tegan

I Had a Random Thought (About Video Games)

Recommended Posts

I've started playing Go against a computer during my work day. I can usually get through one game in my downtime -- keep the board over in a corner of my screen and mull over moves through the day, clicking over to it while I can. I was doing this today when I had a bit of a weird thought.

Does playing Go on a computer against a computer count as playing a video game? I kind of want to say yes, but a part of me also wants to say no.

 

Either that or you are playing with yourself. And playing with yourself at work is pretty inappropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've started playing Go against a computer during my work day. I can usually get through one game in my downtime -- keep the board over in a corner of my screen and mull over moves through the day, clicking over to it while I can. I was doing this today when I had a bit of a weird thought.

Does playing Go on a computer against a computer count as playing a video game? I kind of want to say yes, but a part of me also wants to say no.

 

Well Go is a game, and you're playing it on and against a computer, so I don't see why it wouldn't be. Look at it this way, if Go had been invented last year by some puzzle-game developer and released for Steam and iOS, no one would say you weren't playing a videogаme. From there I don't see why the origins of Go change things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd certainly say it counts as a video game.  Something had to be done to make the computer able to play Go.  If it was an interface for connecting you to another person to play against, then maybe you could argue that it's not really a video game and just a method of communication (like playing chess by mail or something) but even then I'd still call it a video game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, if it doesn't have achievements, an online leaderboard and runs at 60FPS at 1080i, I don't consider it a video game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd certainly say it counts as a video game.  Something had to be done to make the computer able to play Go.  If it was an interface for connecting you to another person to play against, then maybe you could argue that it's not really a video game and just a method of communication (like playing chess by mail or something) but even then I'd still call it a video game.

 

That's an interesting idea to consider. Chess is a game, so it's possible for chess to be a videogаme, but is playing chess by email a videogаme? If not, how many interface elements do you have to add before it becomes one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an interesting idea to consider. Chess is a game, so it's possible for chess to be a videogаme, but is playing chess by email a videogаme? If not, how many interface elements do you have to add before it becomes one?

What makes playing chess by email functionally distinguishable from playing chess by regular mail, though? Is the presence of a computer in the process enough to make something a video game, and would that make Simon a video game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious what some of your quibbles about the game are.  I got it a few days ago and have beaten it once since then.  I don't like it as much as 10000000 and I'm not entirely sure why.

 

This is from a while ago, but:

 

  • The format shift of a journey up a river, with missions that act as blockers, means that there are some luck-based missions that can act as serious blockers and the game doesn't change until you beat them. The game tries to take advantage of this by giving out missions that are particularly easier or harder based on the area you're in, but it's already got a mechanism for tweaking the dungeon to suit the mission.
  • Unlocking features, and thus the pacing of the game, is tied to mission completion instead of your personal performance. There's a lot of resources you have to wait to spend.
  • 10000000 showed you your high score and how close it was to the target score, and even though your score was only meaningful right towards the end, it felt pretty satisfying to see that improve. In YMBAB, getting a high score is basically meaningless.
  • The new brains and brawn resources solve a big problem with 10000000, which was that making matches while running was wasting moves, but brains are way more useful than brawn.
  • The potions are particularly useless in this one.
  • It's a bit of a nasty surprise to find out that crew recruitment is the secondary goal, and that your performance there is almost entirely tied to knowing how to recruit the secret monsters before you move on and leave that stop behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes playing chess by email functionally distinguishable from playing chess by regular mail, though? Is the presence of a computer in the process enough to make something a video game, and would that make Simon a video game?

I'd say that an electronically produced image makes it a video game. A cover system would make it a good video game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never bothered with the secret monsters in YMBAB. Maybe that's why the last few missions were tough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh what that's how you get special monsters? Well that's my second run ruined. :(

 

I'd say that an electronically produced image makes it a video game. A cover system would make it a good video game.

 

Now I'm thinking of a parody game call Chess of Duty, where you have to hide behind cover after every turn, and reload your hand to move. When a pawn gets to the end of the board, it turns prestige and can call in an attack copter to blow away other pawns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with basically all the YMBAB thoughts as well, and yet I'm up to literally the last quest on my 7th or 8th run through. I finally looked up how to get the secret characters, and honestly a lot of them are really neat. There's one it seemed like I was doing that didn't work, though.

 

The whole "collect an item" as your final goal is somewhat frustrating. I have literally been sliding the last tile to do an unlock when it times me off the screen, and it's infuriating. Rather than just matching whatever will move you forward, it will give you specific matches, and that changes the game dramatically. There's no way to prepare other than matching everything at the same rate and hoping your board is populated evenly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting the secret monsters in YMBAB involves stuff both in and outside of runs.  A couple of them require you to tap on a certain thing, a couple are unlocked by taking certain actions during combat, others are by meeting certain criteria.  There's really nothing in the game that tells you how to do any of these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I just read through a guide of how to find them. That's a pretty cool feature, but it also kinda sucks that some of the set bonuses for them are so powerful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes playing chess by email functionally distinguishable from playing chess by regular mail, though? Is the presence of a computer in the process enough to make something a video game, and would that make Simon a video game?

 

Honestly, I find the distinction between video games and other kinds of games is becoming less and less useful as time goes on. There are just games and some of them are similar to each other and some of them have digital components. Drawing hard lines is unproductive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about JS joust?

Edit: what about board games like Space Alert that use a CD or mp3 for audio cues. Or that version of monopoly that used a calculator type thing to track money?

I think I'm in agreement that it maybe isn't a useful distinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In some cases, I think it's even detrimental. Trying to draw that clear line around video games implies that, for instance, Rock Band, Spacechem and Thirty Flights of Loving are closer relatives of each other than they are of karaoke, programming and short films, respectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the same as pretty much any genre label. Useful for shorthand for the large range of cases that sit comfortably inside it, and subject to bitter angry contention when discussing edge cases.

 

#walkingsimulator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I find the distinction between video games and other kinds of games is becoming less and less useful as time goes on. There are just games and some of them are similar to each other and some of them have digital components. Drawing hard lines is unproductive.

 

But I need to know how many trees make a forest!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd argue that "video games" is actually slowly diverging from the meaning of "game" separate to it. As CLWheelJack notes, there's controversy still about various types of "Video game" which lack specifically "game-like" elements - Mountain, for example, springs to mind (partly because the creator wrote an impassioned defence of why they thought that it was a game). 

Personally, I'd argue that Mountain isn't a "game" in the formal sense - it lacks any kind of clear goal, anything resembling rules etc - but that this doesn't make it any less valuable as a creation (there's a sense in which it feels that the creator thinks that "not a game" always means "less valuable than a game", which I would suggest is clearly false). 

Similarly, I remember when the Sim "games" from Maxis were all self-categorised as "software toys" - the point being that a toy, unlike a game, does not have a set goal and is instead an open-ended tool for any kind of play (including creating games using it, via the imposition of goals - this is the difference between a pair of dice and Craps, for example).

 

Since we're mostly now using the "video games" to describe things which are formally toys or art-pieces (Proteus, for example), as well as formal games, I'd say that the semantic drift is sufficient that there is a separation between the terms, just not in the direction that tberton is assuming. (That is, rather than "video games" growing to become a larger strict subset of "games", I think "video games" is no longer a strict subset of "games" at all, and rather a separate set which intersects with "toys", "games", "art pieces", "narrative pieces" etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought of handheld electronic games as video games, even though there is no video.

 

Is chess played over telephone (I mean the old school ones ;P ) a Video game?  Or playing electric guitar (wow that's a tricky one without the video requirement!)?

 

Agree with aoanla pretty much.  I have my own definition (need video, interactivity and goal with challenges) but given how it's one of those thing that is easily hurled as an abuse from more rabid fans of the 'traditional' video gaming crowd, would rather not argue with anyone over it unless it's under more civil theorycrafting setting like what's happening here.

 

But I need to know how many trees make a forest!

 

Really though, how many trees?  I say at least... like 40?  Anything less feels better to be called as 'patch of woods'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now