What Is a Video Game? A Philosophical Enquiry

Introduction

Video games are popular

Video games or computer games have become an integral part of everyday life and are becoming increasingly popular. In 2021, 227 million people across all age groups in the US played video games, with 80% of players being over the age of 18, according to figures published by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA).[1] A significant majority of players believe that playing video games has a positive impact on their lives, stating that video games are played to relax and relieve stress, for example, or because they are fun.[2]

As for Germany, the association game – Verband der deutschen Games-Branche announced that 58% of the population between the ages of 6 and 69 play computer and video games, and that sales of video game hardware and software grew to approximately 8.5 billion euros in 2020 (sales in 2019: approximately 6.4 billion euros).[3]

Video Games and Philosophy

The Ethics of Video Games

From a philosophical point of view, video games are interesting for several reasons and can be studied accordingly. One of the important areas within the philosophy of video games is the ethics of video games. To name an example, researchers investigate the question of whether playing video games – especially violent video games – is morally reprehensible or not.

Computer games have been and continue to be criticised for their sometimes drastic depictions of acts of violence and the fact that an essential component of many video games is the execution of violent acts, and they are also repeatedly associated with real acts of violence. A moral-philosophical examination and discussion of computer games therefore is of great importance and hence a central aspect of a philosophy of video games.

The Aesthetics of Video Games

Most of the computer games published each year, however, are approved for players of a younger age. The majority of the almost 2800 video games that received an age rating from the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) in the United States in 2018 were rated E (Everyone). Only nine per cent of all games from this year received the second highest rating, M (Mature),[4] indicating a possible high level of violence, sexual content, and/or strong language. Nevertheless, many video games do not depict violence.

For philosophy, video games are therefore also extremely interesting with regard to aesthetic aspects and one is concerned there, for example, with questions of video game design, although this can of course also contain a strong moral component, or with regard to the “artistic character of the computer game, […] its spatiality, pictoriality and its affective valence”[5].

An Ontology of Video Games

Furthermore, video games can also be examined in the fields of theoretical philosophy, for example, when computer games are studied ontologically, i.e. when the question is asked what a video game actually is. Here, it is a question of finding out which characteristics make a video game a video game, what distinguishes or differentiates a computer game from other games or other digital media such as films. In short, how the term video game can actually be defined.

The question regarding the definition of the term video game is exciting, among other things, because video games, like hardly any other modern medium, are extremely diverse. This applies to the different genres, but also to the content of video games and, last but not least, to the hardware on which they are played. Whether it is a computer, a video game console or a mobile phone, they all enable us to “play” video games, and they allow us to race cars, learn to play musical instruments, build a farm or entire cities, explore temples, fight as a soldier, survive in the post-apocalypse, solve puzzles, stop an alien invasion, collect sweets, or defeat opponents in real time with a better strategy.

In many cases,the genres even overlap and you play a hero in an action-adventure RPG or in a survival shooter with puzzle elements. This can be done alone as a single player or with friends or strangers, either in local multiplayer mode or via the internet. Perspective also plays a role in how video games can be differentiated. Whether I follow the game from a first-person perspective or from above (top-down perspective), even whether it is a 3D or 2D video game, has a great influence on how the video game is played and perceived and in which category it is listed.

These admittedly rather vague examples do not, of course, constitute a fully comprehensive list of all genres and types of video games, but it clearly shows that it is hardly possible to cover the field of video games adequately by listing a few examples. Not even if you cite specific video game names or series. Stardew Valley (ConcernedApe, 2016), for example, represents a completely different gaming experience than the Mass Effect series (BioWare, 2007-2021), Guitar Hero (Harmonix Music Systems, Inc., 2005), the Grand Theft Auto series (Rockstar Games, 1997-2021) or Tetris (Alexei Paschitnow, 1984).

Nevertheless, we seem to have a basic understanding of what is and what is not a video game and we can list criteria that make a video game a video game. However, we quickly run into the problem of the versatility of video games and the danger of not being able to correctly or truly convey what video games actually are. Anyone who has ever been asked what a video game is by friends or family members who do not play video games themselves, will probably find that a satisfactory answer is not easy to find. Most often it seems easier to just show or list examples of video games and note that these do not stand for every video game available.

In this blog article, I will therefore take a closer look at the aforementioned question of what a video game is, and in the following I will show and explain which difficulties we encounter in establishing a definition of the term video game or computer game, how we can nevertheless understand or define the term, and, finally, I will state which term is actually the more appropriate term: Are we talking about video games or computer games, or is there actually no difference at all?

What Video Games Are – An Ontological Definition

Problems Concerning the Definition of Video Games

If one takes a closer look at the term video game or tries to establish or find a definition of it, one is likely to encounter a fundamental problem rather quickly. Not only are there an enormous number of video games, but some of them differ so greatly from one another that it might be difficult to find a classic definition in the sense of necessary and sufficient conditions that does justice to all existing video games.

However, this does not mean that such a definition cannot exist, although, as stated before, many video games tend to differ significantly in the content shown, the graphic design, the topics dealt with or the systems on which they run, although it is usually not difficult to name an example of a video game, and “the one” prime example of a video game does not seem to exist.

Three Reasons for These Difficulties

Consequently, according to Rafaello Bergonse, the great variety of existing and differing video games is one of the reasons why a definition of the term video games is so difficult. The second reason he lists is the tendency to define video games from a game studies perspective, according to which they are simply the most recent iteration of games in general, but this is seen as problematic, because existing definitions of the term games are accused of not being able to adequately encompass video games.[6] As a third reason, Bergonse cites the existence of a large number of existing video games.
The third reason Bergonse gives is the existence of various theoretical approaches towards the medium of video games, all of which seek to analyse video games in terms of different characteristics and define them according to these.[7]

In this context, the attempt to find necessary and jointly sufficient conditions of video games, and to define the term on the basis of these, is explicitly classified as being problematic or aggravating. On the one hand, this leads Bergonse to briefly refer to Espen Aarseth’s alternative proposal that there is no need to define video games in order to examine them, and, on the other hand, to consider video games, like games in general, via Ludwig Wittgenstein’s family resemblances and to define them accordingly.[8]

He does not elaborate on these points, however, as he nevertheless strives for a definition with the help of necessary and sufficient conditions, i.e. an essentialist definition, despite the problems noted earlier, and also agrees with Grant Tavinor, who he says considers a definition of the concept of video games to be extremely important.[9]

Bergonse sees the reason in Tavinor’s statement, which he quotes directly, that a successful definition of ludology would provide an explanatory goal, which he interprets to mean that defining a group of properties that occur in every video game provides a theoretical framework by which to approach the medium of video games.[10] Bergonse therefore sets out to find precisely that group of necessary and sufficient conditions to define video games essentialistically.

Tavinor’s Criticism of an Essentialist Definition of Video Games

Tavinor, however, does not seem to have this intention at all, at least not in the sense of a purely essentialist definition. It is true that he is of the opinion that a definition of video games can be quite helpful when one wants to talk about them. However, he believes that an essentialist definition quickly reaches its limits and that it may well be the case that such a definition will not necessarily be successful and that the attempt to establish it gives reason to believe that we will be disappointed.[11]

His reasons for this assumption are also found in the three points, mentioned by Bergonse, that make the establishment of a definition difficult. Tavinor basically shares the criticism of trying to put too much emphasis on existing definitions of games in general and wanting to define video games through these definitions. Bergonse’s statement that looking for necessary and sufficient conditions makes it difficult to come up with a definition also agrees with Tavinor’s view.

But where Bergonse sees difficulties, but nevertheless considers an essentialist definition plausible and correct, Tavinor, especially in view of the first point mentioned above, has doubts about whether a definition can be successful in this way.[12] For it is not only the already large number of video games that seems problematic, but there is also no real consensus about what a video game actually is and what it is not. He writes in this regard:

„[T]o adopt an essentialist method in the case of videogames may assume that there actually is agreement about the extension [sic!] of the category. […] But it is not even clear with a single variant like videogame [sic!] that there really is agreement on which things are videogames.“[13]

Narratology, Ludology and Interactive Fictions

In order to demonstrate the problems of an essentialist definition – which, as mentioned, include Bergonse’s points above – Tavinor goes into more detail about the three most popular theoretical approaches that attempt to define video games: the narratological approach, the ludological approach, and the approach of viewing video games as interactive fictions.

Each of these positions, according to Tavinor, typically proposes a property that is said to be essential to video games.[14] However, all three theoretical approaches are susceptible, on the one hand, to examples of video games that do not possess the alleged essential property or, on the other hand, to objects that possess the designated property but are not video games, which in both cases means that they fail as classical definitions in the sense of demonstrating necessary and sufficient conditions that must accrue to an object in order for it to be a video game.[15]

In other words, according to Tavinor, none of the three approaches manages to define video games on the basis of the preferred, supposedly necessary, property in such a way that either all existing video games fall under it or they cannot sufficiently distinguish video games from other objects.

Narratological Theories

Narratological theories, which mostly argue that video games are essentially interactive stories or narratives or can be understood as such, fail according to Tavinor either because there are video games that do not tell stories or because stories in video games are often only incidental to the actual action of playing the game itself. Moreover, storytelling is not a property exclusive to video games, which share it with other media.[16] Storytelling can therefore be neither a necessary nor a sufficient property by which to define video games.

Ludology

The second approach, ludology, refers to the playful character of video games when attempting to define them and thus tries to define them as a “special form of games [sic!].”[17] Tavinor, as well as Sebastian Ostritsch and Jakob Steinbrenner, refer to Jesper Juul, who attempts to define video games through existing characteristics and definitions of traditional games.[18] Juul hopes, according to Tavinor, that video games mimic much of the formal structures of non-digital games, only on a computer-based level.[19] In general, Juul defines games as

„a rule-based system with a variable and quantifiable outcome, where different outcomes are assigned different values, the player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome, the player feels emotionally attached to the outcome, and the consequences of the activity are negotiable.“[20]

For Juul, video games are part of a long history of games, which is why he sees the understanding of games mentioned here as also given in video games.

However, Juul’s theory and other ludological approaches mostly fail because they either cannot unite all video games under themselves or because the chosen essential characteristics also belong to games or objects that are not video games. Since Juul only speaks of games if they provide a changeable and measurable result that can be achieved by acting according to fixed rules, video games that have no end or fixed goal to be achieved fall through the cracks.[21]

According to Juul, such “borderline cases” are primarily “open-ended simulations”, which he lists under the term simulations.[22] And indeed, video games that focus on simulations of various kinds are increasingly found among them. As an example, Tavinor cites the flight simulation series known as Microsoft Flight Simulator (Microsoft, 1982-2020), in which, as he says, the player simply enjoys the fictitious activity of flying and has no other goal to achieve.[23] The focus of such video games lies therefore essentially in the performance of fictitious actions, which leads us to the third approach, which is understanding video games as interactive fictions.

Interaktive Fictions

Juul uses the approach of interactive fiction to also include simulations under the term video games by means of a double definition.[24] Tavinor sees some strengths in such a double definition, which can be used as a basis for a definition of video games.[25] However, he points out that the sole categorisation of video games as interactive fictions entails some problems.

For instance, a game genre of the same name already exists, which designates certain electronic and non-electronic media, but the approach of interactive fictions does not aim to regard all video games merely as modifications of this genre.[26] A distinction must be made here accordingly.

A second problem arises from the fact that one is inclined to associate the approach with a narratological approach, writes Tavinor. However, this is not necessarily the case, as fiction and narrative are independent of each other. Thus, on the one hand, a video game can be fictional but does not need to have to tell a story; on the other hand, it can tell a story but does not need to be fictional.[27]

Tavinor sees another fundamental problem in the fact that it cannot be clarified whether all video games are interactive fictions or contain fictions at all, which is why interactive fictions cannot be a necessary condition for video games.[28] He makes this clear with examples such as computer chess or puzzle games, of which video game derivatives exist, but which in his view are not therefore considered fictions.[29]

Furthermore, Tavinor points out that much of the fictional action in video games is definitely not interactive, but rather, for long stretches of a video game, the player is merely watching pre-rendered videos in which the pre-story is carried out or the actual story is told and advanced, while the player has no influence on it.[30]

Lastly, the interactive fictions approach also fails in regard to games, such as pen-and-paper role-playing games, which are not video games, but interactive fictions.[31]

“There Might Be More Than One Characteristic Way of Being a Video Game“

This demonstrates the doubts that lead Tavinor to regard an essentialist definition of video games as less than successful. However, as briefly mentioned above, these do not give Tavinor any reason to assume that a definition of video games is fundamentally impossible or not meaningful. For it has been shown in some scientific disciplines, among others, that the approach of defining terms exclusively by means of essentialist definitions can lead to problems and misunderstandings, but this does not mean that scientists no longer define their terms.[32]

This is not what Tavinor intends here either, but he merely criticises the fact that the focus of essentialist definitions, here specifically of the three theoretical approaches, on individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions is not particularly purposeful. “There might just be more than one characteristic way of being a videogame”[33], Tavinor writes, which again makes this criticism clear.

A Disjunctive Definition of Video Games

But where the three approaches cannot persist on their own, he sees strengths in a conjunction, as already indicated in relation to Juul’s hybrid theory, which is why he himself proposes a disjunctive definition that takes advantage of the various properties of each essentialist attempt at definition by combining them with the help of at least one or clause.[34] In Tavinor’s view, such a disjunctive definition could be used to explain how video games can nonetheless be defined despite the fact that they cannot have necessary and together sufficient properties.[35] The underlying idea is that video games can best be defined by showing a set of conditions that, individually considered, are not necessary but nevertheless sufficient for them to be defined.

Video games, the underlying idea goes, can best be defined by pointing out a set of conditions that, considered individually, are not necessary, taken together in an appropriate way, but are nonetheless sufficient for an artefact that satisfies these conditions to be a video game.[36]
His proposed disjunctive definition of video games reads:

„X is a videogame iff it is an artefact in a digital visual medium, is intended primarily as an object of entertainment, and is intended to provide such entertainment through the employment of one or both of the following modes of engagement: rule-bound gameplay or interactive fiction.“[37]

This proposal, as Tavinor himself points out, deviates from a mere disjunctive definition in that, although this is not actually intended, it nevertheless contains two necessary conditions.[38] Tavinor justifies this step with the fact that these conditions are needed to distinguish video games from other, very similar, artefacts.[39]

Thus, although the necessity of a computer and a screen, by which an artefact is usually first considered a video game, is virtually self-evident, this condition is absolutely needed as part of the definition, according to Tavinor, because in some cases, due to structural similarities between certain video games and games that are not video games, a distinction can only be made because the video games run on a computer and are displayed on a screen.[40]

In a similar way, this also applies to the condition that video games aim to be made for entertainment purposes.[41] The disjunctive clause, in turn, draws heavily on Juul’s double definition of video games, as Tavinor considers it fundamentally useful for defining artefacts as video games, but offers a version here with his own formulation that he considers more aptly formulated. [42] Overall, Tavinor’s disjunctive definition leans in principle in the direction of Wittgenstein’s family resemblances, in that it allows for several possibilities that can make an artefact a video game.

The Ontological Definition of the Concept of Video Games

Ostritsch and Steinbrenner see this recognition of the diversity of video games on the basis of Wittgenstein’s family resemblances as the general strength of a disjunctive definition and concur “more or less”, as they themselves say, with Tavinor’s proposal in their own attempt to define them. [43] This agreement concerns above all the view that computer games are artefacts in a visual digital medium and, moreover, that there must be interactivity, although Tavinor, according to Ostritsch and Steinbrenner, divides this up differently in comparison.[44] However, they are sceptical about Tavinor’s definition for several reasons.

Differences with Tavinor’s disjunctive definition

Hence, it is important to them that the composition of the hardware and software as well as the input and output elements contribute decisively to the definition of the digital medium. Furthermore, they consider the definition of computer games on the basis of a need for an entertainment intention to be wrong or insufficient, depending on the understanding of the concept of entertainment. As a third point, they argue that Tavinor’s disjunction seems unnecessary and incomplete.[45]

Here they criticise that a separation into computer games that have “objective gameplay” or objective and winning rules, and those that do not is unnecessary, since all computer games, even if only in an extremely minimalist form, according to Ostritsch and Steinbrenner, have interactivity based on constitutive rules, i.e. gameplay[46].[47] The incompleteness arises from the fact that disjunction underestimates the diversity of computer games and that it also, in what Ostritsch and Steinbrenner identify as the supposed weakness of a disjunctive definition, “artificially limits the shape and thus the number of possible family members by definition.”[48]

Ostritsch’s and Steinbrenner’s Ontological Definition

Ostritsch and Steinbrenner therefore consider it ontologically more appropriate not to provide a definitive definition, be it essentialist or disjunctive, which is also evident in their own ontological definition. In essence, this definition includes four necessary conditions that are interrelated, and some “symptoms” that are neither necessary nor sufficient for computer games, but which, generally speaking, are characteristics of computer games.

The necessary conditions are:

1. rule-based interactivity (or gameplay),
2. input and output elements (with an emphasis on the output of visual signs via a display),
3. a computer programme on which the totality of the interactions possible in the game supervenes, without being reducible to it,
4. hardware in the form of a computer necessary to run the computer program.[49]

For an artefact to be a computer game, these points must necessarily be given. It needs the necessary hardware in the form of a computer so that the computer game can be executed. In addition, there are various input devices, such as a keyboard or a controller, but also various playback or output devices, where the focus is on a screen, i.e. a visual output device.

Furthermore, video games must contain some form of gameplay, and lastly, a video game cannot do without a computer programme that can be executed on the corresponding hardware. However, these necessary prerequisites alone are not sufficient, as Ostritsch and Steinbrenner state that they also apply in principle to interactive computer art and that we could therefore not sufficiently distinguish video games from interactive computer art on the basis of these points.[50]

Therefore, they fall back on the “symptoms” already mentioned, by which they mean that computer games are mass-produced products that have been developed by game designers and are usually fun to play and provide aesthetic pleasure.[51] Thus, in most cases computer games are entertainment media that also have a pronounced aesthetic claim, with the aim of pleasing the players aesthetically, i.e. to please them.

The Strengths of the Ontological Definition

If we look back again at Tavinor’s disjunctive definition, we can clearly see the similarities, but also the differences. The strength of Ostritsch’s and Steinbrenner’s ontological definition lies in the fact that, unlike Tavinor, they do not artificially limit the range of possible video games and they consequently lean even more towards Wittgensteinian family resemblances in order to do justice to the diversity of video games.

They achieve this primarily, making this clear early on in their text, by not looking for universal statements about computer games, but instead wantingt to limit themselves to the merely generic,[52] because “[g]eneric statements, in contrast to universal statements, allow for exceptions and make them recognisable as exceptions to a rule in the first place […].”[53] Thus, video games are conceivable that are not serial mass products, that do not primarily want to convey aesthetic pleasure or that, like The Last of Us Part II (Naughty Dog, 2020), aim to make players disgusted or repulsed in whole or in part by actions performed, as stated by producer and director Neil Druckman, which initially does not really sound like a video game that wants to entertain or please its players.

The orientation and reference to Wittgenstein’s reflections on the family resemblances of games also has the further positive effect that “we [can] include computer games in the list of games”[54]. Video games are thus, just like card games or ball games, a type of game.

I basically concur with this ontological definition and use the term here and generally in the sense of the definition given here by Ostritsch and Steinbrenner.

In the following sections, however, I will address some conceptual problems on the linguistic level, which also need to be clarified. More specifically, I will address the question of whether we are dealing with video games or computer games and explain why the two terms cannot be used synonymously without further enquiry.
I will also show one essential problem with Ostritsch’s and Steinbrenner’s ontological definition and will present a slightly revised version, which encompasses all video games (at least I hope I did not miss any types of video games) and also enables us to actually use the above mentioned terms interchangeably.

Video Games vs. Computer Games

This definition clarifies on the ontological level what a video game actually is or what is meant when we speak of video games. We have seen that some necessary conditions must exist in order to distinguish video games from other games, and we were able to establish that in addition, however, some symptomatic characteristics are needed, which is why Ostritsch and Steinbrenner have deliberately set up their definition as openly as possible and in approximation to Wittgenstein’s family resemblances.

Synonymous Terms for Video Games

However, as can be seen in everyday language, video games is not the only term used for the artefacts we have defined in the previous section. This is already evident, for example, in Ostritsch’s and Steinbrenner’s definition, where they speak of computer games in large parts by default.

Other terms that are used more frequently in relation to the artefacts determined above are electronic games, console games, PC games, or handheld games. These terms are in many cases used synonymously with the term video games. Because of that default interchangeability, Ostritsch and Steinbrenner also just speak of computer games by default and point out that the term video games is used synonymously – even though video games is preferred in the English-speaking world – and as of now, both terms have the same meaning under everyday conditions.[55]

Up to this point, I usually have used the term video games, but I have deliberately adopted other terms without comment, mostly in reference to the terms used by other authors, and in view of their widespread synonymous use today, thus implying synonymy.

However, we have to question this synonymous use of the above terms, since they are not only generally used for all video games, but sometimes refer to concrete versions of video games, which is already partly evident from the names. Thus, console games usually refer to those video games that are run on video game consoles, the term PC games is used for video games that run on the gadgets we usually refer to as computers, and handheld games usually refer to video games that are being played on portable video game consoles, such as the Nintendo 3DS.

A false synonymy

So we cannot just simply use these terms synonymously to video games or computer games; rather, a genus-species relationship suggests itself here. Thus, console games as well as PC games and handheld games can be subordinated under video games and computer games respectively.

In view of the existing literature, this classification seems quite plausible, as a simple separation is made here according to the designation of the respective devices. Since the majority of video games today appear to be cross-platform, this classification is mainly used to determine which version of a video game one is playing. We note here, however, that terms of this kind cannot be used synonymously with the term video games without exception.

What remains are the terms video games and computer games themselves, both of which we have so far come to know and use as general terms and for which a synonymy has been explicitly or implicitly pointed out. However, this synonymy is also dubious. For example, Tavinor states that

„computer game [sic!] is sometimes taken to refer to games on a personal computer, but it is also used as the generic term; electronic game [sic!] might also refer to toys as well as videogames; while videogame [sic!], as well as being a generic term, is sometimes used to refer exclusively to console games such as those on the X-Box 360 or Playstation 3.“[56]

Both, computer games and video games are used as the generic term for this category of games, and thus have the same meaning. However, they are also sometimes used to refer exclusively to certain types of video games or computer games, in the case of video games to console games and in the case of computer games to PC games.

A Historical Examination of the Terms

Historically, this exclusive use of the two terms originated in the technology involved, which was the main difference that distinguished these types of games from other games.

When the first video games were published, their unique selling point was that they made use of existing video technology. Games could be played on visual devices such as television sets or computer monitors.[57] The term video games was also initially limited to those games that were displayed as raster graphics on a cathode ray tube by means of an analogue signal, but it was quickly expanded to include vector graphics and, as time went on, through its use in popular culture, increasingly applied to all games that relied on visual image reproduction.[58]

Thus, through the common use of the term video game in society, culture and the industry itself, the term quickly changed from a purely technical term to a conceptual one.[59] This explains why the term, especially in the English-speaking world is the dominant term today.

These points also give rise to the reasons why Tavinor adopts video games as a general term. Firstly, because it is the term most commonly used, secondly, because it functions as a generic term, and thirdly, because it refers to the visual aspect, which appears to be essential to the definition.[60]

The term computer games, on the other hand, was also occasionally used as a general term, but since the term video games had already become established, it was mainly games that were published exclusively for home computers or were versions of games for home computers that were referred to as computer games. [61] The separation of the two terms was presumably furthered by the fact that video game consoles were and are primarily designed – even more so back in the day – to be played with and connected to a television, whereas home computers were and are used for other activities as well, and playing games on them was and still is only a secondary use.[62]

This historical examination of the two terms video games and computer games suggests that synonymy does not actually exist or that a synonymous use of the terms today is actually erroneous. Moreover, it seems to imply two points: firstly, video games is the “correct” general term to speak about the totality of existing games whose main characteristic is that they are displayed on a visual output device, whereas computer games refers exclusively to games that are run on computers, and secondly, the relationship between video games and computer games is also a kind of genus-species relationship.

But why then do Ostritsch and Steinbrenner speak of computer games when they are obviously talking about the same games that Tavinor is talking about? The reasons for that can be found in the necessary conditions of the input and output elements as well as the computer software and computer hardware.

Why Ostritsch and Steinbrenner Speak of Computer Games

In the condition of input and output elements, it can be seen that the visual output of characters is indeed of great importance for the games in question and, as we have seen, this was – and in some ways still is – the main distinguishing feature compared to other games.

However, Ostritsch and Steinbrenner have shown that such a visual output of characters is not absolutely necessary, since the games can sometimes be played even if the visual output is ignored, is not used from the game side or is not present in the first place.[63] The necessary condition is thus only that input and output elements must be present. But this does not necessarily have to include visual output elements, so that the supposedly essential aspect of games that we mean when we speak of video or computer games today is not essential at all. Although it should not be denied that the majority of existing video or computer games rely on the visual medium, above all on digital images.[64]

The necessary conditions of computer software and computer hardware, in turn, indicate that an artefact must be a computer program running on a computer in order to be a computer game or a video game, respectively. Contrary to visual output, which is important but not essential, we do not seem to be able to avoid these conditions. Whether it is a stationary video game console, a handheld console, an arcade console or even a smartphone, they are all ultimately nothing more than computers on which computer programs – the games – are (or can be) run.

Following the release of the Fairchild Channel F in 1976, which was the first video game console to contain a microprocessor and thus rely on computer technology, all devices that are primarily designed to run video or computer games or offer running them as a possible option are actually based on computer technology and, accordingly, video or computer games have been computer programs ever since, which makes computer game – technically speaking – the technically correct or more accurate term. [65] Especially considering the fact that video game is now mainly a conceptual term.

The Problem of the First Generation of Video Game Consoles

This view, however, leads to the problem that virtually all games of the first video game console generation – and thus, for example, also such milestones as Pong, which is considered a forefather of video or computer games – that appeared until 1976 are not computer games, since they are not based on computer technology but on hardwired circuits.

To solve this problem, Ostritsch and Steinbrenner want to refrain from using the terms computer game and video game as meaning the same thing under all circumstances and henceforth refer to the games of the first video game console generation – referring specifically to Pong – as video games, which are denied the status of computer games. [66] For in contrast to computer games, where the conditions of software and hardware are necessary, they are not necessary for video games, but are only symptom-like.[67] Ostritsch and Steinbrenner thus seem to be strongly oriented towards the original, purely technical, concept of video games.

Why video game is the better general term

So far, we have seen that the synonymous use of the terms video game and computer game is not unproblematic. We have also been able to establish that computer game is the more accurate term, regarding the technology used, which suggests that it should be used as the general term. While I have said that I basically agree with Ostritsch’s and Steinbrenner’s ontological definition, in the following I will argue for the view that video game is the more appropriate general term, as I see a problem with the use of the term computer game.[68]

Are Chess Computers Computer Games?

According to the above definition, some electronic games, such as a chess computer[69], which for the most part functions without visual output elements, but rather provides auditory commentary on the game by recognising and responding to the moves of the player(s) with the help of sensors and then communicating its own moves, also belong to the category of computer games, since they fulfil all the necessary conditions and also have the aforementioned “symptoms”. In such cases, rule-based interactivity is present, there are input and output elements, it is obviously computer hardware running computer software, it is a mass-produced product developed by game designers and it is supposed to be fun. Only the aesthetic demand does not seem to be present here to the same extent as in other computer games, but this should not be a problem, since it is only one of the usual symptoms and can vary.

The Importance of the Visual Aspects of Video Games

The problem now lies in the fact that, according to the definition, we are undoubtedly dealing with computer games – here exemplarily referring to the chess computer – but this form of computer game is clearly different from what we usually mean and imagine when we speak of computer games. In fact, we usually refer to games that fulfil the above conditions and to which the aforementioned symptoms generally apply, but in which, although there may be exceptions, the aspect of the visual representation of signs, especially in the form of digital images, on a visual output device, is disproportionately strongly represented and which are particularly designed for this purpose. It should not be denied that in many video games auditory and haptic outputs also contribute, sometimes to a large extent, to the gameplay.

However, the greatest focus, as Ostritsch and Steinbrenner themselves admit, and as we have also seen in the historical review, is on the visual aspects, which actually makes the term video game more accurate in this regard, serving as a better descriptive term for the kind of games we typically mean by the term video game or computer game. Using video game as a term also allows us to include, at least conceptually, the games of the first generation of video game consoles, which in this case is definitely an enrichment for understanding the medium.

A Revised Ontological Definition

In order to also fully reconcile the term video game with the ontological definition, I would like to propose that we make a small revision to it and add the hardwired circuits on which the first video games were based as an alternative to the necessary conditions of computer software and computer hardware. This provides us with a definition that better covers our idea of video or computer games. Hence, the necessary conditions of the revised ontological definition are:

1. rule-based interactivity (or gameplay),
2. input and output elements (with an emphasis on the output of visual signs via a display),
3. a computer programme on which the totality of the interactions possible in the game supervenes, without being reducible to it,
4. hardware in the form of a computer necessary to run the computer program
5. or alternatively to 3. and 4., a console with hardwired circuits

Another advantage of this revision is that we can now use the terms video game and computer game as synonyms again, so that whenever we talk about computer games, we also always refer to video games in general and vice versa. This may be of greater relevance only for the German-speaking world, but by adapting it we can easily retain the previous usage, which is not only convenient, but also in the sense of the correct use of the two terms.

Conclusion

The philosophical examination of the term video game and a reflection on the question of what a video game actually is has shown that there can be no real prime example of a video game, since the multitude of different video games and their contents cannot be completely or satisfactory included by a classical essentialist definition which relies on necessary and sufficient conditions. Even a disjunctive definition – here according to Tavinor – cannot succeed in answering the aforementioned question satisfactorily.

However, through an ontological definition, as Ostritsch and Steinbrenner undertake, which is clearly more open than the previous definitions and leans more on Wittgenstein’s family resemblances, the term video game can be narrowed down very well, so that this definition can serve as the basis of an understanding of the concept of video games.The described conceptual problems on the linguistic level, however, lead to the fact that the terms video game and computer game, as they are established in the German language area, are erroneously used synonymously. However, this problem can be countered by modifying the ontological definition so that it also includes hardwired circuits – the technology on which the first generation of video games were based – as an alternative to computer technology, which is exclusively envisaged by Ostritsch and Steinbrenner.
However, this problem can be countered by modifying the ontological definition so that it also includes hardwired circuits – the technology on which the first generation of video games was based – as an alternative to computer technology, which is exclusively envisaged by Ostritsch and Steinbrenner.

This allows us to use the two terms synonymously after all and also to use the term video game as just that general umbrella term for this category of games because of the special importance of the visual aspects in video games – although computer game is actually the correct technical term because of the computer technology used today.

Literature and Internet Sources

[1] Cf. Entertainment Software Association (2021). ESA Essential Facts 2021, p. 2. https://www.theesa.com/resource/2021-essential-facts-about-the-video-game-industry/. Last accessed 27.12.2021.

[2] Vgl. ESA, 2021, p. 5.

[3] Cf. game (2021). Infografik Deutscher Games-Markt 2021. https://www.game.de/marktdaten/infografik-deutscher-games-markt-2021/. Last accessed: 27.12.2021.

[4] Cf. Entertainment Software Association (2019). ESA Essential Facts 2019, p. 10. https://www.theesa.com/esa-research/2019-essential-facts-about-the-computer-and-video-game-industry/. Last accessed: 01.10.2020.
It should be noted that the highest classification AO is very rarely assigned. In addition, the US rating system differs from the German system. In Germany, video games that receive an M rating in the United States are often classified by the Unterhaltungssoftware Selbstkontrolle (USK) in accordance with §14 JuSchG as “Freigegeben ab 16 Jahren” (ages 16 or older) or the age rating “Keine Jugendfreigabe” is assigned, which means that these video games are only permitted for persons 18 years of age and older. In addition, video games that do not receive an age rating may be subjected to an indexing review procedure by the Bundeszentrale für Kinder- und Jugendmedienschutz (BzKJ) upon application or suggestion. For more information on the classifications in the United States of America and in Germany, see accordingly ESRB, USK and BzKJ (all links last accessed: 27.12.2021).

[5] Feige, D. M., Ostritsch, S., Rautzenberg M. (2018). Einleitung. In Feige, D. M., Ostritsch, S., Rautzenberg M. (Eds.) Philosophie des Computerspiels: Theorie – Praxis – Ästhetik. J. B. Metzler, p. 4. [Translation by me].

[6] Cf. Bergonse, R. (2017). Fifty Years on, What Exactly is a Videogame? An Essentialistic Definitional Approach. In The Computer Games Journal 6, p. 240.

[7] Cf. Bergonse, 2017, p. 240.

[8] Cf. Bergonse, 2017, p. 240.

[9] Cf. Bergonse, 2017, p. 240.

[10] Cf. Bergonse, 2017, pp. 240-241.

[11] Cf. Tavinor, G. (2009b). The Definition of Videogames Revisited. The Philosophy of Computer Games Conference. Oslo, p. 4. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Definition-of-Videogames-Revisited-Tavinor/f2fdd575bd26340c8a57a93bfdf26acc61fb2446. Last accessed: 27.12.2021.

[12] Cf. Tavinor, 2009b, p. 4.

[13] Tavinor, 2009b, p. 5.

[14] Cf. Tavinor, G. (2008). Definition of Videogames. Contemporary Aesthetics 6. https://contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=492. Last accessed: 27.12.2021.

[15] Cf. Tavinor, 2008 and cf. Tavinor, G. (2009a). The Art of Videogames. Wiley-Blackwell, p. 25.

[16] Cf. Tavinor, 2008 and cf. Tavinor, 2009a, p. 19-20.
See also Ostritsch, S. & Steinbrenner, J. (2018). Ontologie. In Feige, D.M., Ostritsch, S., Rautzenberg, M. Philosophie des Computerspiels: Theorie – Praxis – Ästhetik. J. B. Metzler, p. 69.

[17] Ostritsch, Steinbrenner, 2018, p. 69.

[18] Cf. Tavinor, 2008 and cf. Ostritsch & Steinbrenner, 2018, p. 69.

[19] Cf. Tavinor, 2008.

[20] Juul, J. (2005). Half-Real: Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds. The MIT Press, p. 36.

[21] Cf. Ostritsch & Steinbrenner, 2018, p. 69 and cf. Tavinor, 2008.

[22] Cf. Juul, 2005, p. 43-44.

[23] Cf. Tavinor, 2008.

[24] Cf. Juul, 2005.
The double definition consists of viewing video games as rule-based, “classic” games according to a ludological principle on the one hand, and as fictions on the other hand, so that as many forms of video games as possible can be taken into account. On this, see also Tavinor, 2009a, p. 22-23.

[25] Cf. Tavinor, 2008.

[26] Cf. Tavinor, 2008 and cf. Tavinor, 2009a, p 23.

[27] Cf. Tavinor, 2008 and cf. Tavinor, 2009a, p. 23.

[28] Cf. Tavinor, 2008 and cf. Tavinor, 2009a, p. 23-24.

[29] Cf. Tavinor, 2008.

[30] Cf. Tavinor, 2008.
More recently, attempts have been made to involve players more in video sequences by means of so-called quick-time events (QTEs). The players then have to press one or more buttons at predetermined points so that the sequence continues. An example of this would be that the player has to avoid an approaching arrow, which can only be done if the player gives the correct input within a given time frame. If this fails, the player suffers damage or the sequence fails completely. In a way, the criticism mentioned here can thus be rejected. However, it is debatable to what extent such QTEs really add value to the game, since players often regard them as annoying or unnecessary, although there is also the view that QTEs, if used well, can certainly enrich the game experience. Nevertheless, it remains questionable to what extent there is any real interactivity on the part of the players, since they can rarely decide for themselves when a QTE appears and which buttons they want to press.

[31] Cf. Tavinor, 2008.

[32] Cf. Tavinor, 2009b, p. 5.

[33] Tavinor, 2008.

[34] Cf. Tavinor, 2008.

[35] Cf. Tavinor, 2008.

[36] Cf. Tavinor, 2008.

[37] Tavinor, 2008.
In Tavinor, 2009a, p. 26, the wording differs from that listed here. There, it states “X is a videogame if it is an artefact in a visual digital medium, is intended as an object of entertainment, and is intended to provide such entertainment through the employment of one or both of the following modes of engagement: rule and objective gameplay or interactive fiction”. On the one hand, the wording of the or clause differs slightly. Secondly, once it says “in a digital visual medium” and the other time “in a visual digital medium”. Thirdly, Tavinor, 2008 says “iff”, whereas Tavinor, 2009a lists “if”. Furthermore, the word “primarily” is missing in the version of Tavinor, 2009a. A third formulation is found in Tavinor, 2009b, which takes up different aspects of both previous versions: “X is a videogame iff [sic!] it is an artefact in a visual digital medium, is intended as an object of entertainment, and is intended to provide such entertainment through the employment of one or both of the following modes of engagement: rule and objective gameplay or interactive fiction.” In both Tavinor, 2009a and Tavinor, 2009b, Tavinor himself refers to the definition in Tavinor, 2008, but without going into the differences with this definition. No real differences could be found in terms of usage, so presumably the exact same artefacts are meant in all three cases.

[38] The two necessary conditions are: “being an artefact in a digital and visual medium” and “being intended primarily as an object for entertainment” (Tavinor, 2008).

[39] Cf. Tavinor, 2008 and cf. Tavinor, 2009a, p. 28.

[40] Cf. Tavinor, 2008.
As an example, Tavinor refers to games such as chess or to electronic soft toys such as Furbys. The former, according to Tavinor, differs from computer chess in that it does not run on a computer. Furbys, on the other hand, are electronic games, just like video games, and similarly interactive, but are not presented in a visual medium.

[41] Cf. Tavinor, 2008.
This condition is intended to distinguish video games from military or commercial simulators or virtual museums.

[42] Cf. Tavinor, 2008 and cf. Tavinor, 2009a, p. 28-29.

[43] Cf. Ostritsch & Steinbrenner, 2018, p. 70.

[44] Cf. Ostritsch & Steinbrenner, 2018, p. 70.

[45] Cf. Ostritsch & Steinbrenner, 2018, p. 70.

[46] According to Ostritsch and Steinbrenner, the term gameplay describes the way a player experiences and shapes the human-machine interaction of computer games. This refers to all possible interactions that a player can carry out within a video game. Gameplay is basically rule-based. Ostritsch and Steinbrenner distinguish between rules on the level of the computer program and on the level of the video game, meaning the rules that determine which actions can be carried out in a game at all, how these actions can be carried out successfully, and finally, how certain actions lead to a continuation and achievement of the game goals. I adopt this interpretation. For a more precise definition, see Ostritsch & Steinbrenner, 2018, pp. 66-67.

[47] Cf. Ostritsch & Steinbrenner, 2018, p. 70.

[48] Ostritsch & Steinbrenner, 2018, p. 70.

[49] Cf. Ostritsch & Steinbrenner, 2018, p. 68.

[50] Cf. Ostritsch & Steinbrenner, 2018, pp. 67ff.

[51] Cf. Ostritsch & Steinbrenner, 2018, pp. 68-69.

[52] Ostritsch & Steinbrenner, 2018, p. 60.

[53] Ostritsch & Steinbrenner, 2018, p. 60.
Although Ostritsch and Steinbrenner refer specifically to digital images in this section, the basic idea can be established throughout their text.

[54] Ostritsch & Steinbrenner, 2018, p. 65.

[55] Cf. Ostritsch & Steinbrenner, 2018, p. 58.

[56] Tavinor, 2009a, p. 17.

[57] Cf. Wolf, M. (2008). The Video Game Explosion: A History from PONG to PlayStation and Beyond. Greenwood Press, pp. 3ff.

[58] Cf. Wolf, 2008, pp. 4-5.

[59] Cf. Wolf, 2008, p. 5.

[60] See Tavinor, 2009a, p. 17 and Tavinor, 2008.
In Tavinor, 2009a, p. 27, Tavinor also argues that visual representation is significant in that it functions as a feature by which video games can be distinguished from other electronic games, which are, by definition, computer games. I will elaborate on this point later, which I regard as a problem with the use of the term computer games as a general term.

[61] Cf. Wolf, 2008, p. 5.

[62] Cf. Wolf, 2008, p. 5.

[63] Cf. Ostritsch & Steinbrenner, 2018, p. 58.

[64] Cf. Ostritsch & Steinbrenner, 2018, p. 58ff.

[65] Cf. Wolf, 2008, p. 5.

[66] Cf. Ostritsch & Steinbrenner, 2018, p. 71.

[67] Cf. Ostritsch & Steinbrenner, 2018, p. 71.

[68] See also the comment in footnote 60 in this blog post.

[69] Note the fundamental difference between a chess computer and computer chess. While the latter refers to the game of chess being played on a computer of some kind, the former refers to a computer that is specialised to play chess. On the one hand, this can be a computer that displays chess on a visual output device, as is the case with computer chess on a standard home computer. On the other hand, this can also refer to a device in which a small computer running a chess programme is combined with a board, so that one plays some form of “electronic chess”. I refer to this “electronic” variant here.