No, and it's a silly argument.
I've seen this argument a lot over the years for a lot of different types of games. Here are some examples:
______ isn't a game because it doesn't have graphics (text adventures).
______ isn't a game because it doesn't have levels/maps/level design.
______ isn't a game because it doesn't have shooting (puzzle games).
______ isn't a game because there are no puzzles or shooting (walking simulators).
In the end, this always boils down to "_______ games aren't games because I personally don't enjoy them", but whether or not any one individual enjoys a particular type of game isn't what makes it a game or not. Hell, even if you want to get semantic if you do -something- to influence images on a screen (even if those images are just of words), then it's a video game, by definition. Different types of video games are designed to appeal to different types of experiences. "Walking simulators" that don't have puzzle elements are still interactive. I decide when and where I go. Granted, there may be only one path that progresses the game but I have control over when that happens. If I want to screw around and walk around in circles for an hour without progressing the game, I can because I have agency just like you can choose to drive a scooter around town for hours in GTA5 instead of participating in any of the activities the game has to offer. Even if there's no "failure condition" and the story path is ultimately completely linear, exploration is still an element of gameplay (and a big one in open world games like Skyrim or Witcher). You can argue that a game have limited or virtually non-existent gameplay, but it's still a game.
Our definition of what a game is should be something that we are willing to expand, not something we should be restricting based on notions like "but it's not like the games I have played before" because that antithetical to innovation. It astonishes me how many of the gamers complain about how every new AAA game is only incrementally different from the 20 installments in the series that came before it are often the same gamers who complain when indie companies come out with titles like "Superhot", "Papers, Please", "Firewatch", "VA-11 HALL-A Cyberpunk Bartender", or "Recettear: An Item Shop's Tale".
You don't have to like every game that comes out. Hell, I don't like every type of game that comes out. There are entire genres I have no interest in (visual novels, for instance, have little to no appeal for me with only very rare exceptions) but for every indie dev who has success trying something different, even if it's something that you hate, that emboldens more indie devs to try more different approaches to game design and guess what? You might like the -next- thing that some new developer tries.
Or, we can crap on every indie dev that does something outside of some arbitrary, narrow, predetermined definition of what we think a game -should- be. But if you do that, don't come crying to me when you are sick of playing Call of Duty XXXXXXXXVIII.
-Byshop
Log in to comment