The bulk update request #2704 has been rejected.

remove implication neopets (1469) -> video_games (0)

Reason: I've brought this up as one of the (several) problems I have with the existence of the video_games tag in the past, but this isn't about that tag; it's about the fact that Neo in itself is not a video game or even related to a video game. It's a website. The closest thing you could argue is that it has video games, but by that logic every movie/TV show/etc. that's had a licensed game should also imply video_games.

And if the implication is because of jumpstart_games being the copyright holder, most of the neopets submissions are from long before they purchased the IP in 2014, including official art/assets created by Viacom or even the long-defunct Neopets Company before them.

EDIT: The bulk update request #2704 (forum #338535) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

As long as neopets implicates jumpstart_games, any Neopets tag will auto-add the video_games tag. That's just how the system is.

Only way around it would be by either unimplicating video_games from jumpstart_games, or unimplicating jumpstart_games from neopets.

strikerman said:
As long as neopets implicates jumpstart_games, any Neopets tag will auto-add the video_games tag. That's just how the system is.

I suspected this might be the case, but it would also mean that the video_games tag isn't doing its job in this regard. This IP isn't video game related, nor was it created by a video game company. It was a purchase.

And now you understand the video_game BUR (among many other reasons).

So, we never got any consensus on what to do about this.

Do we do something about the jumpstart_games tag?

(I still wish the video_games tag would just get nuked, but the site's made its official opinion on that clear, so I'm not holding my breath for that.)

lendrimujina said:
So, we never got any consensus on what to do about this.

Do we do something about the jumpstart_games tag?

(I still wish the video_games tag would just get nuked, but the site's made its official opinion on that clear, so I'm not holding my breath for that.)

I think because it owns neopets, you could make the argument that jumpstart games shouldn't imply video games. Can slot that into a BUR (either edit this one or add a new one to this thread)

As I see it, Neopets is a videogame, as it performs the same role as other videogames: entertaining interactively on a digital media.

The bulk update request #2704 (forum #338535) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

shinyluxi0 said:
As I see it, Neopets is a videogame, as it performs the same role as other videogames: entertaining interactively on a digital media.

I guess that's another problem with the VG tag; apparently we can't agree on what is and isn't one.

shinyluxi0 said:
As I see it, Neopets is a videogame, as it performs the same role as other videogames: entertaining interactively on a digital media.

wat8548 said:

Videogame Purist	Videogame Neutral	Videogame Radical

Ironically, that definition for Videogame Purist would exclude The Oregon Trail from being a video game, as it's not a fantasy world. And that definition for Videogame Neutral would still include things like e621, or even a Twitch stream.

I feel like people who claim that Neopets are far too strict on the definition of a video game, so rather than ask why Neopets isn't a video game to them, I'd like to ask if any of these titles are video games to them instead: Nintendogs, Brain Age, The Oregon Trail, Kingdom of Loathing, and the ye olde RuneScape. These are all titles that Neopets "borrows" (not literally, considering how old Neopets is) from, from being a pet-raising game focusing education and teaching responsibility, to being played in your browser. If you'd consider any of these a video game and not consider Neopets to be one, then why do you think so? Or, if you do consider all of them video games but not Neopets to be one, why?

shinyluxi0 said:
As I see it, Neopets is a videogame, as it performs the same role as other videogames: entertaining interactively on a digital media.

Agreed. It's sort of a management sim across a different media, but still an interactive one.

wat8548 said:

Videogame Purist	Videogame Neutral	Videogame Radical

I feel your definition for Purist is lacking. Neopets still fits into that definition.

siral_exan said:
I feel like people who claim that Neopets are far too strict on the definition of a video game, so rather than ask why Neopets isn't a video game to them, I'd like to ask if any of these titles are video games to them instead: Nintendogs, Brain Age, The Oregon Trail, Kingdom of Loathing, and the ye olde RuneScape. These are all titles that Neopets "borrows" (not literally, considering how old Neopets is) from, from being a pet-raising game focusing education and teaching responsibility, to being played in your browser. If you'd consider any of these a video game and not consider Neopets to be one, then why do you think so? Or, if you do consider all of them video games but not Neopets to be one, why?

Yes to all. Excluding Kingdom of Loathing, all of those are even deeper video games than Neopets, being on dedicated programs for the exclusive purpose of playing with it. Kingdom of Loathing and Neopets are run in raw HTML format(?) in the same way a website like E621 is, but with stats attached to your account.

There are, conversely, some "game carts" or possibly even discs which are just digital encyclopedias. While digital and interactive, I would not count those ones as games like Nintendogs and Brain Age. Nintendogs is for the fun of raising a dog--an accepted "fun thing to do (when not cleaning up its poop)", and Brain Age tests your knowledge via minigames.

siral_exan said:
I feel like people who claim that Neopets are far too strict on the definition of a video game, so rather than ask why Neopets isn't a video game to them, I'd like to ask if any of these titles are video games to them instead: Nintendogs, Brain Age, The Oregon Trail, Kingdom of Loathing, and the ye olde RuneScape. These are all titles that Neopets "borrows" (not literally, considering how old Neopets is) from, from being a pet-raising game focusing education and teaching responsibility, to being played in your browser. If you'd consider any of these a video game and not consider Neopets to be one, then why do you think so? Or, if you do consider all of them video games but not Neopets to be one, why?

That's not really a good way to look at it. Just because Neopets "borrows" from or is inspired by video games doesn't inherently make it a video game itself. That's like saying since Baldur's Gate borrows from table-top games and strategy games that were played by physical mail, Baldur's Gate is therefore a table-top play-by-mail game. Something can be different from its inspirations.

Though to answer your questions, I'm not sure I'd call Nintendogs or Brain Age "video games" in a technical sense (I'm not familiar with Kingdom of Loathing to comment on that). Nintendogs is an electronic dog interaction simulator, it's not a game as there's no win or lose state beyond what you self-impose. Brain Age is a collection of puzzle games (that were traditionally done with pencil and paper) in an electronic format. To say Brain Age is a video game because it includes electronic versions of puzzle games is like saying the internet is a video game because it also includes electronic versions of puzzle games.

furrin_gok said:
Yes to all. Excluding Kingdom of Loathing, all of those are even deeper video games than Neopets, being on dedicated programs for the exclusive purpose of playing with it.

That would more suggest Neopoets isn't a video game. If those others are "deeper" and "on dedicated programs for the exclusive purpose of playing with it" would mean Neopets is lacking stuff compared to the others and isn't a dedicated program with the exclusive purpose of playing, weakening its position as a potential video game.

Boy, speaking of 2014, I feel like this thread is going to devolve into walking simulator discourse any minute.

wat8548 said:
Boy, speaking of 2014, I feel like this thread is going to devolve into walking simulator discourse any minute.

fellas, is dear esther a video game

watsit said:
That would more suggest Neopoets isn't a video game. If those others are "deeper" and "on dedicated programs for the exclusive purpose of playing with it" would mean Neopets is lacking stuff compared to the others and isn't a dedicated program with the exclusive purpose of playing, weakening its position as a potential video game.

That's where I'm categorizing "Purist" and "Neutral". KoL and Neopets are digital, interactive, gameplay including websites, but aren't dedicated programs (flash, java, and html5 count even though they're on browser), so they'd fall under Neutral, which I include.
Hm. I guess the problem here is the "Video" part. KoL and Neopets are undeniably games, and they're digital, but they don't exactly include "video" (excluding a few stray gifs on Kingdom of Loathing; not sure about Neopets since I haven't been on it in forever).

furrin_gok said:
Hm. I guess the problem here is the "Video" part. KoL and Neopets are undeniably games, and they're digital, but they don't exactly include "video" (excluding a few stray gifs on Kingdom of Loathing; not sure about Neopets since I haven't been on it in forever).

ahh, attacking the question from the other angle

strikerman said:
ahh, attacking the question from the other angle

Huh, that's a neat watch. Helps answer some questions in definition:

A video game must:
① Exist in a practical implementation
② Generate some kind of video signal
③ Have interaction that alters this signal
④ Be principally intended for entertainment
⑤ Be playable solely through the video display(s)

The video does highlight this at around 29:35, and:
1. Neopets exists.
2. Neopets sends video signals over the internet to your computer
3. Neopets has interaction that alters the signal (qualifying as "Cloud" gaming instead of broadcast)
4. Neopets is meant for direct entertainment, not as a gateway to it.
5. You don't need any mechanical parts to enjoy neopets, just the controller (mouse) and the screen.

If you go by that video's definition, Neopets and Kingdom of Loathing are video game.

furrin_gok said:
① Exist in a practical implementation
② Generate some kind of video signal
③ Have interaction that alters this signal
④ Be principally intended for entertainment
⑤ Be playable solely through the video display(s)

I don't really go by that definition. Particularly 4, you're relying on intent when it's not always known or where it can be muddy. In 100 years, will we still know the intent of those first video game creators? Especially these days, where the principle intent of many "AAA games" seems to be to make money by psychologically manipulating you into continually paying for microtransactions, any entertainment you may feel is a secondary byproduct of that goal. Similarly with those really early examples he gives, one could argue the principle intent was study and research; to see if it could be done and how to improve it, with the entertainment value of playing it being secondary. Not to mention Draughts (Checkers), and Naughts and Crosses (Tic-Tac-Toe), existed before computers, these were just electronic versions of already-existing games (which adds another layer of ambiguity for a depiction of a video game). Or the fact that what's considered "entertainment" is dependent on the person/culture. I'd argue something doesn't need to be entertaining to be a game. Is the primary purpose of a basketball game to be entertaining (to the players, not the viewer)? I'd argue no, it's primarily a contest of skill, which some players may sometimes find entertaining and bystanders can find entertaining to watch, but that entertainment value is still predicated on it being a contest of skill; if it wasn't for being a contest of skill, it wouldn't have the entertainment value it does, but it's undeniably a game either way.

As it is, even slot machines fit that definition:

1. Slot machines exist.
2. Slot machines send a video signal to an inbuilt display (modern ones are all digital, not physical wheels).
3. Slot machines have interactions that alter the video signal (pulling the lever to make the on-screen wheels spin).
4. Slot machines are designed to be "entertaining" (in the psychologically manipulative sense, like many modern AAA games).
5. You don't need mechanical parts to enjoy slot machines, beyond the control lever.

But I wouldn't consider slot machines to be "games". The results of the interaction are (supposed to be) based entirely on random chance, there's nothing you can do to influence the outcome. You can't get better at it and you can't become worse at it. It's no different from going outside when it's cloudy and waiting to see if it starts raining and you get wet, or the sun comes out and you warm up.

This definition also creates a mess with simulators, as he brings up things like Flight Simulators which have a purpose of training pilots; but plenty of people find them fun and entertaining in their own right, so much so that there are versions accessible to the public, but they are still training tools too. There have also been various games that have proven to be valuable research tools due to the way its systems interact and how people interact within those systems. Puzzle games have a primary purpose of training problem solving skills, which some people find entertaining and others don't. Strategy games have a primary purpose of training strategic planning and thinking, which some people find entertaining and others don't. Having something's status as a "video game" be dependent on its intended purpose, when its purpose can be manifold or become shrouded to the mists of time, doesn't work well, IMO.

Also the way he defines 3 is problematic. As he mentioned, a simple TV technically qualifies since the user is interacting with the box to alter the video signal for entertainment. He tries to draw a distinction between real-time generation and switching between prefab signals, but then that disqualifies a whole gaming genre, so-called FMV games like Dragon's Liar or Night Trap. It also calls to question games like Street Fighter 2 or Mortal Kombat and the like, as the animations in those games are undeniably prefab signals that you switch between by giving various inputs. Sure it's more complex, as there are many prefab signals mixed in real-time, but considering OSDs and picture-in-picture are common with TVs (which also mix prefab and generated signals in real-time), that line is quite blurry.

I'd instead replace 4 with something along the lines of "The player's skill leads to a predefined win/lose state". That is, there is a state which is predefined to indicate "win" or "lose", and the player's skill when interacting with it influences which state they end up in. It doesn't have to be 100% deterministic, some variability/randomness in the outcome is fine, but the player's skill should be able to measurably increase or decrease the chance of ending up in one of those states.

Seriously, this ambiguity is why we really don't need medium tags. Let alone only one medium tag.

The few people who search for the tag would do just as well browsing the front page because that's about how wide, loose, and most importantly meaninglessly that the net is cast.

Iirc Neopets did have an interaction GUI for your pets. I never played it but looking it up for 5 minutes its got a lot of minor interactive stuff.

Its a video game. Theres just a suite of other stuff.

As opposed to Gaia Online which didnt get anywhere with its playable demo.

watsit said:
I'd instead replace 4 with something along the lines of "The player's skill leads to a predefined win/lose state". That is, there is a state which is predefined to indicate "win" or "lose", and the player's skill when interacting with it influences which state they end up in. It doesn't have to be 100% deterministic, some variability/randomness in the outcome is fine, but the player's skill should be able to measurably increase or decrease the chance of ending up in one of those states.

if we're really gonna do this

This runs into the issue of walking sims that wat mentioned above, particularly with something like Dear Esther. There is no lose state, just a win state that you reach after meandering for a while. The only real 'lose' state is by just not playing the game, but counting that would make a lot of stuff qualify for the definition.

strikerman said:
This runs into the issue of walking sims that wat mentioned above, particularly with something like Dear Esther. There is no lose state, just a win state that you reach after meandering for a while. The only real 'lose' state is by just not playing the game, but counting that would make a lot of stuff qualify for the definition.

A game doesn't have to have both a win and lose state, it can work with just one. E.g. a crossword puzzle has no lose state either... no matter what you do, you can always undo mistakes and keep going until you fulfill the win condition by correctly filling in each box. You can only "lose" by not playing, but it still takes skill to complete and reach a win state. Similarly some games can have a lose state without a win state; a common game of Tetris, for example, has a lose state, but doesn't really have a win state (some variations can add one, but it's not required). No matter how many lines you clear, pieces keep dropping in perpetuity, until you either stop playing, or lose by the pieces building up to the top of the play field. More skill allows you to keep avoiding the lose state, but you can't reach a win state.

As for Dear Esther, I haven't played it so I can't say with certainty. But if it doesn't fit the definition of a game, then it doesn't fit the definition of a game. Does it have to? That wouldn't be saying it's not good or entertaining or worth experiencing, just that it's different from what would otherwise be considered "a game" (it also doesn't mean people can't colloquially refer to it as a game since it is quite similar to them, just that when you break it down, there are issues with making a definition that fits). Perhaps you could argue that the act of playing requires enough skill, that enough skill is needed to reach the end and win, but as I said, I haven't played it so I can't say.

watsit said:
Does it have to?

For us on this random furry site, it only matters if we're glued to the current definition of the video_games tag. If I uploaded this image onto e6 featuring a landscape from Dear Esther (pretend the character isn't an argonian), would this be tagged with video_games or not?

personally i think all this stuff is a bit much hence my repeated annoying mentions of that video game bur

I’m happy to call video games any game in a digital format. Assuming that interacting with something like Neopets qualifies for the definition of play (it does), then I have no problem calling it a video game.

This seems academic to me since the majority of Neopets-related posts don't have a video game directly depicted in them in some manner, just characters based upon those in the game. I would have thumbed up this alias and probably should have.

clawstripe said:
This seems academic to me since the majority of Neopets-related posts don't have a video game directly depicted in them in some manner, just characters based upon those in the game. I would have thumbed up this alias and probably should have.

Question: is the video game tag meant to be for depictions of video games? Or some existential meta tag that lists the content as being from a video game.

It seems that this is less a debate on neopets or even what a video game is as much as some discussion has been spent doing, nd more what the tag is for.

demesejha said:
Question: is the video game tag meant to be for depictions of video games? Or some existential meta tag that lists the content as being from a video game.

There's currently a pending BUR to begin shifting video_games to mean video-game-like depictions (or video game console/accessories), whereas currently it's for anything with a remote hint of being somewhat associated with a video game somewhere. e.g. https://www.furaffinity.net/view/8084380/ would be tagged video_games under the current definition if Dear Esther is considered a video game, since it's depicting a scene you can see while playing it (just with an added character in the foreground), but doesn't look video-game-like so wouldn't get a video_games tag if/when the definition is updated. Whereas something like post #2999477 would be tagged video_games with a new definition since it looks like one, even though it's not a real video game you can actually play.

demesejha said:
It seems that this is less a debate on neopets or even what a video game is as much as some discussion has been spent doing, nd more what the tag is for.

Pretty much. This has been a pretty contentious issue on the site for a while.

I've said before how much I hate the TWYS policy, but it confuses me how the entire concept of the video_games tag is in violation of that and yet the site insists on keeping it.

I initially opened this thread as a sort of... "accepting defeat compromise". It annoyed me that the tag kept showing up on my submissions even though I see Neo as about as much of a game as e621.

lendrimujina said:

I've said before how much I hate the TWYS policy, but it confuses me how the entire concept of the video_games tag is in violation of that and yet the site insists on keeping it.

Something being from a video game doesn’t violate TWYS at all. If you recognize a character as being from a video game, for example undertale, the video_games tag as currently defined is perfectly within TWYS, just as recognizing any character or franchise or even species is within TWYS. Now, whether video_games should actually be used like that or not is an entirely different debate.