What makes a Video Game

[Almercenary]

So I recently played episode 3 of the wolf among us (great episode btw) which got me thinking. What makes up a game? I always bash stuff like gone home and dear Esther but then go and play a point And click and praise the shit out of it. So, what makes a game, and at what point does it turn into an interactive storyline? I mean, wolf among us and walking dead have SOME gameplay aspects in the form of quick time events. But then again, we bashed son of Rome for the amount of quick time events it had in it, yet a game where one of the core aspects is quick time we praise.

So what is your opinion on what makes a game? What aspects do you think they need? Should an interactive world be rated and sold as a movie? Just thought it would be a good discussion. Completely open to ideas as I'm trying to make my own opinion.

[ZetZet]

TB described it well for me. Interaction with a goal that has a failure state.

[Volbet]

A comperison between Son of Rome and The Walking Dead/Wolf Among Us isn't completly fair. Son of Rome was marketed as a Hack 'n Slash game in the vein of God of War, while The Walking Dead was marketed as a point-and-click game. So the reason why the quicktime events in Son of Rome was bashed, was becuase it didn't fit in the forumlar of what was marketed.

 

As for what makes a game. I would classify The Walking Dead and Wolf Among Us as games, since you have a choice in the narrative. This is what largely seperates the game medium and the movie medium. In a movie the narrative is chosen for you, in a game the player make his own. While this is not the case with all game, it is atleast the case with the two mentioned.

 

I would also disagree with TB as to what makes a game. I would classify Dear Esther and Gone Home as games, since you make one crucial choice; the pace of the story. A movie just go along in a pace determined by the director and/or producers, while in a game the player determins the pace.  

 

A game is seperated from movies in the way the player determins what is played. In Dear Esther I can chose to stand still, in The Walking Dead I can make Lee the most egocentric asshole to ever grace the Earth. I have the choice.

These are just my speculations of course.

[Akolyte]

A game needs a rich storyline, something that will keep you wanting more.  A game also needs a long singleplayer campaign, something I believe is not as good in today's games.  Singleplayer is extremely important in my opinion because it adds content to the game that greatly improves the overall experience.  If they had a long fantastic campaign for Battlefield 4, like something long and had a rich background.  That could give maps and items and things in multiplier a meaning and a purpose.  Something that makes you feel like theres a purpose behind the map or behind the item or behind the characters you play that inspires you to play as a certain character or on certain maps not because its good but because it has meaning.  

 

You may not understand what I'm trying to spit out here, but a game needs meaning, depth and a story to make your cry and make you more happier than ever, because thats what games are missing.  For example The Last Of Us, the campaign was fantastic and if there was pvp multiplayer people would like certain parts because of meaning, they would know the skills of each character.  

 

Games need meaning so what you do not only infuences how the campaign ends but multiplayer as well. 

[T6kke]

In addition to the TB video that was already linked I recommend watching this 

 

It talks more generally about what games are and why do we play them.

[NICKT]

Interactivity and action on the behalf of the player.

 

Upon that, you can then further implicate what you believe to be good and bad games that deliver on the concept of what a game is, but at the very base of it, a video game is basically a piece of entertainment that allows a player to connect with an interface and make actions that impact the game.

 

Or as stated: "TB described it well for me. Interaction with a goal that has a failure state.".

 

If we want to really dig our nails in and define as to what a video game is and differentiate it from an 'interactive movie', then I'd elect to state that majority of RPGs would be interactive movies, in that there is a stream and you're merely along for the ride.

Also, there are 'games that are more akin to movies' like Metal Gear Solid 4 which is essentially a movie but towards the end of development Hideo remembered he was a game dev so he threw in little sections of gameplay between the cutscenes. /joke

 

Personally I think it depends on what the game itself is focused more on, gameplay or narrative. Sure, you can have a good game that focuses on both but they remain to be hidden gems which is a disappointing state of things, but eh.

Metal Gear Solid 4 and Final Fantasy XIII define what I find to be the definitive modern gaming experience, games where the developers wanted to make a movie but realized they had a shit story so instead turned it into a game because we have low standards for that kind of crap.

On the other hand, you get Grand Theft Auto and the copious amounts of 'open world games' where you basically wonder around, kill a few people, run over a hooker, go into gamestop, purchase the game, take it home and then never play it because it's the same shit, different can and frankly I'd rather just go and lick ice cream out of my own asshole. Like, by my god's pulsating scrotum the hype for Skyrim is as over the top as fuck and yet when I played it hoping to be sucked into an immersive world I found it all plain, empty and boring.

 

I think, to find the perfect answer to this question is to really define why something has to be a video game.

It's a question I always ask myself whenever I come up with a cool idea or story, is it something to be played, read or watched? One of my favorite games, Virtue's Last Reward on first glance you could suggest would have been better as a movie, but after you've played through the entire game and gotten full completion, you'll perfectly understand why the entire concept would only have worked as a video game, and personally it's one of the best I've ever played, maybe even due to that very reason.

Games like Metal Gear Solid I believe should have been given a better team and then sent off to make a movie or television series, there's not really a reason for it to be a video game and perhaps it would have been better off if the story was told in a different medium, especially considering how borderline the MGS4 experience felt. (Funnily enough, I actually remember that I have never played an assassin's creed game beyond number 2, and I didn't even fully finish that one, I played about an hour of number 2 then watched a video on youtube where a person made a movie out of the game using the cutscenes, it frankly was a better experience as it took out a lot of the repetitive gameplay and missions. Sure, the parkour and assassinations were a new and interesting gameplay idea, but when all you have is a story and two decent gameplay mechanics, it leaves a lot to be desired whereas the story I preferred much more watching as a movie.)

 

I think these day's we're seeing a lot more games that are there for the sake of having more games, half of them really aren't essential, they say nothing new, do nothing different and the experience is subpar and to believe we, at least for Aussies, up to $100 AUD for our games only to have rewrapped bore-fests is disheartening to say the least.