We also briefly discussed this in Games Master, if only to discover how wide and diverse the range of perspectives are. I feel it misrepresents the subject to talk about a "literal definition", and to explicitly include "win conditions". Because there are multiple attempts of a definition, and many do not include win conditions.
"To play a game is to engage in activity directed toward bringing about a specific state of affairs, using only means permitted by specific rules, where the means permitted by the rules are more limited in scope than they would be in the absence of the rules, and where the sole reason for accepting such limitation is to make possible such activity." (Bernard Suits)[14]
You seem to refer to Chris Crawford's definition, which is in part:
If no goals are associated with a plaything, it is a toy. (Crawford notes that by his definition, (a) a toy can become a game element if the player makes up rules, and (b) The Sims and SimCity are toys, not games.) If it has goals, a plaything is a challenge.
Explicitly calling SimCity "not a game" is purely academic talk, detached from reality. For everyone else, SimCity is clearly a game. If you want to buy it, you look for games, not toys. I feel definitions are questionable which define something to be not what everybody thinks it is.
Was Minecraft not a game until it included "The End"? I loved playing Minecraft, but I rarely cared about The End, even after it was included. When a player cannot tell the difference between a version of a game which includes a win condition, and a version which does not, how can the existence of that condition be a decisive factor?
If we widen the scope to include any game, not just video games, we can also have a look at popular children's games like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_Association. My theater group loves to play win-free games as a warmup practice.
From my point of view, win conditions are a common characteristic of games, but not necessary or defining. Coming up with a short definition which captures all games and excludes all non-games is surprisingly hard.
Imo definitions are important even if people aren't aware of them.
I did say it's an interesting area of study. So I was referring to the academic side and specific definitions.
The other definitions are way too wide imo and easily include many things that clearly aren't games.
Win free games are basically just constrained play I feel.
Again Minecraft isn't a game technically. Beating the ender dragon doesn't end the game. If it did then it would better fit the definition of a game imo. It's a sandbox or digital Lego.
Your point seems obvious - except that Minecraft still had no win condition in beta and was already well on it's way too becoming the most popular video game of all time.
Makes it feel like the accepted definition of "game" is changing.
Huh. Turns out I use most of my games as toys, not games. I rarely finish games, usually getting a lot of stuff done, high leveled, etc, then just enjoying it until I decide ro start over. I also regularly go back to games like Ark, 7 days, City Skylines, Civ VI(but often strip out ein conditions so I can keep playing), FFXIV, etc.
Sure I make short term goals that I complete, but usually not done everything and complete story to win unless doing so gives me something else to do, like New Game+.
Games don't always have win conditions…
The only winning move is not to play.
Games by their literal definition have win conditions.
One without win conditions is just a virtual toy. Like sim city.
I wrote a paper on this when studying games technology at university. It's actually a really interesting area of study.
We also briefly discussed this in Games Master, if only to discover how wide and diverse the range of perspectives are. I feel it misrepresents the subject to talk about a "literal definition", and to explicitly include "win conditions". Because there are multiple attempts of a definition, and many do not include win conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game
One such example definition:
You seem to refer to Chris Crawford's definition, which is in part:
Explicitly calling SimCity "not a game" is purely academic talk, detached from reality. For everyone else, SimCity is clearly a game. If you want to buy it, you look for games, not toys. I feel definitions are questionable which define something to be not what everybody thinks it is.
Was Minecraft not a game until it included "The End"? I loved playing Minecraft, but I rarely cared about The End, even after it was included. When a player cannot tell the difference between a version of a game which includes a win condition, and a version which does not, how can the existence of that condition be a decisive factor?
If we widen the scope to include any game, not just video games, we can also have a look at popular children's games like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_Association. My theater group loves to play win-free games as a warmup practice.
From my point of view, win conditions are a common characteristic of games, but not necessary or defining. Coming up with a short definition which captures all games and excludes all non-games is surprisingly hard.
Imo definitions are important even if people aren't aware of them.
I did say it's an interesting area of study. So I was referring to the academic side and specific definitions.
The other definitions are way too wide imo and easily include many things that clearly aren't games.
Win free games are basically just constrained play I feel.
Again Minecraft isn't a game technically. Beating the ender dragon doesn't end the game. If it did then it would better fit the definition of a game imo. It's a sandbox or digital Lego.
What about MMORPGs? Where do they fit in this classification? I’m genuinely curious.
There's predefined goals and rules.
It has win and lose conditions, for example failing a raid.
It can technically be completed even if that takes an insane amount of time and effort. You can therefore fail to complete it.
So you could argue it is a game quite easily. You could also argue it's a set of distinct games within a framework.
But things get a lot more messy with digital games compared to classic games.
Your point seems obvious - except that Minecraft still had no win condition in beta and was already well on it's way too becoming the most popular video game of all time.
Makes it feel like the accepted definition of "game" is changing.
I think the term "virtual toy" applies really well for Minecraft.
Like Lego you can set goals for yourself but there aren't strict win or lose conditions.
But the diversity of what's possible with video games certainly muddies the waters compared to classic games.
A game has a set of goals, and you can quit it without dying.
If there's no set of goals, it's not a game, it's a toy.
If you can't quit it without dying, it's not a game, it's real life.
(Does real life have a set of goals? Depends who you ask.)
Technically the goal is for your DNA to spread itself. Everything else is just made up by humans.
That's its goal, not mine!
Huh. Turns out I use most of my games as toys, not games. I rarely finish games, usually getting a lot of stuff done, high leveled, etc, then just enjoying it until I decide ro start over. I also regularly go back to games like Ark, 7 days, City Skylines, Civ VI(but often strip out ein conditions so I can keep playing), FFXIV, etc.
Sure I make short term goals that I complete, but usually not done everything and complete story to win unless doing so gives me something else to do, like New Game+.