Smashboards

i think the new york stock exchange broke my idea of a game is

cha cha slide might have broken my entire worldview as a whole. how can you give someone a video game like that, not label it as such, and we all accept it

Cyborg Sun

JUMPSTART FIRST GRADE IS A VIDEO GAME

LEAPFROG GAMES ARE VIDEO GAMES

ALL EDUTAINMENT GAMES ARE STILL GAMES

...sorry I had a neuron activation moment when I saw that on there

Champion of Hyrule

Mayonnaise (1806)

Baysha

Deep Blue honestly tripped me up for a bit

Wario Wario Wario

deep blue was one of my only instant no's lmao

Baysha

Is your chess opponent cheating a video game?

HyperSomari64

Still baffled the poll didn't include Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon/Ryu

AlRex

This is incredible and hard to decipher. American Football, Mayonnaise, Hot Dog, Mario, and the Mario movie (1993) are my only definitive answers for “No”. American Football can be played without electric components and the main one would be score-keeping generally. Fantasy Football is a video game, though. Mayonnaise and a hot dog are just food. You could make a game about eating or preparing or even being them, though. Mario is a character from a series of games, but isn’t a game in and of himself. In the same sense, Shrek the character, Shrek the book, Shrek the movie, Shrek the game, all are different but related things. And the Mario movie says it themselves on the poster!

Wario Wario Wario

well ackshually "this ain't no game" is a double negative. it is a game.

KneeOfJustice99

God, I find these kinds of semantic arguments so fun. A couple of points on my own perspective, not that anyone asked. I'll keep it to the highlights, but spoiler for brevity.

As a general rule of thumb, I'd argue a "video game" can be defined by splitting it into its two components and defining those; namely, "video", which I'd argue is some form of electronic signal utilized for the purpose of displaying visual information about the game, and "game", which is an interactive activity with a defined "success" (not necessarily win!) state (or loss state in opposition), governed by determined rules specific to it, and that is designed with the intention of being a game (whether directly or otherwise). We'll nail this down with time.

Good example for this; Wikirace relies on a "video" display to display the information about the game's subject to its players (ie, the Wikipedia pages), and the "game" is governed by its own rules (ie, no use of the search function) and has a success state (reaching the goal page.)
Asteroids technically wouldn't be described as a "video game" by a lot of traditional definitions, because its lack of a defined "end" would mean there technically isn't a "win" state. I'd argue it's still a video game because of its determined "success" states (building score being the core "goal" of the game.)
Polybius is nebulous not because of the question of whether it's a "video game", but because of the question of what's meant by "Polybius". If we mean specifically the subject of the original urban legend, which likely doesn't exist, then probably not (to be a "video game", something has to exist.) However, games have been made to replicate this urban legend, and these fall pretty squarely into the "game" definition. (Hence, I've voted "yes".)
The New York Times Crossword only counts here because of its more recent transferral into a mobile app. In its traditional form, I do not think ink printed on paper would constitute "video", due both to the lack of an electronic signal and the lack of consistent movement.
I would argue that Paint is not, itself, a video game. While Paint does theoretically possess a self-governed "success" state (ie, creating art), the rules of Paint (ie, the tools it gives you to interact with the canvas) do not inherently lend to a success condition. Paint could, however, be a "component" of a game. (Think of this similarly to Wikirace in this sense; Wikipedia itself wouldn't be "a game", but it could be used to create a game around it by determining rules and a success state. Think of this like the Game Circle from Schell's works.)
Likewise, the quiz "What even is a video game?" itself wouldn't compose a video game, but this time due to intention; the purpose of the quiz is as a means of determining information. (It's also somewhat nebulous whether completing the quiz is a success state, but I think the fact that there aren't wrong answers determined in the "rules" of the quiz make it count as something else.)
Bop It! might be another controversial one, but I would argue that the specific one shown in that image doesn't count, simply because the electronic signals are not specifically producing visual information (rather, audio information.) I'm playing fast and loose with the technical definition of video, admittedly.
I'd argue Miitomo isn't a "video game" in the sense that, firstly, it wasn't designed with the intention of being a game, and secondly, the gamified elements within (ie, cosmetic collectables) are effectively secondary enough to the main experience that they can be discarded. (This is a bit of an edge case, admittedly.)
The NSMBW Coin World was difficult at a glance because I couldn't get a good look at it. On closer inspection, the inclusion of a screen easily checks off the "video" element.
Petscop's a bit like Polybius all over again in that whether it's a video game or not depends on if the "game" actually exists. To be clear; the video series wouldn't be considered a "video game", the question would be whether the video series was made with the use of an actual "Petscop game", or whether this was artificial in nature (ie, created through editing rather than being an actual, playable game.) This time around, given the likelihood of the latter, I voted no.
Games like Mario Bros. (G&W) were why I played so fast-and-loose with the definition of "video". My argument here is that any electronic signal specifically utilized for the purpose of showing information about the game counts, so despite being LCD-based, I'd consider it a "video game".
I'd argue that Microsoft Flight Simulator counts as a loose interpretation of a "game" due to the fact that, despite being created as a simulation (which I would argue differs from a game inherently), MFS's interactive elements, defined success state, and determined rules can lend to it counting.
Duolingo, I would argue, is a little like Miitomo in the sense that - while designed with gamified elements - it's not specifically designed to be played as a game first and foremost, but as a language learning tool. This might seem like it discounts "educational games", but I don't think that's accurate; rather, it's a matter of the design principles behind it, and whether the gamification was effectively added to a seperate experience (in this case, language learning) or was created as the "core" of the experience, with something else added to it (for instance, Baldi's Basics.)
For Fitbit... depends on the specific use case, but the product itself wouldn't be a "video game". I'd consider it a "component" of a game, similar to how I mentioned Wikipedia earlier.
Ennuigi's an edge case, but I'd say it leans more toward "avant-garde video game" than "not video game", given it does technically have a success state (ie, beating the game).
Jeopardy!'s another situation where I think it depends very specifically on the mechanics of how the game is played. Given the listed year of origin, I'll assume it's referring to the original television program, in which case its use of pull cards to show information would deny it the "video" quality (even if lit by bulbs.) Also, the Jeopardy! broadcasted to televisions is not itself a video game, but can constitute a video game if played alongside (ie, the host asks a question, and you answer it at home. Everyone's done that, right?)
Calculator Spelling's an instance where the lack of a defined success state by the game's rules arguably denies it qualification, but I'd argue a game involving calculator spelling with an electronic calculator would count. (I should note that the limitations of what numbers/shapes you have to work with do count as "rules", however.)
Streetpass is again similar to Miitomo - even if it contains games, it is not itself a game, though it possesses gamified elements that are secondary to the experience's primary goal. (Would you consider a box containing a chess set to itself be part of the game of chess? Probably not.)
Dinosaur Game's an example of why I defined a "success" state, rather than a "win" state. Games with infinite length tend to be iffy when it comes to classifying a "win state", because you effectively have to define the extraneous idea of acquiring a high-score as part of the game, while I'd argue that the process of building score itself constitutes success (in opposition to failure, in which your score no longer builds and is reset to zero.)
D&D's another semantic thing which depends on which version of 5th you're talking about. Using my earlier Jeopardy! logic and saying it's the initial, physical release, I'd argue that doesn't count as a "video game". (It can be made into one, if played using a video display.)
Deep Blue, I would argue, is a "component" of a game rather than a game in itself. That's not because of its artificial nature; I'd argue a player is also a component of a game, but playing against another player is not itself a game. However, the fact that Deep Blue's moves are made using a screen - thus meaning there are electronic components visually indicating the other "player's" moves - makes it a "video game", in the same sense that even a physical game of chess played by two players in seperate rooms who communicate visually with electronic equipment would be a "video game". (Not radio, though, because that wouldn't be "visual".)
Progress Quest's a unique case in that while it's technically a zero-player game due to the events of the actual game taking place automatically, many would argue it's not a game at all (a point I hear a lot of people say about Conway's Game of Life, which I'm sure will come up later.) However, Progress Quest is still designed as a game, and features interactivity in the sense that the game's starting conditions are set by a player, and there are defined conditions for success.
Cha-Cha Slide (assuming the music video, and not just an audio recording) I would argue just misses out on the "video game" classification. It features a defined "success" and "failure" state (copy the instructions, failure is failure to copy these instructions), and it is disseminated to the player using electronic means in a visual manner - but, it crucially lacks interaction, in the sense that a failure state does not in any way impact the "game". (So, again, it's a component of a video game, but not inherently a video game in itself.)
GeoGuessr uses Wikiraces logic. 'Nuff said.
Can Your Pet?, I would argue, is a video game in the sense that it does feature a defined loss state in opposition to a "success" state, which is the continued survival of your pet. Another edge case, but a bit of a safer one.
Mario is a component to various video games, but I would not consider him, specifically, a video game.
The Orange Box is not, itself, a video game. It is a collection of video games, ie, something inside of which video games are "stored". In the same sense that, like I mentioned earlier, the box in which a chess set is stored would not itself be considered a game, the same logic would apply here.
Chess, again, uses Jeopardy! logic in that the listed date is clearly talking about chess in its original, purely physical, non-electronic form, so it's not a video game. It can be made into a video game by introducing visual information communicated electronically, however. (Like my point on Deep Blue.)
Likewise with The Orange Box, What is a video game? is a collection of video games (and other things), not a video game in itself.
I'd argue the NYSC lies, again, with Jeopardy! logic, in that when originally created, it was not a "video game", but has effectively been turned into a video game with the introduction of electronic information distribution to its "players".
Candy Box! is kind of like Progress Quest in that it does possess a layer of interaction, though in this case, interaction will always result in a loss. However, that doesn't make the game less of a game. It's just that the continued "success" state comes through the player following a rule set by the game.
Likewise, Super Press Space To WIn RPG 2009! is effectively the opposite case, in that there is a defined success condition (press space), and therefore a continued loss condition (not pressing space.)
Simon would be a video game. Yes, I think it's in the weakest sense possible technically matching the definition of "video", but the fact that it indicates visual information to the player using electronics, even if that's with four lightbulbs, means it counts.
Homestuck's a bit like my earlier example of The Orange Box again. It contains video games, but is not itself a video game just because it contains them.
Bandersnatch's lack of a defined win or loss state denies it "video game" qualification. Yes, some endings are more positive than others, but none of those consist of an actual "win" or "loss".
AI Dungeon is a video game. This one feels pretty clear-cut - it's the kind of game that could be played as a non-video game, but in this case, it's a video game.
LSD: Dream Emulator comes dangerously close to not, technically, being a "game", due to a lack of a success or loss state; but the Grey Man's inclusion (undoing your progress in your current dream) means I'd argue it counts. It's an edge case, otherwise.
Jumpstart: First Grade is another incidence like Deep Blue where the answer's probably what you expect, but not for the reason you expect. Specifically, I'm saying it is a game, but comes close to not being, as it comes close to being another Orange Box case. However, the fact that all of the games included tie into a greater "game" element of collecting points (a defined "success" state) would make the entire package a "video game".
The Beginner's Guide leans a bit into something like Ennuigi, in that it's avant-garde, but not enough to deny the classification of a "video game". Even if it's not possible to lose, progression through the game by solving puzzles and the like consists of a "success" condition.
I'd say Choose Your Own Adventure: The Abominable Snowman is in a similar boat to Bandersnatch in that, while it is interactive, the lack of any way to engage in a defined "success" or "loss" denies it "video game" classification. All of the endings may be more or less positive, but there isn't an upside or downside to either engaging or not in terms of the mechanics.
The NYT Crossword (2014) being played digitally grants it "video game" classification. This isn't granted to the original NYT Crossword as it appeared in print, but the listed year here is 2014, so it's presumably referring to the mobile release.
Ratatouille for the Leapster is kind of like Jumpstart in that it comes close to being a "compilation", but given progression through the overall game is blocked by your ability to solve the smaller games contained within, it turns the whole experience into a game in of itself.
Geocaching counts in this case mostly because of general conventions of GPS positioning devices. Even if a GPS positioning device only features text to indicate the location of a GPS coordinate, that's still visual information being disseminated through electronic means.
Before Your Eyes is in a similar boat to Bandersnatch in that, despite it generally being preferred by a player to remain in the game's memories for longer periods of time, the game does not feature true success or loss conditions tied to these, and in this case the ending is the same either way.
Line Rider isn't a video game in of itself, but can be a component to a self-imposed game.
One Night Ultimate Werewolf is only a video game if the smartphone app is used. If not, it loses the "video" element. However, given the smartphone app is the key difference between ONUW and Werewolf in general, I'll err on the side of yes.
Getting To Philosophy is similar to Wikiraces in that it uses Wikipedia as a component in a game, so again, while it doesn't make Wikipedia a game, it itself still is.
Wii Fit just about loses out on classification as a video game using the Orange Box rule; it's arguably a collection of video games, but the whole package doesn't get a Leapster exception, because the whole package is not itself gamified; rather, it's specifically focused on fitness goals and the like. If there was some kind of points system for playing the games included within, it'd be a "video game".
Like I mentioned earlier, Chess itself isn't a video game, but Chess.com... also isn't? This is another instance where I'm really splitting hairs by the Orange Box rule; the website itself is not a game, it is "storing" a game within (the digital game of chess on the website.) However, Chess.com itself isn't a game, so doesn't count.
WarioWare D.I.Y gets the Jumpstart exception, in that while it's a compilation, the compilation serves to a wider game.
Formula E is a video game. Not because the cars are powered by electricity, but because the game as a whole (ie, the race) has information associated with it disseminated to its players using electronic means (such as, for example, digital speedometers.) This means that technically, a ton of "real-world sports" count as video games; but I should note, if information is displayed using electronic means that would otherwise still determined by the players, it doesn't count. (For instance, a game of English football taking place while an electronic scoreboard keeps track of goals, because goals aren't arbitrary, being "1-to-1". Points, however, are arbitrary, even if they have a predetermined value.)
Humpty Dumpty (pinball) counts as a video game because its scoring is represented with lighting, which is electronic, hence electronically-communicated information. I should note a point on my previous point here; pinball tables might have predetermined point score values for given elements (like bumpers or whatnot), but those are arbitrarily defined as a part of the game, rather than being one-to-one.
The Pokewalker is a video game due to its collection of points, which counts as a success condition. These points can then be used for different outcomes, but that's not really factored here. In fact, a basic pedometer would count if it has a visual interface.
Microban's nebulous because it depends on whether it's referring to the text file (in which case, component of a game, not a game) or the game Microban (a video game using these maps.) Given it links to the text file, which isn't a game, I'll say no.
Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing doesn't count as a video game under the Orange Box rule. That said, the games within count as video games.
Cicada 3301 would, again, arguably count if not for the Orange Box exception.
No, Patrick, mayonnaise is not an instrument.
This one's interesting. 51 Clubhouse Games, due to the Orange Box exception, also isn't a video game. It contains 51 of them, though.

Interesting stuff, otherwise. So, a quick roundup and a refined definition based on what I've determined. Here's my starting point;

As a general rule of thumb, I'd argue a "video game" can be defined by splitting it into its two components and defining those; namely, "video", which I'd argue is some form of electronic signal utilized for the purpose of displaying visual information about the game, and "game", which is an interactive activity with a defined "success" (not necessarily win!) state (or loss state in opposition), governed by determined rules specific to it, and that is designed with the intention of being a game (whether directly or otherwise).

And some amendments;

Polybius Metaphysical Rule; To be a video game, a piece of media must first exist. There's a few minor notes here; a game can exist exclusively in concept (ie, a concept document), but that wouldn't be a playable video game.
NYT Crossword Conversion Rule; A game that is not a video game can be converted into a video game by introducing electronically-communicated visual information to the player (such as by digitising it), and vice versa. This doesn't have any bearing on the original game, as it is considered "seperate".
Miitomo Intention Rule; A piece of media may feature gamified elements, but if they come as second to the intended purpose of the experience, then they don't make the experience into a game. There can be exceptions if the experience actually does end up manifesting as a game, but these haven't really applied here.
Wikirace Component Rule; Just because a game has been devised using something as a component, doesn't make the component itself a game - regardless of what that component actually is (even if it's a player, in-game character, or an entirely seperate game.) So named because Wikirace being a game doesn't make Wikipedia a game. This also applies to "self-imposed" games like Line Rider.
Deep Blue Correspondence Rule; A non-video game can be made into a video game if the means by which the game is played involves an electronic display of visual information to one or more of the players. So named because Deep Blue's use of a screen to showcase its move makes playing chess against Deep Blue a "video game".
Progress Quest Interaction Rule; In theory, a video game does not necessarily need to be interactive throughout the duration of gameplay. Setting into motion gameplay using a starting point (as in 0-player games like Conway's Game of Life) is permissible.
- Candy Box Definition; The lack of interaction as a success condition still constitutes interaction, through consciously choosing not to interact.
Orange Box "Box" Rule; Collections of video games do not inherently, themselves, constitute video games, in the same sense that a physical box containing a board game would not, itself, be considered a game (unless the board game in some way used the box itself as a component, in which case the box would be part of a game.)
- Jumpstart Exception; If a video game collection itself acts as a game, then it can be considered itself a video game. So named because of Jumpstart: First Grade's point system when outside of the "games" collected within.
Simon Interpretation Rule; Video is, in this case, defined as any electronically-communicated visual information, no matter how minimal. Anything from a bitmap or vector screen to even an array of bulbs (or even, in fact, a single one) would count under this definition.
Bandersnatch Positivity Rule; Media that features outcomes that can't be fitted into "success" or "loss" outcomes aren't video games. So named because Black Mirror: Bandersnatch's various endings, while some are more positive than others, are not determined by the rules of the game as "successes" or "losses".
Football Scoreboard Arbitrary Points Rule; While in most cases, game information being electronically displayed to a player would make it a "video game", this would only be the case if that information was in some way "arbitrary". In this example, football counts goals on a "one-to-one" basis, while something like pinball arbitrarily sets numerical point values which would be indeterminable without that information.
Jeopardy! Definition Rule; More focused on the quiz itself. Effectively assumes the response to be based on the listed article at the time of its creation, ignoring future alterations made to it and effectively considering them seperate.

I have probably missed a few things, being both humanly fallible and uniquely stupid. Sorry in advance.

Cyborg Sun

The important thing to note about the differences between something like the Orange Box and stuff like the JumpStart games; Are they specifically compiling games that were released elsewhere at some point? JumpStart First Grade is not a compilation of random other games that released before it and are completely isolated from each other; they were all specifically made for that one game in mind and sorta tie into each other in some way. (that very last bit you already touch upon, I feel, but still worth bringing up)

KneeOfJustice99

I think in this case it's less about the source of the games, and moreso the fact that they are seperate games.

The Orange Box is a collection of different games, but the Orange Box itself (that is, taken as a whole) isn't a game, it's effectively a "container" of games. Comparatively, something like WarioWare is both - it consists of different games within (the microgames), but these are approached in the context of a greater game (the substance of WarioWare itself, taken as a whole), so WarioWare is a "video game".

Even if all of the games in JumpStart were created for the same project and closely tie into one another thematically and mechanically, their lack of actual connection in a greater game (that being the greater JumpStart "package", for argument's sake) would make it a "container" of disparate games, rather than a game in its own right. However, the fact that the JumpStart games are assembled in a greater "game" (due to the points system) makes the whole package a video game in its own right.

Cyborg Sun

I wonder where the JumpStart games for the really young audiences would be "ranked", yeah they made two different versions of games for both toddlers and literal babies lol, unlike pretty much every other game in the series, there truly is no real progression (even the very first iterations of Kindergarten and Preschool, which also have no goals, at least have a "progress report" to track how well you do in the game's taught subjects). Those would be the odd exceptions to this series, I suppose.

...can you tell this is a series I hyperfixate on lmao

Smashboards

Information

Network