Theory

[Bradford]

I've had ideas for two or three essays that I'd like to post in the forums bouncing around in my head for the past month or two, and I do still plan to post them once I've worked out the ideas to my satisfaction, but each revolve (at least in part) around the definition of "game." So I was hoping to get some feedback here, because if I've got that wrong I'm wasting my time with the rest.

First, the dictionary:

1. An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games. 2a. A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other according to a set of rules: the game of basketball; the game of gin rummy.

1 a (1): activity engaged in for diversion or amusement . . . 3 a (1): a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other

http://www.bartleby.com/61/85/G0028500.html
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/game

I reject number one from both of those sources as beeing far too broad to be useful. The other two definitions are closer to what I think is correct, but are too narrow in that they obviously exclude games that can be played solo. 3a(1) in particular is actually pretty close to how I would define a sport, which seems to me to be a subcategory of "game."

What I have been able to come up with is:

Any activity which is limited by rules that define conditions for winning and losing.

I have tried testing this definition by applying it to things that I intuitively think should or should not be considered games, and cannot come up with any exceptions. I have thought of one gray area that I haven't resolved yet, however. Could there be a solo activity, played for only for score, that lacked conditions for winning or losing? Like an activity called "how many times can I bounce this soccer ball without it touching the ground?" I haven't concluded whether that should be a game or not. I am troubled by this question because if that is not a game, then we might have to also exclude certain aspects of playing videogames only for score, which otherwise seem like they should count as games.

Hopefully I'm not too far off the mark, and can move forward from here.

[Worm]

Isn't it only the lack of a "win" condition that's bothering you, then? Letting the soccer ball touch the ground is the same as losing all your lives in any single-player game, even ones with explicit win conditions. I think "a goal" and "a fail condition" are sufficient for your definition; this allows for "soft" goals such as "score as high as possible." After all, even in most head-to-head competitions, the winner is determined by comparing scores or eliminating losers.

EDIT: Also, I assume you want to restrict your definition to challenges that are artificial? "Limited by rules that define conditions for winning and losing" includes activities like fighting another man to the death. I mean, of course, without any sort of organization, as if he is trying to murder you on the street. Maybe you do consider that a game--some certainly do--but if not, I think clarification is needed. "Artificial" is probably not the best word, but the idea is that the rules were created to increase challenge.

EDIT EDIT: As I reread your post, I can't help but wonder where you're going with this. It's not too difficult to come up with a serviceable, consistent definition of "game" that can be used in reviews, but if you're tackling the much trickier question of why people call various things "games," well... I'm interested in the essays, in any case.

[mees]

What I have been able to come up with is:

Any activity which is limited by rules that define conditions for winning and losing.

I have tried testing this definition by applying it to things that I intuitively think should or should not be considered games, and cannot come up with any exceptions.

Is World of Warcraft a game?

[Bradford]

Isn't it only the lack of a "win" condition that's bothering you, then? Letting the soccer ball touch the ground is the same as losing all your lives in any single-player game, even ones with explicit win conditions. I think "a goal" and "a fail condition" are sufficient for your definition; this allows for "soft" goals such as "score as high as possible." After all, even in most head-to-head competitions, the winner is determined by comparing scores or eliminating losers.

I had thought about this, but I think that something like the term "goal" is too vague or broad. Virtually every activity one engages in has a goal. That would put us right back into the first dictionary definitions - something like watching television (an activity engaged in for amusement - its goal of course being to amuse oneself) would fit the definition of game. Before I wrote the original post, I considered framing the definition of game as:

Any activity which is limited by rules that either:
1. define conditions for winning and losing, or
2. define criteria for measuring one's performance.

That opens a lot more questions, of course. To begin with, should the "or" be an "and" or an "and/or"?

At the end of the day, the central question is, what are the essential elements of a game? You can read the wikipedia article on it for lols if you like - the various definitions there are all useless to me where not outright dumb, except for the definition attributed to Wittgenstein, which is that there is no definition, no essential elements. I'm not necessarily ready to accept that.

EDIT: Also, I assume you want to restrict your definition to challenges that are artificial? "Limited by rules that define conditions for winning and losing" includes activities like fighting another man to the death. I mean, of course, without any sort of organization, as if he is trying to murder you on the street. Maybe you do consider that a game--some certainly do--but if not, I think clarification is needed. "Artificial" is probably not the best word, but the idea is that the rules were created to increase challenge.

That's an excellent point, but it might be redundant. What is the definition of "rules"? I think it's possible that rules are necessarily artifical. Are the laws of physics rules, or something else? - laws. Maybe that's a stupid question, and the clarification of "artifical," or "human-designated" is needed. I'm not sure.

EDIT EDIT: As I reread your post, I can't help but wonder where you're going with this. It's not too difficult to come up with a serviceable, consistent definition of "game" that can be used in reviews, but if you're tackling the much trickier question of why people call various things "games," well... I'm interested in the essays, in any case.

I want to talk about specific videogames and discuss which specific aspects of them are games, and which parts are not. More specifically, I want to write an essay titled "Role Playing Toys" and talk about why most of us (here at Insomnia, that is) are derogatory about open-world RPGs containing so much "fat." I also want to write about the Music/Rythm (or whatever) game genre.

[icycalm]

It would be good if you paid some attention to the articles I post on the frontpage -- I post them for a reason you know.

The world is a game.

http://insomnia.ac/essays/baudrillard_on_gaming/

From my second book:

The universe is a game whose rules are the so-called laws of nature.

If the world is a game, who are the players? And what is their purpose? And how do you win this game? And what do you get for winning it?

This is why Wittgenstein was not able to define the concept 'game' -- because it is not a concept that can be circumscribed in any way, and certainly not in terms of "goals", "purposes", "winning" or "losing" or any other such contraptions. People speak of goals and purposes AS IF EVERY SINGLE ACTION IN THE UNIVERSE DID NOT ALWAYS AND NECESSARILY HAVE THEM. Not to mention winning and losing, which can be found everywhere you care to look -- from the motions of elementary particles all the way up to those of galaxies.

Reality, games and art -- three concepts that cannot be circumscribed in any way, and which can only be defined together, at the same time, by playing one against the other. That is why no one so far has managed to adequately define them. I lol at Wittgenstein's abortive efforts -- "family resemblances" my ass -- he should have read more Nietzsche instead of wasting his time on Bertrand Russell.

As for the difference between rules and laws -- it's simple. Laws are made by humans, which is why the expression "laws of nature" is absurd.

Lets us beware of saying there are laws in nature. There are only necessities: there is nobody who commands, nobody who obeys, nobody who trespasses.

From "The Gay Science".

You must pardon me as an old philologist who cannot refrain from the maliciousness of putting his finger on bad arts of interpretation: but "nature's conformity to law" of which you physicists speak so proudly, as though -- it exists only thanks to your interpretation and bad "philology" -- it is not a fact, not a "text", but rather only a naive humanitarian adjustment and distortion of meaning with which you go more than half-way to meet the democratic instincts of the modern soul! "Everywhere equality before the law -- nature is in this matter no different from us and no better off than we": a niece piece of mental reservation in which vulgar hostility towards everything privileged and autocratic, as well as a second and more subtle atheism, lie once more disguised. "Ni dieu, ni maître" -- that is your motto too: and therefore "long live the law of nature!" -- isn't that so? But, as aforesaid, that is interpretation, not text; and someone could come along who, with an opposite intention and art of interpretation, knew how to read out of the same nature and with regard to the same phenomena the tyrannically ruthless and inexorable enforcement of power-demands -- an interpreter who could bring before your eyes the universality and unconditionality of all "will to power" in such a way that almost any word and even the word "tyranny" would finally seem unsuitable or as a weakening and moderating metaphor -- as too human -- and who none the less ended by asserting of this world the same as you assert of it, namely that it has a "necessary" and "calculable" course, but not because laws prevail in it but because laws are absolutely lacking, and every power draws its ultimate consequences every moment. Granted this too is only interpretation -- and will you be eager enough to raise this objection? -- well, so much the better. --

From "Beyond Good and Evil".

[dA]

Reality, games and art -- three concepts that cannot be circumscribed in any way, and which can only be defined together, at the same time, by playing one against the other. That is why no one so far has managed to adequately define them. I lol at Wittgenstein's abortive efforts -- "family resemblances" my ass -- he should have read more Nietzsche instead of wasting his time on Bertrand Russell.

As for the difference between rules and laws -- it's simple. Laws are made by humans, which is why the expression "laws of nature" is absurd.

I'm thinking aloud more than anything else, but here we go: can the universe be seen as just one kind of game that is only distinguished by its rules? In a sport, rules are added (you can you only touch the ball with your foot in soccer). In video games, rules from reality are simulated and changed according to what the developers want to achieve.

The universe is full of games, even investing at the stock market can be seen as one. The only reason people don't call it so is because they see it as important. Investing can have a dramatic influence on your wealth, but a soccer match with your friends or an hour of Braid doesn't really seem to influence anything. When gamers can win thousands of dollars in a Counterstrike tournament, people often say "It's not a game any more".

So there's really no difference between the sets of rules that people call and don't call a game, only the importance of them to people. And for a philosopher like Baudrillard, even the seemingly most important set of rules is for him just the same as any other game.

[Bradford]

I don't contest anything in Icy's post, but I'm stuck with the following dilemma:

Is there a categorical difference between the activity we refer to as basketball, and isolated activity of a single person repeatedly shooting a ball into a hoop?

I would like to say that the former is a game, and the latter is not, and then give you a logical reason why.

Surely there must be some categorical difference between the two. I'm not necessarily attached to the term "game," if "game" is already so philosophically loaded as to include all of existence. It seems that there must be a categorical difference in the 'type' of game that life is, and the type of game that Basketball is. Is there not at least a sub-category of the term "game" that only includes things that fit the definition I recited earlier? What is the categorical difference between Halo and Microsoft Word? I only want to get at the difference between human-desginated rule-constrained activities in which one can win or lose, and other things that humans have created; specifically a list of the necessary elements for something to fit the in former category.

The purpose for which I started this thread was so I could eventually write about what makes games different from toys (or perhaps how to place things on a spectrum of game to toy, if there is no ultimate definition), and how understanding this difference might lead to creating better videogames, with less "fat" (and why the "fat" is detrimental in the first place).

[icycalm]

Is there a categorical difference between the activity we refer to as basketball, and isolated activity of a single person repeatedly shooting a ball into a hoop?

No. In the first case the point is to win the match. In the second case the point is to make the basket.

What is the categorical difference between Halo and Microsoft Word?

Ultimately, there is none. In both cases you have a bunch of algorithms. You put some numbers in and get some numbers out. It's all for the purpose of amusement.

The purpose for which I started this thread was so I could eventually write about what makes games different from toys

Games are collections of rules; toys are objects. There.

and how understanding this difference might lead to creating better videogames, with less "fat" (and why the "fat" is detrimental in the first place).

We already know how to create better videogames -- it depends on the genre. And, within each genre, we already know what constitutes fat: the boring parts.

[ganheddo]

I want to talk about specific videogames and discuss which specific aspects of them are games, and which parts are not. More specifically, I want to write an essay titled "Role Playing Toys" and talk about why most of us (here at Insomnia, that is) are derogatory about open-world RPGs containing so much "fat." I also want to write about the Music/Rythm (or whatever) game genre.

The problem with free-roaming games is that they allow for a great amount of games that may be played with them, and that you have to find the good ones yourself. But because they contain such a great amount of possibly entertaining games, they also contain an even greater amount of awful games. This is the fat, the boring parts. If you don't find any enjoyment in figuring out which games can be played, and which are actually fun to play (in which case you probably don't like to create games either), then you probably won't enjoy free-roaming titles.

Rhythm games on the other hand don't have fat, but what they have are mere reaction tests, that don't require much thought (strategy).

Games are collections of rules; toys are objects. There.

And a game as a "collection" cannot be seen as an object as well?

[icycalm]

Yes, just as an object can be seen as a collection of rules. Fundamentally, there's no difference between toys and games, nor rules and objects. That's why every attempt to make a distinction here will be abortive (see Wikipedia, Wittgenstein, and any game-related books, papers and articles ever).

The point is to grasp the nature of the flux. Once you've done that, you'll realize that rules and objects are illusory -- mere failures of the intellect -- products of the imagination. Some of this is explained here very well:

http://books.google.com/books?id=0qmYjh ... frontcover

[Worm]

"The universe is a game whose rules are the so-called laws of nature."

...this is why Wittgenstein was not able to define the concept 'game' -- because it is not a concept that can be circumscribed in any way...

But "game" isn't like "reality" or "universe" where the terms simply mean "everything" and therefore can't be circumscribed. Why would you describe the universe as a game unless you already had a definition of "game" that seemed applicable?

Fundamentally, there's no difference between toys and games, nor rules and objects. That's why every attempt to make a distinction here will be abortive...

My understanding of Bradford's post was that he wanted to come up a definition that can be used consistently in criticism, just as you did with genres--despite the fact that ultimately genre boundaries do not exist. So even if ultimately there is no distinction between rules and games, or toys and objects, we can come up with something serviceable that identifies what we're critiquing. Otherwise Baudrillard would not be able to make statements like, "Games are serious, more serious than life."

People speak of goals and purposes AS IF EVERY SINGLE ACTION IN THE UNIVERSE DID NOT ALWAYS AND NECESSARILY HAVE THEM. Not to mention winning and losing, which can be found everywhere you care to look -- from the motions of elementary particles all the way up to those of galaxies..

How is this anything but obfuscation? If those words can be applied to anything they become useless, so I don't know why you are using them in this way. What is "purpose" or "winning" supposed to mean in the context of elementary particles?

...it is only by adopting the (clearly false) dualistic viewpoint that we were able to make sense of the world in the first place...

I think the purpose (and usefulness) of the thread has been lost in favor of the holistic viewpoint. Can't wait for the book.

[icycalm]

But "game" isn't like "reality" or "universe" where the terms simply mean "everything" and therefore can't be circumscribed.

I am afraid that ultimately it is, and it can't be.

Why would you describe the universe as a game unless you already had a definition of "game" that seemed applicable?

The only serviceable definition of 'game' we can come up with besides the real definition (i.e. "everything") is the one I used in my Sequel: The Videogame essay:

Electronic games are above all games, that is to say "activities or contests governed by sets of rules" (Encarta).

Any other definition will just end up being stupid and/or logically inconsistent in one way or another, and the longer the definition, and the more vague concepts you introduce in it (purposes, goals, meanings, etc.), the more logical inconsistencies/stupidities careful observers will be able to point out to you. The above definition is simple and consistent (though I would remove either the 'activities' or the 'contests' from it, since they are ultimately the same thing), and allows you to deal with all lower-level problems you might come across. For higher-level problems, however, you are forced to use the "everything" definition.

My understanding of Bradford's post was that he wanted to come up a definition that can be used consistently in criticism, just as you did with genres--despite the fact that ultimately genre boundaries do not exist. So even if ultimately there is no distinction between rules and games, or toys and objects, we can come up with something serviceable that identifies what we're critiquing. Otherwise Baudrillard would not be able to make statements like, "Games are serious, more serious than life."

:)

1. I gave you the serviceable definition above.

2. You did not understand what he meant by that.

You see, if games and world and life and the universe are ultimately one and the same thing, then the statement that "games are more serious than life" doesn't make sense, since games are life, and life is a game, etc.

But that is not what Baudrillard meant. What he meant was that games are more serious than what the herd people mean by "life". I.e. their jobs, their studies, their families, their friends, etc. Games -- i.e. war -- are more serious than the wretched little exercise in mediocrity and banality that the herd calls "life".

People speak of goals and purposes AS IF EVERY SINGLE ACTION IN THE UNIVERSE DID NOT ALWAYS AND NECESSARILY HAVE THEM. Not to mention winning and losing, which can be found everywhere you care to look -- from the motions of elementary particles all the way up to those of galaxies..

How is this anything but obfuscation? If those words can be applied to anything they become useless, so I don't know why you are using them in this way.

I was just trying to help Bradford. Anytime someone tries to introduce goals and purposes into the definition of games absurdity ensues. These concepts are not necessary for anything -- the rules already define goals and purposes, so you don't need to add them to the definition. The definition must be as brief and as simple as possible in order for it to be of maximum use (or any use, really).

So I am not obfuscating anything -- I am just pointing out that in this particular case these concepts are useless -- more: they are harmful, they constrain the concept we are trying to define far too much.

What is "purpose" or "winning" supposed to mean in the context of elementary particles?

The purpose in this context is to achieve local configurations that maximize each particle's and group of particles' influence -- their "will to power" in other words. "Winning" in this context is the same thing. It happens automatically, ineluctably, inexorably, like all kinds of winning.

...it is only by adopting the (clearly false) dualistic viewpoint that we were able to make sense of the world in the first place...

I think the purpose (and usefulness) of the thread has been lost in favor of the holistic viewpoint.

No it hasn't. The purpose was to arrive at a workable definition of 'game', a definition which Encarta gave us ages ago and which I've already used on this site several times. So I mean, the thread's purpose had been achieved even before the thread was started. Hopefully, some people have learned some things by reading my clarifications. Now if Bradford thinks he can come up with a better, more useful definition than the one I have been using, he is more than welcome to try, and try again and again. So far, however, I have only seen failed attempts.

(P.S. Also, when you quote me or anyone else from this forum, please include a link to the specific post/thread where the quote is from, for the benefit of others.)

[icycalm]

I missed dA's post for some reason, but anyway, here is what I want to point out about it:

I'm thinking aloud more than anything else, but here we go: can the universe be seen as just one kind of game that is only distinguished by its rules?

I have no idea what this question asks. Bad English or bad reasoning: either way I don't understand it.

And for a philosopher like Baudrillard, even the seemingly most important set of rules is for him just the same as any other game.

Not "any other game". THE game. There is a huge difference.

And the rules of the universe are not "the most important" set of rules. They are the only rules, just as the game of the universe is the only game. All other "rules" and "games" are mini-rules and mini-games (because they are contained within it -- this is the definition of the mini-game).

[dA]

My question may have been unclear, but you still answered it perfectly. Thanks!

[Pilgrim]

A game is any clearly defined achievable win state.

That's about as concise as it gets. Lose states are not required. Lose states are only a state in which the win state is no longer achievable. At which point it ceases to remain a game.

It follows that life is not a game. Although your own personal life may be a game in your own mind.

It is the misunderstanding of what constitutes a win state which causes many of the errors in reasoning on this site.

(Hint: a win state is whatever you want to happen)

[icycalm]

A game is any clearly defined achievable win state.

A game is not a state. You cannot interact with a state -- a state is just a state.

That's about as concise as it gets.

That's about as stupid as it gets.

Lose states are not required. Lose states are only a state in which the win state is no longer achievable. At which point it ceases to remain a game.

It follows that life is not a game. Although your own personal life may be a game in your own mind.

There is a little truth in this -- a little. I will eventually get around to discussing it, but it will take quite a while.

It is the misunderstanding of what constitutes a win state which causes many of the errors in reasoning on this site.

You have 24 hours to post in the appropriate article/review threads and clearly elaborate those "errors of reasoning" of which you are speaking here. If you fail to do this you will be banned. This is a rule of this website: if you cannot back up your claims DO NOT MAKE THEM*. Otherwise it's back to gamefaqs for you.

(Hint: a win state is whatever you want to happen)

There is some truth in this for the great game. But it is far more complicated than that -- see, for example, Christian martyrs or ascetics, who want death to happen to them.



*And if you do try to back them up with stupid arguments, you'll also probably be banned, for being so prickish in your behavior in this thread and playing with my patience and my time.

[Pilgrim]

A game is any clearly defined achievable win state.

A game is not a state. You cannot interact with a state -- a state is just a state.

That's about as concise as it gets.

That's about as stupid as it gets.

The definition must be as brief and as simple as possible in order for it to be of maximum use (or any use, really).

In order to make the definition brief, simple and concise, implied knowledge was left out of the definition. The actual gaming part is the attempt to fulfill the win state. There is interaction with a rule set to achieve any win state. However, this need not be part of the definition of game. The win state is the only required element of a game because no win state can exist outside of a rule set. Likewise, a good definition of pencil is "a writing utensil made of wood and graphite" and not "a writing utensil made of wood and graphite that exists within the universe and obeys all of the laws of physics". I hope that clears it up.

Lose states are not required. Lose states are only a state in which the win state is no longer achievable. At which point it ceases to remain a game.

It follows that life is not a game. Although your own personal life may be a game in your own mind.

There is a little truth in this -- a little. I will eventually get around to discussing it, but it will take quite a while.

It is the misunderstanding of what constitutes a win state which causes many of the errors in reasoning on this site.

You have 24 hours to post in the appropriate article/review threads and clearly elaborate those "errors of reasoning" of which you are speaking here. If you fail to do this you will be banned. This is a rule of this website: if you cannot back up your claims DO NOT MAKE THEM*. Otherwise it's back to gamefaqs for you.

I don't have time within the next 24 hours to write a quality response, though I may in the future. If I didn't plan on eventually defending that claim then I wouldn't have made it. Reading what I wrote, it appears as though I'm saying that there are many separate errors, when in fact I meant that the article in question is a foundational piece which creates a chain reaction of error for articles based upon it. The article I'm referring to is the one in which you claim that the player is competing against the game designer in single player arcade games. I thought it was Arcade Culture, but upon skimming it, it was not the one. In any case, I don't have time to debate my side right now. I replied to this topic because the answer was low hanging fruit that took little time. As you do not hold yourself to a 24 hour time limit for articles, I hope that you will not hold me to one either. Solid arguments require time for composition. I plan on answering the low hanging fruit questions until I have time to respond to you're claims that require more insight. In the meantime I will refrain from making claims I can not immediately back up.

(Hint: a win state is whatever you want to happen)

There is some truth in this for the great game. But it is far more complicated than that -- see, for example, Christian martyrs or ascetics, who want death to happen to them.[/quote

This is a tricky example, but does not violate the rule. If you want death, and you achieve it, then you have achieved your win state. The tricky part is that you are no longer a conscious agent who can realize that a win state has been achieved. Because you're dead. But this does not mean that the win state was not achieved. It just means that if your win state was actually "I want to die and feel happy that that I've achieved this win state", then your win state was unachievable from the beginning and therefore was not a game. This is because you can't feel happy when you're dead.

[icycalm]

In order to make the definition brief, simple and concise, implied knowledge was left out of the definition.

Listen here, kid. Your definition was STOOPID because STATES are not GAMES: they are -- guess what! -- STATES. The requirement of brevity does not excuse STOOPID definitions, no matter how much you would desperately like it to, and "implied knowledge" does not mean using words in a sense ENTIRELY OPPOSITE to any conceivably acceptable definition of them. So take your prattling and stick it up your ass.

The actual gaming part is the attempt to fulfill the win state.

This comes into direct contradiction with your STOOPID definition.

There is interaction with a rule set to achieve any win state.

And this interaction is not a state -- it's an interaction. Which again comes in contradiction with your STOOPID definition.

However, this need not be part of the definition of game.

Perhaps in retard-land. In normal-people-land interaction must be part of the definition of game.

The win state is the only required element of a game because no win state can exist outside of a rule set.

NOTHING can exist outside of a rule set. This is the definition of existence. You are not saying anything.

Likewise, a good definition of pencil is "a writing utensil made of wood and graphite" and not "a writing utensil made of wood and graphite that exists within the universe and obeys all of the laws of physics". I hope that clears it up.

lol, yes, it clears up that you are a retard who I shouldn't be wasting my time interacting with. Good-bye.

I don't have time within the next 24 hours to write a quality response, though I may in the future.

lol yes, I'll be holding my breath for that.

If I didn't plan on eventually defending that claim then I wouldn't have made it.

You made it EXACTLY BECAUSE you didn't plan on defending it. Say hello to the rest of the human race.

Reading what I wrote, it appears as though I'm saying that there are many separate errors,

Yes, lol, that's what it appears, but...

when in fact I meant that the article in question is a foundational piece which creates a chain reaction of error for articles based upon it.

... you meant something quite different! I see you are very good at articulating your thoughts -- must be why your definitions are so well thought-out and insightful.

As you do not hold yourself to a 24 hour time limit for articles, I hope that you will not hold me to one either.

lol yes, because my gigantic articles are equivalent to your stupid forum replies. Or, better yet, because you and I are in equal positions. I am not the chief editor of this site, who has always been here and will always be here, who has written a couple of books worth of reviews and articles, and never fails to back them up, which is why my statements can and should be taken at face value -- and you are not a random person who might be a 12-year-old for all I know, and who therefore NEEDS TO PROVE TO ME WITH EVERY POST YOU MAKE THAT YOU ARE WORTHY OF MY TIME AND PATIENCE. No, no, no -- we are equals and should be held to the exact same demands and standards.

LOL

Solid arguments require time for composition. I plan on answering the low hanging fruit questions until I have time to respond to you're claims that require more insight.

I'll be looking for your replies on the frontpage of The New Yorker.

In the meantime I will refrain from making claims I can not immediately back up.

Good for you, child. At least you learned something from all this.

This is a tricky example, but does not violate the rule. If you want death, and you achieve it, then you have achieved your win state. The tricky part is that you are no longer a conscious agent who can realize that a win state has been achieved. Because you're dead. But this does not mean that the win state was not achieved. It just means that if your win state was actually "I want to die and feel happy that that I've achieved this win state", then your win state was unachievable from the beginning and therefore was not a game. This is because you can't feel happy when you're dead.

More random prattling. The problem of the definition of a win state has been the no. 1 problem in philosophy for over 120 years, and its solution is most certainly not "whatever you want it to be". Not to mention that all the "happiness" chattering is extremely naive and superficial.