To paraphrase what Frob said, the purpose(s) of a game is whatever you want it to be. Of course, whether your game fulfills those purposes is another question.

People don't really ask about the purpose of books, poetry or film. If they do, they probably are questioning the meaning of life itself. But the fact that people regularly ask this question about games points to deep underlying problems (or features?) within the industry. It points to the massive deficiencies in how game design and development are taught and talked about including the lack of critical analysis of games throughout the industry (including journalism). In fact, when it comes to criticizing certain games or types of games, we see massive push back from folks both within and outside the industry(eg. gamers, media, bloggers). There are lots of people out there that don't want people to look at games with a critical eye. Perhaps because if you dig too deep or peer behind the curtain you'll find Cthulhu (existential crisis).

We know there are all sorts of different types of games. Games can draw from so many different artistic disciplines.

Besides technical design, mechanics design, and art design, games often need sound and music design, narrative (both practical and beyond) and story telling. Games can ask the player to use tactics, strategize, manage resources, perform puzzle solving, exploration, simulation (games can strive to simulate all sorts of things). Each of these areas are worthy of deep study and have been written about extensively.

So to ask such a basic question re: imbuing purpose, shows just how informal game design is. Are most game designers really studying, learning and putting in the work to hone their craft? If I had to guess, I'd say most designers enter their field without adequate study or training. Historically this has been true because in the early days there was little in the way of formal training to be had. I think this is why many of the most critically acclaimed game designers of the past can best be regarded as being highly intuitive rather than well trained. Does that make most game designers hacks? Hmm... maybe. But hacks can make a lot of money too so there's that.

There are a lot of producers and designers who first and foremost, want to make games that are "fun" and dare I say, "addictive." I don't think it's unfair to say that their primary motivation is making as much money as possible. For these people, I think games are more product than art. Today, making games "fun" and addictive is a science that draws upon our understandings of human psychology and neurology. To me, the difference between manipulating someone and educating them is a matter of integrity. Does the teacher (politician, crazy billionaire, news anchor, etc) actually believe the things they want their audience to believe?

Quentin Tarantino is a skilled writer and director and his films tend to be very well constructed from a technical point of view. The characters and stories are well developed. The dialogue is engaging and often provocative and he makes good use of literary devices like foreshadowing and red herrings, but the themes and subject matter of his stories are very...umm.. primordial. But perhaps this is what makes his films so attractive to mainstream audiences.

Taylor Swift has made more money than 99.9% of musicians throughout history so if the $$$ metric is who you pray to, then that is your choice.

And I think its fair to say this is what most game publishers want... they want the technical excellence but they don't really care about the messages and vibes they are putting out there. But, communicating a message(s) can be a significant purpose of a game and aspiring game designers\developers need to know that messages are something that can lead and inform design rather than merely be tacked on after thoughts.

So a game can have multiple purposes including "meta-purposes." Whether you want to enter the Michael Bay school, the Tarantino school, the Kubrick school, some mixture or something entirely new... that's up to you.

Just thought I'd add that while some games seem to think they are going out of their way to avoid being perceived as political, offensive or controversial, they still have no problem promoting (or even depending upon) visceral violence, sexually suggestive character designs, conquest and power fantasies, greed, and other conservative (for lack of a better word) concepts.

Some of this stuff happens unconsciously due to individual or shared biases, some due to inertia (we did it because that's how it's always been done) and some because of actual intent.

EDIT:

To clarify, I'm saying that if you aren't thinking critically, your game will serve a purpose you may not have intended. The big money that is trying to make addictive games are definitely working with PURPOSE. I suspect whatever purpose(s) you choose, you'll be more likely to achieve your goal if you design every aspect of your game with those purposes in mind. Perhaps, designing purposefully is the takeaway.

Hypnotr0n said:
Just thought I'd add that while some games seem to think they are going out of their way to avoid being perceived as political, offensive or controversial, they still have no problem promoting (or even depending upon) visceral violence, sexually suggestive character designs, conquest and power fantasies, greed, and other conservative (for lack of a better word) concepts.

But what's bad about that?

A game which strives for political correctness on one hand, but is still a mass murder simulator on the other?

A game which is just a mass murder simulator with some strippers on the background?

A game which is about unicorns and fairies, which live in peace and harmony together and help each other out whenever they can?

Imo, it's only the first category which may have some issues, attempting to solve a problem which never existed.
For me the purpose of a video game is quite simple: I want some experience which differs from daily and repetitive real life. And i want some fun. For some reason, shooting everybody down is fun.

Do we need to know about the reason? Study it, make a science out of game design, answering the though question: Why is it fun to kill? Will doing so make us better at designing games?

I'm pretty sure that's a no. The guy which just makes the game he feels is fun will beat the other guy with a PhD in psychology and a degree in game design.

Hypnotr0n said:
And I think its fair to say this is what most game publishers want... they want the technical excellence but they don't really care about the messages and vibes they are putting out there.

Maybe they should not care about a message, since that's not what video games are good for. We are no rock stars, no story tellers, no true artists, no intellectuals to inspire society. At least i have not seen it.
Admitting this, instead pretending we would be, might bring us faster to the eventual goal of becoming an art form.

JoeJ said:

For me the purpose of a video game is quite simple: I want some experience which differs from daily and repetitive real life. And i want some fun. For some reason, shooting everybody down is fun.

…

Maybe they should not care about a message, since that's not what video games are good for. We are no rock stars, no story tellers, no true artists, no intellectuals to inspire society. At least i have not seen it.

I don't think you're describing the purpose of games. As I and others have said, the purpose(s) is whatever you (the designer) want it to be. Seems to me you're just describing game attributes you personally happen to like and what you personally want to get out of a gaming session. Well, there's lots of people like you so you don't have to worry about the big money not making games for you.

I'm not saying every game has a purposeful message, but many games that ostensibly have no message actually wind up reinforcing or perpetuating certain ideas and concepts such as what is desirable, what is beautiful, what is normal, etc. and too often they end up being IMO unoriginal and uninspiring homogeneous time wasters.

But push-back like yours (but at least your was not mean) is what we see whenever people criticize the status quo. There's no need for people to feel threatened when others give a negative critique of their favorite game or when others suggest designers be more aware and in touch with the games they are making. There's enough room within the industry to support all types of game designs. And again, there will always be a ton of studios and publishers catering to gamers with conventional or traditional tastes and expectations.

I'm not telling anyone what types of purpose or messages their games should have. I'm simply advocating that people design with purpose and in doing so they may understand their own design more completely (because they will be forced to actually think about it holistically), which dramatically increases the odds that they are successful in achieving their design goals.

Hypnotr0n said:
I don't think you're describing the purpose of games. As I and others have said, the purpose(s) is whatever you (the designer) want it to be.

No. The designer can not dictate a purpose to players. Each player individually decides for himself if and what the purpose of some game is to him.

Say you invent a new tool. It's a piece of metal attached to a wooden stick.
And you claim “The purpose of this tool is crush hostile blue hedgehogs invading your garden. That's what it's good for."

And the tool becomes a hit. Everybody buys one.
But they do not use it to kill animals. Everybody uses it to push nails into pranks of wood to connect them. They like it this way, and build lots of houses, even tiny houses in the gardens to give hedgehogs a cozy home.

What do you do then with your intended purpose, which you thought only you could decide?

I mean, sorry for not taking the thread serious. Maybe some people think hard about the ‘purpose’ of video games. I don't. There are enough related topics which are hard for real.

Well, you are using language like “dictate” and “which you thought only you could decide” which is a big distortion of what I'm talking about.

I don't know what the point of your argument is. Someone builds a truck so that people can fill the back with stuff and take it somewhere. So what if someone finds an alternate use for it? Someone had to design the truck with some set of purposes in mind. Over time future designs are modified to take into account those alternative uses. Is a bus not purposely designed to carry a lot of people? Maybe commuters should just be loaded into the back of a tractor trailer. Brilliant.

There's nothing rigid or inflexible about what I'm talking about.

I'm not even talking about some single overarching “purpose of video games." To repeat, there are infinite purposes. I'm saying that a designer should be mindful of the “purposes” they've chosen and are designing towards and use that to inform all aspects of the design. As far as I'm concerned every designer already does this but to varying degrees, consciously or subconsciously. I think being more conscious of this fact will serve designers better.

Finally, just because you don't find this topic interesting doesn't mean others don't. I don't think it's cool for people to push-back (borderline peer pressure) on a topic just because they consider other topics “hard for real.” You don't think people should talk about this? You had to stoop down from your mighty tower to come here and post that? Where does that even come from? You don't think game design is hard? Whatever. It's hard to take that attitude seriously.

Games are puzzles. Players want to feel smart.

Hypnotr0n said:
Well, you are using language like “dictate” and “which you thought only you could decide” which is a big distortion of what I'm talking about.

Hypnotr0n said:
As I and others have said, the purpose(s) is whatever you (the designer) want it to be.

This (2nd quote) implies the game designer decides about the purpose, which the consumers have to adopt.
In case the consumers disagree, that's dictatorship.

I may be sarcastic or exaggerating, but this does not mean i do not understand what you talk about.

Hypnotr0n said:
There's nothing rigid or inflexible about what I'm talking about.

By stepping back and saying ‘games (are so wonderful, important and essential,) they can actually have MULTIPLE purposes, which evolve over time!’, you contradict yourself on the quote above - telling the purpose is what the designer wants it to be - since the designer at the moment of creation does not know about future ‘purposes’. If the future, or other people come up with new or additional purposes, it is not guaranteed the designer actually wants or likes them.
In other words: First you say purpose can be designed, then you say purpose can go anywhere and be anything.

…it's a discussion about the ingredients of a nothing-burger, just as promised by the thread title.
Gives us an opportunity to talk some bullshit, which is fun, but that's really all about it.
I mean, you started to put quotes about ‘purpose' yourself, which confirms we both argue about an imaginary topic, but we just continue the rhetorical competition for amusement.

Hypnotr0n said:
I think being more conscious of this fact will serve designers better.

Or it will distract them even more from the primary goal: Make an interactive experience which is fun enough so people prefer it over alternatives, such as watching a movie or scrolling tiktok.
‘Purpose’ does not matter at all to get there.

Game can be all kinds of things. Some games are puzzles and some contain puzzles.

Some puzzles can be mastered and players can derive satisfaction from having mastered them. I can see why you would say this though. If monster X does A, then player Y does B. Discover all the monster actions and counters and rinse and repeat until success.

Some games cannot be mastered or “solved” per se. In such games, perhaps a player can achieve some sort of “grand master” status.

taby said:
Games are puzzles. Players want to feel smart.

Other may want to feel strong, or badass, or hot, or some other primal desires.

If so, our job is simply to give to people what the people want.
But what people really want is not necessarily good, politically correct, social or ethical.

Thus, telling no message is the best strategy to us, providing the least opportunity to attack us for serving primal desires.

But ofc. this was much easier back then, when only some minority of computer nerd kids played video games. Nowadays everybody plays games, the medium gets more attention and has more responsibility. The industry reacts with making every game conformal to everybody and anything. Which ofc. ends up in boredom and contradicts an initial goal to serve primal desires.