time, failure is not getting a new best time. If not, it's really just a driving simulation or hand-eye coordination exercise.

Perhaps you could point out a specific game as well because every racing game I know of has either failure conditions and position competition (F-Zero, Gran Turismo)

[Anonymous No.5130559]

>>5130497
No. While it's true that dictionaries are limited, this is a case where one is plainly useful. A fail state is simply not a requirement of something being a game. Not by the deffinition of the word, and not by examples shown.

Trying to redefine common language to suit your feelings (like you should have to be able to fail for something to be considered a game) is what's childish. This is a non-discussion, games simply aren't so limited in scope.

[Anonymous No.5130560]

>>5130238
Except that people do consider Gone Home a game. If someone were to ask you "what game are you playing," and you said "Gone Home," there would not be any sense of confusion. Anyone who would then say "no you aren't" would be considered an idiot just in the same way that someone would be considered an idiot if they said "My favorite game is Casablanca." You are engaging in the exact same wanking that you're talking shit about for people discussing art because the "specific semantics" you're talking about are divorced from practicality or effective communication.

If you were doing a jigsaw puzzle and someone said "stop playing games and let's go," it would be understandable by anyone, and you responding "I'm not playing a game, I'm doing a puzzle" would have someone call you an idiot. When someone says "I like to play the crossword on Sundays," it is understandable by anyone. (and before you start talking shit saying nobody says "play the crossword," pic related is the phrase in the goddamn Washington Post.)

Your Gone Home slight shows your true intentions: you are trying to dictate quality behind the guise of semantics. You are playing a game of No True Scotsman.

[Anonymous No.5130562]

>>5130501
>It can be played as a game if you define rules for a game to be played with

Redundant. Defining a rules set is not necessary in making something a game.

[Anonymous No.5130732]

>>5130559
>redefine common language to suit your feelings
That's what you're doing, idiot. I'm discussing specifics and semantics for the sake of making words and language more useful you're just trying to dismiss everything with the broadest possible dictionary definition.
Your path leads to rendering words meaningless and discussion impossible. That's great for stupid people who only think with their feelings.

[Anonymous No.5130748]

>>5129184
You’re telling me a lot about yourself fatty

[Anonymous No.5130750]

>>5129439
>accuses people of being casuals about games where you can’t die
>post a game you can die in

[Anonymous No.5130754]

>>5130732
The way I see it you are uselessly confusing things based on a bias of what you like in a game. Nothing about the word is a problem for normal people. This guy puts it well. >>5130560

[Anonymous No.5130787]

>>5128874
As someone who was a poorfag growing up and only had the chance to emulate, I abused the fuck out of save states and scumming in difficult games to make it as quick and painless as possible. Now that I have a job and enough money to spend on collecting cartridges and playing the real deal, I find myself having a lot more fun with the games as it keeps me on my toes and forces me to get better. I was recently playing Tree Top Town in DKC and died 8 or 10 times because my timing on the barrels were awful. I managed to git gud my way through and the relief and glee I felt when I passed through the exit was something I was missing for a long time.

It's a great feeling when you feel your skills progressing and getting better as time goes on.

[Anonymous No.5130815]

>>5130562
>Defining a rules set is not necessary in making something a game.
Sure if you're playing a game for infants and toddlers. Rules for toddler games are very amorphous just like their language. "Moon go" is a valid 2-word sentence for a toddler that doesn't mean anything to a mature speaker of the language.

>>5130560
>Except that people do consider Gone Home a game
Some do, some don't. Those that don't usually think "interactive fiction" is a more appropriate term. Those that do usually base their assessment solely on the basis that it is sold and distributed like a videogame. Also because calling it a game will garner more attention than calling it interactive fiction. This is a case where the real problem is that we lack a better term that is commonly used and accepted.

>Wapo Crossword
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."

>If you were doing a jigsaw puzzle and someone said "stop playing games and let's go," it would be understandable by anyone
First, this is ridiculous because no one has ever said "stop playing games and lets go" to you while you were working on a puzzle. Furthermore, the context you describe is specifically one where the broad definition applies. The broad definition being "anything you might play can be called a game." I have explicitly stated this broad term is valid use of the word "game" but that it is also worthless to use in a discussion about actual fucking videogames on a forum about videogames. The person saying "stop playing games" is not making any kind of conscious assessment about the specific activity, just that it's leisure and interfering with his plans.

Besides I wouldn't object to the term even if it was wrong, because I'm not actually an autist.

[Anonymous No.5130819]

>>5130815
>>5130560
(cont)
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. Note how often commenters distinguish between "gameplay" and graphics, music, story, and subjective/emotional experience. In almost all cases, you can isolate the gameplay by identifying the failure condition and working backwards.

Part of the problem is that we've begun referring to literally any non-work activity done on a computer that doesn't already have a definition (such as watch a movie) to be a "videogame." That explains Gone Home, that explains the WaPo crossword puzzle website, that explains this thread.

And to be clear, "failure state is an essential trait of a game" is not precisely my position. However, it's better than "failure state is not necessary" without any further explanation. I'd be willing to accept a more precise definition that replaced "failure state" with something more accurate. But "anything you do for fun is a game" is not a valid answer.

[Anonymous No.5130838]

>>5130754
>Nothing about the word is a problem for normal people.
Right but normal people use the word more like I describe in most of the time. You're the one being offended that my definition of a game, which applies to Tetris, Basketball, Dark Souls, Chess, Skyrim, Monopoly, Trivial Pursuit, Super Mario Brothers, Wheel of Fortune, Call of Duty, and The Price is Right because it is somehow:
>bias of what you like in a game.

[Anonymous No.5130862]

>>5130560
/cuckypol/ detected

[Anonymous No.5130871]

>>5130542
Can't think of any retro ones off the top of my head, but the Trackmania games come to mind.

[Anonymous No.5130895]

>>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.

[Anonymous No.5130901]

>>5130815
You not liking the deffinition of a word doesn't change anything. Gone Home is most deffinitely a game, just like Animsl Crossing and so many others. "Game" doesn't just mean experiences you like.

[Anonymous No.5131068]

>>5130815
>because I'm not actually an autist.
This is some serious fucking self-delusion. I don't know if you were ever formally diagnosed, but buddy, neurotypicals don't write this many words about such an ultimately meaningless distinction.

[Anonymous No.5131076]

So why do you all reply to what is basically bait threads? This isn’t even a bait /v/ would waste their time on.

[Anonymous No.5131087]

>>5130838
>You're the one being offended that my definition of a game, which applies to Tetris, Basketball, Dark Souls, Chess, Skyrim, Monopoly, Trivial Pursuit, Super Mario Brothers, Wheel of Fortune, Call of Duty, and The Price is Right

I'm not offended by anything, just pointing out that you're wrong. Though that is a fine list of examples of games, it would also include the likes of Gone Home, Animal Crossing, Aquanaut's Holiday etc etc. See, you're soo close which is kinda the funny part.

[Anonymous No.5131197]

>>5128874
No. As long as you get a participation trophy at the end any snowflake can enjoy any game.

[Anonymous No.5131262]

>>5129059
Give as many good open world RPGs as you can think of. Keep it retro.

[Anonymous No.5131278]

>>5131197
Its just a game, lets not get so sucked up our own collective asses that we need to pretend that being decent at videogames is this badass feat. You don't even need to be good at a game to enjoy it anyway, I'm getting my ass beat in TES: Arena and am having a great time.

[Anonymous No.5131309]

>>5130560
>Except that people do consider Gone Home a game.

Only because it happens to be sold in the same store as actual games. There's little more to Gone Home as there is to walking through a virtual art gallery, and we don't consider art galleries games do we?

[Anonymous No.5131334]

>>5130754
>you are uselessly confusing things based on a bias of what you like in a game.

No because Sonic 06 is a pile of shit and yet it is far more of a game than Gone Home is.

[Anonymous No.5131506]

>>5131076
always assume a lot of samefagging with this shit, some retard just bumping the thread up till he gets a bite.

[Anonymous No.5131527]

>>5131076
>This isn’t even a bait /v/ would waste their time on.

Ah they would. I agree with you and am one of the people looking on in aghast at how unspeakably retarded this discussion is, but let's not exaggerate.

[Anonymous No.5131614]

>>5131527
They wouldn’t
Check the archives, this fag has tried this their word for word and it can’t get past a few replies

[Anonymous No.5131623]

I just checked /v/'s archives.
No results found.

Explain yourself.

[Anonymous No.5131754]

>>5129065
>RM female
Immersion ruined.

[Anonymous No.5131807]

>>5128874
I play Ninja Gaiden with Game Genie codes all of the time, and I enjoy the fuck out of it.

>>5129543

I agree with this poster. Although Ninja Gaiden can be a challenge in many cases, even with Game Genie, the idea is that I'm playing more for the experience.

[Anonymous No.5131813]

>>5130149
I agree with you but judging by the replies it isn't such an obvious conclusion.

[Anonymous No.5131814]

>>5129554
I feel sorry for you.

[Anonymous No.5131816]

>>5129726
The term originates in the 1940s and is well documented. Not everything you disagree with is from the reddit tribe buddy.

[Anonymous No.5131979]

>>5131334
You just proved everything I'd been saying lol.

[Anonymous No.5132132]

>>5131814
Do you really think I care what subhumans think of me?

[Anonymous No.5132167]

>>5130895
>The only time this kind of argument ever comes up is when people who don't like certain games want to sound authoritative.
No, it's not. Most of the time it's not an argument because there are no idiots like you around trying to play dictionary police. When people discuss gameplay they almost always mean elements related to competition and challenge: the things you can fail at. I've given examples of all kinds of games: sports, board games, and many genres of videogame. All of them share a failure state. Fucking Candy Crush has failure state.

The only counter-examples you've been able to produce are crossword puzzles, which are right on the line between game and not-game. Puzzles are generally not games, although they can be and puzzle elements are common in games. The distinction can be difficult to make and I'm not going to pitch a fit about one way or the other. But it's clear that a pure puzzle (eg jigsaw puzzle) is not a game. So the line is in there somewhere.

>What about realism makes us need to decide what a game is?
Walking through woods on a snowy evening is not a game. There's already a word for computer programs primarily intended to reproduce reality: simulators. For a concrete example about realism forcing more deliberate rule specification, compare Mike Tyson's Punch-Out with Dark Souls. Both games share a "spot the tell and hit dodge button" dynamic. But in the modern 3D game, an unrealistic rule had to be specified and implemented enable it (invincibility frames).

For a retro exercise, consider Final Fantasy VII. The game is full of narrative presentation. But to understand the core gameplay, look for the fail state and win state. Virtually every actual game system is oriented around (a) not failing in combat and (b) unlocking the path to the win state.

>Was there never scenery and narrative before TressFX?
Of course a game can have scenery and narrative. The point is scenery and narrative alone do not make the game.

[Anonymous No.5132195]

>>5131076
why not?

[Anonymous No.5132196]

>>5132132
>I lable the people who don't play the kinds of games I like as subhuman
>but please, take my inane ramblings on changing the standard of what should or should not be considered a game seriously

I love these threads.

[Anonymous No.5132197]

>>5131979
You've been saying that the definition of a game is based on bias of what they like.
Anon posts example of a game he doesn't like.
Somehow you think this confirms what you've been saying.
I don't think you understand logic.

[Anonymous No.5132206]

>>5132196
I don't think anyone making long posts is participating in the retarded subthread that started with the animal crossing picture. I have no idea what you faggots are on about.

[Anonymous No.5132213]

>>5132167
>Puzzles are generally not games,

Is English even your first language?

[Anonymous No.5132217]

>>5132197
Anon is asserting that games he doesn't like, such as Gone Home/Animal Crossing should not be considered games, because they don't fit what he thinks the deffinition of a game should be. Are you getting why this is funny yet?

[Anonymous No.5132220]

>>5132206
Sorry I haven't read that thread, it sounds like I'm missing out on some fun.

[Anonymous No.5132396]

>>5132213
>a puzzle can be a game
>thinks this proves his point
god your are so stupid

[Anonymous No.5132401]

>>5132217
What's funny is your inability to follow the discussion because your brain is too small to fit more than one thought at a time.

[Anonymous No.5132604]

>>5132396
He literally said puzzles aren't usually games, when a puzzle is most obviously a game. That's why it's funny.

>>5132401
Okay lol. Enlighten me on what he meant with the comparison of Sonic '06 and Gone Home

[Anonymous No.5132990]

>>5131816
I don't think anon was accusing you and the rest of the reddit collective of making up the word. Just of using a word that few other people today do outside your containment board.

[Anonymous No.5133053]

>>5132990
He was using it in the way Reddit does tend to though and the point of his post was about how useless it is. I think the original replier just saw the word and reacted to that instead of reading the context of the post.

[Anonymous No.5133538]

>>5133053
>actually reading post in this shitthread

[Anonymous No.5134225]

>>5133538
Paying attention is the best way to see the laughs :)

[Anonymous No.5134251]

>>5129065

what is this? looks cool

[Anonymous No.5134360]

>>5134251
Final Fantasy 1 fanart.

[Anonymous No.5136605]

>>5134360
Why is fanart so often better than official art? Damn

[Anonymous No.5136672]

>>5132604
>Okay lol. Enlighten me on what he meant with the comparison of Sonic '06 and Gone Home
The point is that the qualities that make a game a game have nothing to do with whether the game is good or whether he personally likes them. To respond with this:
>Anon is asserting that games he doesn't like ... should not be considered games
Simply demonstrates complete and utter inability to follow basic logic and basic English.

>He literally said puzzles aren't usually games, when a puzzle is most obviously a game
The very definition linked said that a puzzle is:
>a game, toy, or problem
Again, we established you don't understand logic. Everyone else can see the term 'or' there means that a puzzle might only be ONE of those things.
It's not funny that you fail to understand this. It's depressing. This is elementary logic and basic communication skills.

[Anonymous No.5137029]

>>5136605
lol?

[Anonymous No.5137628]

>>5136672
>The point is that the qualities that make a game a game

That's the whole issue. He is trying to say that things such as fail states are qualities that make a game a game, when that isn't the case.

[Anonymous No.5138449]

>>5137628
>He is trying to say that things such as fail states are qualities that make a game a game, when that isn't the case.
No, in that case he was just refuting your amazingly idiotic assertion that the only reason for distinguishing games and not-games is personal preference.

I am the one arguing about fail states. OP asked "are fail states necessary?" and my answer was "yes, for it to be a real game." Obviously that was not an in-depth answer nor was it an in-depth question. It's like claiming deserts don't have trees. A tree in the desert is an exception to the rule.

The more comprehensive answer is that fail states are one of the more important aspects of a game, but obviously not the only aspect see >>5130732 for some other perspectives. Most games either have a fail states or some kind of winner and loser. I'm sure it's possible for a game to lack a fail state (or a win/lose state), but that will tend more to be an exception to the rule. It's trivial to think of dozens of games across different genres, cultures, and even historical eras that feature competition or a fail state. Meanwhile it is much harder to identify games that lack fail states.

And no, this is not "no true Scotsman" scenario. Evidence that you can identify some structured activity commonly identified as a game, where it also lacks a fail state or win/lose outcomes, could contradict the point. But, that evidence would have to be more than a tree in the desert. And most likely, the result of that evidence would be an interesting explanation for why this particular exception is still considered a game.

And ideally, I'd be looking for something more substantial than "it's distributed like a videogame and called a videogame by marketing." For a game like SimCity, the interesting aspect is that it's very much played like a game with a fail state and a win state, despite the game not actually having either one.

[Anonymous No.5138506]

>>5138449
>No, in that case he was just refuting your amazingly idiotic assertion that the only reason for distinguishing games and not-games is personal preference.

Then I wasn't clear enough, there are of course reasons for further distinction. We call these things we love video games for that reason. But indeed personal preference should not be the basis for those distinctions and while that isn't the case across the board, in this instance it clearly is.

The agenda has been stated outright. That even though it's a shitty game, Sonic 06 is more of a "game" than say At Home because at least it has fail states. That is simply not the case at all. Yes fsil states are a common element, but as shown by repeated example not a required one. Sound is also a very common element, but not required. The likes of Animal Crossing and Gone Home are unquestionably games.

However a contingent of people who hate games of that sort want to alter the deffinition of what a game is specifically to exclude those games they don't like. They're the same group that rant about the popularity of "walking simulators" all stenming from that same tired canard of getting pissy over someone liking something they don't.

[Anonymous No.5138526]

>>5130458
It's a fantastic game for kids.

[Anonymous No.5139275]

>>5128874
failure is how you learn what mistakes you made and how to fix them, which leads to skill
if a game won't let you fail then it's either piss easy or and endless waiting game of 'have I won yet?'

[Anonymous No.5139316]

>>5129120
I would politefully dissagree
the threat of faliure is animal crossing is letting your town turn into a dericlt overgrown wasteland and all the townspeople fucking off to fuck knows where

[Anonymous No.5139340]

>>5129454
> In The Dig's case it's a fucking alien bone simulator.
This gave me ptsd.

[Anonymous No.5139343]

>>5129504
If you give up, isn't that a lose condition?

[Anonymous No.5139390]

>>5138506
>as shown by repeated example not a required one
What "repeated example"
As far as I can tell the only valid examples are crossword puzzles. And even then, a crossword puzzle is usually only a component of an actual game. See: http://archive.fo/KYlT

>Scoring is based on accuracy and speed.
>Compete on your computer and compare your scores!
As you can see, the actual game involves a scoring system and competition with other players.

Many Visual Novels and "Gamebooks" (aka Choose-Your-Own-Adventure novels) have fail states or at least "bad ends."

>>5139343
I would say yes, in most cases. Although this is really getting into the weeds. Abandoning a novel you are reading isn't a "failure state" like the failure state of a game.

[Anonymous No.5139394]

>>5139316
That can't really happen though. Even if you cut down every tree, stomp every flower, never pick a single weed and spend every day hitting your villagers, you can't really mess anything up. They'll move out periodically, but always in a cheery way and always replaced with another happy camper.

[Anonymous No.5139420]

>>5139390
>As far as I can tell the only valid examples are crossword puzzles

Animal Crossing, Gone Home, Aquanauts Holiday, all the "walking simulators" people whine about, Jason Roher and other art games etc.

[Anonymous No.5141940]

>>5139420
Animal Crossing is not a game. Its a non-immersive simulation.

[Anonymous No.5141992]

>>5141940
0/10

[Anonymous No.5142025]

>>5141992
It's ok Anon, you're still allowed to enjoy software toys and even talk about them here.

[Anonymous No.5142046]

>>5139420
So, in other words, the one category I designed of computer programs that people call games but really should not. They're games where you cannot explain why they are a game except for the fact that the product is packaged and sold/distributed like a videogame. That's essentially the only reason why Aquanaut's Holiday and Gone Home are called "games."

Look at commentary for Aquanaut's Holiday:
>the gaming aspect is a little on the subtle side (Next Generation Magazine)
>does not truly qualify as a game, but instead "a fun and immersive 3D underwater sim of the most relaxing kind" (IGN)
And for those that do call it a game:
>ultimately found the combination of exploration gameplay and atmospheric music extremely boring
Of course if you call something a game people aren't necessarily going to be impolite and contradict you, but you can tell the reactions are skeptical.

>all the "walking simulators" people whine about
In most cases, as far as I can tell, this is hyperbole intended to be criticism of an aspect of an actual game. If I call Ocarina of Time a "walking simulator" it's specifically because I think the game requires you to spend far too much time just walking through a 3D environment and not doing anything else. I'm not ACTUALLY saying it isn't a real game.

>Animal Crossing
Interactive Sandboxes are very much on the boundary between game and not-game. In real life, you don't really consider playing with Legos or Barbies "a game." The closest real-life games I can think of are theater/acting games and ice-breaker activities like telling a story where each person takes turns adding one word. And even many of those either have implicit failure states or are considered exercises more than games.

[Anonymous No.5142058]

>>5142046
>designed
*designated

[Anonymous No.5142068]

>>5139394
the thing is, this seems like a game designed to played as if it has a failure state, but doesn't want the players to ever actually feel bad about failing so just patches up those would-be failure states. Hence why this game is "on the boundary" between game and not-game. It's reasonable to call it a game because it feels like one to play it, but it's also reasonable to say it isn't a game because it's just a trick and there are no real bad outcomes possible.

[Anonymous No.5142102]

>>5128874
Not necessarily but it sure helps.

[Anonymous No.5142121]

no it doesn't and there are plenty of examples for it

>goat simulator and other sandbox experiences where the fun is just triggering the dynamics between the systems
>visual novels and purely narrative based games like vanishing of ethan carter
>VR chat and similar social hangout games
>idle games like cookie clicker

inb4 "b-but it's not a game"
inb4 "stop liking what I dislike!"

shut up, every kid ends up turning on the cheatcodes at the end of their GTA run just to see the goofy shit happen and every guy in counterstrike messed around with console commands on their server just for the giggles. this is absolutely normal

[Anonymous No.5142160]

>>5142046
There needs to be a more well established category of software toys which sandbox "games" are. That is they offer playgrounds of mechanics and systems where you can express yourself freely but they do not have any specific goals or systems like win/lose states pushing you towards those goals. There's a pretty big market for that kind of stuff that AAA developers/toy companies overlooked but indies did not.

[Anonymous No.5142169]

Yes. Games require goals and rules, and where there are goals and rules failure or success to reach those goals is inherent. You could have a game without failure or victory, but even when the win/lose states are not made explicit by the game, players come up with them based on the rules and goals they are given by the game. Discrete win/lose states hard coded into the game are a perfect fit for games as a whole, remove ambiguity, make goals feel more meaningful with rewards and generally structure your play.

[Anonymous No.5142171]

>>5142025
It's okay, you can not learn English if you don't want to. It just gives ne more to laugh at.

>>5142046
They are all games. There is no misunderstanding by normal people that they are games. That you are trying to insist they are not because they don't fit what you want the deffinition of a game to be is why this is so funny to me.

>>5142068
It's more that the things that anon pointed out as "failure states" really aren't.

[Anonymous No.5142226]

>>5128874
Absolutely not. For some people it's the opposite

[Anonymous No.5142275]

>That you are trying to insist
No, you are trying to insist. I am explaining in detail what I mean and why while providing lots of examples and references to various real perspectives. Your response is merely to stubbornly repeat "they are games."
>they are not because they don't fit what you want the deffinition of a game to be is why this is so funny to me.
This just means you are too stupid to understand anything I've written or why I've written it. That you claim to find it "funny" is most likely a reaction formation to protect your ego from being damaged.

>you can not learn English if you don't want to.
You are the one repeatedly demonstrating an inability to understand English, and I'm not even talking about the definition of "game." You can't even follow the discussion properly.

>>5142121
>the fun is just
fun does not make a game. Lots of things are fun but not games.
>shut up, every kid ends up turning on the cheatcodes at the end of their GTA run just to see the goofy shit happen and every guy in counterstrike messed around with console commands on their server just for the giggles. this is absolutely normal
Is also not playing the game. I love hacking games and save states to mess around. And while you can call that playing, it's not playing "a game." After a game of pickup soccer (ass football if you aren't american) the game might devolve into just fucking around throwing the ball at each other, tackling and roughhousing and other shit that counts as "playing" but is not a "game."

[Anonymous No.5142298]

>>5142275
You said
>Animal Crossing
>Interactive Sandboxes are very much on the boundary between game and not-game

Which is absolutely not true to the point that it's funny to me. The border you are trying to create doesn't exist. You not liking the kind of game it is doesn't not make it a game.

[Anonymous No.5143102]

>>5142298
What about it isn't true? That animal crossing is more of a sandbox or that sandboxes aren't really games? There is nothing wrong with the latter statement, they are toys and are played with like toys rather than games, even if they do often include game elements and allow players to construct games within them. IMO the reason so many of them include as many game elements as they do is exactly because for most psople there doesn't really exist a category of software toys which would be much more fitting.

[Anonymous No.5143368]

>>5143102
> sandboxes aren't really games?

Exactly. Sandboxes like AC are indeed games, both by example and deffinition. You can not like that but it doesn't change reality.

[Anonymous No.5143398]

>>5142298
>Which is absolutely not true to the point that it's funny to me.
God you are a retarded faggot. You have utterly failed demonstrate even simple comprehension of any point I have made, much less provide any interesting counter-arguments. All you have done is flatly restate your contrary position and incorrectly sum up mine.

[Anonymous No.5143467]

>>5143398
Is this a wojak? If it is he's truly been butchered beyond recognition here.

[Anonymous No.5143495]

>>5143398
I don't need to offer counter arguments because this isn't a debate. Animal Crossing, Gone Home etc are by deffinition all games, plain and simple.

[Anonymous No.5143502]

>>5143102
Maxis used to call their games like sim farm and sim city "software toys". I guess it's fitting but once you have win conditions I think it's a game.

I guess to have a "win condition" you wouldn't necessarily have to have a "lose condition" because the act of not fulfilling the "win condition" it losing.

[Anonymous No.5143503]

>>5143502
Redundant since having a win condition isn't necessary for something to be a game in the first place.

[Anonymous No.5143512]

>>5143495
why are you even posting? You add nothing to the discussion.

[Anonymous No.5143632]

>>5130238

>the narrower definition is more appropriate

Says who?

[Anonymous No.5143643]

>>5128891
Absolutely based

[Anonymous No.5143721]

>>5143689
What is that definition?

[Anonymous No.5143727]

>>5128932
>need Gandalf to X (carry you out Gollum's window, etc).
>oops sorry faggot he was killed (offscreen, no less) by orcs four moves into the game
>rewind tape and restart (40 minute wait in those days)

[Anonymous No.5143730]

>>5143502
Focusing on win/lose conditions is besides the point, both of them are implicit if a game has a goal, that's the important part. If there's a goal you have a standard to measure your performance against, so win/lose conditions are inevitable even if they aren't hard coded states in the game. But yeah they're games, though if the focus is on creativity/aimless messing around first and foremost then they're kind of a middle ground, games where the game part isn't really relevant.

[Anonymous No.5143689]

>>5143512
Because it's a discussion that doesn't need to happen and is only going on with the goal of altering the deffinition of what a game is.

[Anonymous No.5143746]

A game will always have a threat of failure unless artificially mandatory. If you take the mechanics of Super Metroid, remove all ways of taking damage (enemies, spikes, lava), the failure will then by measured by failed wall jumping and speed running. Make a "kaizo" hack with no enemies based off of pixel-perfect speed-balling, and it will still be harder than modern games.

[Anonymous No.5143987]

>>5143746
>the failure will then by measured by failed wall jumping and speed running
Yeah, lolno you retard. Spergrunning is a form of metagaming and so the threat is just a metathreat. Has nothing to do with the actual game.

[Anonymous No.5143991]

>>5143721
The English one.


>>5143746
>A game will always have a threat of failure unless artificially mandatory.

Untrue.

[Anonymous No.5144072]

>>5128874
No.

[Anonymous No.5144315]

>>5144072
k

[Anonymous No.5144350]

>>5143991
>a form of competitive activity or sport played according to rules.
This one?

[Anonymous No.5144357]

>>5144350
An activity one engages in for amusement or fun. A game can also be something with rules and a goal, obviously. It's just not a requirement.

[Anonymous No.5144392]

>>5144357
That's a non definition though, it applies to nearly every hobby or activity you can think of

[Anonymous No.5144402]

>>5144392
It literally is the definition. It is wide though, certainly. But the word also encompasses everything from Animal Crossing to Street Fighter and a host of other things between and beyond. The vast majority of the English speaking world has no confusion though. Just you lol.

[Anonymous No.5144406]

>>5144402
Not really, there's a reason nobody considers making things in photoshop a game while everyone understands that Tetris is a game, because there are far more things that make a game than being an amusing activity. People actually are confused as soon as they start thinking about it which is clearly obvious in any discussion about what makes a game, most people just don't think about it because at the end of the day it's just entertainment to them and whether it's technically a game or not doesn't make a difference as long as it's entertaining.

[Anonymous No.5144410]

>>5144402
Definition by who? Democratic poll by asking random subhumans on the streets? Consulting some general-purpose dictionary that just wants to please the said subhumans? Neither suffice, not if you're actually in any way serious about your passion for videogames.

[Anonymous No.5144412]

>>5144406
No one outside of these sperg forums has any trouble recognizing thibgs like AC, Gone Home etc etc as games as that's what they clearly are. But here we get long winded attempts to try to redefine them and I always find that funny.

[Anonymous No.5144423]

>>5144412
In other words enthusiast communities who actually talk about what they consume instead of simply consuming, as I said. Though this isn't really true either, game designers frequently discuss what makes a game, even psychologists do and you can look at different dictionaries and see very different definitions of what makes a game.

[Anonymous No.5144453]

>>5144423
It's really just small pockets upset at the popularity of games like Gone Home who don't want to feel their hobby is appealing to a wider set of gamers. That's where this all stems from. Their anger is my plaything. It's all a fun game.

[Anonymous No.5144475]

>>5144453
Oh yeah, those evil elitist bigots like Keith Burgun right? You're also undermining the point of these games, not sure about Gone Homo but Dear Esther was deliberately made as an exercise in minimalism, saying it's easily accepted not only completely devalues it but also just shows how mindless people are. It also has nothing to do with appealing to a wider audience, it's something any very easy point and click adventure games could do just as well.

[Anonymous No.5144480]

>>5128874
entirely genre dependent

[Anonymous No.5144642]

>>5144475
Calling it a game doesn't devalue anything. It is a game. That you want the deffinition to be more narrow than it is to try and re-define them as something is your problem.

[Anonymous No.5144697]

>>5144642
It does as I've explained, and it's not making the definition more narrow, it's making a definition that actually describes something instead of being synonymous with hobby

[Anonymous No.5144752]

>>5139316
But this doesn't happen because you played poorly, it's because you didn't play the game for a while (which is the one thing I hate about AC desu).

[Anonymous No.5144942]

>>5144697
No it doesn't at all.

[Anonymous No.5145038]

>>5129439
I guess the closest thing to a failure state here is stasis
there's a win state, but no proper lose state

[Anonymous No.5145040]

>>5129703
good point
I'm actually getting a little fucking bored talking about it right now...

[Anonymous No.5145243]

>>5143987
A "true ending" being obtained by doing the game under X hours is a reason why Metroid is garbage. Try harder.

[Anonymous No.5145249]

>>5129120
Animal Crossing is more of a social sim than a game. plus the game part lies in upgrading your home. so there is failure in never upgrading your home

[Anonymous No.5145279]

>>5129554
damn, what a good ass argument

[Anonymous No.5145474]

>>5143730
I think it's kind of both. D&D doesn't really have a defined goal, but failure is unambiguous. A mazelike adventure or P&C game might have a clear goal, but only an implied failure state (giving up).

>>5144402
You don't even seem to understand why words exist.

>>5143689
>is only going on with the goal of altering the deffinition of what a game is.
You are paranoid and clearly at some point was personally offended that someone didn't consider some game you liked a real game. That is seriously fucking pathetic.

The discussion is about understanding the definition and why it matters, not altering it.

[Anonymous No.5145484]

>>5144412
Even people on this forum aren't particularly arguing that AC isn't a game. They're just trying to explain why instead of being a retard and posting the most inclusive possible dictionary definition they can find as if that makes any difference at all.
Thought if I was feeling harsh, I might call AC an addictive pseudo-game.

[Anonymous No.5145852]

>>5145474
There's no paranoia, I just see the agenda.

>>5145484
It isn't a pseudo game is any way though, that's the entire point of this whole thing. It's just a game lol.

[Anonymous No.5145971]

I have a question for the camp that's going "____ isn't REALLY a game."

Would it be reasonable to take your argument to the extreme and expect a retail store to separate such games into their own quasi-games section?

[Anonymous No.5147691]

>>5145971
Of course they wouldn't. They're obviously games, even the trolls deep down jnow they're games. They're just all upset because they want the hobby to stay niche and focused on only what they like. That's why it's all so funny.