Games, is it a good word or not for what we do or not?.

[paecmaker]

I tried to explain what he wrote but I felt that its just better to copy his text here instead.

So if you agree with the columnist what should we start calling this medium, and what would we want this medium to be?

The whole story(google translated)

"Directly harmful to call it "video games"




Johan Martinsson: Someone has to stand up & speak out
The word "game" is an obsolete, often inaccurate and directly damaging description of a medium that deserves better.
And this is an attempt to get you to agree.
Do you wish sometimes that the game stories would be better? Does it feel sometimes a little empty when you have completed an acclaimed title - like that with their 94 percent on Metacritic should made you feel, well feel more about the game? Brushing against you at times to the idea that you maybe would have appreciated it more if it had focused less on the challenges and more on... something else?
In that case, I have a good and bad news.
The bad is that you - despite the fact that you grew up with games, play lots of games and think about games all day - actually not so interested in the particular game.


The good thing is that you actually are interested ... in something else.
This "something else" is an interactive entertainment that has no name yet. The only thing that is certain is that its name is not "game". The word was good enough in the medium's infancy, but the minute someone wanted tell a story with this tool, so should a word have been invented. But no, the word "game" was to remain in the developer's, critics and consumers' heads, and over time it has grown into one of the biggest obstacles in the forms of expression means.
The word "game" and the word "story", says in conflict with each other. Our minds are too multifaceted to be pressured into a policy-driven game. Do you consider love or sadness or any other basic narrative theme that is playing mechanical challenges and points distribution hardly your best tool.


Yet the developers feel compelled to put the classic game elements into their stories, yet the critics to cut everything that does not put game mechanics in the very first room, yet we continue to put our money in the most cowardly efforts, even though we constantly complain that medium is not moving forward.
And it will continue, until someone stands up and say no.
someone like you.
Johan Martinsson"

[Synge]

I have no problem with the word 'game' and have never considered it a juvenile term.

I guess you could try substituting 'games' with 'entertainment' for a more adult feeling: 'Computer Entertainment', or 'Virtual Entertainment', or maybe 'Interactive Video Entertainment'.. :P But those sound like you're trying too hard and I'd just as soon say 'Video Games'.\


Edit: This post doesn't make as much sense any more because Paec edited his original post (about games being a kiddy word) and added in an actual article.

[EpsilonX]

Well, it depends on the game. Some, like Shadow of the Colossus, could be considered more than just a "game." However, Mario Kart is definitely a game. You know what I mean?

[paecmaker]

yeah I know what you mean.

[NumberedEyes]

I think this is kinda of like the "are video games art" discussions that show up from time to time on the web.

[Triton]

I don't mind the term 'game' just some peoples attitudes to my gameing enjoyment. I've been playing games for a long time (nearly 30 years when games were a few pixels runnig over the screen!!!!!!!!) but I get some people say at 'your age!'. Have they seen the price and the types of games on offer? I don't think you change words for what we like doing, after all it's a game no matter what.

[Molenator]

I would have to say Johan Martinsson (which btw his name sounds a little to close to the Red Dead Redemtion protaganist) has a pretty good point. I would agree that games like Mass Effect and Bioshock must be more then this word we call 'games" and may deserve a more suitable description. Problem is games arn't looking like there heading that way. Recent studys and interviews have come to show that most developers and financial analyst seem to agree that the industry is headed in a "mutiplayer only games" kinda fashion in about 5 years or so with only a few games focusing on singleplayer. If thats gonna happen (which I hope it does not) I wouldn't try to call video games anything else but video games. Like he said there is a way to stop it with being smarter in our choice of what we choose and not choose to pay for, but with Call of Duty making games more mainstream and "popular" and bringing in all kinds if new audiences that think "this is fun, so im gonna pay for the next one and all the DLC" I dont think its gonna happen.

[Mizel]

I have no problem with the word 'game' and have never considered it a juvenile term.


I agree, I don't find the term juvenile in any sense. I dont know if the author feels too grown up to play games, so his suggesting it be dubbed something more 'adult' was his justifcation to himself, but this article makes no sense and actually made me lol.



“This "something else" is an interactive entertainment that has no name yet. The only thing that is certain is that its name is not "game". “



No, that’s exactly and literally what it is. In fact the definition of game: pastime or amusement; competitive activity involving skill and involving rules. If that doesn't sum up "interactive entertainment" then I don't know what does. Of course there a ton of factors revolving around games: type, skill required, length, story/background/dialouge or lack there of, how challenging it is. But no matter what the combination of these factors is... whether it's short and very easy, with no story behind it (like Tetris) or whether it's more complex and lengthy with a full story behind it (like Infamous)... it's still a game. He starts off by saying the term "game" is obsolete, but then goes on to complain about game elements, which are two completely different things.



"The word was good enough in the medium's infancy, but the minute someone wanted tell a story with this tool, so should a word have been invented....The word "game" and the word "story", says in conflict with each other"



Like, seriously? A word was invented... it's called a fkn RPG -__-



"Brushing against you at times to the idea that you maybe would have appreciated it more if it had focused less on the challenges and more on... something else?"



Seriously? Sounds like a great idea, let's take the challenge out of games and substitute it with "something else" aka a story. Oh wait, they already did that- that's every game released in the last 10 years >_< Seems to me the author wants an interactive story VS interactive entertainment. I wish I knew his email because I'd love to let hm know they make "choose your own ending" books which, judging by this article, I think he'd adore.



Anyway, in conclusion I can see what this guy was getting at (I think). That not all games are created equal. I get that, but when it comes down to it they are in fact still all games. Which is why we created different genres to catagorize these different games by and why we didn't replace the word "game".

[paecmaker]

I agree, I don't find the term juvenile in any sense. I dont know if the author feels too grown up to play games, so his suggesting it be dubbed something more 'adult' was his justifcation to himself, but this article makes no sense and actually made me lol.



“This "something else" is an interactive entertainment that has no name yet. The only thing that is certain is that its name is not "game". “



No, that’s exactly and literally what it is. In fact the definition of game: pastime or amusement; competitive activity involving skill and involving rules. If that doesn't sum up "interactive entertainment" then I don't know what does. Of course there a ton of factors revolving around games: type, skill required, length, story/background/dialouge or lack there of, how challenging it is. But no matter what the combination of these factors is... whether it's short and very easy, with no story behind it (like Tetris) or whether it's more complex and lengthy with a full story behind it (like Infamous)... it's still a game. He starts off by saying the term "game" is obsolete, but then goes on to complain about game elements, which are two completely different things.



"The word was good enough in the medium's infancy, but the minute someone wanted tell a story with this tool, so should a word have been invented....The word "game" and the word "story", says in conflict with each other"



Like, seriously? A word was invented... it's called a fkn RPG -__-



"Brushing against you at times to the idea that you maybe would have appreciated it more if it had focused less on the challenges and more on... something else?"



Seriously? Sounds like a great idea, let's take the challenge out of games and substitute it with "something else" aka a story. Oh wait, they already did that- that's every game released in the last 10 years >_< Seems to me the author wants an interactive story VS interactive entertainment. I wish I knew his email because I'd love to let hm know they make "choose your own ending" books which, judging by this article, I think he'd adore.



Anyway, in conclusion I can see what this guy was getting at (I think). That not all games are created equal. I get that, but when it comes down to it they are in fact still all games. Which is why we created different genres to catagorize these different games by and why we didn't replace the word "game".


The first thing, I think he got a point. Well maybe not everything but sometimes I feel like I want something else than just a game that gives me a 5 sec satisfaction with big explosions and oneliners. There are some games like that but they are still called games.


Take the game Myst for example, it doesnt have the the "kicks" and the same satisfaction as many other games got. Its a beautiful world where you alone tries to figure out its secrets in your own pace. That game is what I personally feel as something else than just a "game"

[norid]

To GAMERS I don't think its a problem but to the part of society that find video games appalling then yes. We don't need any justification on a correct title. Besides what would we be considered if not gamers?

[Mizel]

The first thing, I think he got a point. Well maybe not everything but sometimes I feel like I want something else than just a game that gives me a 5 sec satisfaction with big explosions and oneliners. There are some games like that but they are still called games.


Take the game Myst for example, it doesnt have the the "kicks" and the same satisfaction as many other games got. Its a beautiful world where you alone tries to figure out its secrets in your own pace. That game is what I personally feel as something else than just a "game"

I know what you and the author are saying and I do agree that are all sorts of different "games" that's cause different levels of enjoyment. But I think that while those games fall into different genres, in the end they are still games. Im just talking in the sense of raw definition, everything else aside. It's kind of like saying a childrens book isn't really a book because it doesnt give you satisfaction. Well, despite the fact that it doesn't please you the same as other books may, it still is what it is.

[paecmaker]

I know what you and the author are saying and I do agree that are all sorts of different "games" that's cause different levels of enjoyment. But I think that while those games fall into different genres, in the end they are still games. Im just talking in the sense of raw definition, everything else aside. It's kind of like saying a childrens book isn't really a book because it doesnt give you satisfaction. Well, despite the fact that it doesn't please you the same as other books may, it still is what it is.

Maybe, but books got still different names of what they are, a childrens book isnt the same as a novel, the word book is a collsection game but not all books call themselves books if you understand.

Maybe the same can be worked in games, it is in a way but I dont think the classes in how we call different games are sufficient. We got FPS, RTS, RPG but as games start to develop and are able to grab new and more things these "old" markings may not be enough.

[Mizel]

Maybe, but books got still different names of what they are, a childrens book isnt the same as a novel, the word book is a collsection game but not all books call themselves books if you understand.

Maybe the same can be worked in games, it is in a way but I dont think the classes in how we call different games are sufficient. We got FPS, RTS, RPG but as games start to develop and are able to grab new and more things these "old" markings may not be enough.

Oh, I totally understand. Thats why I was saying "games" is simply just a raw overall definition encasing all games of all types- and within that one raw definition are loads of sub-types or genres. What the author was saying is that the term game is obsolete, which I disagree with. Had he said "We need more genres because there aren't enough that are accurate," that would have made more sense to me.

I see what youre saying also that there aren't sufficient enough classes, and I kind of agree with that statement and kind of dont. The last 15 years or so in gaming have brought about so many advancements, which in turn has brought about all the different genres of games we have now. Again, makes sense. Broadly classifying one huge thing into a bunch of smaller things is done for one reason: to make things simpler. But, if we give every single game that comes out that has a single element different then any other game, eventually all games will literally just be there own genre and we'd be back at step one, before it was simple.

[Muffincat]

Maybe, but books got still different names of what they are, a childrens book isnt the same as a novel, the word book is a collsection game but not all books call themselves books if you understand.

Maybe the same can be worked in games, it is in a way but I dont think the classes in how we call different games are sufficient. We got FPS, RTS, RPG but as games start to develop and are able to grab new and more things these "old" markings may not be enough.

That's not really right, though. The different kinds of games (FPS, RTS) are exactly the same as having different genres of books (novel, children's book)... It's the same product, but categorized for ease. o_O

That's... exactly the same system. All books are books. All games are games. o_O A novel is a book just like a first person shooter is a game. I don't understand your argument here.

Also, on topic, I agree with many of the people posting here that I don't think the term "game" is detrimental. They ARE games. o.o Just because some games are "better" than other games doesn't mean that they aren't games anymore.

[Ilyich Valken]

I kinda feel like the way he wrote it detracts from what he's trying to say, as there were several sentences that I found myself having to read over and over just to get what he meant, but I don't feel like it should be called anything else.

The word "game" is fine. Sure, for games like TES and Mass Effect, it's on a higher level of interaction, but they're still games. If someone thinks it sounds juvenile and "kiddy," well.. **** 'em. I don't need the opinions of someone else to tell me what to enjoy.