Does Video Gaming Need a New Name?

[HigHurtenflurst]

Veknoid_Outcast said:

Mythmaker1 said:

Veknoid_Outcast said:

Mythmaker1 said:

Veknoid_Outcast said:
Video games seems pretty good to me. They're games broadcast via video. They're meant to be played, alone or with friends, and they're meant to be fun.

I'd say that not all of them are meant to be fun.

Which ones, out of curiosity?

Horror games are a good example, I think, because the best horror games are not about having fun. They can be exciting or engaging, but they can still be "good" without being "fun."

Or think about books or movies. There are a lot of stories or films out there which are not meant to be fun.

A different argument in a similar vein as mine is in Extra Credits: Beyond Fun.

I see what you're saying. Although I would argue being scared is part of the "fun" of horror games.

Also, it's tough to compare video games with books or movies, because they're very different media. Movies and books have a single storyteller, but games have more than one: the creator of the game and the player, whose actions affect the game world. 

In any event, I still think the primary purpose of video games is to have fun. Lately, games have been moving toward the world of cinema, which is a huge mistake in my opinion, and that movement has replaced some of the active "fun" with passive "entertainment." Maybe that's what you're picking up on? Of course, games have been entertaining fans for generations, but the essence of video games is the interaction between player(s) and game. And that's where the "fun" is created.

Remember these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choose_Your_Own_Adventure

Ignoring that though I tend to agree with you.