I don’t have a comment about this video, but I do want to mention something I noticed to you guys about Bioshock Infinite, which I believe you will be addressing at some point.
[No spoilers for Bioshock Infinite beyond what was shown in trailers]
I invited my father, who never plays games, to watch me play through the intro/tutorial. With no context, he understood the narrative as it was, a clearly dystopian society dressed up as a utopia of homogenous smiling faces. He did not enjoy the intro at this point because it made him uncomfortable and suspicious of the world before him, as it should. At the raffle he was appropriately shocked, but afterward he saw the first act of violence in the game. My character grabbed one officer and threw his face into the spinning claw on another officer’s hand. My father swore and immediately walked out in disgust. He later described it to my mother as “watching people’s heads get sawed off.” This coming from a man raised as a butcher who once routinely killed and processed pigs.
Despite not being one of the many shocking reveals of the narrative, this moment is memorable for not only being our introduction to violence in Columbia, but also the single goriest scripted event in the entire game. I repeated this experiment with some of my friends to gauge their reactions. To gamers, the act energized them and indicated a switch between tutorial and combat. Those watching who were familiar with games sounded surprised, uneasy or even cheered at the moment, but afterward relaxed as the player followed through with the combat.
Bioshock is a great spectator game with visually entertaining combat and an intricate story. However, this one moment betrays the intent of the game and panders to a perceived desire for an immature display of gore.
Isn't this just the premise behind visual novels? I mean, those are completely story-focused games, with similar mechanics and methods of delivery, and they've been around for decades with relatively little change. They're still extremely popular in Japan as well. Not that VNs usually reach this level of maturity and creativity. Even as a fan of the genre, I'd readily admit they're mostly just pandering and often vapid. But some of the ideas they embody are certainly useful in other games.
Extra Credits seems a bit behind the times here - adventure games are undergoing a glorious renaissance, and have been for quite some time. Samorost, Machinarium, Botanicula, the Lands of Dream games, The Longest Journey, Dreamfall, and the forthcoming Dreamfall: Chapters, the gorgeous Monkey Island HD remakes, the entire Wadjet Eye games catalogue (with something like three or four critically acclaimed games put out last year alone), and on and on (really, there's way more, but I'll stop there). Hearing this episode ponder the 'dying' adventure game genre when I am up to my elbows in fantastic adventure games fresh out of the ovens just made me roll me eyes and say to myself, 'Wow, these guys REALLY aren't paying attention are they?'
Is Telltale a company big enough to release a AAA title? I thought it only happens when they receive financial and manpower backing from a company that CAN produce them, like Capcom backing Eighting for Marvel vs. Capcom 3.
And well, Telltale did turn a profit with the Wallace & Gromit adventure games. Heck, Sam & Max is still a big success for a small studio like Telltale.
P.S. Ah, I see my thoughts have already been typed below. So I'll offer a reply.
@ Agent S7: Nintendo, of all companies, has been creating (and funding) some quality JRPGs. The Mario RPGs continue to be very well-received, at least in the west (Japanese gamers don't care for them too much, apparently), and we got Xenoblade Chronicles, commonly regarded as the JRPG that really knows what it's doing. It may be somewhat old, but a Nintendo-owned company is also responsible for Mother 3. I've heard a lot of good things about Fire Emblem Awakening, but that may just be fan myopia (and whether you'd call that an RPG is up to you). And then, of course, there are the Pokémon series, which continues to bring hundreds of billions of yen into Nintendo every year.
That being said, except for Xenoblade Chronicles, none of them are your typical JRPG. Some are parodies of the genre (such as the Paper Mario games), and some have different priorities in their design (most notably, Pokémon is more about turn-based multiplayer whereas JRPGs have traditionally been about the single-player story).
Thing is, adventure games haven't been dead for a while now, as others in the comments have pointed out - Zack and Wiki for the Nintendo Wii was surpring at the time, but we've had a fairly continous stream of adventure games for a while now. It is true that a lot of them have been indie games - Machinarium and the like - but its hardly anything that unique. Heck, Trauma Team for the Wii is another example of an adventure game... sort of. At least, two of the six doctors are adventure games.
But perhaps most obviously, LA Noire was an adventure game as well, that had some other minigames thrown in like driving, shooting, and chasing, but the core experience of LA noire was an adventure game. And from what I understand, it was very popular.
No, adventure games aren't dead, and haven't been for quite some time. The reason the genre died was because the core experience of old adventure games kind of sucked. They're basically puzzle games, but they're a sort of arbitrary sort of puzzle game. The genre really ate itself mainly for two reasons:
1) Myst and similar adventure games were hard to the point where most people couldn't beat them.
2) A lot of the adventure games which were more "traditional" had such nonsensical puzzles that they were just too arbitrary.
Thus, your analysis is both right and wrong. While telling a story is pretty vital to a good adventure game, creating a world which makes sense and that we care about, ultimately problem solving IS a major part of the genre, and with good reason - there isn't a whole lot else that actually makes them games.
Incidentally, regarding visual novels: while one can percieve a visual novel as an adventure game, I would tend to argue that they are not even games really, by and large. A lot of them seem to be more experiential than to be truly about problem solving, and thus while interactive, I wouldn't actually define them as games, because they lack a major part of what makes a game a game - challenge. Without challenge, it may be an interactive medium, but it isn't actually a game. Another example of this would be Dear Esther, which rather sucked. Cute idea, but it was boring as nails. It certainly wasn't a game, despite the fact that it was interactive.
@Titanium Dragon VNs do have challenge, if not in the traditional sense. Don't forget that originally they evolved out of dating sims like Tokimeki Memorial, where the entire point was to win over a virtual girlfriend. If there is challenge in VNs, then it's through the element of choice. It can be as simple as spending time with the wrong character or as harsh as getting killed, but there's difficulty there.
Dear Esther has that element in a way too. I think exploration is inherently challenging.
I thought you got a new artist. If so, why does the art look the same? Don't get me wrong I liked the original style and thought Allison did a great job. I just thought a different person would have different results. Different does not mean worse in this case.
On a different subject, I recently played a different Adventure Game called "The Journey Down" It's cheap on Steam right now and I really enjoyed it. Yes, it does those "horrible" things old adventure games did like have puzzles and an inventory screen and experimenting which found item does what to help you progress. But it also had a very different art style than other games. The setting was engaging, you like the main character, and you want to find out what happens next. (Only the first episode is available right now.) That being said, there are problems with the game. Tropes abound and even though you want to see what happens next, so far the plot has been cliche.
But do those things matter? Can you take the "father vanished while exploring" plot device and still have an engaging story? I can, but I know not everyone else can as well.
Even when i literally grown with the genre, is really shitty when you realize you can enjoy the same game, without the puzzle(or at least the MOST of them). I thing put some features in the game for only "tradition" or for the feature sake, normally end with a bland game experience. One example of puzzles well put for the history sake???, Phoenix wrigth series, really, that puzzle part(or investigation if you want to mess with terminology), make you engage in the history and the detective/lawyer atmosphere. Bad use???, Monkey island and the "safe" combination, that puzzle if only annoying, and really dump the experience of the game in that part.
OK, youtube is really sucking at presenting this material. They are the absolute only website that sucks this bad at streaming and this is the only show I still watch powered by youtube.
Now on topic: good show focusing on core engagement. I'm kind of surprised you didn't reference that with more emphasis.
@Redskull87
Which safe combination are we talking about? If we're talking about in the first game, the shop-owner could be tricked into opening the safe, and then into leaving the store, so you could repeat the combination into the safe to get the line of credit note.
If it's Monkey Island 4 though, I could also not figure out how to recover the evidence from the monkey storage system without cycling through all the combinations.
@drcheckmate
Back to the Future was held back by the convoluted storyline and the poor puzzle segments.
If it had fit more smoothly into the established chronology and had less "Someone will have to disarm both of them at the same time!" in favour of more flying cars or just dramatic sequences with BTTF music over top, it would have been far better. I'd like to think that BTTF shares a similar fan base as The Walking Dead, but The Walking Dead's more current, and so more of its fans are likely to also find the game in the first place.
@Noptasis: I strongly disagree. Ultimately, while it is arguable that there is "winning" in VNs (depending on the VN of course) a lot of it is mostly experiential rather than all about winning.
Dear Esther has no challenge in it at all. There is no challenge to it, and the exploration aspect is severely limited and frankly does nothing to make the game better - it is almost entirely linear, slow, and the story just isn't anything that special. Exploration has nothing to do with challenge.
Dear Esther was a very artsy thing that, quite frankly, was awful. Its pacing was bad, the story wasn't good, the central quirk to the game is only evident if you played it multiple times, the island didn't really work to reinforce the narrative... the list goes on. While the quirk of the game was cute, the game was far too long to make good use of it because I felt zero desire to play through it again because of how boring it was.
@Magic Pancake: I disagree that Sid Meier's definition is even remotely correct. Without challenge, there is no game. There are interactive experiences, such as visual novels, which are not games at all; likewise with choose your own adventure books.
"Here lays adventures game?" Somebody get these people an editor. "Here lies adventure game?" or, making a bit more sense and sounding less awkward, "here lie adventure games."
Oddly enough, it ended up being my least favorite Telltale game for some reason (Because I didn't give a shit about any of the characters). Back to the Future is getting a second season.
Actually,when they first started saying adventure games were "dead",they were already starting anew. Gametap,think Netflix but for PC games,signed a deal with Telltale to make a new Sam & Max game. The game took off and they signed up for Season 2. Soon after that,Ted Turner sold Gametap off to some bunch of idiots. Yeah,Ted Turner helped bring back adventure games. He was also behind Cartoon Network when it was good,before it was sold to Time Warner. Fuck you,haters.
The new management didn't renew the deal with Telltale for season 3,so they had to go it alone,but they'd built enough of a fanbase to support them and continued to expand. In addition to this,there was the famous Double Fine Adventure Kickstarter. They wanted 400,000 to make "an old school point and click adventure game". A game that wasn't even written yet. They got 3.3 mil. If that doesn't prove to you how much people love adventure games,I don't know what will.
So in summation,the industry has it's head so far up it's own ass,they have no clue what people like. They wouldn't know a good game if you beat them to death with it. So many game genres are coming back via Kickstarter and indie houses,it's just crazy. But you can't tell the big boys that. They're too busy pushing out shovelware for an endless sea of noobs,they don't care if they lose a few hardcore fans. Which is pretty much how most entertainment industries work. Welcome to the fringe,boys and girls. (puts on hipster glasses) Hang on to your coffee,it gets a bit wild on this ride.
@Cerrax My point was that the basic gameplay was the same. The quality thereof really didn't enter into it because it was only the demo of ME2 and I lost interest in Walking Dead in less time than a demo would run.
Well, if it's just going to be a semantics argument, then there's no getting around it. My idea of game is different from yours. Though I don't think the argument of "experiential winning" really makes sense. Challenge is just engaging difficulty. How is clicking a speech option that influences the outcome of the game any different from clicking an attack command that influences the outcome of the game?
Dear Esther did a lot of things right. It was extremely atmospheric, for one thing, and that's reason enough to play a game. We watch movies and read books often just to take in the atmosphere, same goes for games. I feel it's a more mellow sort of game you play to relax or unwind.
@Titanium Dragon It's interesting to me that you would disqualify Adventure games and choose your own adventure novels as "games." If anything, a CYOA novel is a "gamified novel," and an adventure game could rightly be described as a "gamified movie." I wouldn't disagree with your assessment that challenge is an important part of what makes games games, but I would say that you should challenge (see what I did there?) your definition of what a challenge is. Say what you will, but adventure games can be very challenging, but perhaps not in a traditional sense. You are asked to take in the environment, learn from what is around you, understand the mechanics of your world, and learn to use them to your goals. Sure, it might look like dragging and dropping every inventory item until something works doesn't look like a game, and it might look like there is no challenge, but rather someone just exploring every option ad nauseam, but I would say that they aren't necessarily engaging the medium in the way that it was meant to be, or at the very least they are engaging in a different tactic of play that what the designers may have had in mind (but that in NO way disqualifies it as a legitimate way to play, as finding loopholes and alternative methods of play has been at the core of games since their inception). Adventure games give the player a world within which to play, a story to help them understand or interpret the world, and then asks them to explore, employing that which they know about the world and that which they can learn in order to achieve a goal. This is bare bones, but it sure as heck sounds like a game to me, as you could probably apply that outline to most any game there is. It's just that instead of guns and units as the medium of interaction with the world, the player is given different tools.
Also, I'm not sure if "winning" has crept into this at all beyond the discussion around VNs, but I would warn that winning is unimportant for defining a game. It's impossible, mechanically speaking, to "win" at Tetris, yet it is undeniably a game, and a great one at that. Rather, as I think the conversation has focused on, challenge is the vital element, but like I said, it doesn't always look the same.
@Titanium Dragon: so by your definition, Candyland and Chutes & Ladders aren't games, since there's no challenge in them whatsoever - everything is determined purely by the luck of the dice.
I suspect your definition requires some more thought.
Challenge is an optional factor in games, not a defining trait. After all, it's subjective anyway: a game you find challenging might not challenge me at all, or vice versa. Does that mean it's only a game for you?
Agree entirely, I also thought the price was an attractive one, not so much you had to wait for you next pay to budget for it. having it easy to download on steam, and not be too big also sold me. That was why I bought it, why i raved about it to my friends was becuase of the reasons you described an engaging adventure game.
@Noptasis and @staplegun007: Here's the problem with your definition of a game: It is without value.
Is a book a game? The answer is no. Is a book with two or three endings a game? Still no. Clearly, then, merely adding options for endings isn't what makes a novel into a game; there is a difference in kind between a novel and a game, and mere interactivity is NOT the threshold (and in any event, Dear Esther and similar things are not really interactive anyway; Dear Esther substitutes moving around with turning pages).
My definition of a game has value and it clearly distinguishes games from non-games. A visual novel or similar thing without any challenge to it is not a game; it may be an interactive experience, but it is not a game. Something like the adventure game sections of Trauma Team are a game, because there IS challenge to it - the challenge lies in trying to figure out what is wrong and how to put things together.
Your definition fails utterly at these things. Therefore, your definition is wrong and useless, because it fails to actually make any sort of meaningful distinction. The purpose of labels is to have meaning and to collect similar things together, and your label fails to do so. Games are a type of interactive experience, but not all interactive experiences are games. Games are fundamentally defined by the challenge which lies in them, not the mere fact that you interact with them.
There is a fundamental difference between an adventure game (which challenges the player to solve puzzles, be they social, evidentary, representational, or otherwise) and a visual novel (which does NOT challenge the player, merely being a series of options that determine what the next step of the story is). The latter does not constitute a challenge.
Dear Esther is not a game. Katawa Shoujou is not a game. Trauma Team's forensics sections are a game.
@Shjade: Correct. Candyland and Chutes & Ladders are NOT games, nor are most slot machines. Indeed, Chutes & Ladders and Candyland aren't even interactive - playing those games is no more interactive than reading a novel, using rolls of the dice and moving pieces instead of reading words and turning pages. They may look like games on the surface, but in actuality they are not, in fact, games at all. They are fundamentally different from poker, or Monopoly, or Risk, or Call of Duty. In fact, they're even less interactive than visual novels.
To be a game, it must be a meaningfully interactive challenge. Without those two aspects, I don't think it can be defined as a game (and by meaningfully interactive, I mean something more than merely clicking a button; you must actually perform some task - solve a riddle, do some series of things, whatever).
I'm sorry, but I have to leave lurker mode here. The term "Game" is NOT a subjective one, and we don't get to define it to suit our personal fancies.
game /gām/ Noun A form of play or sport, esp. a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.
You may not like it, but games of chance like Yahtzee and Chutes and Ladders are still games even if they are entirely dependant on luck. They may be BAD games... but they ARE games.
Somewhere in here I thought of how Bioshock(All of them) also does this, but it's Bioshock. I mean, I related good game design to Bioshock, that's not exactly hard to do.
@urknighterrant: Sure, you COULD be boring and use a dictionary. That is the simple way of doing it. But where's the fun in that?
The real issue with that is, again, what is the definition of "play"? "An exercise or activity for amusement or recreation." Does reading a book count as an exercise or activity done for amusement or recreation? Yes. Would you ever say that someone was playing a book? No. Is reading a novel a game? No.
Clearly some activities don't count as activities or exercises; reading a book, for instance, does not fall under the definition of play, while it is obvious that messing around with Candyland would. And yet, there's nothing in there that says that reading books for fun doesn't count.
Titanium Knight, you are not the arbiter of what a game is. Yes, someone can play a book. A CYOA is exactly that - a game. They even get sold in the game sections of stores.
Something doesn't magically stop being a game because you're butthurt about it.
"Clearly some activities don't count as activities or exercises;"
Says who? things like CYOA have been considered games longer than you exist. Way longer. We're talking a factor of 20 here. You being ignorant of this doesn't make your opinion fact, it just makes you misinformed.
Is a book a game? The answer can, in fact, be yes. Regardless of your buttpain about it. Games never needed challenge. Most games are, in fact, not challenging at all in any way. That's the whole recreational part of it.
The episode ended on this note: the mechanics aren't nearly as important as the underlying factors that draw us in when applying labels to things; so why is it that we still have to get caught up in the pedantry of "is x a game or not?" I like visual novels for different reasons than normal ones, I like visual novels for different reasons than I like film; those reasons are similar to the reasons I like things like Mario or Zelda. Ergo, a visual novel is a game. To me, anyways...
Titanium I may be "boring", but that changes nothing. Using a dictionary is not the "simple" way to define a word. It's the RIGHT way. Language is a technical exercise. In order for people to use language effectively we need to adhere to standards, and where the definition of a word is concerned that standard is found in a DICTIONARY. You don't get to just change the definition of a word because you don't like it. If you do you are no longer speaking in English, you're making up your own language.
Mind you, there's nothing wrong with that, provided you are using it to communicate with other people that are speaking "Titanese". The rest of us are speaking English.
I like to use the definition of a game as: A problem-solving activity, approached with a playful attitude -- In which case, games like Yahtzee are certainly games!
I won't go into detail on this definition here, but I'd encourage you to read Ch. 3 in Jesse Schell's "The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses". He walks through the entire process of what the definition of a game really is.
@Machachan: Says reality. No one "plays" a novel they're reading. Again, the definition of "play" clearly excludes many recreational activities, such as reading, watching television, looking at art, ect. To be play, it must be an active thing, not passive, and clearly we set the threshold for activity above "turning pages" because otherwise reading The Lord of the Rings would be considered playing - but it is considered to be an entirely separate activity.
I disagree that CYOA is a game at all, and I think that it is useless to classify it as one. You're just angry because you're one of those special fluff-puffs who tries to define everything as art without realizing that it is just stupid to do.
The purpose of words is to communicate meaning. Classifying CYOA and Visual Novels as games is meaningless though - what value does it add to call them games? Nothing. It informs you not at all about them, nor does it help you design them.
Does the movie Clue, with its three endings, count as a game? I don't think anyone would define it as such, nor would I say that it would be useful to call it a game, as it does not inform you of its properties, nor does it help you create it. And yet a CYOA or visual novel is nothing more than adding additional choices to that; something like Katawa Shojou only has you make ten choices or so throughout the entirety of the visual novel on any given playthrough, with many of them spaced an hour apart or so. It is not a game; it is not fundamentally different from a novel.
No amount of whining on your part changes the fact that calling a visual novel or a CYOA book a game is unhelpful. They are not designed like games are, nor does being a game designer make you good at making such things.
Candyland, chutes & ladders, and slots machines are not games either. The design of games does nothing to inform you about them. There are no choices to be made. They simply exist. They can run entirely autonomously; you move around the pieces in Candyland or Chutes & Ladders after rolling dice, but there is no actual input by you - the game is not deterministic, and yet its outcome is not affected in any way by the players. You act like a computer, merely executing instructions others are giving you. It is not a game in a meaningful sense.
That is why I feel that they should be excluded from the definition. If you define it as recreational problem-solving, as obto seems to, then you can see why that definition is useful. You can also see why your definition is worthless - a visual novel, CYOA, or something like a slots machine is not designed the same way as a game is. They may have some outward similarities, but just as a dragonfly is not a bird, these are not games in any meaningful sense.
@urknighterrant: The problem is what I pointed out; the definition in the dictionary has unspoken baggage associated with it, as the word "play" is not unambiguous and is only used to describe certain sorts of activities, of which reading and watching are not included.
The problem with using the dictionary to give a definition is that many words DO have such unspoken baggage. Play actually has a meaning more precise than what is in the dictionary; it is not merely an activity done for recreational purposes. Or perhaps the flaw lies in the word "activity" itself excluding more passive activities in many cases.
If you say that you're playing a novel. people will be confused.
@Titanium_Dragon: What about those CYOA books that were like solo adventure modules that you needed dice for to run combat? And doesn't the C in CYOA mean you're actively participating in the story's outcome and,therefore,suit your definition of a "game"?
Then,of course,there's pen and paper RPGs (reading,looking at art (minitures,maps,etc),those old board games that had videotapes/DVDs and that one TV show where you shot at the screen with the special ship guns (watching TV),Where's Waldo (watching TV/reading a book/looking at art),and more examples I could go into but won't cause if you haven't figured it out by now,I doubt you're going to from me siting more examples.
All of these REQUIRE the reader/viewer/whatever take an active part in whatever they're doing. Simply turning a page isn't interacting,but choosing which page to turn to to continue the story that you've chosen to follow is. So,yeah,CYOA books are pretty much games. Because you're actively interacting with the story. It's limited,it's basic,but it's there. By your thinking,wouldn't Return to Castle Wolfenstein not be considered interactive as your choices don't really change the story in any meaningful way? So by this definition,RtCW isn't a game either.
And in many ways,many "choice" systems in video games are just as simplistic as a CYOA novel. You can put the remedy on Harold's heart and make his forest grow faster (turn to page 23),put the toxin on Harold's heart to slow the growth of the forest (turn to page 52),or destroy the heart and free Harold of his torment (turn to page 119). Remember to check off your "Harold" choice on your character sheet.
Your argument is fine ass madness and your points are non-existent except in your own mind. If books aren't games,then pen and paper RPGs can't be games either as all it is in books and dice. And there's a lot of people who'd say P&P RPGs are games.
Titanium what you are engaging in now is called the Straw Man Fallacy. Unable to support your original argument (that chutes and ladders is not a game) you instead refute a superficially similar but completely unrelated point (the definition of the word "play"). Just sayin', you're not fooling anybody.
Being a know-it-all is a bit of a PITA but in this day and age, where actual facts are never more than a few clicks away, it's a character flaw that can be tolerated. Less so is the fact that you're being a complete dickhead about it.
@Merlynn: Interactivity is necessary but not sufficient to make a game. I have never played any of those, so I don't know if they count. Did they allow you to make meaningful decisions in the moment? The mere addition of randomness does nothing to make something more or less of a game.
Pen and paper RPGs are clearly games. Are they interactive? Yes. Are they challenging? Also yes. They may not be DIFFICULT, but there is a challenge to a pen and paper RPG. The idea that my definition would exclude them is, clearly, insane. So why are you ranting about them?
Is Where's Waldo a game? That is a far more interesting question, and it is doubly interesting because on its face, Where's Waldo is completely non-interactive, and yet, it is still challenging nevertheless - the picture doesn't change, and when you complete the puzzle, you merely move onto the next one. One could argue that this is interactivity, but I have to question whether it truly is.
Of course, if we consider Where's Waldo a game, then it would still disqualify Chutes & Ladders and VNs, because while the challenge is certainly present in Where's Waldo, there isn't much interactivity. In the end, any such definition must be something that all games share.
What do principles of game design tell you about making Chutes & Ladders? Nothing. What do they tell you about making slot machines? Also nothing. Game-specific design knowledge is unhelpful while making such things because they aren't games. There is knowledge which is useful for games which is also useful for other things which is useful for them - knowledge of psychology to manipulate players into playing more - but that has nothing to do with actually being a game, that's simply psychology.
If said knowledge does not help you make said things, then why are they called "games" if they aren't?
Interactivity is NOT the only defining feature of a game. It is A defining feature of a game. But mere interactivity is insufficient to make a game. There are many interactive things which are not, in fact, games.
My argument isn't madness. You don't like it because you want something which isn't a game to be called a game for whatever bizzare reason you have.
Its like the morons who say "Video games are art!" No, they're not. Video games CONTAIN art. SOME video games are ALSO art. But video games, as a category, are not art unless you use such a worthless term as to make the term art completely meaningless.
@urknighterrant: Incorrect. Your complete lack of understanding of both logic (protip: A straw man argument is when you create a false argument, then attack it, which is not what I am doing) and argumentation is irrelevant. Just saying, but you're clearly fooling yourself.
"But wah!" Yeah I know. You're crying about it. The dictionary's definition is imperfect.
Chutes & Ladders isn't a game because it isn't interactive, nor is it challenging. Without both of those features, it isn't a game.
If Chutes & Ladders was a game, tell me: What does game design tell you about constructing it? The answer is simple: it doesn't.
Chutes & Ladders is a manually operated program wherein you roll dice and move around markers according to purely deterministic rules. There is no user input, there is no skill, there is no challenge, there is no interaction. If you replaced all the players with computers it would be entirely identical.
How is this a game? In what way is it a game? Is Progress Quest a game? Because Progress Quest is fundamentally the same thing. I would contend, however, that Progress Quest is NOT a game.
A game, in the sense of game design, clearly has a definition. I think that interactive challenge is a reasonable definition of a game. Some might argue that the interactive part should be dropped or is redundant.
But I still stand by the idea that most VNs, CYOAs, Chutes & Ladders, and slot machines are not games in the "game design" sort of way.
Why IS Chutes & Ladders a game? What makes it a game? You have failed to answer that question. I have pointed out why it is NOT a game - because it is a non-interactive program with no skill, challenge, or even user input involved.
Attacking the definition of "play" rather than address the issue on the table is the very epitome of a straw man argument, Titan.
And "Wah!" according to the dictionary definition of "game" dumb luck is adequate to make C&L a game, especially if it is competitive, which C&L is, and played according to a set of rules, which again, C&L is.
Thus a term that you may have heard before and which heralds to antiquity even when compared to your great and ancient wisdom...
"Game of Chance".
The reason there is no "meaningful" interaction is because it's a (and here's another commonly held phrase you may have heard before) "Children's Game". Children playing C&L are not ready for critical thinking or problem solving. At the C&L developmental stage games are simply teaching toddlers how to win, how to lose, and how to follow rules.
No matter how long-winded you are about it, that's the fact. You can belittle us as unimaginative and call us names if it makes you feel better, but that doesn't make you right. You are standing in contempt of fact, Titan, and that's just being stupid. You may not LIKE the English definition of "game", you may "feel" that it is applied inappropriately, but to my knowledge you're not actually empowered to change it by proclamation.
game /gām/ Noun A form of play or sport, esp. a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.
You may not like it, but games of chance like Yahtzee and Chutes and Ladders are still games even if they are entirely dependant on luck. They may be BAD games... but they ARE games.
game noun \ˈgām\
1 a (1) : activity engaged in for diversion or amusement : play
3 a (1) : a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other (2) : a division of a larger contest (3) : the number of points necessary to win (4) : points scored in certain card games (as in all fours) by a player whose cards count up the highest (5) : the manner of playing in a contest (6) : the set of rules governing a game (7) : a particular aspect or phase of play in a game or sport <a football team's kicking game>
c (1) : a field of gainful activity : line <the newspaper game> (2) : any activity undertaken or regarded as a contest involving rivalry, strategy, or struggle <the dating game> <the game of politics>; also : the course or period of such an activity <got into aviation early in the game> (3) : area of expertise : specialty 3 <comedy is not my game>
The first [1] definition is so general as to include any and all entertainment and possibly even work. We can reasonably throw it out as it includes books, film, sleeping, and eating.
The second [3a(1)] definition is what I would argue we are using when talking about games. I would also point to definition 3c(2) as evidence that challenge is associated with games when used colloquially with more serious matters.
game [geym] noun
1. 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 endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.
4. a single occasion of such an activity, or a definite portion of one: the final game of the season; a rubber of three games at bridge.
5. the number of points required to win a game.
The first definition again is so broad as to include many subjects that we would not consider games. It also specifically cites children's games to differentiate the definition from that used for sports and, I would argue, board games and video games. The formerly mentioned third (3) definition is more broad than Merriam-Webster's definition and does specifically include games of chance (Chutes & Ladders). VNs or CYOAs could be classified as simplistic games of chance.
Games of chance generally try to eliminate the role of skill as best as they can in order to make them as random as possible. Keep in mind that an element of chance doesn't define a game as one of chance, it is when that is the main determining factor. Poker is a game of skill whereas Blackjack and Chutes and Ladders are games of chance. Games of chance are not intrinsically rewarding, rolling dice or spinning a wheel looses it's enjoyment once you have a basic understanding of randomness. The reward is extrinsic whether it be gambling or a different story arc. Games of skill should be intrinsically rewarding, solving puzzles and shooting enemies should be fun. Extrinsic rewards can also be attached but they aren't the focus.
So no, CYOAs and VNs are not games, at least not in the same way or to the same degree as most video games, board games, and sports.
Why IS Chutes & Ladders a game? What makes it a game? You have failed to answer that question. I have pointed out why it is NOT a game - because it is a non-interactive program with no skill, challenge, or even user input involved.
They're games, they're just games of extreme chance. It doesn't mean that there's zero engagement from its audience. Even if that involvement is nothing more than some vague emotional attachment.
Dear Esther, in particular, is still technically a game in that you're there to piece together a narrative from incoherent ramblings and explore the significance of the scenery.
@Twenty Sided: Being engaging has nothing to do with being a game. While a good game should be engaging, engagement does not define a game. An unengaging game may not be very good, but it is still a game. Being a game is not a mark of quality; being a game is a descriptor of what something IS, rather than how good it is. There are very large numbers of bad, unengaging games, and many things which are not games - such as novels, television shows, and movies - are engaging without being games. In fact, writing a strong, gripping introduction that sucks people in and keeps them watching/reading is a major part of those media.
Dear Esther is definitely not a game. The only reason you even think of it as a game is because it was built using an engine used to make games. There's nothing gamey about it. There are no meaningful choices to be made, nor is there any challenge, and the game's "interaction" is on the level of turning pages - you simply walk from location to location instead of turning pages in a book or something similar. That does NOT make it a game.
I don't dispute that if you look at Candyland's Wikipedia page, or read about slot machines, that they will call them games.
I dispute, however, that they are, in fact, games in the sense of game design. Remember, this is English; English has many words which are, in fact, identical, but which are used to mean different things in different contexts.
I am speaking here of use of the term of "game" in a technical context, given that this series is (ostensibly) about game design, and I feel that defining games from a technical standpoint is an interesting and important part of that.
I would not call CYOAs, VNs, Candyland, or slot machines games from that point of view. I wouldn't call them games at all. Just because people do things for recreation does nto make them games. CYOAs and VNs are merely stories which allow you to pick what to read next to form a narrative. Candyland is just progress quest. Slot machines are skinner box techniques. None of them are games because none of them have the fundamental qualities that make up a game. Game design does not tell you how to make them, though some general design principles having to do with psychology do inform you about their design and the design of games as well, not to mention other media.
I think that the category of interactive novels is informative, and -actually- tells you about what a CYOA or VN is. Does calling Candyland a game tell you ANYTHING useful about it? I would contend that it does not. Likewise, I would contend that calling Dear Esther a game doesn't tell you about it either; it is a randomized novel, not a game.
@Twenty Sided: Being engaging has nothing to do with being a game. While a good game should be engaging, engagement does not define a game. An unengaging game may not be very good, but it is still a game. Being a game is not a mark of quality; being a game is a descriptor of what something IS, rather than how good it is. There are very large numbers of bad, unengaging games, and many things which are not games - such as novels, television shows, and movies - are engaging without being games. In fact, writing a strong, gripping introduction that sucks people in and keeps them watching/reading is a major part of those media.
Dear Esther is definitely not a game. The only reason you even think of it as a game is because it was built using an engine used to make games. There's nothing gamey about it. There are no meaningful choices to be made, nor is there any challenge, and the game's "interaction" is on the level of turning pages - you simply walk from location to location instead of turning pages in a book or something similar. That does NOT make it a game.
No, I don't think it's a game because it's in an engine. And you drawing semantic circles around my point doesn't impress. The state lotto is a game, just because it's purely chance and involves paying out to an idiot tax makes it no less a game. Your respect for it is irrelevant.
Then clearly you can explain all the principles of game design which apply to the lottery. Should be easy then!
Except that's not how you design the lottery at all. The lottery is designed via psychology, not game design principles. While you can apply the principles of addiction to game design and gambling, it doesn't make them the same thing.
The lottery is neither interactive nor challenging.
Posts
[No spoilers for Bioshock Infinite beyond what was shown in trailers]
I invited my father, who never plays games, to watch me play through the intro/tutorial. With no context, he understood the narrative as it was, a clearly dystopian society dressed up as a utopia of homogenous smiling faces. He did not enjoy the intro at this point because it made him uncomfortable and suspicious of the world before him, as it should. At the raffle he was appropriately shocked, but afterward he saw the first act of violence in the game. My character grabbed one officer and threw his face into the spinning claw on another officer’s hand. My father swore and immediately walked out in disgust. He later described it to my mother as “watching people’s heads get sawed off.” This coming from a man raised as a butcher who once routinely killed and processed pigs.
Despite not being one of the many shocking reveals of the narrative, this moment is memorable for not only being our introduction to violence in Columbia, but also the single goriest scripted event in the entire game. I repeated this experiment with some of my friends to gauge their reactions. To gamers, the act energized them and indicated a switch between tutorial and combat. Those watching who were familiar with games sounded surprised, uneasy or even cheered at the moment, but afterward relaxed as the player followed through with the combat.
Bioshock is a great spectator game with visually entertaining combat and an intricate story. However, this one moment betrays the intent of the game and panders to a perceived desire for an immature display of gore.
And well, Telltale did turn a profit with the Wallace & Gromit adventure games. Heck, Sam & Max is still a big success for a small studio like Telltale.
@ Agent S7: Nintendo, of all companies, has been creating (and funding) some quality JRPGs. The Mario RPGs continue to be very well-received, at least in the west (Japanese gamers don't care for them too much, apparently), and we got Xenoblade Chronicles, commonly regarded as the JRPG that really knows what it's doing. It may be somewhat old, but a Nintendo-owned company is also responsible for Mother 3. I've heard a lot of good things about Fire Emblem Awakening, but that may just be fan myopia (and whether you'd call that an RPG is up to you). And then, of course, there are the Pokémon series, which continues to bring hundreds of billions of yen into Nintendo every year.
That being said, except for Xenoblade Chronicles, none of them are your typical JRPG. Some are parodies of the genre (such as the Paper Mario games), and some have different priorities in their design (most notably, Pokémon is more about turn-based multiplayer whereas JRPGs have traditionally been about the single-player story).
But perhaps most obviously, LA Noire was an adventure game as well, that had some other minigames thrown in like driving, shooting, and chasing, but the core experience of LA noire was an adventure game. And from what I understand, it was very popular.
No, adventure games aren't dead, and haven't been for quite some time. The reason the genre died was because the core experience of old adventure games kind of sucked. They're basically puzzle games, but they're a sort of arbitrary sort of puzzle game. The genre really ate itself mainly for two reasons:
1) Myst and similar adventure games were hard to the point where most people couldn't beat them.
2) A lot of the adventure games which were more "traditional" had such nonsensical puzzles that they were just too arbitrary.
Thus, your analysis is both right and wrong. While telling a story is pretty vital to a good adventure game, creating a world which makes sense and that we care about, ultimately problem solving IS a major part of the genre, and with good reason - there isn't a whole lot else that actually makes them games.
Incidentally, regarding visual novels: while one can percieve a visual novel as an adventure game, I would tend to argue that they are not even games really, by and large. A lot of them seem to be more experiential than to be truly about problem solving, and thus while interactive, I wouldn't actually define them as games, because they lack a major part of what makes a game a game - challenge. Without challenge, it may be an interactive medium, but it isn't actually a game. Another example of this would be Dear Esther, which rather sucked. Cute idea, but it was boring as nails. It certainly wasn't a game, despite the fact that it was interactive.
Dear Esther has that element in a way too. I think exploration is inherently challenging.
On a different subject, I recently played a different Adventure Game called "The Journey Down" It's cheap on Steam right now and I really enjoyed it. Yes, it does those "horrible" things old adventure games did like have puzzles and an inventory screen and experimenting which found item does what to help you progress. But it also had a very different art style than other games. The setting was engaging, you like the main character, and you want to find out what happens next. (Only the first episode is available right now.) That being said, there are problems with the game. Tropes abound and even though you want to see what happens next, so far the plot has been cliche.
But do those things matter? Can you take the "father vanished while exploring" plot device and still have an engaging story? I can, but I know not everyone else can as well.
Now on topic: good show focusing on core engagement. I'm kind of surprised you didn't reference that with more emphasis.
Which safe combination are we talking about? If we're talking about in the first game, the shop-owner could be tricked into opening the safe, and then into leaving the store, so you could repeat the combination into the safe to get the line of credit note.
If it's Monkey Island 4 though, I could also not figure out how to recover the evidence from the monkey storage system without cycling through all the combinations.
@drcheckmate
Back to the Future was held back by the convoluted storyline and the poor puzzle segments.
If it had fit more smoothly into the established chronology and had less "Someone will have to disarm both of them at the same time!" in favour of more flying cars or just dramatic sequences with BTTF music over top, it would have been far better. I'd like to think that BTTF shares a similar fan base as The Walking Dead, but The Walking Dead's more current, and so more of its fans are likely to also find the game in the first place.
Dear Esther has no challenge in it at all. There is no challenge to it, and the exploration aspect is severely limited and frankly does nothing to make the game better - it is almost entirely linear, slow, and the story just isn't anything that special. Exploration has nothing to do with challenge.
Dear Esther was a very artsy thing that, quite frankly, was awful. Its pacing was bad, the story wasn't good, the central quirk to the game is only evident if you played it multiple times, the island didn't really work to reinforce the narrative... the list goes on. While the quirk of the game was cute, the game was far too long to make good use of it because I felt zero desire to play through it again because of how boring it was.
@Magic Pancake: I disagree that Sid Meier's definition is even remotely correct. Without challenge, there is no game. There are interactive experiences, such as visual novels, which are not games at all; likewise with choose your own adventure books.
The new management didn't renew the deal with Telltale for season 3,so they had to go it alone,but they'd built enough of a fanbase to support them and continued to expand. In addition to this,there was the famous Double Fine Adventure Kickstarter. They wanted 400,000 to make "an old school point and click adventure game". A game that wasn't even written yet. They got 3.3 mil. If that doesn't prove to you how much people love adventure games,I don't know what will.
So in summation,the industry has it's head so far up it's own ass,they have no clue what people like. They wouldn't know a good game if you beat them to death with it. So many game genres are coming back via Kickstarter and indie houses,it's just crazy. But you can't tell the big boys that. They're too busy pushing out shovelware for an endless sea of noobs,they don't care if they lose a few hardcore fans. Which is pretty much how most entertainment industries work. Welcome to the fringe,boys and girls. (puts on hipster glasses) Hang on to your coffee,it gets a bit wild on this ride.
Well, if it's just going to be a semantics argument, then there's no getting around it. My idea of game is different from yours. Though I don't think the argument of "experiential winning" really makes sense. Challenge is just engaging difficulty. How is clicking a speech option that influences the outcome of the game any different from clicking an attack command that influences the outcome of the game?
Dear Esther did a lot of things right. It was extremely atmospheric, for one thing, and that's reason enough to play a game. We watch movies and read books often just to take in the atmosphere, same goes for games. I feel it's a more mellow sort of game you play to relax or unwind.
Also, I'm not sure if "winning" has crept into this at all beyond the discussion around VNs, but I would warn that winning is unimportant for defining a game. It's impossible, mechanically speaking, to "win" at Tetris, yet it is undeniably a game, and a great one at that. Rather, as I think the conversation has focused on, challenge is the vital element, but like I said, it doesn't always look the same.
I suspect your definition requires some more thought.
Challenge is an optional factor in games, not a defining trait. After all, it's subjective anyway: a game you find challenging might not challenge me at all, or vice versa. Does that mean it's only a game for you?
Is a book a game? The answer is no. Is a book with two or three endings a game? Still no. Clearly, then, merely adding options for endings isn't what makes a novel into a game; there is a difference in kind between a novel and a game, and mere interactivity is NOT the threshold (and in any event, Dear Esther and similar things are not really interactive anyway; Dear Esther substitutes moving around with turning pages).
My definition of a game has value and it clearly distinguishes games from non-games. A visual novel or similar thing without any challenge to it is not a game; it may be an interactive experience, but it is not a game. Something like the adventure game sections of Trauma Team are a game, because there IS challenge to it - the challenge lies in trying to figure out what is wrong and how to put things together.
Your definition fails utterly at these things. Therefore, your definition is wrong and useless, because it fails to actually make any sort of meaningful distinction. The purpose of labels is to have meaning and to collect similar things together, and your label fails to do so. Games are a type of interactive experience, but not all interactive experiences are games. Games are fundamentally defined by the challenge which lies in them, not the mere fact that you interact with them.
There is a fundamental difference between an adventure game (which challenges the player to solve puzzles, be they social, evidentary, representational, or otherwise) and a visual novel (which does NOT challenge the player, merely being a series of options that determine what the next step of the story is). The latter does not constitute a challenge.
Dear Esther is not a game. Katawa Shoujou is not a game. Trauma Team's forensics sections are a game.
@Shjade: Correct. Candyland and Chutes & Ladders are NOT games, nor are most slot machines. Indeed, Chutes & Ladders and Candyland aren't even interactive - playing those games is no more interactive than reading a novel, using rolls of the dice and moving pieces instead of reading words and turning pages. They may look like games on the surface, but in actuality they are not, in fact, games at all. They are fundamentally different from poker, or Monopoly, or Risk, or Call of Duty. In fact, they're even less interactive than visual novels.
To be a game, it must be a meaningfully interactive challenge. Without those two aspects, I don't think it can be defined as a game (and by meaningfully interactive, I mean something more than merely clicking a button; you must actually perform some task - solve a riddle, do some series of things, whatever).
game /gām/ Noun A form of play or sport, esp. a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.
You may not like it, but games of chance like Yahtzee and Chutes and Ladders are still games even if they are entirely dependant on luck. They may be BAD games... but they ARE games.
The real issue with that is, again, what is the definition of "play"? "An exercise or activity for amusement or recreation." Does reading a book count as an exercise or activity done for amusement or recreation? Yes. Would you ever say that someone was playing a book? No. Is reading a novel a game? No.
Clearly some activities don't count as activities or exercises; reading a book, for instance, does not fall under the definition of play, while it is obvious that messing around with Candyland would. And yet, there's nothing in there that says that reading books for fun doesn't count.
Something doesn't magically stop being a game because you're butthurt about it.
"Clearly some activities don't count as activities or exercises;"
Says who? things like CYOA have been considered games longer than you exist. Way longer. We're talking a factor of 20 here. You being ignorant of this doesn't make your opinion fact, it just makes you misinformed.
Is a book a game? The answer can, in fact, be yes. Regardless of your buttpain about it. Games never needed challenge. Most games are, in fact, not challenging at all in any way. That's the whole recreational part of it.
Mind you, there's nothing wrong with that, provided you are using it to communicate with other people that are speaking "Titanese". The rest of us are speaking English.
I won't go into detail on this definition here, but I'd encourage you to read Ch. 3 in Jesse Schell's "The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses". He walks through the entire process of what the definition of a game really is.
I disagree that CYOA is a game at all, and I think that it is useless to classify it as one. You're just angry because you're one of those special fluff-puffs who tries to define everything as art without realizing that it is just stupid to do.
The purpose of words is to communicate meaning. Classifying CYOA and Visual Novels as games is meaningless though - what value does it add to call them games? Nothing. It informs you not at all about them, nor does it help you design them.
Does the movie Clue, with its three endings, count as a game? I don't think anyone would define it as such, nor would I say that it would be useful to call it a game, as it does not inform you of its properties, nor does it help you create it. And yet a CYOA or visual novel is nothing more than adding additional choices to that; something like Katawa Shojou only has you make ten choices or so throughout the entirety of the visual novel on any given playthrough, with many of them spaced an hour apart or so. It is not a game; it is not fundamentally different from a novel.
No amount of whining on your part changes the fact that calling a visual novel or a CYOA book a game is unhelpful. They are not designed like games are, nor does being a game designer make you good at making such things.
Candyland, chutes & ladders, and slots machines are not games either. The design of games does nothing to inform you about them. There are no choices to be made. They simply exist. They can run entirely autonomously; you move around the pieces in Candyland or Chutes & Ladders after rolling dice, but there is no actual input by you - the game is not deterministic, and yet its outcome is not affected in any way by the players. You act like a computer, merely executing instructions others are giving you. It is not a game in a meaningful sense.
That is why I feel that they should be excluded from the definition. If you define it as recreational problem-solving, as obto seems to, then you can see why that definition is useful. You can also see why your definition is worthless - a visual novel, CYOA, or something like a slots machine is not designed the same way as a game is. They may have some outward similarities, but just as a dragonfly is not a bird, these are not games in any meaningful sense.
@urknighterrant: The problem is what I pointed out; the definition in the dictionary has unspoken baggage associated with it, as the word "play" is not unambiguous and is only used to describe certain sorts of activities, of which reading and watching are not included.
The problem with using the dictionary to give a definition is that many words DO have such unspoken baggage. Play actually has a meaning more precise than what is in the dictionary; it is not merely an activity done for recreational purposes. Or perhaps the flaw lies in the word "activity" itself excluding more passive activities in many cases.
If you say that you're playing a novel. people will be confused.
Then,of course,there's pen and paper RPGs (reading,looking at art (minitures,maps,etc),those old board games that had videotapes/DVDs and that one TV show where you shot at the screen with the special ship guns (watching TV),Where's Waldo (watching TV/reading a book/looking at art),and more examples I could go into but won't cause if you haven't figured it out by now,I doubt you're going to from me siting more examples.
All of these REQUIRE the reader/viewer/whatever take an active part in whatever they're doing. Simply turning a page isn't interacting,but choosing which page to turn to to continue the story that you've chosen to follow is. So,yeah,CYOA books are pretty much games. Because you're actively interacting with the story. It's limited,it's basic,but it's there. By your thinking,wouldn't Return to Castle Wolfenstein not be considered interactive as your choices don't really change the story in any meaningful way? So by this definition,RtCW isn't a game either.
And in many ways,many "choice" systems in video games are just as simplistic as a CYOA novel. You can put the remedy on Harold's heart and make his forest grow faster (turn to page 23),put the toxin on Harold's heart to slow the growth of the forest (turn to page 52),or destroy the heart and free Harold of his torment (turn to page 119). Remember to check off your "Harold" choice on your character sheet.
Your argument is fine ass madness and your points are non-existent except in your own mind. If books aren't games,then pen and paper RPGs can't be games either as all it is in books and dice. And there's a lot of people who'd say P&P RPGs are games.
Being a know-it-all is a bit of a PITA but in this day and age, where actual facts are never more than a few clicks away, it's a character flaw that can be tolerated. Less so is the fact that you're being a complete dickhead about it.
Pen and paper RPGs are clearly games. Are they interactive? Yes. Are they challenging? Also yes. They may not be DIFFICULT, but there is a challenge to a pen and paper RPG. The idea that my definition would exclude them is, clearly, insane. So why are you ranting about them?
Is Where's Waldo a game? That is a far more interesting question, and it is doubly interesting because on its face, Where's Waldo is completely non-interactive, and yet, it is still challenging nevertheless - the picture doesn't change, and when you complete the puzzle, you merely move onto the next one. One could argue that this is interactivity, but I have to question whether it truly is.
Of course, if we consider Where's Waldo a game, then it would still disqualify Chutes & Ladders and VNs, because while the challenge is certainly present in Where's Waldo, there isn't much interactivity. In the end, any such definition must be something that all games share.
What do principles of game design tell you about making Chutes & Ladders? Nothing. What do they tell you about making slot machines? Also nothing. Game-specific design knowledge is unhelpful while making such things because they aren't games. There is knowledge which is useful for games which is also useful for other things which is useful for them - knowledge of psychology to manipulate players into playing more - but that has nothing to do with actually being a game, that's simply psychology.
If said knowledge does not help you make said things, then why are they called "games" if they aren't?
Interactivity is NOT the only defining feature of a game. It is A defining feature of a game. But mere interactivity is insufficient to make a game. There are many interactive things which are not, in fact, games.
My argument isn't madness. You don't like it because you want something which isn't a game to be called a game for whatever bizzare reason you have.
Its like the morons who say "Video games are art!" No, they're not. Video games CONTAIN art. SOME video games are ALSO art. But video games, as a category, are not art unless you use such a worthless term as to make the term art completely meaningless.
@urknighterrant: Incorrect. Your complete lack of understanding of both logic (protip: A straw man argument is when you create a false argument, then attack it, which is not what I am doing) and argumentation is irrelevant. Just saying, but you're clearly fooling yourself.
"But wah!" Yeah I know. You're crying about it. The dictionary's definition is imperfect.
Chutes & Ladders isn't a game because it isn't interactive, nor is it challenging. Without both of those features, it isn't a game.
If Chutes & Ladders was a game, tell me: What does game design tell you about constructing it? The answer is simple: it doesn't.
Chutes & Ladders is a manually operated program wherein you roll dice and move around markers according to purely deterministic rules. There is no user input, there is no skill, there is no challenge, there is no interaction. If you replaced all the players with computers it would be entirely identical.
How is this a game? In what way is it a game? Is Progress Quest a game? Because Progress Quest is fundamentally the same thing. I would contend, however, that Progress Quest is NOT a game.
A game, in the sense of game design, clearly has a definition. I think that interactive challenge is a reasonable definition of a game. Some might argue that the interactive part should be dropped or is redundant.
But I still stand by the idea that most VNs, CYOAs, Chutes & Ladders, and slot machines are not games in the "game design" sort of way.
Why IS Chutes & Ladders a game? What makes it a game? You have failed to answer that question. I have pointed out why it is NOT a game - because it is a non-interactive program with no skill, challenge, or even user input involved.
And "Wah!" according to the dictionary definition of "game" dumb luck is adequate to make C&L a game, especially if it is competitive, which C&L is, and played according to a set of rules, which again, C&L is.
Thus a term that you may have heard before and which heralds to antiquity even when compared to your great and ancient wisdom...
"Game of Chance".
The reason there is no "meaningful" interaction is because it's a (and here's another commonly held phrase you may have heard before) "Children's Game". Children playing C&L are not ready for critical thinking or problem solving. At the C&L developmental stage games are simply teaching toddlers how to win, how to lose, and how to follow rules.
No matter how long-winded you are about it, that's the fact. You can belittle us as unimaginative and call us names if it makes you feel better, but that doesn't make you right. You are standing in contempt of fact, Titan, and that's just being stupid. You may not LIKE the English definition of "game", you may "feel" that it is applied inappropriately, but to my knowledge you're not actually empowered to change it by proclamation.
merriam-webster.com definition of game (I have removed inapplicable definitions): The first [1] definition is so general as to include any and all entertainment and possibly even work. We can reasonably throw it out as it includes books, film, sleeping, and eating.
The second [3a(1)] definition is what I would argue we are using when talking about games. I would also point to definition 3c(2) as evidence that challenge is associated with games when used colloquially with more serious matters.
Dictionary.com definition of a game: The first definition again is so broad as to include many subjects that we would not consider games. It also specifically cites children's games to differentiate the definition from that used for sports and, I would argue, board games and video games. The formerly mentioned third (3) definition is more broad than Merriam-Webster's definition and does specifically include games of chance (Chutes & Ladders). VNs or CYOAs could be classified as simplistic games of chance.
Games of chance generally try to eliminate the role of skill as best as they can in order to make them as random as possible. Keep in mind that an element of chance doesn't define a game as one of chance, it is when that is the main determining factor. Poker is a game of skill whereas Blackjack and Chutes and Ladders are games of chance. Games of chance are not intrinsically rewarding, rolling dice or spinning a wheel looses it's enjoyment once you have a basic understanding of randomness. The reward is extrinsic whether it be gambling or a different story arc. Games of skill should be intrinsically rewarding, solving puzzles and shooting enemies should be fun. Extrinsic rewards can also be attached but they aren't the focus.
So no, CYOAs and VNs are not games, at least not in the same way or to the same degree as most video games, board games, and sports.
They're games, they're just games of extreme chance. It doesn't mean that there's zero engagement from its audience. Even if that involvement is nothing more than some vague emotional attachment.
Dear Esther, in particular, is still technically a game in that you're there to piece together a narrative from incoherent ramblings and explore the significance of the scenery.
Dear Esther is definitely not a game. The only reason you even think of it as a game is because it was built using an engine used to make games. There's nothing gamey about it. There are no meaningful choices to be made, nor is there any challenge, and the game's "interaction" is on the level of turning pages - you simply walk from location to location instead of turning pages in a book or something similar. That does NOT make it a game.
@urknighterrant: You're making a mistake.
I don't dispute that if you look at Candyland's Wikipedia page, or read about slot machines, that they will call them games.
I dispute, however, that they are, in fact, games in the sense of game design. Remember, this is English; English has many words which are, in fact, identical, but which are used to mean different things in different contexts.
I am speaking here of use of the term of "game" in a technical context, given that this series is (ostensibly) about game design, and I feel that defining games from a technical standpoint is an interesting and important part of that.
I would not call CYOAs, VNs, Candyland, or slot machines games from that point of view. I wouldn't call them games at all. Just because people do things for recreation does nto make them games. CYOAs and VNs are merely stories which allow you to pick what to read next to form a narrative. Candyland is just progress quest. Slot machines are skinner box techniques. None of them are games because none of them have the fundamental qualities that make up a game. Game design does not tell you how to make them, though some general design principles having to do with psychology do inform you about their design and the design of games as well, not to mention other media.
I think that the category of interactive novels is informative, and -actually- tells you about what a CYOA or VN is. Does calling Candyland a game tell you ANYTHING useful about it? I would contend that it does not. Likewise, I would contend that calling Dear Esther a game doesn't tell you about it either; it is a randomized novel, not a game.
No, I don't think it's a game because it's in an engine. And you drawing semantic circles around my point doesn't impress. The state lotto is a game, just because it's purely chance and involves paying out to an idiot tax makes it no less a game. Your respect for it is irrelevant.
Except that's not how you design the lottery at all. The lottery is designed via psychology, not game design principles. While you can apply the principles of addiction to game design and gambling, it doesn't make them the same thing.
The lottery is neither interactive nor challenging.