Can one make a game without a challenge?

Most games revolve around challenges. Combat and survival are two very common challenges.

There are immediate challenges such what enemy to attack next or what is the next game piece to be shifted, and overarching challenges such as reaching the star or finishing the race first.

Even some visual novels can have the simple challenge of choice. Every choice carries an opportunity cost that is only apparent in the long term.

But then I wonder about games like Dear Esther, Gone Home, and Dinner Date; these aren't particularly notable for their gameplay. I have tried a bit of Dear Esther and have played Dinner Date around three times, but I haven't experienced Gone Home either by playing it or watching "let's play"s.

Despite the seeming lack of challenge, I can infer that Dear Esther and Gone Home do at least have the challenge of finding and getting to the next the story relevant item or location.

However, Dinner Date is probably the one game IMO which is devoid of challenge. Dinner Date has the player control the subconscious of Julian Luxemburg, and determine what he looks at and how his hands move.

That isn't to say that Dinner Date is a bad game. In fact, I consider this viable way to control a character in first person view. But it has drawn criticism from people perhaps seeking some minimum level of challenge.

I'd look up the Extra Credits videos on the aesthetics of play if I were you. They do a good job of explaining the different fundamental ways that games engage their audience.

The definition of "game" is a tad blurred, but for the most part still holds its implied meaning. A "game" implies some sort of challenge both co-op and/or competitively, towards some goal be it victory or fun. Tic tac tow, yugioh, even war games or some simply use it as a catchall term.

But the sticking point is "goal". Dinner Date (which sounds immensely boring, by the by) has a goal, wait for your dinner date to show up and interact with stuff. So, I could say it's a game or I could simply call it an interactive; since that's really all I'm doing.

Such a question is hard to answer because it all depends on how far you are willing to bend such terms. So simply, I'd say it's a game as your goal/challenge is to listen to the inner thoughts of some shmuck. Still sounds really boring though.

For myself, I actually rather disagree that the term "game" is still an appropriate one for modern video games; I look at it as an Artefact Title, born in the days in which video games were often little more than that. A better term today might be something like "interactive entertainment"—but that's rather long, and the term "game" has rather a lot of cultural inertia.

Regarding the topic, I suppose that it depends rather heavily on how you define "challenge". If you define it very broadly (such as "including any choices"), then the only games that don't have a challenge are probably those visual novels that allow nothing more than clicking to see the next piece of text or image (even the choice of whether to turn left or right at a crossroads is, after all, a choice).

(I haven't played Dear Esther—although I'd very much like to do so—but am I correct in gathering that one has a choice of what to visit, and when? If so, then I'm inclined to argue that such choices fall under the above definition.)

If you define "challenge" more narrowly (such as "a piece of interaction that requires a minimum skill in order to proceed"), then it may depend on how you define the term "video game": some people, I gather, hold that this sort of challenge is required for an interactive work to classify as a game, in which case—by circular definition, admittedly—one cannot have a game without a "challenge".

If you do define challenge as narrowly as in the last paragraph above, but have a broader definition of "video game", then it may well be possible to have a game without a "challenge".

(By the way, while I'm not sure of whether I've played Dinner Date (I may have done at some stage), by your description I'm inclined to argue that it does have challenge as you define it, since it seems that it does have choice: the choice of what to focus the character on, and when.)

Animal Crossing and Knytt are games with no real challenge (more in the case of Animal Crossing) if I remember.

The concept you are handling is weird.

I can play League of Legends, Team Fortress 2, or any other Pv P-focused game. Let us (correctly) assume I suck at them. I presented absolutely no challenge to the opponent. He trashed me 500 kills to none.

Was it not a game for him? I am afraid it was. Which is why I do not think that "challenge" has much to do with i.

Games are, I think, subjecting yourself to a specific set of rules to achieve something, with the main objective of entertainment.

So, a game of (now that we are in the world cup), soccer, is a set of people who agree to try to put a ball into the other's defended area, agreeing to certain fouls and rules for it to happen (You cannot do it with your hand, etc etc). People will have fun in it.

Video games simply change the media: instead of pushing this ball with your feet, you are pushing these buttons on a controller/keyboard. In an online context, you and other people are agreeing to play by a certain set of limitations to achieve some "primary" goal while in general you are just seeking entertainment. In a single player mode, it is the same.

For example, no, you are not even goign to question why Link does not just take a gun and shoot Ganondorf in the face. You are agreeing, and subjecting yourself to the limitations of the videogame, its story, environment, abilities, gameplay, etc. Video games are just a part of games that allow a lot more elements. Challenge is one of them, but it is not the maker or breaker of a game. Most do because some challenge is fun. And the ultimate objective of games is fun.

I don't understand. Do you mean objective?

Yes, a game needs to have an objective. It doesn't necessarily need to be one set by the game; it could be one you create for yourself. However, there needs to be something that can be accomplished.

Hmm... By that definition, surely any work that is at all interactive (including visual novels that allow no more interaction than moving to the next "page") can be a game, by virtue of the player assigning a goal of their own, even if it's just "see all of the story".

Games without challenge already do exist, to an extent. A simple example would be Minecraft's creator mode, since all you do there is just build stuff without worrying about death, supplies, or enemies. So games like those, which emphasize creativity and simple exploration could work, since there is an audience who enjoys the challenge of doing nothing but virtual construction projects to show off to family or online communities. But already you'd have a limited audience since most people play games for the challenge of either fighting other people online or against the AI.

But for a game with no challenge whatsoever, which just encourages you to go with a pre-scripted "flow" of events and nothing else? What's the point? There's a reason why I and a lot of other folks never bothered with stuff like Dear Ester: a movie or novel can do the same job. This one just requires you to fiddle around with a controller to advance the scenes.

edited 16th Jun '14 9:35:40 PM by SgtRicko

as to why people like games like Dear Ester or Gone Home, I'd say its exploration and sense of discovery and no real "challenge" is needed there. from what I've heard you can complete Gone Home in a couple of minutes if you know what you're doing but in doing so miss most of the content, and thus most of the point. Games like Dear Ester or Gone Home are about you the player finding and piecing the story together yourself. that's why interactive and not a movie or novel, because near universally a novel/movie will have characters/a plot, while a game doesn't necessarily need them. Hell I just spent the last 3 hours messing around in minecraft with a blank map just exploring the overworld of the game.

Exploration is also a type of engagement kind of exclusive to video games and its a type of engagement that doesn't really need any type of challenge to it.