Real Games vs. Non Games

I was talking with a friend last night about our preferences towards game genres, and the conversation got interesting when it became a debate of “real games” versus “non games.” “Real games” were what he described as games that are difficult, multiplayer, and use strategy and planning. “Non games” were apparently everything else, including games who’s story lines were “too predictable.”

Everyone has their own opinions and biases towards games; I personally like single player, story heavy games, while he likes competitive multiplayer games. I would rather play Heavy Rain and he would rather play League of Legends. But when did we start classifying games as non games? What distinguishes a game from, kind of a game?

A lot of people consider games with heavy cut scenes and low action to be more like movies, where the player is watching the story unfold. When your only action in the game is to move around and pick between three or four conversation prompts, you aren’t really playing...right? By this definition then, real games have to have high action and high player involvement to really be considered a game. This is what I took away from the conversation with my friend, and it really caused me to think about how we label games.

Isn’t a game about the experience of the player? How you interact with the characters and the environment, and how you get lost in the story and gameplay. With the rise of the indie genre there is also a rise of non games, as it seems these two go hand in hand. Games like That Dragon, Cancer and Gone Home are prime examples of what a lot of people would call non games, because there isn’t action, competition, or really that much “playing”. What there is though is high player involvement in the story line. I was on the edge of my seat while playing Gone Home just as much as I was playing Bioshock. When you play Gone Home you are emotionally invested in the lives of the people in that house, as well as the lives of the family in That Dragon, Cancer.

These games aren’t about collecting achievements and getting the highest score, which is how a lot of gamers have started viewing gaming, And no I’m not disparaging those kinds of games because they are fun too, but no genre is better than another and maybe we’ve begun to mislabel games with our biases. An increasing number of games are starting to rely heavily on character development and storyline, which is slightly different than games have in the past. However, this doesn’t mean that those games aren’t real games. I feel like I’m playing Her Story just as much as I’m playing Call of Duty; it’s just a different gaming experience, and gaming is all about the experience. Sitting down, opening up Steam of turning on your PS4, putting on headphones, tuning out the real world and entering the world of your game- that’s what gaming is about.

[AudioEppa]

...This was beautiful and I fully agree with how you describe what makes video games what they are. There's no 'real vs non' bullshit and that's how some within our community should view this medium instead of wanting games to be suffocated by upholding a outdated standard of yesteryears.

I don't ever recall seeing people who enjoy "non games" be so negative towards other gamers personal preference, yet the opposite side always got something to say every chance they get.

People should be really thankful video games are where they're at right now. A overall healthy business with something for everybody to play, also with a lot of platforms to choose from, if not all.

I used to have this mindset In first few years back in the PS3 era, I thought developers we're moving away from 3rd person in favor of FPS popularity and I hated it (never out right complain though) even as I surprisingly became a fan of call the duty after playing cod3, wasn't much to pick from at that time on PS3 lol

But I'm happy I liked it, but do I want a FPS dominated market? No and overall I would say I have mixed feelings about last generation but I'm still thankful for the awesome games that I enjoyed.

Am I going to be grinding 200+ hours on games like Destiny, The Whitcher, Bloodborne, Fallout, CS:GO, LoL or JRPG #89494743? No and I got no problem with those games existing, there not for me, but I'm happy they're available for those who do enjoy them.

And I don't need you to like what I like, but show some equal respect in return or don't say anything at all.

[ravinash]

Gaming to me I put down as interactive entertainment... and that's it.
These are just titles, and 'game' is a very general title.

There will always be people who want to discount parts of the gaming community by saying their not really games because their not playing the games they like to play.

Either they call mobile games not games, or it's the PC master race, or people who play on consoles etc, etc, etc...

Fact is games as an industry is growing and going into all sorts of directions.
The games they refer to as non-games will be a way of story telling. and it be something that will really come into it's own when VR becomes more mainstream.

The people who refuse to have any part of this new art will ultimately find them selves being left behind.

[ShinMaster]

"Real games" usually have gameplay consisting of more than one single action. You gotta have some sort of challenge, like puzzles or strategy. It doesn't have to be competitive or action-packed.

Gone Home is a $20 2-hour interactive museum tour consisting of picking up notes to read.

It's an interactive story. And it's ok to feel engaged in it.

[Dioxinis]

by definition games must have rules of play as well as win and lose conditions. If you can't point a game and say

"This is how you win... This is how you lose... and this is how you Play..."

Then i don't really consider it to be a game. Video or otherwise.

In god of war you win by destroying the enemy you lose by losing your life and you play by pressing buttons in combination to attack and defend yourself.

In tetris you win if you get the high score you lose if you let your blocks touch the top and you play by rotating and lining up blocks

to me i don't consider Until dawn, tell tale games, life is strange etc to be games. while they may have some sort of mini game inside them such as a puzzle in life is strange or some sort of quick time event (and other full games have these on the side like god of war)ultimately they are story driven games with interactive stories where the goal is to progress to the end. There are rarely actual lose conditions. Just different paths the story can take. And the goal is to simply reach the end. you dont really win or beat the game you just see the end of the story. I find them to be a lot like a book or visual novel. You either continue the story or you dont but you dont lose a book and there arent really rules for playing and you dont Win either. You just finish the story.

I guess they could be considered 3d visual novels

Are they enjoyable experiences? well that really depends on the story doesn't it? some stories are well presented and others not so much. But ultimately there are no Rules and no win/loss condition so there's no "playing" and therefore they are not truly games.

[Dioxinis]

" I was on the edge of my seat while playing Gone Home just as much as I was playing Bioshock. When you play Gone Home you are emotionally invested in the lives of the people in that house, as well as the lives of the family in That Dragon, Cancer. Sitting down, opening up Steam of turning on your PS4, putting on headphones, tuning out the real world and entering the world of your game- that’s what gaming is about. "

I feel like the problem here is that you can use these words to describe other things like say a movie tv show

Being on the edge of your seat can describe an engrosing tv show or movie

you can tune out and enter the world of a movie or tv show too

obviously this has an element of interactivity to it but that alone does not make it a game i think

You say that what creates a game is player experience but i say that is what creates compelling media is the viewer experience

What is Engrossing in a game is almost always the gameplay but often in truly great games the story as well

In the games you named your engrossed in primarily the story doing interactivity to progress the story and learn more about the world

I find this much more akin to reading a book or watching a show

I'm not saying games cant or shouldnt be focused on story but its what makes great games truly special is they are engrossing on a physical AND mental level with fun gameplay and engaging characters and story you find something that can simply not be found anywhere else

visual novels a small step from books and games like tell tale are small step from visual novels but the problem in both of these is they forgo engaging gameplay for story telling usualy sticking to the simplist of minigames focusing primarily on just SHOWING rather than letting the player DO

Some of the best games that combine gameplay AND story are examples like mass effect or any bioware game where they create deep worlds and characters as well as engaging strategic gameplay

i feel like that draws the distinction between games and "non games"

[BillytheBarbarian]

I feel like your definition of a game as a "non game" is just completely wrong. I'd say that possibly your friend is speaking about games that are "passive entertainment" versus "non-stop action". Passive games are usually like point and click adventures, board games translated to video games, strategy games, and those games where you push the button when the screen displays a button to hit to sort of interact with it i.e. those old Dragon Slayers or Sega CD type FMV games like Sewer Shark or Road Avenger. I wouldn't say these are non games. They're just more passive where you can blink once in awhile without completely losing.

I like both types of games personally. Depends on my mood. Sometimes I do like to kick back and brain battle people in Carcassonne, Risk, Uno, or Halo Wars. Other times I'm all in battling with Gears 3, NBA 2k, or some Bayonetta.