GI - "One thing I’m consistently annoyed with as developers break new ground in interactive entertainment is a subset of gamers dismissing new experiences by saying, “it’s not a game,” or “it’s barely a game.”
we're at the point now where we need a new definition of what a video game is, and what it means to be a gamer. if you imagine the average gamer of the late 80's or early 90's, you're likely imagining someone a lot different than the average 'gamer' today. likewise, games themselves are (or can be) vastly different than what we experienced decades ago, or even years ago. and this is less about the technology behind them, but rather the philosophy behind them. if we can come up with a new definition that everyone could agree on, then we wouldn't run into problems like trying to decide whether Journey or Dear Esther fit into this somewhat archaic checklist of what a video game should be.
"Interactive entertainment" is great and all, but when I have to judge it up against actual games that require a great deal more gamey stuff to be developed for it, that's when I have a hard time with it. I know a lot went into creating the Beyond: Two Souls experience, but when I have to judge it as a game against games that have tons of actual movements and mechanics and engines and you have to do a lot of things to make it work, then I am going to give the Bioshocks and Grand Theft Autos and Battlefields of the world a little more credit. That doesn't take away from the fact that Beyond or Walking Dead are great experiences, but they are barely games. I loved every second of The Walking Dead and I don't even like or watch the show or read the comics. I just have a hard time giving THAT GOTY over a game like Borderlands 2. Story of the year? Different ball game. GAME of the year? No. You point and click. It's barely a game. That's not an insult. I'm going to buy every single episode of the new one and love every second of it. But I love the fact that it's not really a game and it's more of an experience. I'm buying it for that exact reason. I'd rather do this than watch a movie.
A game without much gameplay is still a game. Its like the point and click adventure games that were massive in the 90s. Most of them had no lose state, they were all just moving around and using X object on Y object to cause Z scripted outcome. Nobody was arguing whether those were games or not at the time.. I don't get why people are constricting the definition over the years - it should be widening.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.