LogFAQs > #930208551

Seriously, taking this video and leaping to gatekeeping games like NITW or That Dragon, Cancer for "not being entertainment" is one of the most baffling things I've seen in a while, like, I have to believe you're trolling me

First of all, this is completely outside of the scope of what the video is examining; it's concerned with figuring out the definition of video games to figure out what the first video game is, back to a time when video games were just early prototypes of things, weren't necessarily on an LCD display, etc. It is not an examination of what makes something a video game today.

Second of all, "must be entertainment" is a definition intended to keep out like, Microsoft Word, or a calculator, not games you don't find entertaining. Something that tells a story is clearly entertainment, and if that's not immediately apparent, then I'd say you're operating on a particularly childish definition of the word entertainment.

Third, like... just what the hell in general? If you're even going to have this debate, have it about visual novels - which I believe has become less of an argument nowadays (yes, they are video games, albeit minimalist ones that fall into a niche subculture of video gaming, but minimalism is still an important expression of art etc etc). I haven't played That Dragon, Cancer but NITW literally has gameplay elements in it! A lot of them! Like, what the hell are you doing here. You're going so far astray from the purpose of the video that it's completely astounding to me. "I would still consider NITW a video game" doesn't even need to be a debate, there is no debate to be had.

Interesting points of debate were suggested like Bandersnatch (I would say yes) and that one audio game (I haven't played it but I would say 'no by these definitions but I think it's more complicated than that').