Perhaps they are meant to be fun, but to be honest, fun isn't enough.
A video game doesn't have to be fun for it to be a good video game. (This is part of the reason some think 'video game' is an antiquated term.) Much like books and films, places for games that are not fun but culturally relevant should be allowed to exist.
Of course, if a game can't be fun or culturally relevant... screw it.
The issue really isn't as nebulous as all that, but most of us are missing the forest for the trees. I was too until I thought about General Norris' last post. Now that I think I've got my head around it, I hope I can illustrate it adequately.
Many people think of video games as a type of expressive media, in sort of the same way they would think of books, film, painting, sculpture, music, etcetera. That's not quite accurate, though. I'll use the "games versus cinema" analogy everyone likes to go back to. "Cinema" or "film" or "movie" describes a particular vessel for communication. These terms describe a category of form, but not a category of what is being done within that form, be it drama, comedy, documentary, musicals, or animation. If you will, "film" categorizes the container, but does not categorize the contents.
"Game" (sans "video") describes a category of action (structured activity with rules and goals, engaged in for fun/leisure/recreation), but has no bearing at all on what form it takes. Board games, role playing games, math games, ball games, word games, etc. all share common traits relating to purpose and behavior, and have little else in common. Opposite to "film", "game" categorizes the contents, but does not categorize the container.
"Video game" then, describes categories for both the container (video) and the contents (game). Sans "video" the game could take any other form, or sans "game" it could be any other manner of activity. Video games are not the actual communication medium we are talking about, but a category within that medium. The actual medium would be more accurately described either as "video" or as "computer software" or more accurately as a combination of the two (multimedia).
All of the analogies we've been making between games and other things are misguided. Books are a medium. War & Peace, the Quran, The Better Homes & Gardens Cookbook, Chicken Soup For the Soul, and Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook are all books. Only one of them contains a game. That sort of variety of content does not exist within video games because video games are the game, not the book. "Multimedia software" is the book.
Similar to what some are suggesting, we would need a new name for an interactive multimedia program that drips with good drama but lacks any fun. "Game" would not be any appropriate part of that new name.
I love how everyone is just continuing to talk right past my previous post.
You can define things until you are blue in the face, but you are dealing with something whose very meaning is subjective and determined through practice/uptake, not theory/intent.
dsheinem wrote:I love how everyone is just continuing to talk right past my previous post.
And knowing that, you continue to expect us to find it relevant?
You can define things until you are blue in the face, but you are dealing with something whose very meaning is subjective and determined through practice/uptake, not theory/intent.
That's not correct though. "Video" has a definition. "Game" has a definition. "Game" particularly has a definition that pertains to purpose or intent. You're contradicting that, but you're not citing citing any authority, nor are you offering us any rational reason to accept your assertion.
Or, if my subjective experience of your posts has no particular meaning to me, who are you to argue, or to define it as something to which we should pay attention?
flamepanther wrote: "Video" has a widely understood and accepted definition. "Game" has a subjective and highly tenuous definition.
Fixed that for you.
Unless I am reading this thread wrong, the whole purpose of your posts and almost everyone else's is to define games as "something intended to be fun" and to do so with some grand reasoning/backing. That's well and good if you are just interested in having an inane conversation, but it is like trying to define art in that ultimately the answer is subjective, contextual, temporal, and defined by uptake and not by intent. The only worthwhile posts in this thread have provided specific examples of why a specific title is or is not a game and is or is not fun for certain specific reasons and for certain specific audiences. They haven't made grand claims about games as a whole.
You or I can cite authority figures if we'd like (game programmers, the dictionary, game theorists, etc.) but you will quickly find AS you do the research that these authorities and their definitions don't all agree with one another. Arguing otherwise is wrong.
Even if what you're suggesting were correct (the primary definition of "game" is pretty consistent), the notion that none of it can be discussed or argued because everything is subjective and ineffable is equally as inane, tired, and pointless--if not more so.
Are you trying to derail this into an argument about arguing? Stop it.
flamepanther wrote:Even if what you're suggesting were correct (the primary definition of "game" is pretty consistent), the notion that none of it can be discussed or argued because everything is subjective and ineffable is equally as inane, tired, and pointless--if not more so.
I didn't suggest that "none of it" can be discussed or argued - you are right that for me to do so would be pointless.
I suggested that arguing with certainty about a definition of "game" especially with relation to "fun" with any hope of reaching consensus is pointless, which is the basic premise of the thread and the reason for so many of its inane posts that fail to really get anywhere or prove anything despite their grandstanding.
