This is even better:
http://www.youtube.com/user/bytegrove#p/u/0/zWQl_Fpr9Gk

You did not understand. There was a reason why I did not mention racing games, but Diablo. In Diablo just like in Minecraft you have to do some work (I called it click, click) to destroy something (you dont do that in racing games). While you do that you explore the environment (you do that to some degree in a racing game too). And then you collect loot (you dont do that in racing games). Later you do some crafting (creating new weapons, tools, armor, maybe even buildings). You dont do that in racing games.
Besides that I mentioned open space games that allow to build buildings, factories and more. The game mechanics are very similar no matter what goal you finally have.

And I have read similar thoughts from game journalists as well. I think last time someone mentioned a similar comparison in the "Spieleveteranen Podcast" as well. So maybe this idea is not as dumb as you think.

I'm aware that this argument comes up often, but I don't think that should be a reason not to critizise it

It's a cute argument, but my point still stands. You're saying that if you just look at things from an artificially high level, their mechanics are the same. I'm sure we can agree that both games are different: It's easy to distinguish Diablo from Minecraft, and that is true even if you were to remove the differences in graphic style. This is because while they may share similarities in its gameplay (and its trivial to find similarities between any two games, if you look at them at a high enough level - I think your earlier post was actually a very good way of showing that point), there is still a difference in the fundamental mechanics. Even though they may simulate the same act (acquiring new equipment by building it, for instance), their implementation differs. And at that level, many small details can add to a different experience.

An additional point can be made that it is unclear anyhow what characterizes games. It's often interpreted as being only about mechanics, and that a good game should be fun even if you were to remove all art, sound and what-have-you from it. But maybe reality is more difficult: art-style, sounds, music, and everything else comes together. Little things in tone make a radical difference in how games are perceived.
In a way, that's almost... beautiful. Many hours of work were put in art assets - and it DOES make a difference. Not just in an artificial factor that multiplies whatever "funness" the game mechanics provide. It's not just a one-dimensional thing, the "experience" works on many levels.
But if we accept that as true, then how can one say that a game is "the same as game XY" (and we all have seen comments on new game announcements that were mostly "this is just like [game name], ill stick to that one!"), if they share similarities in mechanics on some level, but differ on others?

I'm not saying there is no value in discussing game mechanics - there DEFINITELY is. But there is a danger in carrying it too far: It's easy to forget all the other things that come together to form an experience that can be so much more than the sum of its parts.
The first three Ace Attorney games are virtually the same from a game mechanics point of view. They added new features, but I don't think any fan of the first game bought the latter ones because of it. It has always been about the setting and it's story and it's characters. And most people think that the first game is better than the second, and the third game is the best of them. It can't be about it's game mechanics -- those don't differ much. It is about it's setting and story. So those things shape the experience and really can make a difference (In these games, I suppose it can be argued that the story is a major part of the gameplay ("gameplay" - another one of the poorly defined terms) - but where do you draw the line? At what point is story and setting, or any other thing that is not pure mechanics more than mere fluff?)



Pappenheimer, I'm very sorry for hijacking one of your threads. I feel like I do that all the time to you.

only half read this thread but might i through a little gas on the not-quite-flames-yet?

and i know its not ot, but what about games like heavy rain or the cinematic scenes in re4, what makes those games and not movies with a choice here or there (i guess the re4 thing is sort of timing but still..)

You mean the Quicktime events? In RE4, I found them to be unfair - they came out of nowhere, and I usually died the first time since I didn't realize that this was a cutscene that required input.

Heavy Rain, I haven't played, but from what I understand, it's similar (yet better in most key aspects) to the "predecessor in spirit" Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy, right?
This is actually a real interesting point you bring up. It boils down to the one question, that is: How do we define a game? And if this is done via game mechanics, the follow-up question must be: Is that still a fair assessment? Because as I've said above, I believe that so many things come together beyond the game mechanics, that this approach wouldn't do this complex medium justice.

Heavy Rain, as well as Fahrenheit, seem to be mostly about decisions. Disregarding the quick time events, that I can't say anything about since I haven't played the game, it seems to me that the game is content in providing you an experience. A story - putting you in an extraordinary situation, asking you how to deal with it. You're tasked with finding out how you react in situations, whom and how many people (and what kind of people!) you trust. In that sense, however, Heavy Rain and Fahrenheit are radically different - their stories are different, their setting is, their characters are. The fact that they feel so different, then, is supporting the idea that it is not about mere mechanics (those being mostly a dialogue-system and a way to move your character to certain points that, again, represent decisions), but that the entire experience is shaped by so much more.

Here's an observation I'll put out here. These kind of games - and maybe Minecraft as well, they seem to represent a different "state" of gaming.
Compare (and contrast?) to how you played games as a child. It was about make-believing, about putting you in situations. Creating things with LEGO was not necessarily fun because you enjoyed putting those bricks together, or even because you liked the end result. The process itself got it's meaning mostly from the vivid imagination that most of us seem to lose at a certain age.
Later on, as adults, we play different kind of games. We may still enjoy a board game with a setting (Check this out!), but the "classic" games, say poker, or most other card games, they are about their mechanics. Chess, too. They represent a struggle, sure, but the reason we play them is not to find out what heroes or leaders may have felt on the battlefield. We play them because we find the tactics, the psychology behind it intriguing.
This seems similar to the definition usually brought up about video games. At it's core sits the game mechanic, and that rules all.
But we've seen that it can be difficult to accuralty describe (and differentiate - just as important) games. We fail to see the appeal in Minecraft, if there doesn't seem to be a clear end goal in sight (see spikes post). However, thinking back to the earlier kind of play more common in how we used to approach games as children, things seem to be similar. Is, then, Minecraft just a tool to play games just like we used to? What we lost in "vividness" of imagination provided by Minecraft's sometimes crude graphics, being the spark that sets your imaginary world on fire?

Different people prefer different games. Minecraft and Terraria and those all invite you to make your own story up as you go along - possibly even without you consciously doing this.

I think there are some misunderstandings about Minecraft floating about. Let's have a look at minecraft.net's About the Game:This is reflected in the updates lately (if you follow them) -- experience points, skill trees, achievements, and hardcore mode (when you die, there's no "load" or "respawn" -- the world gets deleted). "Creative mode" is like playing with LEGO, but "Survival mode" is where the game is at.

More on topic (or on the topic of this tangent lostclimate started) -- to me, "what makes a game" is interactivity. It's the defining feature. AAA titles often strive to be more and more "cinematic" -- more and more like movies. This is generally a bad direction to go in (but can be OH-so-good if you get it right like the Uncharted series tends to), but they're still games. You could have a movie with a "choose A or B" right near the end as the only interaction, but it'd still be a game (albeit an awful one -- no matter how good and satisfying the story is, people will deride its limited interactivity).

Regarding whether or not a game should or shouldn't have a defined ending (Minecraft as it is now, LEGO blocks, playing in a sand-pit, VS most other games), I don't think one is inherently more fun than the other. Having a goal will have the player finish satisfied, while having no goal will have the player finish tired of playing the game (or dragged away kicking and screaming by friends for an intervention), but the latter game often provides dozens of hours more fun than the former.

This is a fine way to distinguish between "game" and "not-game". But it's binary at it's very core. How do we differentiate? Is there a way to abstractly categorize games beyond genre? Genre as in "FPS", "RPG", etc. characterizes on certain traits of game mechanics (that interactivity), Genre as in "fantasy", "Sci-fi", etc. characterizes via setting. The latter is, almost surprisingly, less often used. Mostly as a way to further differentiate ("Sci-Fi FPS" vs "Fantasy RPG", perhaps).

Can we think of a way to characterize games beyond that binary input, so that we are able to actually differentiate between games? After all, we did originally wonder what differentiates Minecraft and Diablo (or if they do at all).
Is there even a need to do this? Is the combination between the Gameplay/Setting-genre already good enough?
But both Oblivion and Gothic are "Fantasy RPGs", yet, they're radically different.


Is this all maybe an endeavour doomed to fail? And why am I asking so many rhetoric questions?

The answer, in the next post, below! ...

I have mixed feelings about designations such as "FPS" and "RPG". What players would define as RPG is actually very counter-intuitive -- character customization, skill trees and skill progression, conversation options -- players are immersing themselves in the game, rather than playing a role (from this perspective Serious Sam is a role playing game and Mass Effect isn't). Actually that's completely irrelevant -- even if the name doesn't make sense (yes, its origins come from table-top role playing games, but seriously, that's such a small niche), I guess everyone has similar expectations.

On a more related note, "Fantasy RPG" can indeed vary so much, while "Sci Fi FPS" will usually tell you everything you need to know about the game. "Action Adventure" gets used a bit, but is ridiculously vague. I'd rather do without genres -- perhaps games would be less likely to copy genre staples and more likely to pick and choose elements that will work within the developer's abilities/vision.

But then when we don't have genre names we still create our own -- "GTA clone" is an older term these days. "CoD clone" is familiar. Remember "Halo clones"? Perhaps these were helpful in finger-pointing at those who copied a whole game (rather than copying elements from a variety of games, which is totally different and cool and awesome and leads to innovation), as long as the term isn't thrown around too liberally.

My definition of what makes a game a game may be binary, but I think that's good. In discussions as to whether or not games are art, my response is usually "Games are every medium that preceded them [music, art, drama, movies <which really contain all of the above>] plus interactivity."

I don't think I really stuck to one idea, but hopefully it still all makes sense

a game is something you play. end of story. and if you add cutscenes, a game is a game as long as the majority of the product is playing.

one could argue we have to define playing first but i think its pretty clear...

part of what jibb brought up the whole clone thing... but things people call gta clones are just freeroam shooters.... people seem to name entire genre's after the biggest one if there arnt many competitors, which makes no one want to put effort in a polished copy in fear of being called a copy