LogFAQs > #930206715

I recently watched Ahoy's video about the first video game:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHQ4WCU1WQc

It sets forth the following specific definition of what constitutes a video game, in order to be able to determine what the first video game was:

A video game must:

1) Exist in a practical implementation
2) Generate some kind of video signal
3) Have interaction that alters this signal
4) Be principally intended for entertainment
5) Be playable solely through the video display(s)

In general, this strikes me as a robust, quite reasonable definition. However, the fourth component seems to imply that most of the games within the recent trend of interactive stories, or what some uncharitably call "walking simulators" aren't actually video games. It intrigues me that, even though I would call these video games, I don't have a retort to anyone who would rule them out as video games due to not being principally intended for entertainment.

There's another layer to this whole conundrum, too, as Ahoy broadens the definition of point 4 (in reference to OXO) a bit later in the video:

Entertainment is not the purpose of implementation, but is the purpose of playing.

In OXO's case, this allows it to qualify as a video game even though it was implemented for the sake of a thesis. For a game like Night in the Woods, should entertainment be considered the purpose of playing, despite not necessarily being the purpose of implementation? There's certainly specific components of what we might call the gameplay of Night in the Woods that are intended to be entertained, and I would guess that most people playing Night in the Woods for the first time are principally looking to be entertained, but I really don't know for sure.

Even if Night in the Woods does qualify as a video game, how about something like That Dragon, Cancer? It seems pretty obvious to me that entertainment is neither the purpose of implementation, nor (for most people) the purpose of playing, though I'll admit I haven't played That Dragon, Cancer myself. And if That Dragon, Cancer isn't a video game, what is a suitably concise term to describe it, preferably along with similar experiences? Something like "interactive story" sounds reasonable to me; if we agree on that, though, that begs the question of what exactly an interactive story is. Can we define the term using a set of principles akin to the principles of a video game above, and if so, what are those principles?

Alternatively, is applying the "duck test" (i.e. if it looks like a video game, and plays like a video game, it is one) sufficient? Even more broadly, does it matter whether or not the likes of Night in the Woods and That Dragon, Cancer are actually video games? I'm really not sure what the right answer to these questions is, and they certainly don't seem clear-cut, so I'm curious to know what you all think.

Or you could use this topic for more general discussion of Ahoy's video. That works, too.
---

"I believe in a universe that doesn't care, and people who do."
You won the CBX Guru Contest, Advokaiser! Bully for you!