Zero999 said:
there is no point, unless you think someone can release a music and say it's a game, for example. games have a clear definition: needs a player, has rules, has an objective. and by the way, a game doesn't need self afirmation arguments for people to understand it's a game. while people may enjoy, it's hard to define beyond two souls as a game since it's basically a movie where you press buttons now and then so you can watch the rest. that makes his statement a forceful try to convince people bts is a game. |
A game requires a game world in which you have a certain level of interaction and a set of rules deciding how you can interact with the world. That's about how I would define a game.
An objective isn't really necessary for a game. Minecraft didn't have an objective before they added the dragon boss (and that's not really an objective either because it's not something you have to do) but it's still a game.
OT:
Personally I don't see the problem in defining what a game is, I just think it's a pointless thing to do because that definition would only cause trouble for those whining about what a game should be and what elements a game should or shouldn't include. It really wouldn't hinder or limit a game creator in any way. If anything a definition would only be helpful for Cage as he could use it and say that yes, games like Heavy Rain and Beyond and whatever his next project is are indeed games and there's nothing that the naysayers can do about it.
