Worm wrote: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.
Worm wrote: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.
Worm wrote: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".
Worm wrote:icycalm wrote: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.
Worm wrote: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.
icycalm in another thread wrote:...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.)