It is unfortunate that you're downvoted. At one point, there was an article on HN discussing games, including what made a "game" a "game" — and one of the article's requirements was that there must exist some risk of losing. Otherwise, you're just messing around or following predefined steps towards an end, but there is no challenge. Not that that can't entertain, but plenty of things entertain that aren't games. (E.g., a movie.)
The article also discussed some weird things that existed outside of the definition that the article arrived at, such as ClickerHeros and similar "grinding" "games".
(I wish I could find a link to it. Perhaps someone else here remembers and can find it…)
Not unfortunate at all; arguing definitions is rarely useful or interesting, and "game" has dozens of worthy contenders that disagree with GP and with the article you read.
E g.: Sid Meier's famous definition: "a series of interesting decisions". (But what would he know?)
Says "arguing definitions is rarely useful"; argues a definition usefully. :-)
FWIW I asked the question because I'm designing a simulation "game" without explicit win-conditions, but I'm concerned it won't be very engaging without them. e.g. Minecraft added monsters (to survive the night), and the enderverse.
Don't get me wrong, the question of whether this or that game is better with or without win conditions is perfectly interesting. It's just the raw "is it a game or not?" that's not useful. It's like asking whether comic books are books - the answer is "yes under some definitions, no under others", simple as that.
For the case of your game[0] specifically, one option is to expose game stats that the player can form their own challenges around. E.g. if the game UI shows how many times you've jumped, that implicitly lets the player form "do X without jumping more than Y times" sorts of challenges, etc. Or the more formal way to do it is like e.g. Minecraft achievements - there's no "win condition" for putting a saddle on a pig or whatever, but the mere fact that there's a piece of UI tracking whether you've done it or not, creates a challenge by itself.
I've thought about that - and it's not that big a jump to have a GUI that allows a user to specify a win condition (and locations to traverse, other conditions etc). Then, the user can share it online. I haven't played GTA V online, but I think it does something like that.
But actually, I don't want those sort of win-conditions for this particular game, not even DIY stats. It's just an immersive simulation. Guess I'm just not too sure it WILL be immersive or engaging - even for me to play! Just have to see, I guess.
Taking your lead, I suppose if a movie can be immersive, why not a "game" which has no win-condition? But the moment I say that, I immediately realize that movies do have "win-conditions" - just of the protagonist, not the viewer/player. Goals, stakes, motivation, obstacles are all important narrative components.
Can you have an immersive movie without narrative? Sort of maybe, some experimental/arthouse, but they aren't very popular (and arguably do have some kind of narrative).
You're probably right about definitions, but they do inevitably lead to the components of a game/non-game, and whether they are engaging, and what makes them engaging... and they're easy to ask.
Many games don't have win states or shouldn't have win states. More people need to listen to what Sid Meier has said on this. That HN article was written by someone who did not know what they were talking about.
Yes, rules are needed for a game. But is it enough?
e.g. there are rules to writing a syntactically correct program; ways to drive a car; use a GUI. Does that make them games?
If a user can make a game out of them, what do they add, to make it into a "game"? Is the thing added an objective of some kind (i.e. a win condition)?
That's why I added that a game is something you "play".
I'd suggest that in order to make something into a game, the user is adding "playfulness", which is pretty subjective and may or may not include a simple goal.
In an open game or fun simulation, the player is going to be coming up with their own goals or roles of play. Or maybe they will just be going with a simple open ended goal of curious exploration.
Games like SimCity, Animal Crossing, and Minecraft are good examples where the experience of "playing" isn't necessarily about translating the game from an "initial" state to "end" or "win" one.
I think the parent comment makes a good point that if you do define games as the mentioned, this and a few other things certainly doesn't necessarily fit with the definition. Still, games are often a fill-in word for many interactive things that use a computer.
Where it especially blurs the line is when the sandbox/toy is sufficiently advanced that one can invent their own games. For example, Garry's Mod is not a "game", but millions of hours have been spent playing games in it. Does the game need to impose the rules, or is it sufficient to allow the players to impose their own? If the former, then what of games that normally impose rules strictly, but include cheat codes that allow players to flexibly circumvent the rules and invent their own games? In practice, nearly every video game is all of a toy and a game and a toolkit for games and even a sport (any game can be speedrun!) simultaneously.
I guess it's all just semantic but by that logic anything is a game. I can make a game from dinner. "who finishes first", "who can balance the most peas on their fork". "how many bites can you eat while balancing your chair on 2 legs" But that doesn't make "dinner" itself a game.
But whatever, people use words the way they use them. For example RPG, based on the logic of how the word is used, has almost meaning. Zelda is often called an RPG but it's got almost zero in common with say FF7 and more in common with Ratchet and Clack. And the word Role Playing Game. Well, by that logic any racing game is an RPG. I'm playing the role of a race car driver. Or FPS, I'm playing the role of a soilder. Or flight sim, I'm playing the role of a pilot. Or God Sim, playing the role of a god. RPG in actual use seems to mean "game about character with sword" at best.
The latest atrocity is "roguelike" which is applied to any game that has randomly generated levels. For example Galax-Z is called "roguelike" even though it's basically Asteroids.
The word "game" people use it interchangeably with anything you can fiddle with interactively on a computer and see some graphics change even though that describes photoshop and ms paint as well.
If Animal Crossing and The Sims are games, then so is a doll house or a bit of play dough.
I subscribe to Chris Crawford's definition. Games are competitions between multiple players and they must be able to interfere with each other. A painting, a toy, a puzzle, a race, are all not games. The difference between taking a stroll while carrying a ball and playing a game is keeping score.
The most controversial result of that is that God of War and Dark Souls are actually puzzles, and not games, and although it's unintuitive upon reflection it rings true to me.
The article also discussed some weird things that existed outside of the definition that the article arrived at, such as ClickerHeros and similar "grinding" "games".
(I wish I could find a link to it. Perhaps someone else here remembers and can find it…)