How Is This Game Different From All Other Games?

Are computer (video) games really games?  These guys say no (h/t GameSetWatch).  I hate to complain about another thoughtful piece right after I talked about Stephen Totilo’s, but here we are.  Lest you think I’m being overly negative, I do think videogames are unique - but I don’t consider them to be separate from games per se.

The full 10 reasons are a bit too lengthy to summarize here, but suffice it so say that the author seems to define “games” too narrowly as a category.  In the same way that a Tom Wolfe novel bears little resemblance to a medieval bible handwritten on parchment, but both are still identifiable as “books,” videogames are still games. 

A few examples:

• “Stories are more important than rules” really isn’t true… story is rarely the most compelling part of a game.  In fact, if it were, then you wouldn’t need a game - you could just make a movie.  What makes games unique is that they meld stories and “rules” (more complex rules than, say, hopscotch, but still fundamentally rules nonetheless) into an interactive experience that tests a player’s skill at specific actions.
• “Aesthetics are more important than systems”?  People have written huge essays about how great graphics are nice to have, but are useless without compelling gameplay.  And of course, people don’t buy Lord of the Rings chess sets for non-aesthetic reasons.
• “No losing” - of course you can lose in a game.  You just can’t do it permanently - but this is a function of playing against AI, who doesn’t mind continuing the game until you win.  And multiplayer games are defined by their winners and losers.

These are just a few representative examples, but I have similar issues with almost all of the author’s points.  Hell, we devote a lot of our time to creating computer versions of board games - Uno is a best-seller on Live.