They're called *Video Games*

[OssK]

I liked how everyone seems enthralled by my idea over on the Universe thread so what I did is I created that one because I'm interested in game theory. This is of course very very light theory but I'd really like to construct a common grammar of games.

Why is that on a forum ? Because I'll need help from people who play and know games, bring in references and stuff to enrich the model so it can talk about most games in a very similar fashion.

So my goal here is to first provide a model of what existing games are from which of course you could build combinations that have not been done (Strategic FPS for instance which I've never seen) but most importantly try to clearly see what has not been done.

I will expose my take on the subject, all that follows and says "there IS" is just the way I write it, if anyone disagrees please do say it

There are pretty much three points that come into defining a game :

Defined by view

Defined by goals

Defined by narrative

<new game> is a <first person> <adventure> game that's about <it's story>.

The Path is a third person wandering game that's about girls and paths and so on (voluntarily taking an extreme example here)

Defined by View

Now when someone defines a game, it often starts with : It's a FPS/Third Person/Strategy (which means for most strategy games seen from above).

In architecture, there are two basic geometrical systems : perspectival and geometral (not geometrical... Or at least in french they are very distinct words.)

So perspectival is through the laws of perspective, also called subjective point of view. In that category, it doesn't really matter if you're in first or third person view.

Geometal is the rest of the representation means used by architects :

Plan from above

Projection is the view of a facade, similar to

Cut which is a profiled view as the previous one.

The last is axonometrical projection or axonometry which can be opened or closed. Axonometry is part of the geometral class so it is an objective point of view.

They can be mixed a bit, for example you can make a perpectived cut or a perspectived plan.

Now what has not been made yet in games?

Plans have been used, and then perspective plans

Cuts have been used and projection too...

Just as axonometry and of course perspective.

Defined by goals

What I call goals are in fact often called key features or main gameplay features, they are "how do you go forward".

It defines the main way in which you interact with the world and can also of course be combined.

SHOOTER :

The goal of the game is to surpass enemies often in larger number for the sake of epicness. They can be added the adjective tactical which implies a fair share of balance between the player's strength and the enemy's. For instance, 50¢ Blood on the sand is not a tactical shooter. It derives from it because you can be hit multiple times with no consequences. Cover mechanics don't make shooters tactical. On the other end of the spectrum, Rainbow Six (1998) is a tactical shooter but has no cover mechanics.

ROLE PLAYING :

Means you can customize your character.

PUZZLE :

Means you will have to solve ... things...

So It's 4 30 in the morning and I'm really interested in that subject but I gotta go back to work, hope you guys enjoy it and when I come back after handing the work around 6pm it'll be filled with people excited about the project

[80's Bad Guy]

Whatever man. I say video games, email, and alot.

Common terms should just be one word. Fuck the AP stylebook.

[James]

alot

Yeah, that, like many things, has annoyed me since I realized I had been getting it wrong. It's not as bad as "alote", though, which some person on a forum I went to a long time ago used to say. I have no idea where she got that from.

Common terms should just be one word. Fuck the AP stylebook.

I respectfully disagree with your dumb opinion.

Actually, you may be right: if "altogether", "myself" and so on are acceptable, why aren't "alot", "inbetween", and "alright"? Perhaps it's because you wouldn't say "alittle". Either way, I've been conditioned (possibly by myself) to find it ugly.

[Scrobbs]

'Alot' is curious. Never heard it before - is it just the compound word formed from 'a lot'?

[Nachimir]

Actually, you may be right: if "altogether", "myself" and so on are acceptable, why aren't "alot", "inbetween", and "alright"? Perhaps it's because you wouldn't say "alittle". Either way, I've been conditioned (possibly by myself) to find it ugly.

English is full of compound terms, for instance staircase. I have no idea why some might take root and others not, but being picky over any that are commonly used seems futile.

You can put it down to a google fight, in which case video game is the more common, but that tells us nothing directional. I find myself, as ever, not giving a shit over which term is prevalent, personally preferring Video game, and finding the whole "debate" over the terms pointless.

[gdf]

According to The Video game Style Guide and Reference Manual by David Thomas, Kyle Orland and Scott Steinberg (and officially endorsed by Dan "Shoe" Hsu):

Video game

Catch-all term for any type of interactive entertainment software. Always write as one word.

[Nachimir]

But what if someone officially unendorsed it, eh?

[SignorSuperdouche]

According to The Video game Style Guide and Reference Manual by David Thomas, Kyle Orland and Scott Steinberg (and officially endorsed by Dan "Shoe" Hsu):

Well they would say that, wouldn't they?

[gdf]

I realised that, but didn't know what else to do.

Just food for thought. Apparently we're supposed to call them "video games", and I always have, but increasingly I prefer "video games". After all, "computergames" looks dumb, and hey, we might as well have them all match up.

[Chris]

The actual replies in this thread seem to have absolutely nothing to do with the root post.

[OssK]

The actual replies in this thread seem to have absolutely nothing to do with the root post.

I tried but nobody seemed to give a shit or to play along so I went on on my own, I can post some more of the research if anybody's interested.

[James]

The actual replies in this thread seem to have absolutely nothing to do with the root post.

MY STORY: I read the thread at some point. I had nothing to say. I later clicked the "go to first new post" button, and responded to something that caught my eye, completely disregarding archaic ideas like "context" and "relevance". This is, after all, the Internet.

(This applies to a large portion of my contributions to everything.)

[Ben X]

Check this link. It is fucking genius and only loosely related to the original statement:

http://www.majusarts.de/blog/?p=404

[Scrobbs]

Yeh I have to apologise. After I posted I thought that it was a bit tangental.

[UncleSpaggles]

I know this is isn't exactly related to the original post, but I'm new and trying to fit in so...I hate it when somebody says Computer Games when they are referring to a Video game. I do not play games on my PC, yet am told constantly that I'm not coming out because I'll be sat at home on my own playing Computer Games. Maybe I do play Computer Games and its one of those Fight Club situations, I wonder what else I've been doing. This observation is no doubt very old but it gets to me every time. Worse still correcting somebody that its not a 'Computer' but a 'Video' game only makes me want to take off my own glasses and stamp on them. I don't even wear glasses. Maybe I do.

[Chris]

I know this is isn't exactly related to the original post, but I'm new and trying to fit in so...I hate it when somebody says Computer Games when they are referring to a Video game. I do not play games on my PC, yet am told constantly that I'm not coming out because I'll be sat at home on my own playing Computer Games. Maybe I do play Computer Games and its one of those Fight Club situations, I wonder what else I've been doing. This observation is no doubt very old but it gets to me every time. Worse still correcting somebody that its not a 'Computer' but a 'Video' game only makes me want to take off my own glasses and stamp on them. I don't even wear glasses. Maybe I do.

That seems to be mainly a UK tendency, but I don't think it really matters. They're effectively the same thing, and you're still sitting at home on your own interacting with a machine.

[toblix]

I think the term "video game" fails to convey the fact that there is both aural and tactile interaction in these games. A better term would be "multisensual interactive entertainment" or something. Multisensical?

[Chris]

I think the term "video game" fails to convey the fact that there is both aural and tactile interaction in these games. A better term would be "multisensual interactive entertainment" or something. Multisensical?

I think "game" already implies interaction and some sort of tactile component, since historically nearly all pre-video games have featured those things, and audio is implicit in the term "video," which in almost all cases refers to a combination of moving pictures and sound.

[toblix]

Your reasoning is irreproachable.

[Chris]

I love the term "moving pictures." Also, I love when people refer to a movie as a "picture." I first heard that from my grandfather when I was a kid, and I thought it was simultaneously old and goofy, and awesome.

[Jayel]

In my mind, there's "interactive fiction" and there's "sandbox."

Am I being relevant at all to the original post? I only read the bold text.

[OssK]

I think "game" already implies interaction and some sort of tactile component, since historically nearly all pre-video games have featured those things, and audio is implicit in the term "video," which in almost all cases refers to a combination of moving pictures and sound.

Games can be just people talking, and I believe in ancient Greece they were. Like oral jousts or something.

What we are referring to, talking about video is the informative loop that happens between the player and the machine. Most games do not give tactile feedback or vibration (except of course on the last three generations of consoles). The absence of information given through tactile or gustative senses is why we call them in my opinion video games, because the sensory-motor scheme you are using, is only on the player's side, the computer does not respond to these by an action of it's own.

[toblix]

the sensory-motor scheme you are using, is only on the player's side, the computer does not respond to these by an action of it's own.

Tell that to my Xbox 360 and PS3 controllers.

[OssK]

In my mind, there's "interactive fiction" and there's "sandbox."

Am I being relevant at all to the original post? I only read the bold text.

In fact, everyone even me's banging the thread to death, I was hopping to expose the components of a game (which I did on my own) and find out where things have not been pushed to their limits (which I also did).

[James]

That seems to be mainly a UK tendency, but I don't think it really matters. They're effectively the same thing, and you're still sitting at home on your own interacting with a machine.

For years I resisted the term "video game" because it sounded too American. It's not so much that I don't like how Americans speak; rather I thought it would sound like an awkward affectation if I was tried to copy it. But these days I can't stop saying "awesome", so I suppose that's ruined.

Anyway, games consoles are computers. If I want to distinguish I say "PC games" or "console games". Aren't I helpful?