You cant die

>you cant die
>there is no challenge

Why is this considered a video game again?

>difficulty = quality

This is the single most casual viewpoint in all vidya culture. Even phone game players are above people like this.

If there's no fail state, it isn't a game.

>muh 90 minute journey that's (OMIGAWD!) semi multiplayer

This was one of the most disappointing games I ever played. Complete waste of time.

>it's not a video game if you apply my arbitrary definition to it!

If it's not in first person, it's not a video game.

>arbitrarily claiming your opinion is law

Shhhh shsh sh sh sh.

>This isn't a game

Thanks for opening my eyes and showing me that my favorite game is not actually a game! I'm so glad random internet users on Sup Forums have such knowledge!

You can't die in katamari damacy either but that's a videogame. It's more like a experience to me then a game. I thought it was worth the price.

It's not a question of video games, but games as a whole. Games need to have fail states in order to be considered games, otherwise they are art, work, or puzzles. Walking around a fucking lake is more of a game than Journey because I could be attacked by a bear or something and die.

>tfw you and a stranger signal quietly to each other in the snow

Kirby’s Epic Yarn doesn’t have fail states. Is it a video game?

Remember the whole ps3 has no gaems thing?
Guess what inspired it

>1. an amusement or pastime
>2. the material or equipment used in playing certain games
>3. a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators

The "MUH FAIL STATES" meme is Sup Forums-exclusive and needs to fucking end. So full of shit.

But you can die.

Hell, you die at the end of the game.

Your life must definitely be a game then.

You can die by those huge flying stone snakes

The game that came out 6 years after the consoles release?

There are several point and click games where you cannot actually die, and many more where dying is purely a second or two inconvenience. Most of those after the 90s also have no unwinnable states possible.

There are puzzle games where you can't really lose like Pushmo, where your only limitation is the amount of time you're willing to put into it.

So, arbitrary definitions from armchair game scholars are about as meaningless as any other thought that crosses their minds.

because you can jump

(((art)))

No its shitty walking simulators "art" """games""" like journey and "games" with more cutscenes than gameplay

Yes because it still requires learning and skill however small to complete it

Newfag detected. The PS3 has no games meme was a meme because it was literally reality. It didn't have a single worthwhile game on it until Demons Souls. The pinnacle of it was when Talledega Nights was listed on gamespot or whatever fucking site it was as a ps3 game.

The OP never said difficulty = quality. He's right to suggest that past a certain point a game turns into something boring it, though. If you don't think difficulty has a significant hand in the quality of a game, you're probably not just casual, but pretty stupid.

>you cant die
>there is no challenge

Why is this considered a video game again?

No underage, it was the anemic launch in 2006. Even Braid was released in 2008, which is largely credited as starting the artistic indie game movement. Dear Esther, the game that started the term walking simulator came out in 2012, six years after the PS3 launched.

If you want to talk about games, you really should actually learn something about them first. Fuck off.

I don't think difficulty has a significant hand in quality of a game. I love the Kirby series because it's extremely well-designed and fun to play despite for the most part being easy. Zelda is still fun even though you'll only ever die maybe once or twice a playthrough, and I enjoy JRPGs for the exploration, characters, and stories even though the only challenge to be found is low level runs and postgame superbosses. Games don't have to be hard to be fun, they only need to be well-designed.

No you cant

The only thing that a video game has to do is make its audience feel something.

And before you say anything, not necessarily something like "hope" or "joy" or something pretentious like that. Those are options if you want but not necessary.

From action games getting your blood pumping despite sitting on a chair, to horror gmaes scaring the piss out of you in your own hoe, to walking simulators telling you a story, as long as a game gives you something, it's done its job.

>IT ISN'T A VIDEO GAME IF X

it isn't a game if their faces aren't tired

>Games need to have fail states in order to be considered games, otherwise they are art, work, or puzzles.

You're on the right track, but you should stop making dumb rules up. A game is suddenly "art" when you can't die in it, huh? Come on.

Games just feel all the more lifeless and boring when you can't die or fail in them, probably because such an essential part of life and the universe is missing from them. It makes them especially depressing, lifeless, when they should actually be exciting and imposing.

See if your grandmother can complete Journey, then. According to you, there is NO learning and NO skill involved. So anyone, no matter how young or old, can complete it, right?

Dying is very much a fail state, user. Every life is but a game being played.

Journey is kino

If your idea of "well designed game" doesn't include difficulty, my guess is that's because it was never essential to your enjoyment of games. Fair enough, I don't actually think you're stupid or casual or anything. Even the sight of certain games stimulates me a lot, there's a lot of stuff to enjoy in games.

For me, games do have to be hard to be anything beyond mediocre. My two big reasons are, firstly, that it's exciting to have your failure hanging over everything, and depressing not to. Your body consumes more energy and feels excited/amazing by the possibility of a sudden death. Secondly, if a game gives you a ton of tools, but doesn't push you to use them in sophisticated ways (through difficulty), you end up with a kind of lukewarm exploration of them. Having to overcome an actual obstacle will push/demand you to do cooler stuff with that complexity, and I'd say that this is actually essential (as opposed to optional).

Good thing us gamers always have an extra life then, huh?

Right, exactly. Additionally, I do get plenty of enjoyment out of difficult games, I love DMC and stuff like that. I just think that easy games have plenty of merit too. But I can also concede that when a game is too easy, it can get boring if its design isn't fun enough to make up for it. Like, I love JRPGs, but I can't force myself through a Neptunia game because even among JRPGs it's braindead.

More succinctly, if you take part in the thing it is a game. People who aren't midrange on the autism rainbow or higher intuitively understand that pressing play on a movie isn't the same as pressing forward for an hour in a game. Watching baseball is passive and seeing how many times you can bounce a baseball off a bat without hitting the ground is a simple game.

I don't like walking simulators as a rule, so I describe them as poor games, or games taking too much from movies. Or just not to my taste. Someone likes them, they can buy it and play it. Or pirate it ideally so less will be made in the future.

But to have a pissing contest over whose definition of a game is the most correct is like arguing over which flavor of Skittles taste the best.
BTW, orange master race.

You can't die in Katamari but it's still one of the greatest video game series of all time, and it's the opposite of depressing

...

You can fail though. By not meeting size requirement in the time limit. As a result your example is shit even though the game is great.

filthy casual

(you)

If difficulty = quality then obviously DaS2 is a great game, as are so many NES games that are only hard to beat because the game design is shit.

Is Katamari really one of the greatest video game series of all time? I've never played it for more than a few minutes.

You're probably right that it's not so depressing despite that. Even then, if you can't die or lose I have trouble imagining it as something exciting or compelling, which is practically the polar opposite of depressing.

Don't

>Video games have to be hard

You're mistaken in your assumptions. Only good video games have to be hard.

I don't mind Walkng Sims myself, even enjoy a few of them, but I want some interactivity to them. Not just walking around or messin with the set dressin, give me multiple endings, dialogue options, or the ability to find secrets that unveil backstory or something.

Gone Home is a failure of a game, even from a Walking Sim perspective, as everything it gives to the player can be just as easily acquired through a PDF.

Also also, orange is good, but red is tops.

No its a piece of shit and I gave up because you can NOT die. I wish there was a hack so that enemies can harm me. i am playing in god mode the entire time. thats just no fun at all and so boring. the visuals are nice but whats more? collecting gems i dont care about.

>Can't die
I'm sure you can, if your scarf tears all the way down the games stops.. right? At least that's what I remember happening, it's been a while.