-snip-
You clearly have never considered the definition of a game.
I've thought a long time about it. I've read academic papers on the subject by people with PHDs, and I can easily argue why Walking Simulators are games, why Sim City is a game, why Visual Novels are games. Then I can go into much more older games such as Naughts and Crosses, Poker, and even Chess, and argue why they are all indeed games.
But Snakes and Ladders doesn't fit in with it. Because as I said before, to call it a game, you would have to call a lot of other things a game which are not.
I don't always get my words out right, so you'll have to bear with me, and actually use that brain of yours to come up with some suitable comebacks to your questions, rather than instantly going "AH HA! He left out one crucial detail! I've got him now... oh, he countered it easily. AH HA! He left out yet another crucial detail! I've got him now... oh, he countered it easily again." Seriously, it's annoying when people think they've won an argument by pointing out one teeny tiny slight flaw in your logic, just because they're incapable of figuring out what was clearly implied.
I'll try my best to spell everything out, but this isn't an academic paper, so like I said, you'll have to bear with me.
So let's first come up with a wide reaching definition that counters all of your arguments, and doesn't include Snakes and Ladders.
A game involves meaningful player agency, and includes either a win and/or fail state (this state does not need to be enforced by the game).So this doesn't include say, a stage play, since there's technically a "win" state, the end of the play, but no meaningful player agency. You can choose how to deliver the lines, but other than fudging them up, you can't really do anything. It does unfortunately include a purely improvised play, as a game, but then again it is, as that would basically be Dungeons and Dragons without the dice. (Also, it still includes open ended games like MMOs, as not only do they have fail states in that you can die, but most players make their own win state, so they usually have both states, despite only needing one to be a game)
It doesn't include Snakes and Ladders because even though there's a win state, you can't do anything meaningful other than how you roll the dice, which generally doesn't have any effect on the game.
So let's counter your points in turn.
You have meaningful choices in a Walking Simulator. In LSD Dream Emulator, you can choose what to see, and what not to see. What to run into and interact with. With The Stanley Parable you can choose which option to choose. Even with the most boring of Walking Simulators, you can usually choose to inspect something and truly explore and take in your surroundings. This is all meaningful. It's what the genre is about. The fact that you would even bring up Walking Simulators, makes me think that you don't get the genre. Also they all have win states. Usually getting to the end, even LSD Dream Emulator has a win state, to get to the end of a dream, or the bigger goal of the end of the year.
Taking turns is not a meaningful choice. It's something you HAVE to do.
Throwing dice is not a meaningful choice, it's something you HAVE to do. Like pressing the shoot button on an FPS or the forward button on a Walking Simulator (inspecting the environment isn't something you have to do, but something you're expected to do to enjoy a Walking Simulator).
Counting the pips is not a meaningful choice, it's something you HAVE to do.
Moving the piece the correct number of spaces is not a meaningful choice, it's something you HAVE to do.
Using mental strain to change the outcome is not a meaningful choice. It's the illusion of choice.
Roulette has a meaningful choice. Sure, it's completely random. But despite the odds, it's going to land on one of those numbers. You can make a meaningful (albeit completely uninformed) choice.
You're confusing an uninformed
nearly meaningless choice, with the complete lack of a choice. Choosing where to put your token on a roulette table isn't the equivalent to rolling the dice in Snake and Ladders. Spinning the roulette table is the equivalent to rolling the dice (you have to do it). There is no equivalent to choosing WHERE to put your token in roulette with Snake and Ladders because Snake and Ladders doesn't have any meaningful choices in it. But I suppose in theory, it could be argued that roulette isn't a game based on my definition. I'm not here to argue that though.
Yes, a computer could randomly click through everything in an adventure game. But in my example, I merely included what was considered good-design practices. Having something which clicks the entire screen for you on an adventure game, is neither a common nor good design practice. Having a boardgame video game automatically roll the dice for you when you can't do anything, and move you the correct number of places, is both a common and good design practice.
Having to manually roll the dice and move the piece on a boardgame video game, would be the equivalent of having to move the players limbs individually QWOP style on an adventure game to interact with everything.
To further add to this, if you have an adventure game click everything for you, you're not playing it. And a game must be played to be a game. If you made an adventure game click everything for you, it ceases to be a game for that person. To further prove this, we can play a game of Snakes and Ladders right now. Get out a board, since I'm not over there, you'll have to roll the dice and move my piece for me (I think that's fair). Now just get back to me when I need to do something or when one of us wins.
By the way, I can keep this up all day. There's a few people on this forum that will fight to the ends of the earth on what can only be called a petty subject. This is mine. I know what I'm talking about here. Heck, I even gave you my own personal definition for a game! One that I spent years perfecting! What do you have? A few gut feelings and a general ignorance on the whole subject?
Now you know why it grinds my gears!
Also, if you decide to continue to argue with me. Do me a favour and give me your definition of a game, so that I can point out all of the holes in it. Because I'm telling you, if you manage to make a definition of "game" that includes Snake and Ladders, you're going to have to include real-life scripted stage plays as a game, as well as DVD menus.
And then I'll get to laugh about how your definition is wrong.
(By the way, my definition doesn't include DVD menus as games, because choosing one of those options isn't a meaningful choice. If you want to play the movie, you HAVE to press the "Play Movie" button. There is no choice. When and how you do it, doesn't effect it, so long as you press the button. Unlike say, a game where you have to stop a stopwatch on exactly the 1-minute mark, as even though pressing the button isn't a meaningful choice, when you press it, is a meaningful choice.)
