In twenty years – maybe ten- we’ll all be reminiscing about the “good ol’ days,” when making games was an edgy thing, risky thing to do and we’ll be bitching about all these kids who don’t know how hard it was “back in the day.”

Live while it lasts.

I tend to think the former is a more productive path, but I may also be biased – I love games, I’ve never had a problem calling them games, and I’d rather convince the world (starting with ourselves!) they can be more than what they currently are.

I also definitely think that early names tend to stick, as Alexx cites with “comics”, and I dread the prospect of any conversation where I have to start by backpedaling and saying to someone “Oh no no, I don’t make games, I make…”

http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2009/04/religion-in-science-fiction-1-introduction.html

You won’t get any kind of change until something is more popular. The fact is, Fallout 3 has a great many “game elements”, by any definition of it, and in fact is more “game like” then Hugry Hippos, hehe.

It’s a widely used term – from gambling, to board games, to videogames, to sports…

In any case, yes, it can be a problem. “Serious games” is a rediculous notion since they are not games most of the time, just interactive devices for teaching (where most don’t have anything but a linear set of actions to perform, or are perhaps simulation based).

I’ve no good suggestions either way. I am happy to wait until it is more popular and just hope people push the definition (or notion) of a “videogame” further then thinking they need to have a number to score by.

Of course. It’s just a word, so it only has meaning that we give to it.

The problem with it is that these sorts of meanings have been given to the word “game” and are still sticking with it very strongly. This influences people who make games, and public perception of games, in negative and creativity-killing ways.

It’s like if we had no word for written material besides “scripture”. It might be hard to write a novel in such an environment, or even think about the novel. It would certainly be hard to explain what you’re doing to others, when everyone assumes that the only thing that writing is for is to write down religious stories.

There is a whole spectrum of “games” just like there is a whole spectrum of “books” or “films”. Ours are video-based, thus videogames, and while it might not be as “gamey” as Hungry Hippo, the elements of competition, interaction and change are all just as present. Narrative can be layered just as much on top of a board game as anything else, it just typically isn’t easily done – thus the D&D way of having one controlling world master, with others playing in his world.

I don’t think it is a bad term, to be honest. A game doesn’t have to be competitive, doesn’t have to have win conditions, etc. etc.

In any case, the meaning changes, so it is still just as worth using it as it was to describe Gladiator fights in Ancient Rome. Would you say Hungry Hippo shouldn’t be named a game because it doesn’t include chopping off peoples heads? :)

Completely true, hence my simply sitting around complaining about it instead of actually trying to coin a word.

Good example with graphic novels. That’s really close to what I wish we had.

Mediums get stuck with inappropriate names all the time, and usually manage to work past it. The “novel” is no longer remotely new, nor are “comics” necessarily funny.

Now, my “comics” example sort of works against my point, as the replacement term “graphic novel” *has* gotten some traction. Of course, even that isn’t always accurate, as I have lots of non-fiction “graphic novels”…