What makes the essence of a game?

[Token]

Originally Posted by NonCon

Unless the game is very short, a game will suffer from being pure story.

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

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Token

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

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

[Hanuman]

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.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Lev

depth

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

control

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

realism

Hahahahaha!

content

Once again, depends on who's in charge.

[Doc ock rokc]

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.

[Lyaer]

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.

[Yumil]

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.