Philosophical essay on games

[Dane S]

Thought it might be interesting to get some responses to it here.

Why I Like Games - Dane Schneider

The reason I'm so interested in games is that I believe every aspect of life, including life itself, to be at its essence a game... so what else is there to be interested in, really? Remaining categories are subcategories.

An activity, or a series of actions, must include three basic components in order to qualify as a game:

1.) One or more rules (such as hit a small white ball into a small dark hole, punch some guy until he falls down for 10 seconds, kill people who live in a certain country until the survivors allow you to be in charge of that country, stay alive, reproduce, etc.).

2.) Must be fulfilling in some way (accomplished through a.) learning something or b.) fulfilling a desire, such as pleasure or social involvement or increased social standing).

3.) Experience within game is fundamentally unimportant when viewed from outside the realm of the game. Game acts are only important within game context. It is possible that the game will serve a teaching or status-based function which could be considered important, but the importance is ascribed in how the gained knowledge or status will be applied OUTSIDE of the game, relegating the game reality itself to a comparatively trivial classification.

Humanity has long been tormented by the monumental quest to discover validation and importance in our experience. Why do we demand these? Why seek the monumental? We are perfectly happy to play baseball or hopscotch or minesweeper though we know these activities lack any special importance--it doesn't lessen our enjoyment (perhaps it's even increased). Why not approach life similarly: we are here in some capacity, perceiving, with desires and a seeming ability to act, with no apparent external justification; why not discover ourselves to have been placed in the midst of Life, an all-encompassing game, and respond accordingly (by fulfilling desires, learning what can be learned, having a good time, whatever that means)?

Strangely enough, such a shift doesn't lessen or threaten life's meaning. Importance is an externally applied characteristic, while meaning is sought and discovered within. When we question our lives' importances, we seem to imagine a distant, ever-judging observer or a set of rigid standards that have very little to do with who we are as individuals and against which we must measure ourselves constantly. It's the authoritarian nod, the social thumbs up sign, or God as the great arbiter--and yet all are delusions. We think of them as existing independently, outside of our thoughts and perceptions, when they couldn't belong to the psyche more fully. We convince ourselves that they exist objectively, then suffer their various inquisitions in vain, when all that we truly desire is, in reality, extremely easily attained. What blocks our paths? Games. Hundreds and probably thousands or millions of games that do not realize they are games. They fancy themselves important. Our country fancies war or politics important. Civilization fancies progress important. Students fancy it important that they bury their souls in tedious schoolwork so that they might someday attain success, which is likewise fancied important because it's the crowning prize of this game that's been sold to us as something deeper and more fulfilling than a game can ever be (when a game is all that can ever be). So we get stuck and keep playing games even when we hate them, because we don't realize there are alternatives. If you don't like your game, then quit it and join or start a new one. Include some aspects of the old game that you do like if you want to--your game is infinitely customizable. The world won't end because you change--really, it will do the opposite and become wholly renewed.

So forget the big bad world or history or success or importance (unless you dig those kinds of games), or learn to view them as small fragments in a much larger and freer game that is your own. If you want deeper understanding then start stripping away the games you find yourself playing. Find a ground where you can ridicule each successive game as absurd, baseless, a waste of time...keep going until you find the bottom. It's not as scary there as is commonly believed, though it can be scary on the way. The great fear is that the end of the path of relativism, the bottom of all meaning is nothingness, pure absurdity, hell. But luckily for us this isn’t what’s there. At the bottom is the simplest and purest game of all. Played for kicks. Played because it's played, for a good time (one that's beneath and beyond all words, all conceptions of "good" or "game" or "time"). At the bottom is truth, if you want to call it that, the true nature of being. But it's not an answer--it's an endless rushing, an overwhelming of all senses, the essential ungraspable untranslatable primal force of beauty and substance. An existence that likes itself, because how else should it feel? It's playing the existence game (perhaps an endless procession of games?).

This is the significance I find in playing and thinking about games: they offer us a lesson. They beg us to identify vastly reaching parallels, connections, similarities. They want to help us make our lives good again, fantastic and adventurous and rich like they were always meant to be. Full and self-evidently good and self-evidently self-justifying. We find it in our games and then we forget it when the games end. But the model is there for us, and it works. Perhaps we need more and better games; I won't disagree. We need games that reach deeper and perhaps games that scream at us instead of whisper (while tugging us in bewildering directions). We need games that aren't deniable or easily dismissed. But even more so, we need players who are willing to take games seriously or, conversely, take their current conceptions of their lives less seriously. Because: serious, important, meaningful--these are mere words, as relative and ambiguous as any other facet of our lives (the language game, the communication game). The central point is that all games ought to be on equal footing. Whichever game we are involved in at this present moment derives a meaning that equates to all other meanings for all other games because it and all others are infinite. Sure, some games serve the purposes of other games. Games stack within each other, but the moment is not aware of such distinctions; the moment, which is the universe. Another way to put it is that each moment (all experience) is equally precious simply as a function of its presence. Since existence is good by its own volition, and since the moment contains all existence, that means the moment contains all goodness. Therefore, enjoy it! Find a game, play a game. Play any game. You don't have to call it "a game". Call it whatever you want. But play by your own rules, even if they are also someone else's rules, and have a good time even if it kills you to do so. Don't let importance ruin your fun. Get your friends to play with you. Get your friends' friends to play with you too. Everything else will work itself out nicely. Cause and effect, cause and effect: simple rules for a simple game.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I'm so interested in games is that I believe every aspect of life, including life itself, to be at its essence a game...

[/ QUOTE ]

Locked up for a crime you didn't commit? Captured by a hostile government and tortured? Spouse and child raped and murdered by a serial killer? Starving? Don't fret! You've just suffered a setback in a "game," after all.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Locked up for a crime you didn't commit? Captured by a hostile government and tortured? Spouse and child raped and murdered by a serial killer? Starving? Don't fret! You've just suffered a setback in a "game," after all.

[/ QUOTE ]


These are all games in the sense that there are mutiple actors (players) all employing different strategies. The fact that you think all games should be fun and lighthearted is your own bias.

All animals partake in the game of life, under a secondary definition of the word: "A period of competition or challenge." There is a reason for the "survival of the fitest" (ugh, I hate using that term), and its that the fit are the best players of the game.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
All animals partake in the game of life, under a secondary definition of the word: "A period of competition or challenge." There is a reason for the "survival of the fitest" (ugh, I hate using that term), and its that the fit are the best players of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not necessarily true. It has become true to a large degree, but with technology it may become less true. Competition between agents isn't inherent in selection, only competition between genes.

[madnak]

By the way, I think this definition of "game" is way off. I've played plenty of games that weren't fulfilling. Also every game I've ever played has had a value outside the context of the game. So #2 and #3 simply don't hold up at all for me, in fact I don't think any games actually exist that fit condition #3. And I'm not just talking about social status or learning (unless you use an extremely broad sense of that word) gained within the context of the game, although they definitely apply.

Other than a clear set of rules, I think a goal is critical for a game. When each actor doesn't have a specific goal, it's not a game. Also there must be some competition, a conflict. All the players may be working together, but if so there must be some obstacle preventing them from reaching their common goal. Without any conflict, there's no game.

I think a game by its nature, then, is fundamentally brutal. In life I'd like to see everyone meet their needs as easily as possible, and see every actor's goals achieve a harmony such that no two individuals ever have a conflict of interest. Unrealistic perhaps, but in a game the value actually stems from one actor deliberately trying to sabotage another actor's goals! This is pathetic and certainly not how human beings must act.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Competition between agents isn't inherent in selection, only competition between genes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats what I was referring to.

[Dane S]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, I think this definition of "game" is way off. I've played plenty of games that weren't fulfilling. Also every game I've ever played has had a value outside the context of the game. So #2 and #3 simply don't hold up at all for me, in fact I don't think any games actually exist that fit condition #3. And I'm not just talking about social status or learning (unless you use an extremely broad sense of that word) gained within the context of the game, although they definitely apply.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, but my point was that actions and results within the game are considered trivial compared to the effects it has on "real life". Example: money in poker isn't considered important within the context of the game--it's important because you can buy stuff with it in the real world (which is a more important place than the poker table). The game's reality is trivial compared to consensus reality. That clear it up at all?

[ QUOTE ]
Other than a clear set of rules, I think a goal is critical for a game. When each actor doesn't have a specific goal, it's not a game. Also there must be some competition, a conflict. All the players may be working together, but if so there must be some obstacle preventing them from reaching their common goal. Without any conflict, there's no game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there are lots of games without goals or a central conflict, most commonly made up and played by little kids. What is the obstacle to overcome when playing "house"?

[ QUOTE ]

I think a game by its nature, then, is fundamentally brutal. In life I'd like to see everyone meet their needs as easily as possible, and see every actor's goals achieve a harmony such that no two individuals ever have a conflict of interest. Unrealistic perhaps, but in a game the value actually stems from one actor deliberately trying to sabotage another actor's goals! This is pathetic and certainly not how human beings must act.

[/ QUOTE ]

To me your utopia is simply the outline of a game that doesn't involve any interpersonal conflict. Parallels can be found in online multiplayer video games that are "player versus environment". Everyone is striving for personal goals, but direct competition with other players isn't allowed.

[guesswest]

Excellent post Dane, and I haven't much to add to it, have long thought the same.

If and when I ever have kids I'll be admonishing them for not spending enough time playing computer games /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that you think all games should be fun and lighthearted is your own bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, its the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/game) 's "bias":
Game: (1) An activity providing entertainment or amusement

[evolvedForm]

In philosophy a dictionary doesn't help much. If he's describing life as a game, which he is, then could attribute other game-like properties to it, and thereby change the definition of "game" to suit his purposes. Since he did not quite do this, he attributed all the characteristics of "game" to the term, "life." This in turn, in my opinion, severely hurt the essay, in that it will be very hard to convince somebody that life is lighthearted and fun.


Oh, and dictionaries do have biases.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
In philosophy a dictionary doesn't help much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it does. Dictionaries are our best attempts at establishing the common meanings of our words as native speakers. The word "game" has a well-established meaning in English, including a connotation (and denotation) of amusement and recreation. If you redefine it to mean something other than what a normal english speaker would understand it to mean, then you are not engaged in philosophy, but semantical wheel spinning. I can make any proposition true if I am free to redefine the words of the proposition.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and dictionaries do have biases

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they do. But you aren't really disputing that the widely understood meaning of "game" includes recreation or amusement are you?

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that you think all games should be fun and lighthearted is your own bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, its the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/game) 's "bias":
Game: (1) An activity providing entertainment or amusement

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, are you serious?

You are aware that your logic is: if it is ONE of SEVERAL definitions in a dictionary, then it must be the ONLY possible use, right?


I mean, just read what you quoted "The fact that you think ALL games should be fun and lighthearted is your own bias".


If you read the entire page that you linked, you would see that another defintion of the term game is "A period of competition or challenge." This defintion allows for some games that are neither lighthearted nor fun.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a game by its nature, then, is fundamentally brutal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your definition of "game" does not accord with the widely accepted definition of native english speakers. I wouldn't characterize duck duck goose or ring around the rosy as brutal.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Other than a clear set of rules, I think a goal is critical for a game. When each actor doesn't have a specific goal, it's not a game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mad,

out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the specific situation where the players of the game have goals, though they are unaware of what they are?


Clearly, Im getting at evolution here /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
If you redefine it to mean something other than what a normal english speaker would understand it to mean, then you are not engaged in philosophy, but semantical wheel spinning. I can make any proposition true if I am free to redefine the words of the proposition.




[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me what a philosopher is supposed to do when a term he is describing doesn't have an exact match in Webster's? Make up a whole new word all together? No, he modifies the word for his specific usage.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course they do. But you aren't really disputing that the widely understood meaning of "game" includes recreation or amusement are you?


[/ QUOTE ]

If a philosopher uses a term, such as "truth-games," he should define that to convey his peculiar meaning. It is entirely unclear what he means, and looking up "games" and "truth" in a dictionary will not capture his meaning. His meaning has to be found in the text.

Do you understand?

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
The word "game" has a well-established meaning in English, including a connotation (and denotation) of amusement and recreation. If you redefine it to mean something other than what a normal english speaker would understand it to mean, then you are not engaged in philosophy, but semantical wheel spinning. I can make any proposition true if I am free to redefine the words of the proposition.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're confusing using a word to mean something other than it's "#1" definition in the dictionary with "redifining" a word.

the fact that you didn't know what he meant by "game" was not a result of him not meaning "what a typical english speaker means by 'game'" it was a result of your failure to use context to discern his intended meaning.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, but my point was that actions and results within the game are considered trivial compared to the effects it has on "real life". Example: money in poker isn't considered important within the context of the game--it's important because you can buy stuff with it in the real world (which is a more important place than the poker table). The game's reality is trivial compared to consensus reality. That clear it up at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds pretty vague. Can you describe a situation in which this wouldn't be the case? It almost borders on being a truism. How is it a meaningful distinction between a game and a "non-game?"

[ QUOTE ]
I think there are lots of games without goals or a central conflict, most commonly made up and played by little kids. What is the obstacle to overcome when playing "house"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never played house, so I'm not an expert on the subject. Domestic harmony? Most of the "games" I played as a kid had conflicts and goals, but not rules. They definitely don't seem to qualify as games according to your original definition. Although I may be thinking of a different kind of "game." For example, I don't think a child playing in a sandbox is playing a "game." In fact, the lack of goals is the major distinction in my mind between a "sandbox experience" and a "game." The line can sometimes blur (Second Life, the Sims), but goals seem to be a good point of division.

[ QUOTE ]
To me your utopia is simply the outline of a game that doesn't involve any interpersonal conflict. Parallels can be found in online multiplayer video games that are "player versus environment". Everyone is striving for personal goals, but direct competition with other players isn't allowed.

[/ QUOTE ]

My utopia (unrealistic though it may be) is a game that doesn't involve any conflict. Well, other than agreed-upon "conflicts" that work toward the interests of all parties involved (such as the voluntary play of games). I think on a certain level you might say there's a "game" between nature and man, and I think most of human suffering in the past has been a result of natural forces rather than of human action. I think our ability to transcend those natural forces (technology) is our defining feature.

But I also think you're wrong about MMOGs. Even without explicit PvP drama, conflict, and competition between players is the norm. The exceptions are games like MUSHes and "visual chat rooms" and the like, and I wouldn't call them games.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In philosophy a dictionary doesn't help much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

evil: The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.

Glad that's cleared up!

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Your definition of "game" does not accord with the widely accepted definition of native english speakers. I wouldn't characterize duck duck goose or ring around the rosy as brutal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would characterize DDG as fundamentally brutal. Of course, superficially it's a children's game. But in DDG the players are considered at odds in spite of the fact DDG is one of the most cooperative games imaginable. A game like hot-potato is really chilling in structure when you consider it - anything involving the "elimination" of players contains the necessary mechanism for brutality. Of course, no game has to be superficially brutal; I can play a version of Russian roulette with nerf guns and it'd be relatively inoffensive. However, the game remains brutal at its basic level.

Ring around the rosie was always a ritual when I was a child, never a game by any standard. We'd stand in a circle, say the chant, and then lie down. Nevertheless, it's an interesting reference given the speculation surrounding its origins.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Mad,

out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the specific situation where the players of the game have goals, though they are unaware of what they are?


Clearly, Im getting at evolution here /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you clarify? I wouldn't say that necessarily applies for evolution. I think we ascribe "goals" but in reality there is only an emergent system. For example, an organism may have a genuine goal of death, and it may kill itself. But according to the game perspective of evolution, of course it "lost" in the "game." An emergent system doesn't require any actual intent in order to develop, so I'm not sure how meaningful it is to speak of "goals" in that sense.

That's part of why I don't consider evolution to really be a game. I consider it more to be a process that bears the illusion of being a game because the results of the process give that appearance. In particular, the "players" that propagate tend to be the players whose "goal" is to propagate, which makes it appear that there's a universal goal of propagation. But I imagine some life forms have had no "desire" to participate in the "game," and of course they would be quickly selected against and so would be difficult to observe.

I do find situations where players are involved in games without being aware of their objectives to be interesting at a theoretical level. I suppose the player would want to maximize the results according to a range of possible objectives then. And I like fiction with that theme - for example when a character is working toward a certain objective throughout a movie only to find, at the end, that he's subconsciously been working toward the opposite end all along.

[Dane S]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, but my point was that actions and results within the game are considered trivial compared to the effects it has on "real life". Example: money in poker isn't considered important within the context of the game--it's important because you can buy stuff with it in the real world (which is a more important place than the poker table). The game's reality is trivial compared to consensus reality. That clear it up at all?



It sounds pretty vague. Can you describe a situation in which this wouldn't be the case? It almost borders on being a truism. How is it a meaningful distinction between a game and a "non-game?"


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if I know what you're looking for but here's another illustration of what I mean: war and war games. War itself is not generally looked upon as a game because the stakes (human life and misery) go beyond what most consider reasonable for a game reality. War games, on the other hand, can involve the exact same activities but are seen as intrinsically less important than the war itself, and the value of what occurs within the war game is only confirmed by effects in the more important level of reality. Writing this, I think perhaps you are right that this could be viewed as a truism, but even if it is I think it's still a worthwhile truism to introduce given the topic of discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
I've never played house, so I'm not an expert on the subject. Domestic harmony? Most of the "games" I played as a kid had conflicts and goals, but not rules. They definitely don't seem to qualify as games according to your original definition. Although I may be thinking of a different kind of "game." For example, I don't think a child playing in a sandbox is playing a "game." In fact, the lack of goals is the major distinction in my mind between a "sandbox experience" and a "game." The line can sometimes blur (Second Life, the Sims), but goals seem to be a good point of division.

Quote:
To me your utopia is simply the outline of a game that doesn't involve any interpersonal conflict. Parallels can be found in online multiplayer video games that are "player versus environment". Everyone is striving for personal goals, but direct competition with other players isn't allowed.



My utopia (unrealistic though it may be) is a game that doesn't involve any conflict. Well, other than agreed-upon "conflicts" that work toward the interests of all parties involved (such as the voluntary play of games). I think on a certain level you might say there's a "game" between nature and man, and I think most of human suffering in the past has been a result of natural forces rather than of human action. I think our ability to transcend those natural forces (technology) is our defining feature.

But I also think you're wrong about MMOGs. Even without explicit PvP drama, conflict, and competition between players is the norm. The exceptions are games like MUSHes and "visual chat rooms" and the like, and I wouldn't call them games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm beginning to see that the primary source of disagreement here is diverging definitions of "game" and that perhaps it's not the best word choice for the concepts I want to get into. Perhaps a word like "play" would be better suited and less limiting? I think "game" is catchier but what I wanted to discuss are activities that are undertaken for their own sakes, as ends instead of means, thereby require no validation from outside the activity itself, and how we can use these activities as models in our approaches to other areas of life that are treated differently. Definitely starting to seem like play captures this more effectively.

Last quip: I know that competition of many kinds occurs even in pve MMOGs, but my point is it's conceivable that such a game could be played in complete harmony with other players, just like your utopia is conceivable in real life even if it's not realistic.

Thanks for the intelligent responses btw.

[CallMeIshmael]

I guess what Im saying is:

the genes contained in organisms are the players. Now, there are winners and losers (and degrees therein), but the genes dont know what the goals of the game are, since they are just genes.

I call this a game. But, I can see why its not exactly going to come to a unanimous agreement, since its a subjective area to call genes 'players'.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In philosophy a dictionary doesn't help much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

evil: The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.

Glad that's cleared up!

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you're right. All philosophers should, from now on, communicate strictly with pictures, because words have no definite referents. In fact, I can't even be sure what you meant in your post! The fact that it is difficult to define some metaphysical words and prases (like "free will" and "evil") does not mean that there is no place for dictionaries in philosophy.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
the fact that you didn't know what he meant by "game" was not a result of him not meaning "what a typical english speaker means by 'game'" it was a result of your failure to use context to discern his intended meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understood how OP used the word game quite clearly. For the most part, he used it exactly as defined by the dictionary. The central theme of the essay is that life is like a game, i.e. an amusing pastime, (and by this, OP surely means chess, poker, baseball, etc.), and therefore it is worthwhile to play and study games, i.e. amusing pastimes. I thought (and still do think) that the comparison trivializes the aspects of life, such as human suffering, that are nothing like an amusing pastime. Getting cancer is not like taking a bad beat, and it cheapens and desensitizes us to the experiences of cancer victims to suggest that it is.

I also disagree with OP's conclusion. Playing and studying games is not a grand, noble endeavor that teaches us to be better human beings. To me, the essay is an attempt to rationalize (morally) spending time on leisure activities rather than on making the world a better place. Personally, I don't need any rationalization, I like playing games because they are fun, and I don't feel guilty about enjoying myself even though I could be spending my time saving lives instead. But the suggestion that we play and study poker so that we can be better humans is, quite frankly, absurd.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you redefine it to mean something other than what a normal english speaker would understand it to mean, then you are not engaged in philosophy, but semantical wheel spinning. I can make any proposition true if I am free to redefine the words of the proposition.




[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me what a philosopher is supposed to do when a term he is describing doesn't have an exact match in Webster's? Make up a whole new word all together? No, he modifies the word for his specific usage.


[/ QUOTE ]

I really think that if a philosopher comes up with a new concept, one for which no existing word suffices, he should make up a new word phrase and explain its content. I don't think OP is up to anything quite so grand, however.

[ QUOTE ]
If a philosopher uses a term, such as "truth-games," he should define that to convey his peculiar meaning. It is entirely unclear what he means, and looking up "games" and "truth" in a dictionary will not capture his meaning. His meaning has to be found in the text.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. If a philosopher is using terms in a way that cannot be understood by reference to a dictionary, he needs to explain what he means. Indeed, in your example "truth games" would be the equivalent of a new word (or term of art), one which the philosopher defines himself. But I don't think this is waht OP did or what he intended.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that you think all games should be fun and lighthearted is your own bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, its the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/game) 's "bias":
Game: (1) An activity providing entertainment or amusement

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, are you serious?

You are aware that your logic is: if it is ONE of SEVERAL definitions in a dictionary, then it must be the ONLY possible use, right?


I mean, just read what you quoted "The fact that you think ALL games should be fun and lighthearted is your own bias".


If you read the entire page that you linked, you would see that another defintion of the term game is "A period of competition or challenge." This defintion allows for some games that are neither lighthearted nor fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, we have "serious" games. My point was simply that I think OP meant "game" exactly as the dictionary defines it (in its most common form). I don't think I misunderstand OP's essay when I say that the type of games that he has in mind (and to which he compares life) are amusing pastimes like poker, chess, and scrabble. Perhaps resorting to the dictionary was not the best way to prove that OP meant what I say he does, but what type of games do you think OP is studying and playing? I would lay 10,000:1 that he plays and studies something like poker or chess. As I said elsewhere in this thread, I think the comparison of amusing pastimes and life cheapens the experiences of those who suffer horribly in life.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
I would characterize DDG as fundamentally brutal.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see much point in arguing over the definition of "brutal." I'll just say I surmise that if you ask 100 english speakers if the adjective "brutal" is appropriate to describe DDG, on average, less than one percent would think so.

[ QUOTE ]

Nevertheless, it's an interesting reference given the speculation surrounding its origins.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I picked it /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

[Dane S]

[ QUOTE ]
i.e. an amusing pastime

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you find this in the essay? The definition I use (and outline in 1-3) is much broader.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see much point in arguing over the definition of "brutal." I'll just say I surmise that if you ask 100 english speakers if the adjective "brutal" is appropriate to describe DDG, on average, less than one percent would think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said it was brutal. I said it was fundamentally based on brutal mechanics. Big difference. I don't think russian roulette is brutal when it's played with nerf guns, either. But the basic nature of the game is brutal.

I believe the human urge to compete is based on the basic struggle for survival that has marked the history of our species. Any competitive activity invokes that to some extent. When a lion club plays, it appears cute and anything but brutal. However, the skills the lion is developing will help it capture prey later in life. That's why lions have evolved the tendency to play - not to have fun, but to win a very brutal "game."

[madnak]

It may be simple semantics. I'm not sure that "game" is the worst word for what you're talking about; that's a common use of the term. But I don't think it's necessarily compatible with other common uses. It's pretty easy to identify something like backgammon as a game, but when you get into broader definitions it's hard to know where to draw the line. The term has something of a negative connotation for me, so I don't like it much.

[madnak]

As I mentioned in the above response, my general preference is to avoid the term "game." I think it has negative connotations - "just a game," "playing games with me," "gamey." I also think the public perception of game theory is causing many people to see games as inherently "selfish" due to an inappropriate interpretation of game theoretical logic. To you reciprocal altruism is self-interested, but to many people I think it "feels" like something other than a "strategy," and I don't like the sense of sterility or meaninglessness I think the term "game" may imply.

At the same time, that approach has its own share of problems. Maybe avoiding the term isn't the best response. I've known some people to use terms like "multi-user persistent world" and "interactive narrative" so often they sound like they're just babbling.

[arete]

Philosopher's usually don's allow a dictionary definition to stand as the conculision of an argument.