1. Running
2. Catch
3. Juggling
4. Farmville
5. Candyland (there are no decisions to make in Candyland)
6. Cowboys and Indians
7. Debate
8. Roulette
9. Rock-Paper-Scissors
10. Rock-Paper-Scissors against a Computer
11. Choose-Your-Own-Adventure Books
11. Sudoku
12. Truth or Dare
13. LARPing
So all of these are different kinds of games. Some competitive, some non-competitive. Some skill-based, some luck-based. Some with multiple players in a zero-sum, some with multiple players in group entertainment, some played with one player.
Could we get Dr Richard Garfield to post in this thread?
Running by yourself is not a game. Running against someone is a sport. Playing catch is not a game. There are juggling competitions, but I dont think it would be comsidered a game, more of an ability. Cowboys and Indians was just reliving what you saw on T.V. or at the movies, it really wasnt a game. Debate is a verbal interaction with other humans. Some have made it a competition, I wouldnt consider it a game tho.
Surprised you didnt mention mumbly peg.
People can find was to make anything a competition, that doesnt mean its a game.
Quoting a passage from my favorite philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein:
Consider for example the proceedings that we call "games". I mean board-games, card-games, ball-games, Olympic games, and so on. What is common to them all?—Don't say: "There must be something common, or they would not be called 'games' "—but look and see whether there is anything common to all.—For if you look at them you will not see something that is common to all, but similarities, relationships, and a whole series of them at that. To repeat: don't think, but look!—Look for example at board-games, with their multifarious relationships. Now pass to card-games; here you find many correspondences with the first group, but many common features drop out, and others appear. When we pass next to ball- games, much that is common is retained, but much is lost.—Are they all 'amusing'? Compare chess with noughts and crosses. Or is there always winning and losing, or competition between players? Think of patience. In ball games there is winning and losing; but when a child throws his ball at the wall and catches it again, this feature has disappeared. Look at the parts played by skill and luck; and at the difference between skill in chess and skill in tennis. Think now of games like ring-a-ring-a-roses; here is the element of amusement, but how many other characteristic features have disappeared! And we can go through the many, many other groups of games in the same way; can see how similarities crop up and disappear. And the result of this examination is: we see a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing: sometimes overall similarities, sometimes similarities of detail.
I can think of no better expression to characterize these similarities than "family resemblances"; for the various resemblances between members of a family: build, features, colour of eyes, gait, temperament, etc. etc. overlap and criss-cross in the same way.— And I shall say: 'games' form a family.
The passage is from Wittgenstein's posthumous work titled "Philosophical Investigations." The moral of this passage is that the concepts of our ordinary language (concepts such as "game") do not have rigid definitions. If you tried to give a rigid definition for the concept of a game, we could always find exceptions to disprove your definition. Wittgenstein suggests that rather than rigid definitions, our concepts are bound by "family resemblances" (a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing).
Running by yourself is not a game. Running against someone is a sport. Playing catch is not a game. There are juggling competitions, but I dont think it would be comsidered a game, more of an ability. Cowboys and Indians was just reliving what you saw on T.V. or at the movies, it really wasnt a game. Debate is a verbal interaction with other humans. Some have made it a competition, I wouldnt consider it a game tho.
Surprised you didnt mention mumbly peg.
People can find was to make anything a competition, that doesnt mean its a game.
I don't know that you have consistent parameters for your definition. Not that an arbitrary definition is wrong, but it is to distinguish a pattern among your examples.
I would consider a game any contrived conflict. It's a very broad definition, and not everyone will agree.
Games can be elevated to an importance that they directly impact quality of life of one or more individuals, like the stock market or pro football. I tend to avoid these games.
For me, games are a religious matter. Personally, I prefer games where all participants enjoy the game whether they win or lose. Attaining this ideal is very difficult, and relies on the discipline of the participant.
So all of these are different kinds of games. Some competitive, some non-competitive. Some skill-based, some luck-based. Some with multiple players in a zero-sum, some with multiple players in group entertainment, some played with one player.
Could we get Dr Richard Garfield to post in this thread?
What is the conflict you are engaging in in Candyland, Farmville or Roulette?
All of these activities invariably have outcomes, but are they all quantifiable?
bocephus: never heard of mumbly peg. Did you play that as a child? 0_o
Also, you've said what isn't a game but I'm curious to hear what your definition of a game is.
beast89: so would you consider all of the activities listed within the family of games?
ludd_gang: is exercise contrived conflict? how about debate or candyland?
All of these activities invariably have outcomes, but are they all quantifiable?
What is and is not quantifiable is for the player to decide. Do you measure success in jogging by the number of steps you take? By the size your quads grow in a month? By the number of problems you forget on the run? By that bucket of sweat you keep in your closet?
And to a large extent how easily quantifiable the outcomes are goes toward whether it is useful to map a situation as a game in game theory. It might be more pragmatic to label something without easily or useful quantities to measure as an activity rather than a game, so the debate here really is what is the proper lexicon and what makes something more suitable for the activity label rather than the game label. Generally games are associated with competitive, social recreation with quantities. But just about everything is quantifiable, and if it is not currently quantifiable, it is my job as a mathematician to make it quantifiable
This debate on what is a game can be mapped as a game, scoring by 'likes' or replies or number of people my argument convinces, number of people I think my argument convinces, whether or not I have the longest post, whether or not I have the last post, etc. Of course this would be with myself as arbiter, making up the rules after your challenge to define the term game, so then the social aspects of whether or not you consented to the rules comes into play.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1. Running
2. Catch
3. Juggling
4. Farmville
5. Candyland (there are no decisions to make in Candyland)
6. Cowboys and Indians
7. Debate
8. Roulette
9. Rock-Paper-Scissors
10. Rock-Paper-Scissors against a Computer
11. Choose-Your-Own-Adventure Books
11. Sudoku
12. Truth or Dare
13. LARPing
4th place at CCC&G Pro Tour
Chances of bad hands (<2 or >4 land):
21: 28.9%
22: 27.5%
23: 26.3%
24: 25.5%
25: 25.1%
26: 25.3%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game#Other_definitions
So all of these are different kinds of games. Some competitive, some non-competitive. Some skill-based, some luck-based. Some with multiple players in a zero-sum, some with multiple players in group entertainment, some played with one player.
Could we get Dr Richard Garfield to post in this thread?
Surprised you didnt mention mumbly peg.
People can find was to make anything a competition, that doesnt mean its a game.
The passage is from Wittgenstein's posthumous work titled "Philosophical Investigations." The moral of this passage is that the concepts of our ordinary language (concepts such as "game") do not have rigid definitions. If you tried to give a rigid definition for the concept of a game, we could always find exceptions to disprove your definition. Wittgenstein suggests that rather than rigid definitions, our concepts are bound by "family resemblances" (a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing).
BRG Loam Control (Assault - Loam) BRG
W Mono White Control (Martyr - Proc) W
basicly as long as two or more people are "playing" and "having fun" then its a game.
But I can play games solo, such as solitaire or video games.
I don't know that you have consistent parameters for your definition. Not that an arbitrary definition is wrong, but it is to distinguish a pattern among your examples.
I would consider a game any contrived conflict. It's a very broad definition, and not everyone will agree.
Games can be elevated to an importance that they directly impact quality of life of one or more individuals, like the stock market or pro football. I tend to avoid these games.
For me, games are a religious matter. Personally, I prefer games where all participants enjoy the game whether they win or lose. Attaining this ideal is very difficult, and relies on the discipline of the participant.
What is the conflict you are engaging in in Candyland, Farmville or Roulette?
All of these activities invariably have outcomes, but are they all quantifiable?
bocephus: never heard of mumbly peg. Did you play that as a child? 0_o
Also, you've said what isn't a game but I'm curious to hear what your definition of a game is.
beast89: so would you consider all of the activities listed within the family of games?
ludd_gang: is exercise contrived conflict? how about debate or candyland?
4th place at CCC&G Pro Tour
Chances of bad hands (<2 or >4 land):
21: 28.9%
22: 27.5%
23: 26.3%
24: 25.5%
25: 25.1%
26: 25.3%
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSg408i-eKw
What is and is not quantifiable is for the player to decide. Do you measure success in jogging by the number of steps you take? By the size your quads grow in a month? By the number of problems you forget on the run? By that bucket of sweat you keep in your closet?
And to a large extent how easily quantifiable the outcomes are goes toward whether it is useful to map a situation as a game in game theory. It might be more pragmatic to label something without easily or useful quantities to measure as an activity rather than a game, so the debate here really is what is the proper lexicon and what makes something more suitable for the activity label rather than the game label. Generally games are associated with competitive, social recreation with quantities. But just about everything is quantifiable, and if it is not currently quantifiable, it is my job as a mathematician to make it quantifiable
This debate on what is a game can be mapped as a game, scoring by 'likes' or replies or number of people my argument convinces, number of people I think my argument convinces, whether or not I have the longest post, whether or not I have the last post, etc. Of course this would be with myself as arbiter, making up the rules after your challenge to define the term game, so then the social aspects of whether or not you consented to the rules comes into play.