hmmm… the link in the sig is dead, so maybe this is a serious question, no spam? ; )

Then i would say board games for example may use no algorithms but just some rules, eventually defining options by logic and math. But the players very likely use logic and optimization to win, which could be seen as a form of algorithms.
Computer games without algorithms can not exist, because that's all computers can do.

But maybe that's just me and there is another way to look at it…

Saurabh Torne said:
Lets say there are two abstracts totally different in parameters, the only common still is that they are abstract objects. so we could build up an algorithm out of it, considering they are group of abstract objects even if its a few steps. So they have one thing in common, they are a group of abstract objects ? As soon as we group them, they got one algorithm that relates them to each other.

What is an abstract / object, and for what do we have parameters? I lack context, so i don't know what you mean.
But most importantly: Where are you heading? What's your expected outcome of discussing the question?

The problem is, even a simple add CPU instruction uses an algorithm in hardware to implement the math. So we can always claim computer programs and games can't avoid to use algorithms. That's why i wasn't sure if the question is even serious.

Instead, we could eventually ask: What's the game with the least use of algorithms? Is there some advantage from minimizing algorithms, or avoiding complex ones but preferring simplicity. Do such games eventually feel more natural or accessible? How does it compare to games with high algorithmic complexity? Maybe that brings us to visual novel vs. real time strategy, for example.

We input data to be processed for an output. An algorithm is a process, a set of rules. Games are filled with sets of rules that constraint the user input data in order to produce an output in a very entertaining way. So my answer is it's not possible.

mychii said:
So my answer is it's not possible.

Yeah, but if we are not that pedantic on terms, it becomes. If a visual novel is just a branching story, so a decision tree, i would agree with saying that's just static data, and no fancy algorithm is needed to react to the decisions of the player. Though, i'm not sure if we can call this a game at all. Do we ‘play’ a visual novel, or do we just ‘read and watch’ it?

But i have a better example: Machine learning. It's based on algorithms ofc., but the outcome is some network or model which is not manually coded from programmers.
Now imagine ML researchers are done with the challenge of having ML playing Atari games. And their next step is to make ML which generates new Atari games from what it has learned by playing them.
That's possible maybe. Oh, i just remember, I think there already is stuff from ML generated PacMan. Yes, there it is:

So maybe that's PacMan without ‘algorithms’, at least in a classical sense.

hehehe…

1980: People play PacMan with tiny 8 bit chip and 2kb RAM.

2023: People pay premium for 100 teraflop data center GPU, and barely can play PacMan.

\;D/

Thaumaturge said:
After all, the fundamental, differentiating feature of the video-game medium is interactivity. And what more elemental form of interaction is there than the choice, the selection from amongst a set of options?

Agreed, but personally my expectations on video games are a bit more complicated and refined.

I never really played a visual novel because of those expectations, but i assume it's usually a branching, predefined story. The tree of decisions is static. Here and there, the player can choose one option out of a static, predefined set.
Because this set is predefined, i feel fooled. Just as much, i could write a book, and at some point the text is: ‘What do you do? To shoot the thief, continue reading on page 23. To give him your wallet, continue on page 104.’
So i think i could implement most visual stories as a book this way. It follows that the players options are actually an illusion, no real choices.

Contrary, when playing PacMan, i can make choices in every moment. I can go up, down, left or right. I can do what i want, whenever i want. And the game responds accordingly.
That's true options, so that's a true video game to me, while the visual novel is not.

That's no disrespect against visual novels. Actually one of the most inspiring genres to me is point and click adventures. And this genre is highly interesting regarding those arguments.
When i played Zak McCracken as a kid, i was blown away. Because i thought in this game i can do anything, and i can go anywhere. It felt lightyears ahead of PacMan.
But interestingly this impression is not true if we look close. There are no true options at all. It's not even a decision tree, but just a static path which we need to find out. So this genre is the master in fooling me with illusions.

My conclusion is that we likely want both of those things. True options and interactivity, but within an interesting story, which can only be static for now.
But that's very difficult. Looking at modern games they do just that, but the two camps do not merge well. One of them always feels bolt on, or interrupts the other.
I think that's our key problem. It's easy to demonstrate interactivity using computers, but technological progress only makes it harder to get it right.

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