Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

It's the same kind of debate that Visual Novels have sparked for years. They're more than novels, yet you don't go in it for the gameplay. I'm of the opinion that media should be classed based on what you're expected to enjoy ("WHY you should be playing/watching/partaking in this"), and in this case, the vast majority of your experience will be engaging with the story. Can you really call it a game in that context? I know I wouldn't, since the term "game" usually means competing within a set of rules, but that's rarely the case in these type of games. The objectives are about as complex as turning a page. I really do think a new term is in order to describe these new experiences, because they are different from what people expect a game to be. Simply making the term "game" more broad would simply trivialize the word.

@Artwark: If I had games as great as Meteos, Smash Bros., and Uprising on my resume, I'd be pretty damn proud of myself, I must say. Not to downplay Miyamoto, but Sakurai's games have almost singlehandedly sold or even saved systems. That's nothing to sneeze at, man...

So you're saying that they don't count as games because they are a bit different? the definition of game is:
a game played by electronically manipulating images produced by a computer program on a television screen or other display screen. In other words, if it's digital, interactive, and intended as entertainment, it's a video game. And so-called "walking simulators" meet that criteria.

@CanisWolfred: But giving it a definition would limit this medium. EDIT: I meant like, Has a set beginning middle and end, Has a losing condition etc.

@MrMario02: I want a source for your definition. Because I know that's not the definition I just read: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/game

Ah, the inclusion of definitions and dictionary entries into an arguement, that's always a bad sign.

@CanisWolfred: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=... Here. Also, even with the definition you showed me, so called "Walking Simulators" would still fit the bill.

It really wouldn't, it'd just change the classication so people know what to expect. That's all these terms are for. You're not limited by words, you're limited by your audience, and your audience goes into your "non-game" expecting a game, it's going to color their experience in a negative light. But if you gave it some other classication, one that's more representive of what they should expect, your audience is more likely to be attracted to your product. It's simple, really. Do you go into Point & Click adventure games expecting an FPS? If you wanted an FPS, wouldn't you look for games that describe themselves as such? It's the same case here.

So far we've got "walking simulators" and "interactive experiences" as alternatives to "non-games," too, so at the very least, I'll agree that using the term "non-games" is not necessary, but only because I think there are much more descriptive terms that can be used.

@CanisWolfred: I meant giving "Video Game" a strict "Has a beginning Middle and End" "Has a failure state" definition

I agree with so much of that.

Your link didn't work. Also, no, a walking simulator does not fit that definition. There's no skill, strategy, or competition at all in those games. It's more than just a "win or lose" thing, it's about how you win and what it signifies. In most singleplayer games, you're competing against the computer (or rather, the developer and the challenges they've placed). You have a goal, and you have obstacles to that goal that you must overcome in some fashion.

Most "non-games" generally lack an obstacles, and that's where the difference lies. If you take out the challenge, what's left?

Of course, not everyone needs something to overcome if they want to enjoy something. And I think it would be helpful to those people to have a better term.

Why do we have to classify what is and isn't a video game? It does nothing to advance the industry. Trying to define things as a game or not is just trying de-value a game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blj91KLOvZQ

@CanisWolfred:
1. Just type "Define Video Game" into google
2. Your definition said "a physical or mental activity or contest that has rules and that people do for pleasure" It's a mental activity with rules (The code) that people do for entertainment.

@DefHalan: Exactly. I'm trying to say that video games being digital and interactive is enough.
Also, you watch extra credits too?

Not liking "walking simulators" is fine, but they're still games. I believe the Sims had the same issue for not having an objective, but that's not a thing anymore (I may be wrong on this part though). Now I don't like the Sims, but it's for different reasons entirely. As for visual novels, They're games if you make choices in them. If it's a kinetic visual novel though, then it's not game. It's a novel with illustrations you read on the computer.

Extra Credits is one of my favorite shows. I also like James Recommends but have been skipping their history stuff and their Dark Souls stuff. Have you watched those?

Extra History has a tendency to be innacurate and I haven't watched the dark souls episodes. But Extra Credits itself is great.

@GrizzlyArctos: And that quality will only stick to him and nothing else and when he dies, that quality isn't transferred to anyone else.

@CanisWolfred: So you're saying that Miyamoto's creativity isn't good enough to sell huge compared to Sakurai? Really 3D Land when it first arrived sold 5 million units compared to Uprising which sold around 1 million. Granted, he didn't do much in the game but the fact that he offered suggestions and encouraged the team to do things on their own just proves how he motivates others to lead which Sakurai seems to lack.

@DefHalan: Doubtful whether Extra Credits is great at all. They only cover the ones that they feel are worth covering yet somehow they make it sound like its a critical thing but its rather just their opinion. I mean, how is Witcher 3 the best detective game when it has nothing to do with solving crimes and I can tell because even though I haven't played the series, I can tell that the series is centered around the medieval period. If it was something like Phantasy Star maybe, then yes I would agree but its not.

Why bother defining anything anyway. It doesn't add anything. I do have an idea of what is and isn't a game, but debating it is completely meaningless.

I'm sorry, I fail to see and understand. Characters and story has to a big part. If every gym leader was bland and didn't have a nature to them, then that would kill the Pokemon 'anime' and it would feel like battling any other trainer in a game. It would give less means for people to prepare and tackle a gym. Now the entire point of TM's being infinite was because people would never use or accidentally waste their only TM which they could never get again because of a mistake. It was a means for making newcomers feel free to do whatever they want and experiment.

Extra Credits is an opinionated show, but everything about Design is opinionated. Breaking other's opinions on what makes a good game is how we see new innovative games. I think Extra Credits just does a good job at putting a spotlight on some issues and talking about things normally overlooked or taken for granted.