tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9319479.post1558388808746749449..comments2024-03-07T15:32:53.014+02:00Comments on Yehuda: Do Games Matter?Yehuda Berlingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16038826060312027387noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9319479.post-88344609818052474942008-02-09T18:50:00.000+02:002008-02-09T18:50:00.000+02:00MadPuzzler,"Game" may have been used for thousands...MadPuzzler,<BR/><BR/>"Game" may have been used for thousands of years, but it is one of many that nobody agrees with.<BR/><BR/>Open up ten dictionaries and look. Open up ten books on games: Chris Crawford, Raph Koster, Bernie Dekoven, and any others, and look.<BR/><BR/>Some people think that actual war really falls under the definition of game. Some call puzzles game, or parlor games with no goals or challenges games. Some call any interactive activity a game. Some call life a game.<BR/><BR/>Many people have tried to set the definition for game, and a whole of them are "right", in that they make good definitions which include what they want and exclude what they want. But there is no single correct definition: everyone will shape to include what they want and exclude what they want.<BR/><BR/>That's why talking about X and defining it exactly is more useful then talking about games, because people won't spend the time arguing about how you're wrong or right in your definition, when what you really want to talk about is the psychology of a certain activity and couldn't care less what the definition of games is.<BR/><BR/>YehudaYehuda Berlingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16038826060312027387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9319479.post-65479521143720626562008-02-08T23:34:00.000+02:002008-02-08T23:34:00.000+02:00But words are cultural, historical, malleable. By ...<I>But words are cultural, historical, malleable. By my providing a definition for games, I'm simply highlighting an aspect of certain activities. Whether or not you agree with including or excluding the aspect from one category or another is not the point.</I><BR/><BR/>The entire article hinges upon your opinion that a certain aspect should or should not be included. Suggesting a redefinition (or even a refining of that definition) of a word that has been in use for over a thousand years deserves at least some critical thought to whether it is justified. <BR/><BR/><I>In truth, my job would be easier if I simply said "X are activities that include a, b, and c, while Y are activities that include b, c, and d", leaving the word "game" out of it entirely.</I><BR/><BR/>It would certainly be easier, but not useful (and therefore not used). The word �game� is a way to communicate a logical grouping of things. Words to classify specific, unrelated groups of objects (other than the logical concept of a grouping of such items) do not exist because people think only in terms of groups that have logical relationships.<BR/><BR/><I>As to your point, you are highlighting an interesting aspect: activities in which the participants will adhere to the rules voluntarily, and activities in which they won't if they can get away with it. Whether or not one of these sides falls into the game category is an interesting discussion. Just witness the Tour De France, or any game of Monopoly ever played.</I><BR/><BR/>The point is not that a defined �game� requires people to follow the rules, but that it requires them to agree on what the rules are. A game in which players cheat is, of course, still a game, just not an honest one. A game in which players do not agree on what those rules are is not a game at all.<BR/><BR/>The chess example given in your article illustrates how games do not have direct real-world consequences, but it is quite possible to come up with examples that do. Few such activities exist in the real world, however, because of the quite reasonable preference by gameplayers that their games not require them to accept such consequences.MadPuzzlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12078292440356310940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9319479.post-80174165237387668422008-01-24T14:23:00.000+02:002008-01-24T14:23:00.000+02:00In a game, the actions taken within the game are n...<I>In a game, the actions taken within the game are not directly consequential to achieving any real-world goal.</I> <BR/><BR/>The actions taken within a game can be directly consequential to <I>winning</I> the game. This may not be important in all games, and may not be important for all players of games, but it certainly is true for some people some of the time.Fraserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09062395288187308895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9319479.post-17639166907784664162008-01-19T03:16:00.000+02:002008-01-19T03:16:00.000+02:00You need to read Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card....You need to read Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card. All your questions about what is a game will be answered...or will they? Anyway, it's a very good book and discusses as fiction, the exact points you bring up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9319479.post-30680657420582162122008-01-18T08:32:00.000+02:002008-01-18T08:32:00.000+02:00MadPuzzler:The trouble with defining any aspect of...MadPuzzler:<BR/><BR/>The trouble with defining any aspect of "game" (or anything else for that matter) is that everyone already knows what the definition is and therefore tries to find working that matches it.<BR/><BR/>For instance, you already "know" that gladiator games are games; therefore, if you hear a definition that includes them, it's fine, and if you don't, you have to disagree with the definition and find some way of stating why.<BR/><BR/>My entire post is the same thing. I don't like definitions of games that include war, so I propose a way to distinguish between what I believe are games and not games.<BR/><BR/>But words are cultural, historical, malleable. By my providing a definition for games, I'm simply highlighting an aspect of certain activities. Whether or not you agree with including or excluding the aspect from one category or another is not the point.<BR/><BR/>In truth, my job would be easier if I simply said "X are activities that include a, b, and c, while Y are activities that include b, c, and d", leaving the word "game" out of it entirely.<BR/><BR/>As to your point, you are highlighting an interesting aspect: activities in which the participants will adhere to the rules voluntarily, and activities in which they won't if they can get away with it. Whether or not one of these sides falls into the game category is an interesting discussion. Just witness the Tour De France, or any game of Monopoly ever played.<BR/><BR/>YehudaYehuda Berlingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16038826060312027387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9319479.post-38143500678666289662008-01-15T06:33:00.000+02:002008-01-15T06:33:00.000+02:00Nice article, Yehuda.Nice article, Yehuda.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9319479.post-10782767387434177212008-01-14T20:57:00.000+02:002008-01-14T20:57:00.000+02:00I read your post and initially nodded my head in a...I read your post and initially nodded my head in agreement, but now that I've given it more thought I have to reconsider. IMO, games are games by dint of have an agreed-upon and observed ruleset regardless of the stakes involved. <BR/>What makes your point generally true in practice is that people who have something really important at stake aren't going to abide by a rules construct if they don't have to. War is not a game because while some might argue that in theory there is a set of rules (the Geneva Convention), participants often will not adhere to those rules because the stakes are so high. By counterexample, Roman gladiatorial games *are* games because even though the stakes may be life and death, there is an outside authority which does not allow the rules to be countervened or ignored.MadPuzzlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12078292440356310940noreply@blogger.com