On Wednesday, 10 April 2013 at 21:22:30 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:35:56 -0400
Jeff Nowakowski <j...@dilacero.org> wrote:
> Keep in mind, I'm using "interactive movie" largely for lack
> of a
> better term. "Videogame" definitely isn't the right word for
> them.
They're games,
For many (admittedly, not all) of them, I really don't believe
"games"
is an accurate term (Don't misinterpret that into a statement
of "Only
true 'games' are legitimate" because I never said such a thing.)
They have interactive sections, and they are entertainment, but
being
interactive entertainment does not inherently imply "game".
Keep in mind, even sandbox titles, which are definitely not
remotely
"interactive movie" or cinematic at all (at least any of the
ones I've
seen), have long been debated as to whether or not they are
"games".
And note that nobody ever said that was a bad thing. It might
be a bad
thing if the industry focused too heavily on them, but that
would be a
completely different complaint.
I was frustrated with the all-inclusive term "videogame" until I
realized that spoken languages (no to mention programming ones)
change over time. The technical definition of "game" is one
thing, but if a language starts using a term for something else,
eventually that just becomes the definition. I think the original
reason it caught on was because video games have a childlike
wonder about them which reminds people of "playing". But now that
the term's caught on, it's not going away. Therefore video games
need not be games, in the traditional sense that they must have
rules. All life is a game... and the people are merely players!
That's the new sense of the word I think.
