Jump to content
Science Forums

What is an acceptable definition of "Game"?


IDMclean

Recommended Posts

Alright, first off I am going to start with this. The word Game at current time is not formally defined. The world of games, whether creation, or play do not have as standard two essential things.

 

1) A formal Language

2) A set of Inferance rules

 

As such I have gone through and identified common, essential elements that are unique to games and have come up with this tentative definition:

 

The word "game" is defined as a multi-agent interactive representation of subjective reality that defines a problem space with which the player can act as a solution explorer within the bounds of the space. Often in a narrative capacity, and in the case of computer games accompanied by music and graphics.

 

This in the capacity of attempting to define a possible standardized formal language and set of inference rules for the field of games, also known to some as Ludology.

 

Ready, set, GO!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So that fits games like Tetris for instance?

 

If your definition were true then why is it that the world is not crawling with game geeks?

 

What does your definition speak of in terms of the non-optimal, or non-maximized outcomes of the Prisoner's Dilemma and the economic game of Impunity?

 

Also what scope does your definition apply too? I would guess macroscopic at first glance.

 

Your answer is fairly simple but the cascade is too great. It forces the acceptance, by inferance, of non-games as games and dissolves any applicability of to a specific field and domain of knowledge and understanding.

 

Do you think you could narrow it down perhaps to make it less than the sum total of human survival? Games are important, but I don't think they are immanently, immediately, survival critical.

 

One does not play a game when comfronted, unexpectantly, and accidentially by a bear. Sure choices are made, and some form of dice are cast, but this is easily distinct from sitting down and playing a game of tetris or monopoly.

 

The difference between the two would appear to be a matter of 1) Choosing to play the game, 2) Artificial problem space, abstracted from reality and therefore representive of subjective reality, not as part of objective reality.

 

Do you contest this contention? If so why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This definition would exclude games such as:

The Sims (and other sim "games")

Peaceful "games" such as Harvest Moon and Creatures.

Single player "games" like Solitaire and Tetris.

Co-operative victory "games" like Civilization and Halo.

 

I am sure there are more things that are left out. Though I do appreciate the effort. Do you think that games must be defined by the "victory over another" condition? This would preclude a wide variety of possible games that have yet to be made.

 

Will Wright himself has stated that the Sim universe "games" are actually "toys". Some disagree, would you?

 

Food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Food for thought.

All good points KAC, and I agree for the most part if not totally. When I say "Others", I'm not restricting this word usage to other people. In every game I've played, and in all honesty I've never been much of a game player, there is some object or issue to overcome. This is why I suggested the aim of one playing is "victory". One could also use the term "success" but the difference between the two words is miniscule in my opinion. The ultimate goal of every game I've played is the achievement involved with the anticipated "success, or victory". I again confess that I'm not much of a game player so my opinion may not bear a great deal of merit.

............................Infy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could accept that, however games like tetris and Harvestmoon both are practically single player without an opposing active agent, player or Computer controlled player or otherwise.

 

In harvest moon the entire goal is to run the most successful farm you can, get married and have children. There is no competition against active opposing agents in the game. In pure tetris one plays against nothing more than time, and placement of pieces. Once again, without an obvious opponent.

 

Hence why I include multi-agent. All games include more than just the player. Not always in the form of another player. It can be in the form of the enviroment itself acting as the passive opposing agent. This is why I chose the "Problem space" because all games have problems to be solved and not all games give you a single solution or even a small solution set to that problem space. Which leads to why I chose to call the player a "solution explorer".

 

In my case I chose the neutral term of solution in favor of victory. Victory implies, formally, a competition or battle, a head to head confrontation. Not all games fall under this categorization. So I chose, implicitly, through my purposed definition to place competitions and conflicts as sub-elements to games.

 

Once again this is where Solitaire is a good example.

 

Though I appreciate the effort, Infy, and your contribution helps to carve out the mold through deduction.

 

One does not have to be a scientist to understand, or study science. Likewise one does not have to be a gamer to understand, or study games. :note:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how about an activity that is frivolous or ammusing?

 

Well, that's #1 in the dictionary link I gave:

1. An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games.

 

So, the kAss Clown is playing a word game with this thread, and I find it amusing, if not frivolous, to play point out how ridiculous it is to ignore dictionaries and trot out a bunch of speculative nonsense about a definition.

 

So again, in answer to the title question, dictionaries contain acceptable complete definitions of 'game'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how about an activity that is frivolous or ammusing?

 

friv·o·lous

–adjective

1. characterized by lack of seriousness or sense: frivolous conduct.

2. self-indulgently carefree; unconcerned about or lacking any serious purpose.

3. (of a person) given to trifling or undue levity: a frivolous, empty-headed person.

4. of little or no weight, worth, or importance; not worthy of serious notice: a frivolous suggestion.

 

Well, I would ask in what way are games frivolous. Does this mean that games are meaningless? If so is that not meaning?

 

I would in majority contend with that definition on the fact that it debases the value of games. Given that gaming is something which beat out the movies box office, and is one of the fastest growing industries in America, I would say it is not a frivolous thing, just on that alone.

 

On top of that, who is to say what is "serious" or "lacking any serious purpose"? I find that games are one of the most effective means of conveying useful information in a strongly objective oriented manner. Such that one can convey large bodies of useful experience by virtue of subjective representation of reality.

 

It is arguable that games serve a most definite function in society, and thereby a definite and non-trivial purpose. In fact I would argue that a society that is without games is deeply in danger of self-decay. Long have games served to teach and hone the skills of people, particularly of our youth. Though games such as Go and Chess, long upstanding academic games, have served to keep sharp and hone to keenness the minds and wits of our intellectuals.

 

That games are trivialized as "child's play things" without "serious purpose" is to me a travesty, given that I can learn more from a game than I can from a lecture or book even. In much shorter time.

 

This is all without considering that games as a subject have not been held as an accepted academic medium, worthy of real study, most likely due to this trivialization. Which means that much of the data regarding the purpose, and practical functionality of games is in folk wisdom or similarly dangerously biased, and/or non-critically examined forms. Basically relegating much to anecdotal and rhetorical evidence on average.

 

once again, Food for thought in pseudo-socratic style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I would ask in what way are games frivolous. Does this mean that games are meaningless? If so is that not meaning?

...

This is all without considering that games as a subject have not been held as an accepted academic medium, worthy of real study, most likely due to this trivialization. Which means that much of the data regarding the purpose, and practical functionality of games is in folk wisdom or similarly dangerously biased, and/or non-critically examined forms. Basically relegating much to anecdotal and rhetorical evidence on average.

 

once again, Food for thought in pseudo-socratic style.

Once again, the food is undercooked and/or not fresh. The frivolous aspect is but one part of the definition and when frivolity (whatever that is) reigns then 'game' is well applied. :turtle:

 

See game theory. In some games, it doesn't matter if you consider yourself a 'player' or not ifn others do. :cup:

 

Web Search Results1 - 10 of about 4,710,000 for game theory

 

PS When you don't read this Clown, don't gert your panties in a knot. In the game of Hypography, I play your foil and for a purported clown your humor game is a bit off I must say. (psuedo humorously speaking of course.)

:turtle: :cup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note: Game theory is a system of economics, not a study of the form of games. Despite it's name, game theory is in reference to the statistical economics of choices.

 

Composing a small portion of games, and not comprising even a fraction of the whole.

 

Blah blah blah...come on Clown and get with the program. Your statement is half-truth misconstrued. Supppose we cut the nonsense and you just reel out you dazzling definition of 'game' and enlighten us all to the error of our weighs. What fraction? 1/7th? 2/31sts? First you say 'not', then 'small portion' and your only consistency is yada yada yada. :turtle: I guess it is something of a joke, but you really must play up that angle a bit. Fore!!!!! :turtle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, first off I am going to start with this. The word Game at current time is not formally defined. The world of games, whether creation, or play do not have as standard two essential things.

1) A formal Language

2) A set of Inferance rules

You have chosen a particular definition of the expression 'formally defined'. I have no argument with that definition, I just fail to see its neccessary relavance to the subject of Games.

Games have been defined, disassembled, scrutinised, analysed, ad infinitum.

You also dismissed the notion that Game Theory actually addressed Games, noting that it dealt rather with economic choices. Since every game I can think of involves assessing the value of one action over the value of another, I should have thought that this was very much an economic process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You also dismissed the notion that Game Theory actually addressed Games, noting that it dealt rather with economic choices. Since every game I can think of involves assessing the value of one action over the value of another, I should have thought that this was very much an economic process.

 

I have not dismissed it, I have only dismissed it as a totality of the study of games. Game Theory does not take into account the dramatic elements nor the system dynamics of a game. It only takes into account the choices made, and even then only within a descriptive manner.

 

One can not use Game Theory to assemble a game, that is Game Theory is not perscriptive. So I dismiss Game Theory as not being the whole of Ludology. Like I said, Game Theory, though important, is only a small part of the whole of games.

 

You have chosen a particular definition of the expression 'formally defined'.

 

By formally defined. I mean the form is defined. I will admit that there are formal definitions out and about. Some are popular others are not. Many are naive, or ill formed. A few are rather good definitions, but not so well known, nor accepted.

 

---------------------------------------------

 

Games in my observation are a synthetic form of art, logic, psychology, economics, and education (and many others). Like logic in relation to mathematics and philosophy, I think that Games are deeply related, even dependent on it's progenitors, but distinct enough to merit it's own field. Being none of those fields and all of them at the same time.

 

What I have noted that games use and have as a unity constant between all of it's synthetic elemental fields is experience. Games, like art, are designed for the sole purpose of conveying an experience to the end user/viewer. In the case of games this purpose is furthered by the player's active, consensual participation in the game itself.

 

This mechanism by which games convey optimal experience, gives games much of their expressional latitude and will be what ultimately propels them to the front of society.

 

So I would ask to what extent and in what manner is this true:

Games have been defined, disassembled, scrutinised, analysed, ad infinitum.

 

If this is true to the extent and of the manner that I seek, then I am not aware of it and would love it if you shared the sources by which you come to this conclusion.

 

Thanks, and I look forward to your reply.

-Kicky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...