Is the term "video"game outdate?

[YoshiEgg25]

I'm gonna actually get back on topic here.

If the term "video game" was ever outdated, it would have been at the release of the NES. Barring the occasional early arcade port, or board game, or whatever else that made maybe 10%(at most) of the NES's library, the other 90%(possibly more) were all about getting to the end. Not exactly a very game-like goal. In that regard, it did it's job, in a couple different ways, to not present itself as a video game console, after the crash, quite well.

I've actually come to appreciate the Atari 2600(which was slightly before my time) a lot more in recent years because of this. In contrast to the NES, 90%(or more) of it's games were more about playing them until you're sick of 'em, or trying to just top your own best score or something. Much more game oriented goals.

"Getting to the end" is a very game-like goal. Case in point: Candy Land.

Chutes and Ladders. Sorry. Trivial Pursuit. Trouble. *continues muttering games to himself*

[flamepanther]

Chutes and Ladders. Sorry. Trivial Pursuit. Trouble. *continues muttering games to himself*

Don't forget Hopscotch! That one can even be played as a single player game!

[flamepanther]

To go back to the OP a bit, what the article is suggesting doesn't even make sense. The idea boils down to suggesting the term 'video game' may be outdated because Farmville is not like Space Invaders. That makes as much (or as little) sense as suggesting that "board game" is outdated because Monopoly is not like chess, or that "vehicle" is outdated because an F-22 Raptor is not like a bicycle.

[MidnightRider]

All of which has you competing against other people, in a much quicker fashion.

Apparently I need to point out what I mean in detail, so:
Getting to the end, of a single player experience, with multiple, possibly lengthy, stages, to see how a story concludes is not a very game-like goal.

[flamepanther]

All of which has you competing against other people, in a much quicker fashion.

Apparently I need to point out what I mean in detail, so:
Getting to the end, of a single player experience, with multiple, possibly lengthy, stages, to see how a story concludes is not a very game-like goal.

I'm not sure how many people finished Contra and Super Mario Bros. "to see how the story concludes." Story was still pretty much an excuse for the gameplay at that point in time.

Anyway, you're ignoring the Hopscotch example, in which competition is completely optional. Solving crosswords, mazes, and Sudoku puzzles would fall under the same category. The point is to complete the challenge. Story in most NES games is just an added incentive at best.

Furthermore, in NES-era platform games, you are sort of competing--against the computer, even though you're not matching skills at doing the same thing. You can see the same idea in games like Dungeons and Dragons, with the computer essentially filling the role of the Dungeon Master.

EDIT: To clarify, pen & paper role playing games can be played as "single player" campaigns, even though it's not commonly done. It still requires a minimum of two people, but only one would be considered the player, while the other manages the game world and decides the actions of both enemies and friendly "non-player characters". The player's goal is typically to overcome whatever challenges are placed in his or her character's path and make it to the end of the campaign, which nearly always has an accompanying story. If you picture the NES' CPU in the role of the "non-player" Dungeon Master, it is not hard to draw parallels here.

[MidnightRider]

Meh, I had a rebuttal, but I made my stance on this known. Don't feel like dragging this out any longer.