Are Video Games really Games?

I need to preface this post by explaining why I'm discussing a (seemingly) outdated topic. To put it bluntly, I couldn't figure out how to make blog posts, so I wrote all my posts on Word documents, and I'm just starting to post them now. Hope that's okay with everyone, if not, then whatever. Anyway, onto the topic at hand...

I consider myself a pretty hardcore gamer. And by hardcore I mean I take my video games pretty seriously. This hobby has obviously caused some problems for me. Many of my peers, as well as my parents, frown upon my lifestyle as a wasteful expenditure of valuable time. Actually, I’m pretty sure the rest of society frowns has something against video games. They are criticized for being mind numbing, harmful to your body, and capable of turning you into an anti-social introvert.

A comedic look at how video games supposedly affect people's lives. Warning: language

So why do people play games? Well according to Grasshopper in Bernard Suits’ book, people play games because they have an intrinsic value that is not related to the achievement of a further goal. In fact, he claims that in a Utopia where work, pain, and suffering does not exist, people would simply play games all day long. His argument is that games are solely for the enjoyment of the gamer, that the process of “playing” is enjoyable. Because of this, any activity that is enjoyable to an individual can be considered a game. The Grasshopper argues that people who enjoy building things would consider carpentry a game, as long as the emphasis is not put on the product, but rather the process.

I am a bit uncomfortable in embracing this theory. Suits is basically claiming that for something to be considered a game, it needs only to have this intrinsic value. Therefore the purpose of gaming is for leisure, for personal enjoyment. And this makes sense, up to a certain point. Games are meant to be fun, they’re meant to provide joy for the gamer. But this is by no means their only purpose. As a recreational activity, video games have much more depth than something like watching television. In some ways, video games can be seen as an inferior activity in the sense that you are putting far more effort into it. However, because you put more effort in, you also get more out of it.

The argument then is that games have more value than just being enjoyable. In order to best explain this, I’d like to split video games into two different groups: single player games and multiplayer games.

Singleplayer games revolve around putting the player in a scenario, one that they would probably not find themselves in IRL (in real life). Scenarios could vary between historical events such as D-Day to completely made-up places like Hogwarts. The player would have to play the game to achieve some sort of an objective, all the while having a story told to them through interactions with elements within the game as well as cut scenes. The value in these games is that they are works of art. The storytelling in a good video game will be very similar to well made movies, except on an even higher level because of the interactive component. Take the game Mass Effect, for instance. The game takes place in a universe where there are many different alien races, resulting in the need for an intergalactic government. The player plays as the hero, Commander Sheppard (a human), who must stop an ancient threat from destroying all sentient life. You do this by rallying all the different alien races today to make a united stand. The reason I consider this game a work of art is because of the storytelling involved; the lore easily rivals that of Star Wars, Narnia, and even Lord of the Rings. Playing the game also requires a lot of critical thinking and decision making. You are tasked with playing diplomat to the many different races, attempting to help them reconcile differences and work together. It’s a game that’s very much about politics, reflecting a lot of the features of the modern political scene. I would consider Mass Effect to be elevated higher than the Grasshopper’s games. The engaging gameplay makes for an immersive storytelling experience that has an artistic value greater than simply being enjoyable.

Deep games produce dedicated fans, fans like me who wait in line on release night to get the game first. And sometimes you win a prize, such as this Commander Shepard display I won at the ME3 release. My parents moved him from the living room to the basement, where he currently resides.

Multiplayer games contain many of the same elements of singleplayer games, but also force you to play against an opponent. This, as you may have guessed, adds an additional element to the gameplay, creating a metagame, creating competition. Where there exists competition, there must also exist strategy, eventually leading to a metagame. The purpose of playing, for most hardcore gamers like myself, becomes to win. Winning against other humans is a far different feeling than winning against a computer. For one, if you know how to win a singleplayer game, you could probably repeat this victory multiple times. But humans are far more unpredictable, which is where strategies, game theory, and critical thinking (once again) come into play. Take for instance the game Starcraft. It’s a real-time strategy game based on controlling workers to mine minerals, build buildings, and then buying soldiers to fight your opponent’s soldiers and destroy their buildings. While it has many of the same artistic storytelling elements of singleplayer games (it is set in a sci-fi universe with multiple alien races and advanced technologies), the added element of competition elevates it even further from the Grasshopper’s games. The main objective becomes victory, rather than the experience of art, or simple enjoyment. It’s no surprise that the most widely played games are those with a competitive nature; some people even make it into their job, becoming professional gamers on the E-Sports scene, effectively reversing the claims of the Grasshopper.

One of the greatest plays in professional Starcraft history. Note how the crowd goes wild, much like in an actual sporting event.

The only conclusion that I can come up with is that video games are not really games according to Suits’ definition. There is simply far too much depth to what the entail. Sure they can be fun but that is almost never their main purpose. Suits’ Grasshopper would probably claim that video games would be unable to exist in a true Utopia, due to the lack of emotion, art, and competition. And the more I think about this, the more I realize that it’s true. Video games are far more useful than just as games; this is why I get so upset when people play off (get it?) gamers as losers who can’t contribute to society. Video games promote art appreciation as well as critical thinking, characteristics that are valuable in any given society, characteristics that are not needed in a Utopia. If there was a Utopia, video games would not be part of it.


Suits, Bernard. The Grasshopper: Games, Life, and Utopia. 1978. Web. <https://docs.google.com/a/umich.edu/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=dW1pY2guZWR1fHBvbHNjaTEwMWYyMDEyfGd4OjI3Mzc5NDRmMjNjNmE3ZjQ>.

Reckis, Lindsey, writ. The Online Gamer: Origin. 2010. Web. 15 Nov 2012. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3lvxTo4Oq8>.  

Nada, , perf. MOST PSI STORM EVER. Perf. Jangbi. 2008. Web. 15 Nov 2012. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3IbwjeCx6U>.