What Are Video Games?

There are few things I consider more important than the preservation and progression of video game design theory. By "important" I do not mean any sort of intrinsic or utilitarian significance; I mean of concern to me, because I love video games.

 

To someone who values video games as I do, there can be no issue or subject in the field more crucial than what video games are. All video game design builds and relies upon an understanding of their essence and nature. The proper formulation of this essence is: video games are interactive visual-auditory programs primarily eliciting feelings of fun.

 

This definition, it may be observed, is similar to that of "movies." There are two differences, however, and the former implies and necessitates the latter.

 

First, movies are not interactive. They present integrated worlds to be contemplated, while video games offer incomplete worlds to be made whole.

 

It is the fact that interactivity is an essential characteristic of video games that precludes them from being art, their second defining difference from movies. A movie requires observation; a video game requires midwifery.

 

This difference is crucial, and it is a sad comment on the state of gaming's intellectual culture that there exist people straining to wipe out the knowledge that video games are essentially interactive and must be judged as such.

 

Such a grievous error is not made on a superficial level. This is not merely an argument that all aspects of video games are created equal. It is a fundamental rejection of essences. It is a rebellion against epistemological order. It is a denial of standards as such.

 

This stance flows naturally from an idea in philosophy that rejects that there are such things as objectively defining characteristics. To a rational philosopher or a layman possessing common sense, it is obvious that what makes video games different from most other electronic entertainment is their interactivity, and that as such this aspect should be most heavily weighted in their evaluation.

 

But our “intellectuals” flatly deny this. They respond that gameplay is an arbitrary standard, and video games may just as properly be judged on their graphics, their stories, their difficulty, their length, their protagonists' hair color or any number of equally non-essential characteristics.

 

By eschewing gameplay, or mechanics, as the paramount factor involved in reviewing a game, the purveyors of this idea wipe out the possibility of objective judgment. It is claimed that even if its mechanics are faulty, a game's art design or audio can "supersede" this element.

 

This is as wrong as any assertion on the subject can be. A game must be judged as a game. A movie can have great art design or audio, but only a game can have great mechanics. If gameplay is added, then it must be the focus, otherwise its introduction amounts to the corrupting of what might have been an otherwise legitimate movie.

 

The result and motive of the denial of essences is to make all judgments deserving of the same respect, which is to say, none. If a game is not judged in accordance with its function, or if its purpose is viewed as subjective and arbitrary, then it will be seen as of no greater value than the lowest of its peers, and, tragically, so will its creators.

 

"Don't set out to raze all shrines—you'll frighten men. Enshrine mediocrity, and the shrines are razed." – The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand

 

(Republished from The GameSaver)