What Games Design lessons can you teach me?

[anne O'nymous]

If I had my own definition, I would say art is substance that is kept over time, like watching a perspective, or something among the line. The most substance the better art. Of course it depends how you interpret it and where you set the bar. It also make it a bit exclusive, certainly leave a lot a the door (that popular manga ain't gonna sit with Dostoevsky anytime soon).

In that aspect, video games are rather poor. May it be by their narration, mostly a boring serie Z cinematographic experience/writting that no one would dare to watch/read if it was not video game, or their designs, a more or less complex set of rules. They aren't particulary shine and express a deeper substance, which is totally fine.

You limit your judgement regarding video games to what you see, while defining art as the unseen part of the oeuvre. Therefore, it's exactly what I said previously. Video games are denied the right to have some pieces of art because, mostly by lack of knowledge, some persons aren't able to see the substance behind them.
Take pac-man by example. Each one of the four ghosts have an unique movement ; something so basic that by itself it would be the most ridiculous way to organize a pursuit. But once you combine those four movements, it give you the feeling that the ghosts are hunting you and try to lead you to the trap they've setup.
It's precisely because those movements are basic, that the game have been able to exist at a time where computing power was as limited as the space to store the code itself. And it's because they were carefully chosen, leading to this effective hunting scheme, that the game is still nowadays a success.

It's not my field, but I clearly see that your definition apply even more to physic and mathematical equations.
There's absolutely nothing in the known universe, that provide more "perspective, or something among the line" than an equation. You're looking at a bunch of symbols, and when it's your field, what you see is, by example, a planet orbiting around a star. You just need to look at the equation, and you can tell that summer in it's North hemisphere will happen in X days because, among the many things that this equation tell you, there's the position the planet will be at this time. You can also tell if there's possibly life or not, because you'll know if it's in the living zone or not. I'm not sure, but you should also be able to tell if it's effectively a planet, or a gas giant.
And there's also nothing that have more substance than a physic equation. There's so many things that hide behind the five symbols that are "E=mc²", that physicists assume that there's still to discover.

Obviously, both video games art and equation art are special kind of arts ; arts that can only be seen and rightly appreciated by those who understand what is implied. But this knowledge isn't needed to understand why some persons can see it as a piece of art. This in the exact same way that you don't need to understand the cubism's destructuring to accept that some persons can see it as being art.
And it's what is implied by "art is in the eye of the beholder". You'll see the art behind it only if you have the knowledge needed to see the substance it contain. The difference being that you can learn to see this substance when it's classical arts, while you need to learn the whole discipline to see it when it's any other kind of art.

In its simpliest from, they are just toy representative of their period and that's basically about it.

Like primitive art is mostly daily life objects representative of their period, while cave painting started as school manuals. What imply that this isn't enough to deny the right to video game to have pieces of art.

I would add, in the past, people have no shy to categorize minor and major art or art at all, without putting people into existential crisis. It's a sad society when everything carry the same weight.

Considering that you used Dostoevsky as example of great artist, and implied that architecture isn't art to your eyes, it's strange to see you write this. Only the three firsts of the seven arts are seen as major, and those seven arts are, by descending order : Architecture, Sculpture, Visual arts (like painting), Music, Literature, Performing, and Cinema.

This being said, and at least to my eyes, is a sadder society, the one that consider someone like Mozart, by example, as being a minor artist. The weight equality become a sadness factor not when it put Cinema at equality with Sculpture, but when it put The Beatles at equality with Beethoven.

 

[Marcibx]

Boy this thread has trailed off
Are you guys high or something?

I read through around the first half of the second page and you were already debating the definition of games. By the end of it, it was about playing games being art.

First of all, you should have talked about the definition of video games instead of games in general. And second, definitions can be easily looked up.

Video game:"A game played by electronically manipulating images produced by a computer program on a monitor or other display."

So, visual novels are BY DEFINITION video games, like it or not. And before getting into what you think is the definition, definitions exist exactly to define things clearly to enable different parties to have a common understanding of that thing. So, if you consider video games to be other than their definitions - like they needing to include challenge - don't be surprised that people disagree with you. And certainly don't think that they are wrong and start swearing at them.

Lastly, no, playing games is not art. At least not by default, but can be done on that level. (though, I would say, that this is much more gray area)

 

[DuniX]

So, visual novels are BY DEFINITION video games, like it or not.

That have no gameplay, which is what we were actually discussing.

 

[Marcibx]

That have no gameplay, which is what we were actually discussing.

Same argument. If it is a video game, it has gameplay.
Gameplay is the way the player interacts with the game. In case of a visual novel it is reading it and clicking. Sure, it is mundane, but gameplay nevertheless.

 

[DuniX]

Same argument. If it is a video game, it has gameplay.
Gameplay is the way the player interacts with the game. In case of a visual novel it is reading it and clicking. Sure, it is mundane, but gameplay nevertheless.

That's absurd.
Next you will say that flipping pages in a book is also a game.

This is why I don't like Walking Sim Apologists, they lose their logic immediately and there is no limit to the amount they can stretch definitions or redefine things.

 

[Deleted member 1121028]

You limit your judgement regarding video games to what you see, while defining art as the unseen part of the oeuvre. Therefore, it's exactly what I said previously. Video games are denied the right to have some pieces of art because, mostly by lack of knowledge, some persons aren't able to see the substance behind them.

I hear your arguments. While they could be true; that doesn't make them very pertinant nonetheless (imho). If I can put it that way, I see art throught a vertical elevation while you seek for an horizontal conscencus, I think that's not far from it and not sure we can agree on something ^^. It's a great and generous way to view art but it tend make things flat without reliefs.

If I take art seriously, I see its substance as an 'anchor' in a deeply chaotic environement, a frozen picture of human nature itself in an ocean of distractions (latin: to separate). I think that's the gist of Ebert argument, the near impossiblity of providing substance (or very poorly, history kinda make him right). By intrasec desgin (provocative stance, games can only be distractions) or by sheer lazyness (more socialy acceptable).

Take pac-man by example. Each one of the four ghosts have an unique movement ; something so basic that by itself it would be the most ridiculous way to organize a pursuit. But once you combine those four movements, it give you the feeling that the ghosts are hunting you and try to lead you to the trap they've setup.
It's precisely because those movements are basic, that the game have been able to exist at a time where computing power was as limited as the space to store the code itself. And it's because they were carefully chosen, leading to this effective hunting scheme, that the game is still nowadays a success.

Obviously, both video games art and equation art are special kind of arts ; arts that can only be seen and rightly appreciated by those who understand what is implied. But this knowledge isn't needed to understand why some persons can see it as a piece of art. This in the exact same way that you don't need to understand the cubism's destructuring to accept that some persons can see it as being art.
And it's what is implied by "art is in the eye of the beholder". You'll see the art behind it only if you have the knowledge needed to see the substance it contain. The difference being that you can learn to see this substance when it's classical arts, while you need to learn the whole discipline to see it when it's any other kind of art.

Sadly games and video games ain't that spicy. I honestly don't see how you can view that outside as mere distractions. One could say it's quite telling you view that as a player who didn't know how the sausage was made (I do). I think it's wrong in both cases.

Considering that you used Dostoevsky as example of great artist, and implied that architecture isn't art to your eyes, it's strange to see you write this. Only the three firsts of the seven arts are seen as major, and those seven arts are, by descending order : Architecture, Sculpture, Visual arts (like painting), Music, Literature, Performing, and Cinema.

This being said, and at least to my eyes, is a sadder society, the one that consider someone like Mozart, by example, as being a minor artist. The weight equality become a sadness factor not when it put Cinema at equality with Sculpture, but when it put The Beatles at equality with Beethoven.

I didn't want to imply this tho. It's kinda badly worded sorry. My point was more to make those discussion as a normal path of discourse - nothing to be upset of, or bring palvovnian reaction.

If you want me to rank art tho, even wrong, probably litterature will reign suprême.

 

[Marcibx]

That's absurd.
Next you will say that flipping pages in a book is also a game.

This is why I don't like Walking Sim Apologists, they lose their logic immediately and there is no limit to the amount they can stretch definitions or redefine things.

My point was that there is no point arguing about what is or isn't gameplay. Technically that is gameplay (just like walking sim walking is). That does not mean that you or I have to like any of that, just don't start arguing that it is not gameplay just because it seems "absurd" to you.

(and yeah, I think flipping pages could be a game, but I would say that it is not when somebody is just reading a book - but please don't start arguing about this, this is really only my opinion)

 

[DuniX]

but I would say that it is not when somebody is just reading a book

Why?
By your alien logic, a digital book is definitely a game.

 

[anne O'nymous]

It don't disagree with you, neither now or before, clearly aware that it's here mostly a question of point of view. But there's something that bug me since the start. And it's this kind of "snobbery", way more present in the way Ebert present his point of view, than in yours ; this feeling that video games can't be art because they aren't serious enough.
I'll not be upset if you don't share my point of view, but I would be if I don't try to present it.

Sadly games and video games ain't that spicy. I honestly don't see how you can view that outside as mere distractions. One could say it's quite telling you view that as a player who didn't know how the sausage was made (I do). I think it's wrong in both cases.

I already said that, so I'll ask you what are, for you, the fact to look at a painting, movie, sculpture, and all ?

Reading a book is a little different, since you can also do it to absorb the knowledge in it. Even a novel can teach you something by presenting you a new perspective about life, this whatever the book. A Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 or Orwell's 1984 contain a deep afterthought regarding where our present society can lead us, while a Flaubert's or Dickens' book will describe to you what life was at their time.
But being the public for the other arts is nothing more than a distraction. You can appreciate the moment past looking at them. They can give you a quick overview of a time from the past, but even with movies or performance art they'll never be as deep and complete than with a book. They can make you think, make you question your own perspective over life, or over something less significant. But for 99% of them, they are initially either just a mere distraction, or pure propaganda ; David's The coronation of Napoleon, is purely political, while Ancient Egypt, Greece or Rome, sculptures present the powerful of their time from a flattering point of view.

As public, you can recognize it as art, but what make it art is the creator and the creation process, not the viewer. It's Picasso that made his Guernica be a powerful and meaningful piece of art, by the imagery he decided to use to represent barbarism at its worse. The part of the public is just to agree with the fact that it's art.
But, while Picasso do art, Andrew Smith, my imaginary neighbor who pass his week-end painting, do... well, better than my kids in kindergarten I guess, but not really more. As pleasant as they can be to look at, and as goodly they would do on my wall, his painting are far to be more than a mere distraction. At least it will not give headache to the viewer, he just paint what he see, there's no hidden meaning. What doesn't mean that suddenly Painting isn't anymore an art, just that not all paintings are.


Then, why should it be different for video games, why should they need to all be art, and/or why should they be, or not, seen as art from the sole point of view of the player ?

But, even if took from this sole point of view, I disagree with you, they can be more than a simple distraction, even if, effectively, it's their initial intent.
Take Fallout New Vegas. Despite being an entertainment, it also carry a deep afterthought regarding the outcome of an apocalypse. Would the player side with the Republic, trying to perpetuate the old order, to continue a society model that clearly failed somewhere ? At the opposite would they side with the Brotherhood, fighting the race for technology that lead the world to its doom ? Or perhaps would they follow the path of the Legion, looking into the past, then recreating a form of power and society that is (rightly or wrongly) seen as successful ?
Same for the Mass Effect series, especially the third, or, more deeply, the Deus Ex series. They both carry a deep afterthought regarding the definition of life, asking where stand the limit between being human and being a machine. The question itself have it's own afterthought since "being human" is to see in the broadest sense of the term, while "being a machine" is always presented as the very strict definition of "machine". Is definition of life this simpler ? Either you're human, or you're an object for humans to use ; something that you also find in Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, and therefore the two Blade Runner movies.
They take this from books, and add more depth to it. In a book, you're facing the choice of the author, and can discard its consequences by saying that you would have chose something else ; you can read Fahrenheit 451 and think that nobody would let society go this far, then you look at the last movie adaptation and see that we are already few steps away from this. But in a video game, while the outcome is as accurate (and therefore only hypothetical) as in a book, you don't have that escape door. It's your choices that led to this outcome, and it have a stronger impact on you ; teaching you about yourself, and making you think, what is something in common with art.


Obviously, this don't apply to all video games, but the same can be said for books, movies and in fact all arts.

The Twilight saga is purely superficial, as is the majority of novels ; what don't prevent Literature to be an art, and some books to be masterpieces. The Hollywood blockbusters are pure entertainment, far from a Lang's Metropolis or the aestheticism of a French New Wave movie ; what, again, don't prevent Cinema to be an art and some movies to be masterpieces. And in both case, they have this in common with video games, that you become their public out of a pure desire for distraction.
What you said regarding video games, also apply to Literature and Cinema, as well as the other arts, if you look at them like you do for video games, from the side of the majority of their content.
Most of books are on the side of The Twilight saga, most of movies are on the side of the Hollywood blockbusters, most painting are on the side of my imaginary neighbor's one. "Sadly, [this side] ain't that spicy. I honestly don't see how you can view [Literature, Cinema and Painting] outside as mere distractions."

 

[Marcibx]

Why?
By your alien logic, a digital book is definitely a game.

I never thought about it, but technically yes.
So, I agree that this is a bad definition, I just tried to explain you why some people might disagree with you.

I would suggest that instead of saying what is and isn't game or gameplay, just say what you like or dislike.

 

[DuniX]

I would suggest that instead of saying what is and isn't game or gameplay, just say what you like or dislike.

I dislike the current trend on how people are discussing game design and gameplay and want it replaced with a stricter definition of game mechanics and game systems that can lead to some development of games that have Replayability, Challenge and Fun as all Real Games should. And not Pretend "Games" that have no gameplay value be treated as having gameplay value.
I cannot pretend to discuss about something that doesn't fucking exist.

 

[Marcibx]

I cannot pretend to discuss about something that doesn't fucking exist.

And yet you are still here

I guess the sarcasm in your comment was quite clear, but you are kinda on the right way. Saying "I don't like people discussing" anything is just that you cannot handle people disagreeing with you.

Also, it is not about having or not having gameplay value, rather how much. And I can agree with you, that by your definition these games have virtually no gameplay value - that is, gameplay value does not include story and visuals, only systems.

 

[anne O'nymous]

And not Pretend "Games" that have no gameplay value be treated as having gameplay value.

There's something really important in this sentence, the difference between "gameplay mechanism" and "gameplay value".
The first one is something that all games have, and that mostly correspond to the definition gave by Marcibx ; the way you (can) play the game. While the second represent the interest the player (can) project into the game, and for which there's as many definitions that there's tastes.

Therefore, in the end you two are talking about two different things.

 

[DuniX]

Saying "I don't like people discussing" anything is just that you cannot handle people disagreeing with you.

If I were to agree with you then how would I discuss about Actual Fucking Gameplay?
You don't need to enter into this discussion because you have nothing to add since everything is gameplay to you.

Therefore, in the end you two are talking about two different things.

We are talking about two different thing in a thread about Game Design, so only one take is relevant why the other is confusing everyone on what they are talking about by inserting their take on generic definitions.

 

[79flavors]

What Games Design lessons can you teach me?

Based on this thread alone... never get into a discussion about games as art.

[rant]
Seriously... they're called "Adult Visual Novels", not adult visual games. We all call them games as shorthand, but very few of these games actually include actual game mechanics recognizable in other "games". It's a word... get over it.

A personal opinion... I don't "play" novels or audiobooks. But if my hand is on the mouse and/or keyboard, I'm playing a game. What YOU want to call it is your problem.

Plus this sidetrack is doing nothing to answer the original question.
[/rant]

I'm a complete newbie to this forum; so first of all... hello!

Over 2 years here... and I'm still a newbie too. Welcome

I've started to notice some tropes / common themes in the games I've been playing; some I like, some I don't. For example, the games usually have a sex-hungry protagonist [...]

I'll link to my standard reply when devs ask what players might be interested in...
https://f95zone.to/threads/a-dive-into-the-adult-games-developer-industry.24500/#post-1508184

Which I'll summarize as "ask 2 players... and get different 3 answers."

it also looks like 'point and click adventure games' and 'farm management games' are the genres which are leaned on the heaviest.

Point and click certainly is an aspect of some games. Most commonly the "open world" games where player interaction is "click on something to make it happen." Not just things, but rooms, directions, maps, etc.
I think the "Farm management" is more misguided devs failing to understand how to manage "points" associated with gameplay. Some games can feel quite grindy - which can sometimes be a design choice and sometimes just a consequence of just not thinking it through before starting work.

I know woefully little about good and bad porn games though [...]

A lot of it is timing.
There are some very "popular" games which I feel would probably not gain similar popularity if released today. They touched the right nerve at the right time. Sorry... I know that doesn't help much.
As a starting point though, you might want to consider using the "Latest Releases" page to gain some insight.

https://f95zone.to/latest/#/cat=games/page=1/prefixes=7/sort=rating

The link is to a "weighted" popularity score of only RenPy games - to avoid older popular games sitting at the top of the "most liked" list for years on end.
Filter that by tags. Or limit it to games updated within the last 180 days... it's up to you...
... but it should give you an insight into the sort of things that work. College simulation has been quite popular recently, with more realistic relationships and wildly varied story paths. But not all developers have that level of resources or understanding. As you said earlier... the "usual" tropes remain commonplace.

Could you please impart any pearls of Games-Design wisdom you have come across in this area?

• Games with code like if lucy_affection >=6 rarely think through the consequences of scores of 5 or less. It often becomes "content" or "no content" and it's bad.
• Nobody ever calls their landlady "Landlady". She's "Tracey" or "Helena" or "Mavis". Also you call your mom "Mom". Names used in place of real names are capitalized.
• Games aimed at periodic "Patreon" releases are either overfunded (and scope-creep becomes an issue) or underfunded (and end up getting abandoned). Whilst it possible to write AVN's with profit in mind, it's much healthier to approach things from a "passion project" point of view. Certainly for a first game.
• Write a game to your strengths... or put another way, write a game YOU'D like to play, tempered by your own ability to write a game. Sounds like you've got animation covered.

Also, please for a moment forget about the whole 'does X count as a game thing [...]

[rant mode again]
Jeez, I wish more people had read that bit.

Requoted for emphasis...
Also, please for a moment forget about the whole 'does X count as a game thing
[/rant]

I'm interested in the games you think did something well AND the games you think serve as excellent examples of how frustrating bad games design can be.

Again, I'm back to my "ask 2 players and get 3 opinions".

Personally, I like slow linear stories with some branching content. I'm not interest in the open world grind of "go to place A, but only on a Wednesday afternoon and only if you have the fire extinguisher" nor am I interested in clicking on a bunch of locations/rooms just to find out there's nothing going on there. I like strong personalities, especially if that leans into humor. I like characters that do what the character wants, not what the player needs (that one is especially hard to deliver). Something else I've noticed listening to adult audiobooks is that a good story is still good without all the sex. By which I mean that if you can write a good story that still would be interesting without the sexy stuff - it'll be even better with it.

Story matters to me more than I suspect the average player. If I just wanted to see humping bodies... I'd be on pornhub. I'm all for fantasy, be it dragons, hot wax or mommy issues. If I wanted reality, it's right there outside my front door. And like most fantasies, I'd rather fantasize about Aston Martin Vanquish than a Toyota Prius. Thankfully, as a semi stable adult, I can tell the difference between fantasy and reality and acknowledge that watching Game of Thrones didn't make me want to impregnate my sister or take over the world. Nor did playing Grand Theft Auto turn me into inner city gangster any more than playing Horizon Zero Dawn turned me into a badass dinosaur mech riding warrior princess.

Good graphics are a nice bonus, but not essential. If you can hook the player (be it story or mechanics), players will tolerate most graphical styles.
An example of which would be that these very popular games, Pale Carnations, The Headmaster and Harem Hotel all use HoneySelect graphics rather than Daz3D.
Which isn't to say graphics can't make a project stand out... Depraved Awakenings, City of Broken Dreamers and Estate Dominate all come to mind. Though each of those games would likely be just as good with lower quality graphics.
Throw in some humor like Long Live The Princess and we're golden (just don't force it in).

Any insights you can provide would be appreciated!

Engaging with players can earn you a certain degree of respect, but probably isn't directly proportional to paying customers.
A recent example that comes to mind is the latest release of Pale Carnations. Normally, games as popular as this one are shared on F95 within hours of their release. Yet this time around, it wasn't. The devs had gained a group of F95 users who also were Patreon/Subscribestar customers who were loyal enough to wait for the "public" release 7 days later. It's helps it was only 7 days - but I put it partly down to the attitude here on F95 of those 2 developers.
If you think of pirated copies as "lost sales", it'll drive you nuts. At best, it's free advertising to a large community of people who probably wouldn't know your game existed otherwise.

I also want to mention Euphoria, which honestly is more at the AAA end of things (an actual development studio). It's a pretty horrific game with some really bizarre fetishes which I almost quit playing within the first 15 minutes. But the promise of something deeper made me stick with it and I can honestly say it's one of the best thought out stories I've played. Not an easy game to play on any level, but it certainly has depth. There are comparable "good" stories out there in other AVNs - but this one had a unique way of delivering something that used the whole gameplay experience as a mechanic (albeit quite grindy).

In summary... first game... write the game YOU would want to play. Players will only dilute your vision into a banal one-size-fits-all mediocre porn game.
Second game... pander to the players and make the money then, once you've grown into the role.

Edit:
To anyone still considering straying from answering the OP's original question, I offer the following game for download...

You must be registered to see the links

Come challenge my level 82 Lesser Dwarf on the

You must be registered to see the links

realm in a 100% streamlined questing system.

You must be registered to see the links

 

[Marcibx]

Yeah, it is very far from the original post, but at this point this thread is just a guilty pleasure for me I have no hopes of seeing eye to eye with DuniX, I just try to keep toxicity to minimal while enjoying the philosophic discussion.

For that reason, I will only address the rant part of your comment and ignore the rest (which is actually quite useful).

[rant]
Seriously... they're called "Adult Visual Novels", not adult visual games. We all call them games as shorthand, but very few of these games actually include actual game mechanics recognizable in other "games". It's a word... get over it.
[/rant]

It baffles me how you can write in one sentence that visual novels are not called visual games for a reason and then in the next one "It's a word... get over it". (btw, that reason is that we already have a word for visual games -> video games)

I would agree that kinetic novels might not be video games (you could literally "play" those games in a photo app), but as soon as there is a decision to make, it becomes a grey area.

 

[DuniX]

but as soon as there is a decision to make, it becomes a grey area.

It's not, just like CYOA Books are not games.
Having a different structure to just linear is just that, a different structure.
Sure that structure has been available only together with the interactivity that comes with computers.
But again interactivity is not a game, just like reading a website and clicking links is not a game.

 

[79flavors]

It baffles me how you can write in one sentence that [...]

Yes. I can see that.

 

[Marcibx]

It's not, just like CYOA Books are not games.
Having a different structure to just linear is just that, a different structure.
Sure that structure has been available only together with the interactivity that comes with computers.

Let's agree to disagree. CYOA Books are already in the grey area (sure, clearly closer to one than the other). But then if CYOA is not a game, is DnD a game? (Spoiler alert: yes, it is) It is basically CYOA with the random element of dice. Is that where the line is drawn? It is really hard to say, hence it is a grey area.

Also, when it is really just the same content in different structure, than that is almost a kinetic novel, since all the decisions are false. I was talking about visual novels when choosing one thing means not getting the alternative, thus actually altering the content of your - well, for lack of a better word - gameplay.

But again interactivity is not a game, just like reading a website and clicking links is not a game.

Again, not completely true. Nowadays companies try to gamify everything and everything can be a game. For example, Duolingo made a learning languages a game and I am pretty sure that many students would say that learning languages cannot be a game.

Also, simulation games basically simulate some aspect of our lives and gamify that. And I am not talking only about "walking simulators". For example, pc building is not a game in itself, but the pc building simulator is. Same applies to "reading a website and clicking links". It is not a game in itself, but could be made into one. (Again, it is only a matter of perception, that is why for small children clicking links - or just clicking - can be a game.)

And yes, I am stretching things a lot here, but I don't claim that these are video games exactly to the same degree like Assassins Creed, rather just want to demonstrate how grey this area is.

 

[DuniX]

CYOA is not a game, is DnD a game?

How is that even remotely similar?

It is basically CYOA with the random element of dice.

DnD has Game Rules and an arbiter of those rules, the GM.

I was talking about visual novels when choosing one thing means not getting the alternative, thus actually altering the content of your - well, for lack of a better word - gameplay.

Yes it's called having a non-linear structure, non-linear content.
But gameplay is something fucking else.

Again, not completely true. Nowadays companies try to gamify everything and everything can be a game.

This whole thread you are interacting with me is not a fucking game.
Ruining lives by engaging with twitter is not a fucking game.
Being Wrong on The Internet is Not a Game!!

rather just want to demonstrate how grey this area is.

The only grey area is when people stretched the definition of games that should not be stretched.
They should have called it something else since IT IS something else.
It fine if you use it in a colloquial way, but when we are talking about game design and game mechanics we cannot equate to with the colloquial definition.