What makes the essence of a game?
 

So, trying this again, what makes the proverbial "atom" of a game per genre? How much can you strip out and still have it be a game of that genre? The idea here is kind of like when Yahtzee said if you have a good zombie movie, you could strip out the zombies and replace them with koalas and it would still be a zombie movie. How far can you boil a game down and still capture its essence?


Edit: I guess I'll start off. I, as indicated, think it depends on the genre. Just a few examples, but for an RPG, you need characters, a story, and some sort of atmosphere, be it focused on music or graphics or both. Combat, in my opinion, is completely optional, because the story is at the heart. Good combat helps, mind you, but you could theoretically do without it. On the other hand, others are nearly boiled down to basics as they are. Fighting games started modestly and could function modestly. All you need are two sprites of different colors that punch and kick and off you go. Anything on top of that these days boils down to pretty graphics and sound and more interesting ways to punch and kick. Nothing against fighting games, because I like them and there are some good ones, but they're still pretty simple.

I don't think you can really say that a movie without zombies is a zombie movie, because even though films like 28 days later and REC that don't specifically refer to the monsters as zombies are still basing them the idea and the image of a zombie.

I suppose his point might be that things like atmosphere and the presentation of terror are more important than story or character, and it's quite similar to the Gothic literature genre in that sense, but on the other hand, I think a good horror movie is one that doesn't have to sacrifice character and story to maintain atmosphere and horror.

In the same sense, I think that certain genre's of games have specifics, like horror games will rely on atmosphere as much as horror films, but a good game should be one that can honour the legacy of the genre without sacrificing other elements, and you can take away all those elements, but then the game isn't in the same genre any more. Horror games rely on atmosphere as much as a rpg should rely on engaging characters. The whole point of the former is to induce terror, as much as being able to 'role play' as these characters is the whole point of the latter.

I guess if you took everything out of a platformer and reduced it to its basic concept, you'd have a Pong block running on a straight line and jumping over holes and blocks. I'd prefer to call that game the genre itself instead of being of that genre.

And it would be boring as skull-boring exploding worms.

And we are forced to conclude genres, on a fundamental level, suck.

They have those.

They aren't RPGs though.

They call them 'adventure' games.

I hear Monkey Island was a good one.

I don't think there is any one thing that makes a good game. Its how the various elements combine. Look at Loco Roco. Practically zero story, very simplistic game play, but has good music, decent graphics & is really cute.

Other games have an involved story & a lot of interactive bits.

I'd say, that what makes a good game is how all its elements come together & its ability to hold the attention of the player. How you do that, depends on the type of game you make.

SWB

I don't think I could stand RPGs without combat. You really need things that break the game up. Unless the game is very short, a game will suffer from being pure story.

This is complex math. No doubt.

It's not "just" the right elements and how they combine. It's also about the timing of each element in the game itself : what to do, where, how much and why.

Because that wouldn't really be something I'd call a game anymore. More like an interactive novel. Which is fine for me since I play most jRPGs solely for the story anyway. However, I do think the combat gives the epic confrontation with the evil wizard from the future that extra something. If it's done right.

Mother, Earthbound, and Mother 3 wouldn't be as impressive as they are without the combat, and I hate the first Mother game.

I suppose you guys are right. RPGs do need combat to break them up. Maybe not fancy combat, but something.

I dunno. IMO games like Ace Attorney are incredible, and they're entirely story.

No, even they have gameplay. Puzzle solving and the like.

A game, to me, is a system (any kind, numbers, colors, blah blah) to be played with, and it generates brain chemicals that you like.

As for interactive stories//movies, play an RPG, and not a vidya game RPG because those are mostly just silly, play a pen and paper one. 100,000 times the depth, control, realism and content.

Depends on what kind of depth you're talking about, and what P&P RPG. Also depends highly on party and DM.

Yeah, but that isn't necessarily a good thing.

Hahahahaha!

Once again, depends on who's in charge.

I think a Games base elements are these

Immersion

Entertainment

Addictiveness

Immersion
The best of the best video games are the ones that can grab a player and make him live in the world of the game. To list games that amped this up and support my belief I would say Portal, Halflife, TF2, Bioshock, Halo(combat evolved definitely, midly 2, Fuck no on 3, Hell yeah in ODST), Modern Warfare, Silent Hill, and World of warcraft.

Entertainment
What makes the world go round. Like Immersion, Entertainment is something all games need but sometimes games don't need much Immersion if they can Entertain you indefinitely (look at flash games) but the Two together can make the game above the game. In a kinda sub element to this there is also Challenge. No one wants to just be handed victory on a platter but if it's near impossible they will get frustrated and be both taken out and Unentertained. However there is a Paradox to this (as it is in all human behavior) where a game that Openly states it's near impossible will actually entertain those both seeking the challenge and those that suck.

Addictiveness
All games are addicting one way or the other. however in these days with Online multiplayer it's being more obvious. I remember in my wee years when I Knew EVERY single 1 UP in super Mario brothers. and later on Every placement of the rocket launcher or golden gun in Goldeneye. Now I know the Powerhouse Reach beta map by heart. and it's all due to the fact that the Games are fucking Addicting. To Provide a Beaten Example horse , World of WarcraftCrackcraft which has been addicting players for Years with new items missions bosses and grindtastic game-play.

I think using "a story, characters, and some sort of atmosphere" is a kind of problematic definition for an RPG (or an adventure game, for that matter) since all you have really defined there is "a story." And as much as those genres have earned a reputation as "story games," there really are only a couple of game genres that don't typically have one sort of story or another.

Furthermore, the definition says nothing about RPGs as games. With genres like "racing," "first person shooter," and "puzzle" the genre refers to games with similar playing mechanics. In those cases the name actually describes those mechanics--which doesn't work very well for computer roleplaying games. The name role playing game would imply a game in which you play a role. In the loosest sense, this would mean any game in which the player "takes on the role of" a character (in other word, any game with a player character), another useless definition. But when people talk about role playing, what they generally mean is a sort of improv acting. Improv can happen in MMOs, but the closest single player games can really get to it is silent protagonists, dialogue trees, branching paths, and and excessive optional content. A lot of RPGs (especially JRPGs) don't even try to provide these things, and a fair number of games that people don't typically call RPGs (especially sandbox games) do.

If you look at the mechanics that RPGs actually do have in common, it becomes apparent that these three games have captured the true essence of what an RPG is. RPGs are about making your numbers bigger so that when the other numbers get bigger, you don't lose all your numbers.

A game is a system with a rigid ruleset that features any number of goals.

Yes, I know that definition would include life itself as a game, but meh, it is to some people.

Anywho, the most basic game would set you up to find a goal(say rescue the princess), then set you up with rules that will allow you to complete said goal. Typically, the more tangible the goal, the more well received a game.

"Games" like interactive novels, such as Fate/Stay Night, typically have their ultimate goal of getting the ending you want. There really isn't any other goals than that, save for porn games(Fate/Stay Night was actually marketed as such as it had nudity/sex and it was used as a reward in the game), in which another goal is to see all the porn. They typically are very weak games.

The better the end goal and the more rewarding sub goals, typically the better the game. Carrot on a Stick game design, perhaps. WoW certainly does well as it has two major goals based on the two major playstyles:
1. Beat the last boss
2. Be number 1 in arena
The best thing is both are constantly changing, and that the road to them is constantly changing, but still very well defined. Each piece of loot, each victory is a subgoal to the major goal. They have the carrot on a stick model down.