You could probably make a poptarts are sandwiches alignment style thing out of this.
Basically, any video game with an explicit goal, or set of goals is just a puzzle game with extra steps.
What buttons do you push, when do you push them, what does this accomplish, how does that lead you to your end goal, etc.
You could even argue that multiplayer tactics constitute a puzzle, a more social puzzle.
Yes, this is reductive, but this is a dumb showerthoughts post.
That was in my OP though, that most games can be thought of as puzzle games with extra steps.
This is quite interesting to me.
My main point of this post is to highlight how the genres and categories we have for games breaks down upon examination and I guess changes over time.
I would say that most people either have or would call Tetris basically the most popular puzzle game.
When it came out it was basically the titular, archetypal ‘puzzle’ game.
I think I see what’s happening here. There are some pure puzzle games that require no execution skills at all. In the opposite end of the spectrum you have games that are all about skill and execution with no puzzles included. I guess you could call them pure skill games to make the distinction clearer.
Most games appear to be a mixture of the two extremes, so they sit somewhere on this spectrum. In order to win, you have to know what to do and execute your plan well enough. I wouldn’t call them pure puzzle games, but they do have some puzzle elements in them. If the puzzle aspects are central to the gameplay experience, it could make sense to categorize them as puzzle games of some sort, even if execution and skills matter to some extent.
I just don’t get where you’re getting “most games” from. If you would have phrased it like “many games can be viewed as puzzle games if you really think about it” you would have maybe had more people agree with you.
I understand your reductive approach - it’s just that there are so many games it doesn’t apply to that I can never agree with “most games”.