I also think that the conventions around memory say that something is stored “in memory” rather than on memory derails your argument a bit.

What’s wrong with ‘Computer Games’? That *is* what they are played/put on, after all – some kind of computer. In fact, ‘computer games’ used to be my defacto term for video games before I picked up that convention.

I sincerely like how you say “Why is a sale the endgame”, because it reminds that this is also a game that we are playing. The rules and goals are fuzzy, it is not necessarily fun, but it is a game, and I find it fascinating as a game.

To allow them to keep the word ‘game’ for their own uses is to lose, and I believe that we should play to win.

That games are associated with fun is more a commercial/entertainment thing, no? It’s not something that is inherent to the medium.

Games of poker, chess, football, war, the heart…. with money, pride, life or love on the line, all games contain anticipation, drama, conflict, hope, tragedy, catharsis. There’s always a context, a history; there are colorful characters, their developments and revelations. To win or lose is simple and pure; but it provides a reason, and a meaning to everything that surrounds it.

Games aren’t supposed to be fun because they are fun, but because that’s what can sell to people who just want to have… fun! Trying to distance oneself from games not because of what they are but how they’re sold is kind of meh.

But yeah, we could probably do with removing the ‘video’ qualifier at the front.

Can a game be art? Is chess an art? What about Puerto Rico? Is good game design an art form – establishing balanced choices and keeping players entertained and stimulated throughout? What about playing a game – is there art in being a mindboggling Street Fighter expert? Does that mean polevaulters and gymnasts are artists too?

There is a philosophical distinction between “design” and “art,” one that only became pronounced after classical times. Building a beautiful chair that is like a minimalistic sculpture is surely art, but building a GOOD chair became delineated from that. Some would suggest that the gap between them is narrowing again.

Beyond that, should “video games” remain in the arena of gaming, or should there be attempts to move beyond entertainment to a more artistic realm? As you say, most art is not “fun” in the same sense of the rest of its medium. I have fun reading a good entertaining story, but when I read Joyce or Faulkner it’s not “fun.” It’s satisfying, it’s engaging, it’s fulfilling, it’s mind-broadening, but not fun.

But how else can people be motivated to engage in something so interactive? How else can their interest be gained, especially in terms of a medium so deeply embedded in our minds as a game? The video game is so closely tied to the engine of industry, and so young, that I don’t foresee it breaking away from being fun – usually mindless, shallow fun – for profit. Of course, film and books and music are massively profit-based as well. There exists still a strong current of “art” film and “literature,” at least, which is driven by artistic needs and desires rather than entertainment = money.

I really don’t foresee the imminent success of a game that isn’t “fun” to play, but on the other hand we are seeing some now – the one where you play a grandmother walking through a cemetery, and all you do is walk and wait to potentially die, for example. Probably not “successful” but it has been published and received news stories from various major websites.

The contest ended without a winner, nobody was able to come up with anything decent.

I think ‘videogames’ is fine. It’s inextricable. All it takes is exposure for people to respect the medium.

But I still like what you’ve attempted here.

Naming it after the memory makes it feel static, like data. Naming it after the processor makes it dynamic, which is what games are typically all about.

Compare also to processes, executables, etc.