>If you can't win or can't lose, it's not a game.
what did he mean by this?
>>333008875
Is it possible to winthe game?
>>333009695
Ironically,The Game isn't a game, it has no win condition, only continuous losses.
>>333011005
>if you can't win OR can't lose
still fits the criteria bud
>>333011187
Maybe I don't agree with that criteria, fuckboy.
If you can't win, losing can't set you back, thus losses are meaningless.
If you beat the game, it wins.
>>333011292
>losses are meaningless.
just likethe game
Personally I play games that have win and loss conditions so things like Life is Strange, Gone Home, Yandere Simulator at the present, among other recent releases just aren't fun nor do I consider them games. Yandere is just a test build. FFXV Demo is a tech demo. Though it does have a win condition so eh.
A built in win state is not a requirement, however a loss state is. Even if it is very small.
Who is that semen demon?
>>333011292
>endless survival type games don't count because they don't have a win state
How young are you
I always found the win/loss state is needed to be a game to be an arbitrary qualifier.
You can't win or lose in animal crossing. You can't win or lose in peak-a-boo. You can't win or lose in Garry's mod
If it's designed to be used as a form of play with some set of rules, then it's a game.
>>333012454
>You can't ... lose in animal crossing
You can fail to catch things, you can fail to find things. You can lose money on turnips, and bees can fall out of trees and make you ugly for a day. There is not much to it, it is extremely casual, but even AC has some kind of "failure" state.
>>333014453
all of which are optional
>>333014563
Well yes but I think a general theme in the game is collecting, and you can fail to collect things by mistiming a button press, running out of time, etc.
>>333012454
What the fuck do you mean you can't win in Animal Crossing? You can very much pay off all your debt, which is the goal of the game.
>If you can't win or can't lose, it's not a game.
I don't agree, a game is an activity, something for you to do, whether you're bored and have nothing to do, or just want to escape frustration in your life by playing something you love, you don't have to win, a simulation game like animal crossing is one where you get to live a life you would otherwise may never get to live, and it's a game where your choices matter, and you are given the freedom to do whatever YOU want to, and not by what real life would want you to do, there is no goal, there is no time limit, you're allowed to enjoy the game at your own pace without fear of screwing up, or the experience ending. If it gives you an interactive enjoyment, I think it's fair to still consider it a game.
>>333012276
people were legitimately trying to argue devil daggers or whatever wasn't a game because of this
>>333017975
But the 'win' state in a game like that is getting a new high score.
>>333012454
>You can't win or lose in animal crossing.
thats more of a simulation though
>You can't win or lose in Garry's mod
and that is a sandbox
you can play around in both a simulation or a sandbox but that doesn't make it a game. Just cause something is on a "video game" console doesn't make it a game. Though they are still called games to better get the point across of what they are even if they are wrong.
It is similar as to how anything with level up mechanics is labeled and RPG
>>333011506
I miss those days. Fuck.
>>333020238
>It is similar as to how anything with level up mechanics is labeled and RPG
Good as definition as any.
>>333011005
Buckley sounds like an expert at that game haha
Games are not defined by win/loss states. If an activity has arbitrary rules for the purpose of entertainment than it's a game. And no, breaking the rules is not a loss state. The rules set up appropriate interactions within the context of the game. Breaking the rules constitutes a violation, not a loss. Also, with digital games you can't even break the rules without modifying the game, excluding social rules with multiplayer games.
>>333021725
Are sandbox games not games then? They have no rules.
The medium will never evolve as long as you idiots continue to put needless constraints on it
>>333021921
Yes they do. Unless the game is made by Peter Molyneux then there are boundaries in what you can do in the game. Those boundaries establish the rule of the game.
>>333022058
But the purpose of sandbox games are to remove all boundaries. Any boundaries are unintentional and cause by limitations of, say, the technology or the engine. Because it's a limitation, there is no way to go beyond it. There's no way to "break the rules" because there is nothing beyond that "boundary".
>>333022240
Can you name me a sandbox game that fits that criteria? Because chances are you're not seeing the boundaries in the game. Even a real life sandbox has boundaries, from the physical boundaries of the sandbox itself (the edges) to the boundaries of the physical medium (the sand).
>>333022647
But the physical boundary of a sandbox isn't on purpose. They didn't go "We built this sandbox because we want to play with sand in this specific 4'x4' area." The sandbox is limited for reasons beyond the creators' intention. If they made it any bigger, it might be too big and they may not have room for other things. It may cost too much to build a bigger sandbox. Why would someone build a sandbox (not in the playground sense) and limit it purposefully. When has a developer said "It is completely within my time, ability, and budget to include a feature, and expand the possibilities, but I refuse to do so. I am purposefully limiting my project."
>>333022991
>But the physical boundary of a sandbox isn't on purpose
If there weren't physical boundaries then it wouldn't be a sandbox. It would just be sand.
>>333008875
Please tell me that drawing isn't supposed to be him.
So is getting yandere chan killed the win state of the game? She's the worst girl in her own game.
