The ludological definition of "game"

[selmiak]

I am also extremely sure that nothing is created perfect in the first place.

...
_
edited some typos away.

[Janos Biro]

Ghost,

If I have one perfectly fine axe, why should I go and invent a chainsaw?

Exactly! It's amazing how you value progress! I wonder if everybody here thinks this way or you excel among them. No joking, I'm really curious. I find it a fascinating cultural trait, but it is almost alien to other cultures. In their view, trying to "improve" things is the original sin, the root of all evil, the cause of all destruction. In some cultures, people don't even invent stuff. They are taught new techniques by talking animals or trees, they create art inspired by spirits, and other things just fall from the sky as divine gifts. In any case, there is no "trial and error" and no "constant improvement". Things change so slow that people don't even remember how it was before, so it is like it was always this way, like nothing ever changed. Nature creates, humans just imitate, because humans are inherently flawed. They are nasty little things who can only give names to everything. True creativity is a divine attribute, no human can really create anything. If the axe wasn't perfectly fine, we would have died of starvation eons ago. If we survived, we don't need anything else. On the other hand, a more efficient tool would unbalance our relation with nature and ultimately destroy us all. Like this: Caveman Science Fiction

Now this belief (allow me to call a belief) of yours, it is really Bacon's fault.

Francis Bacon said nature is like a witch that needs to be tortured so we can extract her secrets and use it as science. Modern science evolved from demonology during the inquisition. But enough about that. Consider it just an amusement. Let's go back to topic.

I have no argument against "more is not a bad thing". I would vote for less, but I know it could never win.


Snarky,

Yes, apparently it's only when YOU don't like it that something is crap.

Really? What about all I've said about individual tastes? Okay, let me correct: Just because I (or any individual) don't like it doesn't mean it is crap.

Can we define what is crap? I will try: Being crap has nothing to do with individual taste, it is about how a game is made. An indie game designer could say a crappy game is a game without soul, made for money, made without love, by people who would never play it. So many people, in fact, that they don't even recognize the final product. Or a bugged, unfinished game that crashes your computer. It is, above all, just another product of wage slavery. But crap today must be redefined. Many indie games are crap for different reasons. Those indies who want to be so "professional" that they are really just a small copy of a big business... No one really likes crap games, except maybe the makers best friends or people who just drool on any "pro-looking" indie. "Hey, we made a game and we won awards and we making money". So what? It is so "pro" that is exactly like that commercially successful game, but with new cool features. Yeah, you are a good game improver. Congratulations, you can make less crappy games. But no offense, all my games are crap. One could say that they are games in the same way that models are buildings. I'm not thinking about any AGS game. Most AGS games I played are really, really great games.

Yeah, I hear that "myth of the noble savage" accusation a lot. People often use it to defend civilization from anything good that we can say about "primitive" people. After all, we all know those uncultured beasts are much worst than we are, right? We also have the "myth of the nobler civilized man". I bet you took me as a romantic without thinking twice. You fail to see that it is impossible for these cultures to create so much garbage because they mostly don't welcome any new things, they simply pass on traditional knowledge to the next generations, with very few adaptations if something important changes in their general situation. I said those stories are masterpieces because they stay alive for a very long time. They are not substituted by a better one every week, and they are certainly not mass produced. That includes jokes. That's why we find them very boring.


Miguel,

Aha! But why wouldn't you consider it a game? Doesn't it qualifies according to your criterion? Maybe is not a game you would want to make, but that only means it is not a good game to you. I think it's awesome! It shows how games change the way we think. It shows that, when faced with only one option that we don't want to make, we can choose not to play. It makes me think a lot. I hate obscure cult movies. This is not obscure at all.

Did you never played cowboys and indians, Janos?

No.

And what's that with too many games being produced every year? Is that bad? It means jobs, industry, families fed. And consumers are given lots to chose from.

I'm so glad you mentioned that! Please explain me why MORE jobs are good, in the first place. And why do you relate that with feeding families? Making games does not produces any food, it consumes food! It's a very weird concept. Why consumers need MORE silly options? Are the current options that bad? Why would someone force families to work on MORE unnecessary options instead of growing food?


Sunny Penguin,

I'm talking about 100.000 to 200.000 years.

Yeah, you can laugh, but I'm serious. Civilization did a great job diminishing the problems itself created, as long as someone can profit from it. First, it created patriarchy, and then after treating women like inferiors for thousands of years, it discovers that they are equal to men just in time to get they to work to support the war, since men are busy killing each other. It creates slavery and after building all the great cities with forced work, frees the slaves so they can compete for very low paid jobs. It creates the ideal situation for dictatorships, and then overthrows them to make space for more Mac Donalds. It destroys the traditional wisdom of the people and them gives them "free speech", so they can tell each other how empty they are. Do you think the situation is better when we need to take pills to make life bearable?

I'm talking about that people in the Fertile Crescent that created the idea of territory conquest, and then spread around the globe killing and slavering all the other people. I call it simply civilization, but you can call it any name you want. But let's really, really move this subject to another place, can we?

When was making video games not about business?

Whenever you want to. I know many people who make completely free games.

Money makes the world go around and people need to make a living.

Yeah, I just can't understand why submit your life to the dictatorship of money.

If someone prefers to work in the game industry rather than working in a fast food joint or sweeping the floor in some factory, does that make them less 'honourable'?

No. If someone prefers to be a rock star rather then cleaning toilets, does that make them less 'honorable'? It is not a question of honor. If someone prefers to work for money and make games for free, does that make them less 'honorable'? I guess the question is: Do you know anyone that works in a fast food joint or sweeps the floor in some factory for the love of it, or for free? The conclusion is that working with something you love is the real elitism. The only thing that encourages you to be creative is money? Making games is for everyone, but games don't make food nor sweep the floor. And games are very expensive too. Why would they work so hard to buy games if they can make great games for themselves (for free)?

If you don't like a game then don't play it.

It's not about individual taste, see above.

If you think that there is a lack of good games 'on the market' be the change you want to see in the world and make a good game.

Really? Well, thanks for the support.

Or even become a game critic and sway peoples opinions to change the market.

Thanks again...

but I can't agree with you that 'civilisation and games' are moving in the wrong direction

But I don't even began to give my reasons to believe that...

[kaput]

.

[Ghost]

Janos: Glad to get a smile out of you there or at least some exclamation marks... I just have no idea if you got me right or if you're delivering some kick-ass sarcasm there.
Blame it on the forums being text-only

I wouldn't say I value progress religiously. It's just something that happens. We live and learn. There's always a new idea, something to play around with. I guess it's just what humans do because frankly, it's the only thing we really do outstandingly WELL.

My point: Perfection is the death of creativity. Fortunately it is impossible to have something perfected*. One perfect "anything" would have to be accepted as perfect by everyone on the planet, as the best there is, as the must-have for everyone, and it would be without fault and failure.
If John Everyman would create the perfect Match-3 game, no-one ever would have to make another one. Because it would be the only Match-3 game everyone will ever want to play, and nobody would want to even try another one because the perfect one is already there. Interestingly, even people who HATE Match-3 games would have to objectively admit that it is perfect and it's really THEIR FAULT that they do not like it.
That would be terrible because no-one would ever make a new Match-3 game. And maybe everyone who hates Match-3 will be considered an outlaw.
But it's also not possible to ever get such a game. Can't be done. And that's exactly the reason who no game ever will get that 10/10 rating.

__
* Okay, there are perfect angles in math and stuff. But that's not concrete. You can't make them in real life.

In some cultures, people don't even invent stuff. They are taught new techniques by talking animals or trees, they create art inspired by spirits, and other things just fall from the sky as divine gifts.

They DID invent the talking animals, chatty trees, spirits and divine beings- I'd call that quite a lot of original thought.

I'm so glad you mentioned that! Please explain me why MORE jobs are good, in the first place. And why do you relate that with feeding families? Making games does not produces any food, it consumes food! It's a very weird concept.

I will take that word-by-word. Making games does not produce food. It creates something intended to buy food. It is a means of making a living if you are not doing it for free. It's a bit like, you know, working every day to get a paycheck at the end of the month. Quite a lot of people do that. I am sure I can provide a reliable quote.

It's only been 50,000 years since people developed the use of language and tools so when exactly did it go "wrong" in this time?

Fun fact: Our language has originally been invented to tell the other ape where the good fruits are.

__
EDIT:
I wrote "umpossuble". Ridiculous!

[kaput]

Fun fact: Our language has originally been invented to tell the other ape where the good fruits are.

I disagree. Our language as such was not invented. It's an inherent feature of the species (see Chomsky's theories lol). In any case, it was not the apes who developed the language but homo sapiens. Also, it might have developed to allow one human to say to the other "scratch me right there below the shoulder blade".

I would certainly not tell any random ape/human about the good food. It's all about survival. Logic would say that I would let my family know about it but no strangers. Also, I would be very territorial about it. But obviously that's another debate entirely.

[Ghost]

I disagree [snip] monkey [snip] homo sapiens [snip] quote[snip] logic [snip]

Yeah but it was such a great quote! Gimme that, at least!

Sorry for off-topic, back to business.

[kaput]

I disagree [snip] monkey [snip] homo sapiens [snip] quote[snip] logic [snip]

Yeah but it was such a great quote! Gimme that, at least!

Sorry for off-topic, back to business.

Ghost, I love you. Let us forget this nonsense and rejoice!

[miguel]

Janos, about the game you linked: you found it strange that I gave a negative opinion or you wanted my opinion to match yours?
You also say

I think it's awesome! It shows how games change the way we think.

. Well, honestly, the game didn't change the way I think, not even for a moment. I'd never shoot a man because I'm perfectly aware of the consequences. I shoot 35472 enemies to complete a game if I have to.
Like I said, the game was surprising in the way it backfires on the player. But it is very depressing dude.

No cowboys and indians, really? You never played like you were Bruce Lee or a super hero? That just sucks.

Please explain me why MORE jobs are good, in the first place. And why do you relate that with feeding families?

Are you serious? Do you work, Janos?

Why would someone force families to work on MORE unnecessary options instead of growing food?

Huh? People search for available jobs, if agriculture pays well they'll do it. The same with game making.
If there's a lot of oranges in the market but still some land owner pays me to pick oranges, I'll do it. It doesn't matter if I think that Bananas are more necessary than oranges.

[Snarky]

So apparently what's wrong with the trend in modern video games is that man discovered fire. In other words, the discussion is utterly pointless.

The only thing I'm curious about: janosbiro, do you really believe the things you're writing, or is this just a kind of sophomoric "for the sake of argument" ploy? Because the way you fall back on grand statements of human nature as gospel truth (rather than just interesting ideas worth considering) sounds to me more like an exercise in hearing yourself talk than like a deeply felt and lived philosophy.

[Janos Biro]

Sunny Penguin,

My answer in this topic.


Ghost,

Yeah, I like you! I feel like "how in the world can someone think like that?!" about you and others, but not in bad way. I bet it must be mutual.

I guess even what defines us as human, or what we do best, varies from culture to culture.

Perfection is a concept I have a really hard time to understand. What you said makes sense, but... Nevermind, it's a perfect definition!

They DID invent the talking animals, chatty trees, spirits and divine beings- I'd call that quite a lot of original thought.

Well, that's what YOU think. They might think that you see those things as "inventions" because you can't see the truth, probably because you are possessed by an evil spirit.

It's a bit like, you know, working every day to get a paycheck at the end of the month. Quite a lot of people do that. I am sure I can provide a reliable quote.

Okay, but we were originally talking about "why MORE games", and not simply "why games", and Miguel said we need MORE jobs, so I asked why. So the question was not "why jobs", but "why MORE jobs". See, the central question is the "MORE", so don't let it aside, please.


Miguel,

Janos, about the game you linked: you found it strange that I gave a negative opinion or you wanted my opinion to match yours?

Not at all. It was not negative, you just didn't like it. I just wanted to show you because I think it has everything it needs to be considered a game according to game theory, and yet I sensed that you would say that it is not a game. My opinion is that you just didn't get it.

Well, honestly, the game didn't change the way I think, not even for a moment.

No, the game shows how OTHER games change the way we think. It's only because you played so many games that are about killing people that you saw no problem in shooting another one, see? It's not depressing, it's art! But I understand we have different tastes.

No cowboys and indians, really? You never played like you were Bruce Lee or a super hero? That just sucks.

Wait, I played those kind of games a lot! Just no "cowboys and indians" because pretending you are killing indians here is really, how you say, "depressing". But  G.I. Joe, ThunderCats, He-Man, Dungeons & Dragons and X-Men were all top!

Are you serious? Do you work, Janos?

Yes and yes. Why?

People search for available jobs, if agriculture pays well they'll do it. The same with game making.

I don't get it. Why more GAMES if families are starving? Why not more FOOD? From where will the food come from?


Snarky,

So apparently what's wrong with the trend in modern video games is that man discovered fire. In other words, the discussion is utterly pointless.

Well, when you put it that way, it sure looks pointless. But that's not the point. The discussion about games went to the discussion about cultural world views that went to the the discussion about civilization. The point was that the ludological definition of game is culturally restricted. My argument is that they choose to relate games with "rules" instead of "stories" and describe it like a scientist describes the anatomy of a dead bird in a vivisection, because they feared that other entertainment industries could appropriate the gaming industry. That caused a problem defining either games are art. It was just it. But then we gone to culture industry, capitalism, society, and it all got weird, because I happen to have very unusual views about those subjects too, and that seems to interest you more than the topic itself. No problem, just saying.

do you really believe the things you're writing, or is this just a kind of sophomoric "for the sake of argument" ploy?

I have very unusual ideas, but I'm very confident about the seriousness of what I'm saying, and I know a lot of people who think the same way. I think it's not interesting to you because you expect something very different. But I'm not inventing it, and it is not a joke or something like that. Just uncommon knowledge.

[miguel]

Janos, you're arguing just for the sake of it, and turning every single phrase into philosophical counter measures, but:

Not at all. It was not negative, you just didn't like it.

Meaning I had a negative opinion. And you'll keep at it until I agree with you, right? But, believe me: It was negative.

the game shows how OTHER games change the way we think. It's only because you played so many games that are about killing people that you saw no problem in shooting another one, see?

A FPS will rarely change the way I think about anything, it's just me role playing a cool guy that saves the day. And because I thought I was playing a proper game I had no problem shooting.

It's not depressing, it's art!

And art can't be depressing? How does unveiling the ludo-logic barrier to the point that the player feels "guilty" about something he wasn't prepared is not depressing?

Just no "cowboys and indians" because pretending you are killing indians here is really, how you say, "depressing"

Now you're trying to be a smart ass, Janos. And not really answering any questions. You seem intelligent enough to understand what I said.

I don't get it. Why more GAMES if families are starving? Why not more FOOD? From where will the food come from?

It's not more games, it's more jobs available in the gaming industry. More jobs mean families can pay for their food.
You sincerely don't think that the gaming industry is stopping people from turning into agriculture, right?
People will always buy food and then games and governments will produce food or buy food if it's less expensive. Unless you're a politician with the means to change anything you'll produce food or buy it like everybody else. Yes, it's really almost sinful that some countries don't have a proper meal a day, but if you are really concerned just join the Red Cross or something like that.
Talking here isn't going to solve anything.

And, please, when you mix things like famine with video games the outcome will not be nor rigorous or even coherent.

[Janos Biro]

Miguel,

Janos, you're arguing just for the sake of it, and turning every single phrase into philosophical counter measures

What can I do to prove that I'm not? Really, I thought you would understand my way of thinking, but it is not happening. I believe that if I try to explain, you will just think I'm arguing for the sake of it, don't you? So there's nothing more I can say...

[ThreeOhFour]

My argument is that they choose to relate games with "rules" instead of "stories" and describe it like a scientist describes the anatomy of a dead bird in a vivisection, because they feared that other entertainment industries could appropriate the gaming industry.

If this is your point, what is the issue with it? Everything is restricted by some rules, from every experience emerges a story, even if the story is "I spent 15 hours on this game and finally beat the high score."

What does it matter what "they" think? Games are expression. Daring games that are well made will find their audience, no matter how unconventional. Creating a game is an expression, playing a game means picking which form of expression appeals to you personally. None of this defines how to make an engaging experience at all. Trying to approach game design as a science is like trying to approach storytelling as a science - there are patterns that you can set, but they can change in time. Cart Life did extremely well at the IGF, despite being more daring than any platformer, shooter or adventure game.

I haven't studied ludo-science at all. Played a lot of games, though.

[Ghost]

Played a lot of games, though.

And made games. That means like most of us, you're giving the third-greatest-gift*!
I'll be over in my attic making a game now

[Janos Biro]

Okay, if I'm going to continue this conversation, I need to say something first:

I didn't knew “negative” means “don't like it”. I was thinking of something else.

I believe games are culture, and so they change the way we think.

Yes, art can be depressing. I meant it is not just depressing, like it shouldn't have been done.

About “cowboys and indians”, I really didn't understood your question because I'm not used to this expression.

About jobs, I was oversimplifying, but what I meant was: why more jobs in game industry if we already have too much games?

I know I said some very silly things (dead bird in a vivisection, for example). Sorry, it happens.

Now, what's the issue with the definition of game? Well, if what theorists say doesn't matter... I'm sorry. I thought it was relevant. If it is all that simple, let's close the case and do something else, right?

[Ghost]

About jobs, I was oversimplifying, but what I meant was: why more jobs in game industry if we already have too much games?

Ohwait. Here the storyteller in my disagrees. Where does it say we have too many games? I would say games are one of the few products that can be created in (theoretically) infinite number. This applies to most "entertainment media", people will always consume the next movie even if it's "just about the guy getting the girl". People will always buy the next Match-3 even though they already have Bejeweled.
Too many games, really? I don't see that.

__
Edit: And I DID start working on a game too!

[Janos Biro]

Ghost,

In my view, we have too much entertainment. But if you say it's not enough until people stop buying, then, what can I say? Vive la difference!

[Ghost]

In my view, we have too much entertainment.

Yes okay, but WHAT makes you think that? The sentence implies you see a detrimental effect there. Which one?

But if you say it's not enough until people stop buying, then, what can I say?

I'l lfind out. What makes you so defensive and yet unwilling to drop the subjec? There are four pages of good valid PoVs here, enough to sway a lesser man or at least to admit that the discussion won't reach a conclusion. Yet that quote sounds like another clearing of the throat before the next thing is bad and horrible

[Janos Biro]

Ghost,

Yes okay, but WHAT makes you think that? The sentence implies you see a detrimental effect there. Which one?

Long story. If you really want to know, here is a good intro.

Defensive? Me? No, I was trying to be respectful. Look, if I just ignored you, you wouldn't like it. But I really don't know what else I could say, since all I say is considered petulant. I agree we wont get anywhere like this. I'm okay with leaving it.

[Ghost]

Got your point. And also a link. It's a serious one.
It's the Galaxy Song.