Reaction to games so far and a better definition for videogames.

After the readings we have done this week, I'm not quite sure my opinions have changed, but maybe it's because I've already taken Quant and have already had to ponder these questions about what a videogames is. But that's ok.

But, I still generally prefere the definition I used earlier to the ones found in the latest reading. Which is:

A videogame is an entertaining, interactive activity in a digital format that a person engages in. They can be found on a computer or on a console. These can include text-based games or graphic-based games and come in a variety of categories such as puzzle, action, role-playing, etc. There is an importance in specific rules and specific endings, but some games bend these boundaries.

Now I would certinaly at that there is usually some kind of conflict/competition/specific goals. But I do not think the words voluntary or inefficient ar necessary, even if they tend to be features of a game, I do not believe they are necessarily part of the definition of a game. Further, I do not think that rules or endings are of the utmost importance, because I know plenty of things I would consider videogames where the rules are bendable and those that can literally be never-ending. Perhaps I should also take a look again at the world "entertaining," because that is a subjective term, but I think I meant more that it is intended to be entertaining.

So, to clarify, I would change my definition to say:

A videogame is an interactive activity, intended for entertainment, in a digital format that a person engages in. They can be found on a computer or on a console. These can include text-based games or graphic-based games and come in a variety of categories such as puzzle, action, role-playing, etc. There is an importance in specific rules and specific endings, and some games bend these boundaries, but there almost always must be some kind of conflict/ competition/ specific goals.

Now, using this definition,
Which have been videogames:

• All the old school games (PacMan, Tetris and Pong) - have clear-cut rules, goals, and definitely intended to be entertaining.
  
• Samarost - has rules and goals, if not completely clear-cut, and is intended to be entertaining and artistic.
  
• The Goat in the Grey Fedora - probably my favorite of them all. Not only are the rules clear and there is a specific mission you are put on, but there are objects you pick up along the way and there is a specific story line. While those last two are not required in the definition of a videogame, they certainly help one to be more entertaining.
  
• PASH - much like the Goat in the Grey Fedora, but much less well put together. There are many times where you have to wait for the character to move around and times when it's not compeltely clear where or what you have to do. However, the basic themes are the same, in which there are definite goals and ways with which to accieve these goals.
  

Which have not been videogames:

• Opniyama - this was definitely an online activity, but without goals and rules and an ending it lacked some of the necessary features of a game.
  
• Endora's Dream - There was no: goals, rules, and was more of an online toy than any kind of game, kind of like an etch-a-sketch.
  
• Mr. Picassohead - Again, no goals. Some could argue that since there are specific pieces that there could be semi-rules, but it really was more like an online art canvas.