In short, the defining aspect of videogames is their ability to simulate anything at all, given enough computational power. It is the act of actively simulating an artificial world in realtime, and having that world interact with us in its own terms, that is unique. Neither the visual aspect (the screen, the graphics, etc) nor the fact that human users can act within the game (the controller) is anything new. It's not that we can "see" them or "talk" to them - it's that they can "talk" back to us that is so amazing, that is actively interact with us with a degree of depth and complexity that only unconstrained computational simulation allows, and that's what defines them as a whole, as a medium that allows the expression of new types of ideas.
Long story short, obviously there is no real difference between a computer game, a console game played on a TV, a coin-op game, a vector-based game, a handheld game, etc. They all share the exact same defining characteristic that makes videogames what they are: computational simulation.
Interesting discussion. However, I'm not quite sure it truly distinguishes the set of objects we wish to classify.
One distinction I've seen used is the between gameplay "surfaces" and simulated worlds or fields. For instance, a tennis or basketball court is only a "surface," whereas we might call Brittania a "world" or simulated reality. This is helpful in some cases; for instance, if we want to explain the differences between Tetris and King's Quest. Clearly there is an issue of narrative space here. The surface upon which one plays Tetris has no historical fiction, whereas the world of King's Quest is demarcated precisely by such a telling. I wouldn't call Brittania (Ultima's world) or any other fictionalized gameworld a "simulation," however, since that seems to be referring precisely to the mechanics of representing that world, not being that world. The "being the world" is not a function of the code or the computer, but rather a mental phenomenon. To that end, my Brittania is different from any other Brittania, etc.
I also see a slippery slope between arguing that, say, Pinball Dreams is a simulation of a pinball game, whereas an electromechanical pinball game is the real thing. I'd of course argue that there is no "real" pinball game, since such a thing exists only as an ideology. Any physical manifestation of that idea, be it Pinball Dreams or an electromechanical (or even a purely mechanical) is always already a simulation (or simulacrum). Indeed, you can easily illustrate this point by bringing together any number of pinball experts and asking them which particular pinball machine is THE pinball machine; they would most likely argue that no one such machine "is" pinball, but rather pinball is a set of rules, and since no one can agree on those we switch to "conventions," and eventually we can find enough hybrids, exceptions, and exploded binaries to muddle the whole thing up yet again. As Plato would argue, "pinball" is not a physical construct but rather an entity in the domain of ideas, and its representation--whether purely fictional, electronic, or as gears and wood--is incidental and not even interesting. Is "pinball" any less real for someone who has only played Pinball Dreams and never even seen an electromechanical pinball game?I think in many ways it could actually have more substance, particularly if that person knew something of the code and the physics of the game and its limitations.
If we really want to get at what a game is, perhaps a sensible route is the phenomenological; a careful observation and self-reflection of one's own experience during the event. What are you feeling, what are you thinking, etc., at each moment of the session. Perhaps that cognitive log might lead to insights into what pinball is. Or one could argue (and I think convincingly) that pinball is meaningless in anything but a social or cultural sense. In that case, Pinball Dreams or Pinball Fantasies might very well constitute a more "authentic" pinball experience than any electromechanical or any other representation, since arguably the "idea" of pinball extends beyond physical constraints and the incidental factors of earth's gravity and so on.
In short, the defining aspect of videogames is their ability to simulate anything at all, given enough computational power. It is the act of actively simulating an artificial world in realtime, and having that world interact with us in its own terms, that is unique. Neither the visual aspect (the screen, the graphics, etc) nor the fact that human users can act within the game (the controller) is anything new. It's not that we can "see" them or "talk" to them - it's that they can "talk" back to us that is so amazing, that is actively interact with us with a degree of depth and complexity that only unconstrained computational simulation allows, and that's what defines them as a whole, as a medium that allows the expression of new types of ideas.
Long story short, obviously there is no real difference between a computer game, a console game played on a TV, a coin-op game, a vector-based game, a handheld game, etc. They all share the exact same defining characteristic that makes videogames what they are: computational simulation.
Interesting discussion. However, I'm not quite sure it truly distinguishes the set of objects we wish to classify.
One distinction I've seen used is the between gameplay "surfaces" and simulated worlds or fields. For instance, a tennis or basketball court is only a "surface," whereas we might call Brittania a "world" or simulated reality. This is helpful in some cases; for instance, if we want to explain the differences between Tetris and King's Quest. Clearly there is an issue of narrative space here. The surface upon which one plays Tetris has no historical fiction, whereas the world of King's Quest is demarcated precisely by such a telling. I wouldn't call Brittania (Ultima's world) or any other fictionalized gameworld a "simulation," however, since that seems to be referring precisely to the mechanics of representing that world, not being that world. The "being the world" is not a function of the code or the computer, but rather a mental phenomenon. To that end, my Brittania is different from any other Brittania, etc.
I also see a slippery slope between arguing that, say, Pinball Dreams is a simulation of a pinball game, whereas an electromechanical pinball game is the real thing. I'd of course argue that there is no "real" pinball game, since such a thing exists only as an ideology. Any physical manifestation of that idea, be it Pinball Dreams or an electromechanical (or even a purely mechanical) is always already a simulation (or simulacrum). Indeed, you can easily illustrate this point by bringing together any number of pinball experts and asking them which particular pinball machine is THE pinball machine; they would most likely argue that no one such machine "is" pinball, but rather pinball is a set of rules, and since no one can agree on those we switch to "conventions," and eventually we can find enough hybrids, exceptions, and exploded binaries to muddle the whole thing up yet again. As Plato would argue, "pinball" is not a physical construct but rather an entity in the domain of ideas, and its representation--whether purely fictional, electronic, or as gears and wood--is incidental and not even interesting. Is "pinball" any less real for someone who has only played Pinball Dreams and never even seen an electromechanical pinball game?I think in many ways it could actually have more substance, particularly if that person knew something of the code and the physics of the game and its limitations.
If we really want to get at what a game is, perhaps a sensible route is the phenomenological; a careful observation and self-reflection of one's own experience during the event. What are you feeling, what are you thinking, etc., at each moment of the session. Perhaps that cognitive log might lead to insights into what pinball is. Or one could argue (and I think convincingly) that pinball is meaningless in anything but a social or cultural sense. In that case, Pinball Dreams or Pinball Fantasies might very well constitute a more "authentic" pinball experience than any electromechanical or any other representation, since arguably the "idea" of pinball extends beyond physical constraints and the incidental factors of earth's gravity and so on.
Matt Barton, Managing Editor
Location: St. Cloud, Minnesota, USA
Email: matt@armchairarcade.com