What is considered a standalone game?

[Farscape]

Recently I started to write the name of the games which I've completed. But I've found it hard to classify what exactly should be considered a 'game'. While it may be easy for some - 'Duh, if it has an .exe and doesn't need anything else besides itself it's a game', I'm not satisfied with that and want to see what else people think. Try doing a list and see it's not that easy.

For instance look at Warcraft 3. Sure The Frozen Throne is an expansion but it actually has enough elements to be considered a different game. A whole new campaing, new menu, updated gameplay elements etc. And while it's considered just an expansion, look at the CoD seriers. Some CoD games have so little new things than the previous that they're closer to being just an expansion than WC3: TFT. Both have different .exe's but one need the previous game and the other does not. The same can be said for Command & Conquer: Generals and it's expansion Zero Hour. The latter even has more gameplay hours than the original.

Then you have some Warhammer expansions which are standalone, which blurs the line even more. When you ask someone 'Did you play Wacraft 3?' the typical answer will be 'Which one?'. You don't get that answer when you ask someone 'Did you play Skyrim?'. No one will ask which Skyrim did you play like Skyrim: Dragonborn or Skyrim: Dawnguard etc. it's just Skyrim. In essence there's a big difference between WC3 and it's expansion and Skyrim and it's DLC's. That's why I consider WC3: TFT a different game although it needs RoC to be functional.

And then there's the naming part. How you will name or acknowledge that you played WC3: TFT? In the case of Skyrim it's easy. You just write The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. The DLC's are implied. I don't think that the expansion of WC3 is implied the same way. Like if you write WarCraft 3: Reign of Chaos, it's not implied that you have played The Frozen Throne.

What do you think? Am I overthinking here or there's a legit discussion? I personally came to the conslusion that if it has an .exe then it's a different game no matter if it needs the previous.

[mimizukari]

A standalone game has to be able to be ran without any base game, for example, TFT is not standalone because it requires WC3:ROC.

[IdanS]

interesting.

[cinedine]

I don't know anyone who would say "which one" if asked whether they played Warcraft 3, Starcraft II or Diablo 3 (which is like a totally different game on console).

Why do you even care about a definition and what random internet users think about it? The list is for you. If you feel the expansion is worth mentioning on its own - do so.
Depending on your games you will hit other definition issues pretty soon. How do you "play through" a game like Goat Simulator, Civilisation or DOTA?

[Space Coward]

Standalone is a technical term, it needs to run 100% independently from the original (even if it's almost identical). For example, Dawn of War 2: The Last Standalone... is a standalone. Both of the Half-Life 2 expansions and Team Fortress 2 are also standalones, whereas the original Counter Strike was more or less a mod/expansion.

Also, don't hop on the CoD hate train; they often do add a lot of content that they don't get credit for, especially in terms of single player content.

[Farscape]

Originally posted by cinedine:

I don't know anyone who would say "which one" if asked whether they played Warcraft 3, Starcraft II or Diablo 3 (which is like a totally different game on console).

Why do you even care about a definition and what random internet users think about it? The list is for you. If you feel the expansion is worth mentioning on its own - do so.
Depending on your games you will hit other definition issues pretty soon. How do you "play through" a game like Goat Simulator, Civilisation or DOTA?

Well what would they say? I think it's a legit answer which I've gotten. And you see in order to play TFT you need first to exit RoC whereas if you play Diablo II you don't need to exit the base game and it's all seamless. Again what do you think of the campaing of Starcraft 2 for example?

Well I care enough to post the question.. and I'm looking for opinions.
I don't plan on including such game as DotA because they're infinite basically, ever changing.

[Farscape]

Originally posted by Moss:

Standalone is a technical term, it needs to run 100% independently from the original (even if it's almost identical). For example, Dawn of War 2: The Last Standalone... is a standalone. Both of the Half-Life 2 expansions and Team Fortress 2 are also standalones, whereas the original Counter Strike was more or less a mod/expansion.

Also, don't hop on the CoD hate train; they often do add a lot of content that they don't get credit for, especially in terms of single player content.

I know it's a technical term and as far as the average or casual gamer is concerned that's what separetes games. I'm looking to include other factors in the equation such as do you have to exit the game and enter another .exe, does the expansion has more playtime than the original, does it 'feel' like a expansion or has enough new stuff the be considered separate.

Also I don't hop on the hate train. CoD has new campaing mission but very little improvement gameplay wise, just as RoC and TFT. TFT also has new campaing missions and little gameplay improvement..

[FPS]

How can someone finish WC3 and not FT? IHeresy!

Seriously though, there are countless other borderline cases of addons that are like separate games and games that are like addons, so it's up to your interpretation. There can be no right or wrong choicehere. If you want more titles in your list, include all the addons. If you want it to be smaller and easier to read, include only separate games (or even better, games series)