Idle games are marked by their idle-ness: you don’t have to do much to play the game. All the game askes in terms of mechanics, is for the player to click. In both Cookie Clicker and Universal Paperclips, there is some necessary attention to upgrades to increase the rate of collection. Not only does the player have to pay attention to how fast they are clicking, but also, particularly in Universal Paperclips, the amount of wire needed to produce clips, auto clippers, price per clip, inventory, and computational resources. All of these aspects combine to increase the rate and cost of production. If there is not enough wire, then you cannot continue to make paperclips until you buy more. If players have to pay attention to all of these aspects, then how idle is this “idle” game?
This game became super addicting once I got the hang of it. I did not know why I couldn’t make any more paperclips, and it was because I had run out of wire. That is when the shift from “idle” began. I did not know what was the problem, as I was not presented with an explanation or instructions going in. The further you get into the game, the more economic it gets. That is to say, you eventually get the chance to invest in the stock market and can adjust the risk you are willing to take. I have little knowledge of the stock market but appreciate playing with fake money here. I am inclined to argue Universal Paperclips is less of an idle game and more of a market sim, as you play as the tycoon of a paperclip company, responsible for marketing, finances, and production.
Another question raised from this game is the basis used to categorize a game as idle. Is it the simple clicking mechanic? The gaming being able to run without player input? Clicking is not specific to idle games, and this particular game can only run on its own for so long. This game very much does not feel “idle.” Especially with the progression of upgrades, there is more and more the player must consider and pay attention to, making the overall experience more stressful.
I think you raised an important question in terms of idle games as a genre: who gets to decide the idleness? Players could totally feel not “idle” when playing Universal Paperclips if they choose to optimize their strategies and keep up the pace with the popping-up upgrades in the game. Yet one could also simply buy some clip-makers and check the updates once two days and say that Universal Paperclips is an idle game. In my opinion, the word “idle” has nothing to do with the speed of the player playing the game. It simply represents a property of the game that is: the game as well as its networked infrastructure is always “on” and progressing even if you are not making any actions.
I really enjoyed the points you bring up in your post. The truth is idle games are never idle when I play them. I’m never able to reach the end of these games and, as such, never really leave them alone. Obviously auto clickers make these games “idle,” but what good are auto clickers when all you do is use them to buy more auto clickers?
I think a key feature of idleness in idle games, as Grandrio brought up in their comment, is that idleness is available as an option for the player if they should so choose. Yes, sure, there are things you can do if you want, but you don’t have to. In fact, you could theoretically do nothing and win. In my Retro Review this week (yeah sorry this is gonna be one of those comments where I talk about the thing I am interested and largely ignore the larger discussion), I covered Desert Bus, a game which checks a bunch of idle game boxes — repetitive mechanics, a simple unchanging goal, slow and steady progress — but didn’t feel like an idle game at all. Why? In Desert Bus, if you stop driving the bus for like ten seconds, it breaks down and you automatically lose. Your attention is constantly demanded. There’s a lot of idleness, but you can never fully disengage. That experience has made me inclined to say that idle games are required to be abandonable.