JoeJ said:
That's true options, so that's a true video game to me, while the visual novel is not.

The thing is, I would argue that no video game offers such “true options”. In all cases you're constrained to the actions that the game prescribes for the current context.

If you're in a lockpicking minigame and you don't have a pick, you can't go an fetch an arbitrary piece of metal, or strip away a buckle from your belt for the purpose--you can only use those things that the game allows to be picks. If you're fighting, if the game doesn't specifically implement the option to kick sand at an opponent, you can't kick sand at an opponent.

You always have a limited set of options. It's just more visible in a visual novel.

And, speaking to personal definitions, to my mind I find that visual novels are intuitively of the same kind as other video games. It makes not sense to me to classify them as something else.

PS: Have you ever played Ultima VII? From your description, it seems to me that you might like it, as it goes quite far in making a variety of objects interactive and actions viable.

Oberon_Command said:
What definition of “algorithm” would allow a game that doesn't involve at least one algorithm?

I might go with something like: “A distinct pattern of the structure of a program.”

One might then envisage a simple program in which the player is asked to enter key-press responses to prompts--something like a visual novel, but all in text--and in which there is only ever branching, and all stages of the program involve bespoke code specific of that stage.

The trick, of course, is that even listening for a key-press likely involves some sort of algorithm, so even that may not qualify…

Oberon_Command said:
A giant if-else tree is still a distinct pattern in the program's structure, though.

Eh, not if there's no structure to the tree, I would argue.

One might argue that the “if-else” commands are themselves structure, a pattern, but to my mind they're too fundamental to count here: they're pieces from which a pattern might be made. There is a pattern to them, but they're not an algorithm in and of themselves.

Oberon_Command said:
That is indeed my argument.

To my mind, such is a little like calling the pieces or squares in a boardgame “algorithms”--they clearly have a pattern to them, but to my mind they're too fundamental to include here.

But I will admit that I'm uncertain. It's something that for me would call for some rumination, I feel.

Oberon_Command said:
My own answer to this …

That's a fair answer.

I do think that this question comes down to various specific definitions of the word “algorithm”, and thus is going to have a variety of different answers.

JoeJ said:
This ignores my saying ‘i can do what i want in any moment’. Even if i can only go into one of 4 directions, i can do it anytime. That's important. Basically i talk about realtime simulation. That's present in action games, but not in visual novels, where everything - including time - is quantized.

Ah, okay--I did miss that bit.

But then... by that definition turn-based games aren't “true video-games”…

JoeJ said:
This however is a matter of personal preferences, expectations, and subjective.

Yup, and that's very fair!

I've just too often seen visual novels decried as “not real games”, and thus as something not worth keeping alongside “real games”.

JoeJ said:
While i wanted basically something else: Reality simulation. Claiming that's what games should try to be.

Interesting. Have you looked at immersive sims? Those seem to hew most closely to what you want, I think.

I will disagree that games should try to be like that. I like immersive sims--but I also like other types of game, and I wouldn't want those to cease being made.

What I want is variety in the medium: for there to be immersive sims, and turn-based RPGs, and visual novels, and, well, lots of other things!

JoeJ said:
So i'm convinced true options are possible, and richer simulations are the way to achieve them. This ranges from better physics up to better AI. There are still things in front of us… :D

Hmm… Maybe. I'm dubious, but I won't gainsay attempts to achieve it, not call it impossible!

JoeJ said:
No. I try to understand RPGs recently, but so far i fail on it. They pretend rich simulation, but it's abstractions, smoke and mirrors, games of numbers and stats. Too much pen and paper game, too less video game. That's not the stuff a reality simulation fan really wants to see ; )

Okay, then I reiterate my suggestion that you try Ultima VII. It's light on numbers, and heavy on interaction with the world.

(Indeed, I'd call it a proto-immersive-sim rather than an RPG, myself.)

(Caveat: Do also expect some jankiness, as it is an old game, and quite clunky by modern standards.)

Oberon_Command said:
But “algorithm” is a pretty well-defined term (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm#Informal_definition), so I don't think there's much of a question to be had here.

I mean, that's an informal definition, and thus not absolute at all. So I would still say that there's space for interpretation.

Oberon_Command said:
The term I find unclear in this thread, though, is “non-algorithmic.” Does that mean that the game involves no algorithms at all? Does that mean that the game can involve algorithms, but the gameplay is sufficiently unstructured that it doesn't count as an algorithm?

That's fair, and may be a more useful avenue of argument than our arguing about the definition of the term “algorithm”!

The approach that I've been using is that a game is “non-algorithmic” if there's no pattern to its functioning--for example, if all code in it is bespoke to that moment in execution, with no repetition of an approach to any piece of functioning. As soon as there's a repeating pattern--say, a dialogue box that is reused and that pops up in a repeating fashion--there's an algorithm at play, and the game no longer counts.

I'm reminded, by the way, of the idea of “the tropeless tale”--a story that lacks any tropes (under the TV Tropes definition of the term “trope”). Not only the question of whether it's possible (dubious), but also of whether it would be desirable (likewise).

Oberon_Command said:
“Informal” in this context does not mean “subjective” or “fuzzy.”

No, but it does mean “not rigorous”, thus making it not an absolute definition.

Oberon_Command said:
And Wiki goes on to provide a formal definition immediately afterward.

Okay, fair

Oberon_Command said:
Again, this is not the definition of “algorithm” that a computer scientist would use.

I mean, I studied computer science myself, so apparently it is. :P

(Okay, okay, I've been away from academia for some time now, so I'm not sure that I'd still call myself a “computer scientist” these days.)

Oberon_Command said:
The dictionary definition here is “a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or problem solving.”

I wouldn't call an unstructured “if-else” tree a “set of rules”--to my mind that implies more structure, an underlying logic. A “process”? Maybe. But then, as you say, all programs must be algorithms, to a degree that I feel stretches the term a bit beyond its spirit.

If I walk an arbitrary number of steps, in arbitrary directions, a process of actions has occurred. But I wouldn't call that an algorithm. Conversely, if I step according to some pattern--perhaps in a dance--that I would call an algorithm.