and sure, many "video games" also have a start and end, but they don't have to. just like many things that we have no better term for than "video games" also don't have a definite objective.

i also dislike the term "video" in "video games" because to me "video" is an entirely different artform, one that's primarily linear and has a start and end like music does.

it feels unfortunate that an entire artistic medium--especially one that's become so important culturally, and has contributed so much to the development of art in general--has a name that defines it in terms of a different one.

which is certainly true if a game is defined as something you can win or lose, or something that has an objective. and it's true of vrchat as well.

this is something i think about a lot, actually; how much i wish there was a better term than "video games" to describe interactive virtual worlds/experiences, since not all of them are "games" per se, & they're only "video" in the sense that their primary (but not only!) output is moving pictures.

everytime i hear someone describe vrchat as a "game" or say something like "playing vrchat" it feels a bit weird to me. i wasn't on second life a lot, but i remember they always made a point of saying that SL isn't a "game"