Support NeoGAF

[Mejilan]

Except, once again, I feel that I must point out that the more defining goals built into AC aren't arbitrary. The key one, obviously, being the paying off of your debt and expanding your home (since they are related activities.) There's no last boss or main story arc, but you do have goals that drive you (though they don't force you on any path.) It reminds me of Daggerfall or Morrowind, where expanding your home and paying off your debt are like completing the main story arc, thereby "beating the game."

In neither game MUST you complete the main goals. You don't have to put the King's ghost to rest in Daggerfall, you don't have to finish expanding your home, or paying off your debt in AC. And in both, if you do finish "the main quest" you don't have to stop playing there. You can continue to make money in AC, continue to do more pointless jobs, continue to fill in your compendium of bugs and fish, continue to collect more rugs, and songs, and furniture, and fruit. In Daggerfall you can join new guilds, do more BS random quests, cater to another land's nobility, collect (or create) more loot and spells, etc.

And yes, I realize that Daggerfall and Morrowind offer up a shitload more gameplay and rules and goals and structure than AC, but since I've already admitted that AC is at best a "lite" and casual kind of game, I'm really talking about Morrowind and Daggerfall in the broadest sense.

As for AC, I consider it a game not because it amused and entertained me (since it did so only in a very limited fashion, particularly given my past history with Nintendo games) but because it is a piece of software DESIGNED to amuse and entertain. So, I guess, now that we've come to it, that is how I would define a video game, in its broadest sense. As a piece of software designed to amuse and entertain. As to whether it succeeded in that, in your opinion, well that's just irrelevant, border. Nintendo isn't out to design games just for you, so who are you to define what makes a Nintendo game? You weren't amused or entertained? Fine, that's valid, but that doesn't change the fact that it was designed to amuse and entertain, as that's the best way to SELL games. Your opinion, and mine, is subjective. Our enjoyment... irrelevant. AC is still a game. Good or bad? Well, I'm not debating that. My position is clear.

 

[Celicar]

Jesus Christ. Why the hell are people arguing about the puppy game? If you don't like it, fine. Don't freaking buy it. I know I will buy it. I love puppies and I can't wait to play with them all night.

 

[Mejilan]

Jesus Christ. Why the hell are people arguing about the puppy game? If you don't like it, fine. Don't freaking buy it. I know I will buy it. I love puppies and I can't wait to play with them all night.

Actually, we're arguing about Animal Crossing now.

 

[krypt0nian]

Actually, we're arguing about Animal Crossing now.

I <3 Totakeke!!!!

PURE SEX!

 

[border]

Well yeah, about a page ago I said that it could be that AC is "as close as you can get to not being a game....while still actually still being a game (thanks to the inclusion of a couple small game-ish elements)".

This is all very tentative, as I'm still kind of working in my head to define games in such a way that it can include all variables of what are generally considered games. Pure-luck gambling is kind of hard to factor in. There is no skill or challenge in something like roulette or a slot machine....you bet on the outcome of things that are completely beyond your control. Many consider it a game all the same. But in alternate situations where people bet on random events (horse racing and or the weekly football game)....those are not really called "games" -- that's just gambling. So is it all games? If not, then what's the distinction between slots and betting on Granpa's Lightning in the 3rd?

"A piece of software DESIGNED to amuse and entertain" is an okay definition of a videogame. Except it doesn't really draw a distinction between games and Shockwave comics. Or games and screensavers. Or games and that stupid Microsoft Office paperclip guy

I love puppies and I can't wait to play with them all night.

BUY A PS2 -- ERR, PUPPY.

 

[Mejilan]

How about "A piece of interactive software designed to amuse and entertain"? This entire excercise is kind of fun, actually. (IS IT A GAME!?) Hahahaha. That should rule out most screensavers and flash comics right there.

Seriously, I realize that little bitch clippy technically counts as interactive software, but I don't know if typing in a query and getting search results is something designed to be amusing and entertaining. Some MIGHT have fun with the little bugger's animations, but clippy is just an interface designed to streamline MS Office help and troubleshooting. So I wouldn't call that a game. Gambling is also almost another subject, one I'm not too interested in exploring simply because I'm not INTERESTED, in it, frankly. I've spoken to people who absolutely love gambling, and I guess they do derive a certain game-like fascination of it, now that I think of it. The kind of people that will study every aspect of a horse's life before betting on the tracks, or research the materials used in construction of a roulette wheel in trying to predict how the ball will react when bouncing off it, etc.

On a tangent for a bit, there's actually book called Fire and the Mind (I think) that puts out an idea that absolutely nothing is random, just our science and our minds have not developed to the point where we can perceive all of the pieces of the puzzle, they rely outside the scope of our current understanding, hence they SEEM random. This applies to anything from games of "chance" to computer science randomizer theory (RNG seeds, and whatnot), to even the mysteries of the universe, the big bang, the origins of life. I think that's WAY off topic now, however.

 

[border]

Well what about a piece of interactive software that shows off the strength of software code, but additionally entertains and amuses? Havok might create a demo of their physics engine where they just put you in a room and you can manipulate objects. Smashing things up or knocking them over might amuse, but at the same time there's no inscribed goal or purpose. Is that a game, a simulation, or a demo?

There are a couple physics games that you might have downloaded (they have been mentioned on GA before). In one, you push a man down the stairs and in the other you put him in a truck that slams into a wall. It is interactive in the sense that you can define variables for the simulation -- the speed of the truck or the trajectory at which he falls down the stairs. Both of them might be games because you are "scored" based on how much damage the man sustatins after impact....but let's assume that scoring doesn't happen and the only purpose is to watch a virtual guy get smashed up by way of the variables you define. Is that a game, simulation, or demo?

You may have read a while back about an experiment performed where hackers removed all obstacles and enemies from the first level of Super Mario Brothers. All you could do was jump and scroll through the "level", and the idea was to see what players would do when faced with a "game" that had no set goals and very few ways for players to define their own goals. Was that a game, a demo, or just an experiment?

Whether or not a "game" is truly random is probably just an irrelevant, academic distinction. While you may be able to research a horse or a sports team when you bet, there is no accurate way of predicting what a slot machine or roulette wheel will do. While it might be a good idea not to step up to a slot machine after it has just made a big payout, it's still possible that you will get a win. Anything that relies so heavily on an unknowable set of rules and restrictions that it has the appearance of random-ness may be so arcane that we can't really call it a true game (if skill is indeed supposed to be a part of "games"). You could probably crunch the past winning Lotto numbers through a computer from now until eternity and never have a way to predict what numbers will be winners. Yes, you might be able to predict better if you knew the exact forces acting on the lotto balls as they are released (or how long they would be allowed to bounce around in the chamber before being drawn out), but since that data is largely inaccessible to the "player", then the whole exercise might as well be considered random. Yet at the same time, Bingo and the lotto are commonly considered games despite the fact that they are more unpredictable and "random" than betting on horse racing or football.

 

[Mejilan]

I had a feeling you could take this a step or five further.

See, we could around and around in circles for ever trying to define what a "game" is, trying to distinguish game from technological demo from software experiment, etc. And as you suggest, at some point it becomes purely academic.

For me, that SMB experiment (which I had read about prior, it's fascinating stuff) is a psychological experiment that unfolds through the medium of video-game-like software. But I certainly wouldn't call it a game. I'm sure SOMEONE out there might find it enjoyable, but that little piece of software (stolen, for all intents and purposes) changes the intended design (to create an enjoyable game) to something else, as a way to study how people react to certain situations.

Playable demos? Those are games. They are cheap (or free) pieces of software designed to amuse and entertain you enough to buy the full product. Little flash games? Similar, only perhaps without the intent to get you to buy something (though there is Alien Hominid). Sure, some are done by student programmers trying to learn tricks of the trade, but their ultimate goal is to put together a package that you'd find enjoyable and be willing to download and fiddle with. It certainly would look great on a game designers resume if they had such a hit on their hands while still in college, or whatever.

Technological demos created to show off a piece of hardware or a game engine? Not a game. Interactive software? Yes. Designed to amuse and entertain? Perhaps, but perhaps not. They're designed to show off the features of the engine, either to convince consumers to buy and enjoy the games that will eventually be built off those engines, or, more likely to entice developers to agree to license the engine for their own internal game development teams.

Simulators? I think we've both read stories about how games were adapted by the military to be turned into training sims (Doom) or about training sims adapted into games (America's Army). I don't remember if AA was free or not, I think it was, and I'm sure most people playing it knew that it was little more than an advertisment to join the 'army of one.' Yet, for all intents and purposes, it was a game. It was designed to amuse and entertain... and also to get you to entertain the thought of joining the army!

We can both think of plenty of examples that push the boundaries of ANY attempt at defining what makes a game a game, or a video game a video game. And as interesting as all this is, It's almost 3:30 am and I gotta get up in a few hours for work! But to be honest, I still think my admittedly broad definition stands up rather well, honestly.

 

[ninge]

i give up.

i went out for the night and i come back to find that this thread has been kept alive for a further 3 pages by a set of people who are only mindlessly offering loose counter arguments to each argument presented to them in a neverending downward spiral of stupidity and "he said she said" patheticness - and all this with only minimal input from drinky!

Do you people not learn?

The sad thing is it almost became one of the most interesting threads on the board in a long time with some fairly well written pieces on the changin nature of game design as the industry struggles to find new ways to entertain people who were never interested in playing "computer games" before or have grown bored of playing the same simplistic base set of rules masquaraded as "new" game ideas over and over again.

if only it hadn't decended into petty naysaying...

 

[etiolate]

A game has an objective. In Animal Crossing the objectives are multiple: Pay off your debt, make friends with the villagers, collect items, gain a good housekeeping score, etc.

The hacked SMB experiment is certainly just that, an experiment. It doesn't have an objective other than to study what people do in the game.

Our idea of objective based games may be gender-centric though. A game like Sims doesn't require you to attain the objective of getting a job or anything. It is a lot like playing dolls. The book 'From Barbie to Mortal Kombat'. Gender and Computer Games' has some studies on this if I remember correctly.

 

[Gahiggidy]

Does the DS have an internal clock? Aty least one that can be accesed by the game software?

 

[Amir0x]

I'm just going to put a wrench into the debate and just say what I think we could all agree is a videogame.

A videogame is simply anything that is interactive and establishes some goal for the player. If we agree to this definition, then AC is undoubtedly a game because it is both interactive and provides goals, although for the most part they happen to be user-defined goals (for instance, my goal is to get all the orange themed sets!). Now, there are still a few exceptions we must make here - interactive DVD menus don't count, for instance, even though the goal is to select an item from the list. But if we feel comfortable to go off with these few qualifiers, then I believe it's settled.

Saying that anything designed for amusement/entertainment is a game is far too broad, and suggests that there must be some agreement over whether a videogame was made for entertainment (over, say, money). So we'd end up with things like movies are videogames, that screensavers are videogames, that any joke a comedian spews is a videogame. So I think it's safe to say this is a poor definition.

We can assume, then, that if a person creates a program where if you press the "Right" arrow key your character will move, but all your character does is keep moving in the right direction to a moving background, this is not a game. It's interactive, but it does not even provide the most arbitrary of goals. Therefore, both qualifications are not met and it does not become a game.

So, in conclusion, a game must be interactive, and it must provide a goal of some kind. AC does both, therefore it's a game.

How good a game it is is entirely subjective, and we're obviously not going to agree there

 

[Grubdog]

Does the DS have an internal clock? Aty least one that can be accesed by the game software?

Yes

 

[Gahiggidy]

What happens when you play with the puppies in the middle of the night?

 

[Grubdog]

Maybe you can poke them and wake them up? They could have all kinds of reactions, like being angry you disturbed their sleep, or being happy to see you.

 

[Gahiggidy]

Can you feed them chocolate?

 

[Grubdog]

That would be very unhealthy for them, dogs aren't supposed to eat chocolate. If you could feed them chocolate it would probably make them sick.

 

[Spiritreaver]

I don't think Gahiggidy should be allowed a copy of Nintendogs. :\

 

[Gahiggidy]

You can't stop me! Nintendo can't stop me either.

I'm gonna buy me a Nintendo DS. Get that "Puppy Times" game... and force feed the doggies hot chocolate.

 

[Necroscope]

Late to this party. The Doggy game is simply amazing. The use of the stylus and the way the puppy animated are simply incredible.

 

[GDGF]

You can't stop me! Nintendo can't stop me either.

I'm gonna buy me a Nintendo DS. Get that "Puppy Times" game... and force feed the doggies hot chocolate.

:lol

 

[ohamsie]

I'm going to love them, and pet them, and squeeze them, and call them George.

 

[krypt0nian]

KILLER APP!

 

[Fusebox]

Lame! I use video games to escape reality - if I want to walk a dog I'll get its leash.

 

[krypt0nian]

Lame! I use video games to escape reality - if I want to walk a dog I'll get its leash.

I don't have a dog currently and if I did it would be a Husky.

The game so far has shown a Pug, a beagle and a Shiba Inu.

Perfect escape from reality!

Besides if the puppy pile pic doesn't move you, then God hates you.