i got into a really protracted play-argument with my gf over whether 100 metre dash is a game or not. my initial position was that it's a game and it's kind of a shit one. my gf was like wtf are you talking about. and i explained that beyond the context, it's no different than a bunch of kids saying "last one to the fence is a rotten egg!" if they were just running about chasing each other, then it would be play, but since a win/loss condition has been introduced, they have made a game out of it. fundamentally the same thing, right? and at some point i had a genious-level brainflash, exclaiming "IT'S LITERALLY CALLED THE OLYMPIC GAMES!!!"
well, it's been a few days and we've introduced friends to this debate, providing us with fresh perspectives about the nature of athleticism, the work-play distinction with olympic athletes, stuff like that. and yesterday evening, i made a diagram in mspaint which i will also try and capture in text:
EDIT!! IMPORTANT!!: check out @Pangburn's comment bc they get to the heart of why much of the following is shoddy pseud shit. i'm keeping it up even if it's wrong to use set notation bc it illustrates my initial train of thought. any further edits will be completely in block italics and datestamped like yymmdd from now on.
here's the visual diagram, just to make things easier
play = P, game = G, competition = C
G ⊂ P
(P ∩ C ∩ G') = Ø
(P ∩ G') contains such activites as: throwing stick for your dog, playing pattycake with your son, freeform rp, messing around in gmod, doing wheelies on your bike, building a cool castle in minecraft with your son
(G ∩ C') c.s.a.a.: attempting to complete armored core: for answer, attempting to complete portal 2 co-op with your son, playing pandemic board game
(G ∩ C) c.s.a.a.: being in a fighting game tournament, racing your son in forza, playing chess, playing a football match
(G' ∩ C) c.s.a.a.: fighting your son to the death over rations on a desert island
(P' ∩ C') c.s.a.a.: cycling to work, hiking on the moors, reading moby dick, cooking dinner, kissing your son goodnight
230218 @Pangburn points out that we need a space A (activities) to enclose these three sets so I suppose P, G, C ⊂ A in this line of thinking. But this will be all undermined soon enough...
the question is: is 100 metre dash ∈ (G ∩ C) or ∈ (G' ∩ C)?
can you answer that definitively or is it a matter of individual mindset, whether you go into it playfully or not? you could conceivably contrive a situation of a competition in which the personal stakes are so imbalanced that one competitor is fighting for their life or health while another is just having fun.
so these activities can shift so readily from one set to another. if either of my gf and i had started making winning our argument an active goal, it would have catapulted it into set C, but only for the one with that competitive mindset. i also think about players goofing off in spawn in pvp combat games like tf2 before attempting to achieve their objectives: same "game" technically, but players' behaviour shifts from (P ∩ G') to (G ∩ C) so easily. in fact, most of the activities listed above could shift sets i reckon!
230218 so what @Pangburn identified is that i've unwittingly undermined the whole set theory thing by inconsistently using the sets "play" and "competition" as both mindsets and types of activities. when the sets are treated as mindsets, activities can mercurially slide from one set to another based on an individual's subjectivity... but that simply doesn't cut it for set theory! so we either have to ditch the mindset thing and strictly define ontologies for the sets or we ditch the set thing and focus on subjectivity. personally, i like the second option more bc i'm a sick fuck. i have to get ready for work very soon, but here's my first thought:
the activity is determined by objective and subjective factors. objective are things like the presence or absence of a win/loss condition and/or rules, as well as whether a conflict is involved with multiple people (opponents) engaging in a zero-sum situation. subjective are things like playful attitude, hostile attitude, competitive attitude, etc… where do we go from here..?
... any thoughts on this? have to dash now...
evening thought: let's make the distinction between "free play" and "instrumental play", the former being playful engagement in an activity with no objective to optimise towards and the latter involving an objective to optimise towards. both of these can involve opposition, the former as "play-fighting" and the latter as "competitive game".
i feel like it would be worth trying to capture what it means to "engage playfully" or even strictly define "GAME" (some other time when i'm less tired; maybe you can help me!) but on considering what a non-playful engagement with an activity with an objective goal to optimise towards would look like... i come up with WORK. so... when someone plays a videogame without playfulness, maybe they're not "playing a game" at all. maybe they're just working. to my mind, "making a game of something" is an inherently playful act, so can we reasonably call videogames that when they can be made to become not-games to someone? the waters here are murky and stinky and i am literally just thinking out loud lol.
230425 what a funny week i had where i fixated on this lol. it really pushed me further into disliking categorisation as a practice. also it led me to examining the qualities that i appreciate in video games and media in general. long story short: i prefer playing to gaming and if i engage with some media just by myself i want to feel like it has changed me in some way, given me food for thought or artistic inspiration. i don't trust 99.9% of video games to do that for me.
what do you reckon?
anyway, this is the only game i ever owned with either mario or sonic in the title. i trampolined as blaze the cat.
well, it's been a few days and we've introduced friends to this debate, providing us with fresh perspectives about the nature of athleticism, the work-play distinction with olympic athletes, stuff like that. and yesterday evening, i made a diagram in mspaint which i will also try and capture in text:
EDIT!! IMPORTANT!!: check out @Pangburn's comment bc they get to the heart of why much of the following is shoddy pseud shit. i'm keeping it up even if it's wrong to use set notation bc it illustrates my initial train of thought. any further edits will be completely in block italics and datestamped like yymmdd from now on.
here's the visual diagram, just to make things easier
play = P, game = G, competition = C
G ⊂ P
(P ∩ C ∩ G') = Ø
(P ∩ G') contains such activites as: throwing stick for your dog, playing pattycake with your son, freeform rp, messing around in gmod, doing wheelies on your bike, building a cool castle in minecraft with your son
(G ∩ C') c.s.a.a.: attempting to complete armored core: for answer, attempting to complete portal 2 co-op with your son, playing pandemic board game
(G ∩ C) c.s.a.a.: being in a fighting game tournament, racing your son in forza, playing chess, playing a football match
(G' ∩ C) c.s.a.a.: fighting your son to the death over rations on a desert island
(P' ∩ C') c.s.a.a.: cycling to work, hiking on the moors, reading moby dick, cooking dinner, kissing your son goodnight
230218 @Pangburn points out that we need a space A (activities) to enclose these three sets so I suppose P, G, C ⊂ A in this line of thinking. But this will be all undermined soon enough...
the question is: is 100 metre dash ∈ (G ∩ C) or ∈ (G' ∩ C)?
can you answer that definitively or is it a matter of individual mindset, whether you go into it playfully or not? you could conceivably contrive a situation of a competition in which the personal stakes are so imbalanced that one competitor is fighting for their life or health while another is just having fun.
so these activities can shift so readily from one set to another. if either of my gf and i had started making winning our argument an active goal, it would have catapulted it into set C, but only for the one with that competitive mindset. i also think about players goofing off in spawn in pvp combat games like tf2 before attempting to achieve their objectives: same "game" technically, but players' behaviour shifts from (P ∩ G') to (G ∩ C) so easily. in fact, most of the activities listed above could shift sets i reckon!
230218 so what @Pangburn identified is that i've unwittingly undermined the whole set theory thing by inconsistently using the sets "play" and "competition" as both mindsets and types of activities. when the sets are treated as mindsets, activities can mercurially slide from one set to another based on an individual's subjectivity... but that simply doesn't cut it for set theory! so we either have to ditch the mindset thing and strictly define ontologies for the sets or we ditch the set thing and focus on subjectivity. personally, i like the second option more bc i'm a sick fuck. i have to get ready for work very soon, but here's my first thought:
the activity is determined by objective and subjective factors. objective are things like the presence or absence of a win/loss condition and/or rules, as well as whether a conflict is involved with multiple people (opponents) engaging in a zero-sum situation. subjective are things like playful attitude, hostile attitude, competitive attitude, etc… where do we go from here..?
... any thoughts on this? have to dash now...
evening thought: let's make the distinction between "free play" and "instrumental play", the former being playful engagement in an activity with no objective to optimise towards and the latter involving an objective to optimise towards. both of these can involve opposition, the former as "play-fighting" and the latter as "competitive game".
i feel like it would be worth trying to capture what it means to "engage playfully" or even strictly define "GAME" (some other time when i'm less tired; maybe you can help me!) but on considering what a non-playful engagement with an activity with an objective goal to optimise towards would look like... i come up with WORK. so... when someone plays a videogame without playfulness, maybe they're not "playing a game" at all. maybe they're just working. to my mind, "making a game of something" is an inherently playful act, so can we reasonably call videogames that when they can be made to become not-games to someone? the waters here are murky and stinky and i am literally just thinking out loud lol.
230425 what a funny week i had where i fixated on this lol. it really pushed me further into disliking categorisation as a practice. also it led me to examining the qualities that i appreciate in video games and media in general. long story short: i prefer playing to gaming and if i engage with some media just by myself i want to feel like it has changed me in some way, given me food for thought or artistic inspiration. i don't trust 99.9% of video games to do that for me.
what do you reckon?
anyway, this is the only game i ever owned with either mario or sonic in the title. i trampolined as blaze the cat.
19 Comments
(Pretend theres a closed parenthesis on the other side there)
Also holy shit you're the first person to use 'retired' I've seen on here, you brilliant doll you! Everyone should adopt this approach over abandoned or shelved!
Hold on...I'm summoning my Stand.
@Erato_Heti The fact that peeps rarely use "Retired" is crazy to me cuz that could be applied to so many games! Or at least ones I've experienced. (I def set Hunt Showdown as Retired. As well as Deathloop.. More for being a tongue and cheek joke I suppose)
@erato hiya! i thought i managed to hyperlink it just like you described... was it broken for you?
also thanks for linking to that music in your example! lovely to hear microtonality employed to make what would already be lush chord shifts in equal temperament sound even more lush and magical... just the subtle gradations away from the familiar into pure spectral shit..... i wanna hear (or even create if i have the time) exactly this GORGEOUS use of microtonality in more tightly structured songs. usually when you come across microtonal writing in pop/rock music it's quartertones and/or a novelty but this sort of thing is rare. it's clear zhea is doing it because it's beautiful to them rather than to show off or be clever.
anyway, anticipating your forthcoming comment ! :>
also thanks for linking to that music in your example! lovely to hear microtonality employed to make what would already be lush chord shifts in equal temperament sound even more lush and magical... just the subtle gradations away from the familiar into pure spectral shit..... i wanna hear (or even create if i have the time) exactly this GORGEOUS use of microtonality in more tightly structured songs. usually when you come across microtonal writing in pop/rock music it's quartertones and/or a novelty but this sort of thing is rare. it's clear zhea is doing it because it's beautiful to them rather than to show off or be clever.
anyway, anticipating your forthcoming comment ! :>
OH LMAO i just realised you were telling me about hyperlinking images because i could have just done that with the image i created. i'm a silly billy for this one.
biggest issue with the notation is that you haven't defined a space for P, G, and C to reside in. presumably you assume that all activities A comprises the "space" and then play activities, game activities, and competitive activities are all enclosed by A (otherwise the negated sets are meaningless because the elements that do not exist in any of the sets you mentioned are basically undefined).
I've gone through a few different lines of reasoning trying to piece this together, and my conclusion is that the set notation is a stand-in for the actual definitions, when there should just be plain-text definitions for each of these described values. furthermore, if the activity objects contained in these sets are fluid, then they cannot be defined by the set they reside in, making the set notation definitionally unviable. if this was just temporal fluidity, then we could take a slice of time and refer to the activities conducted within it as elements of one or more of these sets. however, this is not true if we follow your idea of a playful activity as an activity that is "perceived playfully". if two players compete and one player perceives the competition as playful while the other does not, then the placement of the activity object even in that slice of time is indeterminate between "game" and "non-game competition".
you could even go as far as to say that games are not necessarily subsets of play... if we consider the following loose definitions from your text:
play: an activity undertaken in a playful manner (we'll ignore the circular reasoning of this for now)
game: an activity with a win/loss condition
competition: an activity with two sides working against one another (we'll ignore the "mindset" aspect of this for now)
if a person plays a non-competitive game in a sullen manner (such as an upset child playing solitaire while waiting on a parent to do something for them), can we consider that play under these definitions? I believe it's acceptable to say that we can consider this a game that is not playful, therefore rendering games outside of the bounds of play. that would make the relation a three-way venn diagram, and would thus nullify its definitional power entirely given that there is no clear hierarchical relation between any of the activities, and given that none of the sets are completely disjoint.
tldr on this is that you'd need some sort of ontology of these terms in order to actually bring meaning to the notation presented here. I think there are ontologies that could potentially result in this set structure, but it would mean eliminating the perceptive aspect of the loose definitions as you present them (epistemological ramifications of that aside).
[I think I'm what erato was summoning LOL she asked what some of the symbols meant and linked to this post]
I've gone through a few different lines of reasoning trying to piece this together, and my conclusion is that the set notation is a stand-in for the actual definitions, when there should just be plain-text definitions for each of these described values. furthermore, if the activity objects contained in these sets are fluid, then they cannot be defined by the set they reside in, making the set notation definitionally unviable. if this was just temporal fluidity, then we could take a slice of time and refer to the activities conducted within it as elements of one or more of these sets. however, this is not true if we follow your idea of a playful activity as an activity that is "perceived playfully". if two players compete and one player perceives the competition as playful while the other does not, then the placement of the activity object even in that slice of time is indeterminate between "game" and "non-game competition".
you could even go as far as to say that games are not necessarily subsets of play... if we consider the following loose definitions from your text:
play: an activity undertaken in a playful manner (we'll ignore the circular reasoning of this for now)
game: an activity with a win/loss condition
competition: an activity with two sides working against one another (we'll ignore the "mindset" aspect of this for now)
if a person plays a non-competitive game in a sullen manner (such as an upset child playing solitaire while waiting on a parent to do something for them), can we consider that play under these definitions? I believe it's acceptable to say that we can consider this a game that is not playful, therefore rendering games outside of the bounds of play. that would make the relation a three-way venn diagram, and would thus nullify its definitional power entirely given that there is no clear hierarchical relation between any of the activities, and given that none of the sets are completely disjoint.
tldr on this is that you'd need some sort of ontology of these terms in order to actually bring meaning to the notation presented here. I think there are ontologies that could potentially result in this set structure, but it would mean eliminating the perceptive aspect of the loose definitions as you present them (epistemological ramifications of that aside).
[I think I'm what erato was summoning LOL she asked what some of the symbols meant and linked to this post]
@pangburn i actually totally accept your criticisms here! set categorisation is inappropriate (i guess i proved this as i wrote the post without realising it lol) and there's an inconsistency of whether "play" and "competition" are treated as mindsets or activities... this is what i get for stepping out of my element and outing myself as a pseud; i'm a musician, not a mathematician or an analytic philosopher!
i have to sleep soon bc i have to get up early for work but i do want to explore the perception/attitude side of things bc that interests me and it's the part of my post that holds up better to scrutiny i think. i'm gonna edit the post to direct anyone else reading to your comment.
thanks for taking the time to straighten this shit out a bit :>
i have to sleep soon bc i have to get up early for work but i do want to explore the perception/attitude side of things bc that interests me and it's the part of my post that holds up better to scrutiny i think. i'm gonna edit the post to direct anyone else reading to your comment.
thanks for taking the time to straighten this shit out a bit :>
no worries! glad I was able to help refine your argument, and looking forward to your later writings on this!
it’s helped a lot thanks! i’ve since incorporated your criticisms into the main body of text in italics so it flows better and made a start on a step beyond the set theory stuff. i’d ofc be interested to hear your and/or erato’s thoughts on the matter ! i want this to be less of a review / argument but a documentation of folks working through these questions, with name credits and all.
This comment was deleted
I would say competition cannot exist without it being a game based on your definition (That being a win/loss condition). With your example for when something is purely competition, two people fighting to the death over food could be seen as a game as well, with winning being killing your opponent and losing being your death. A parallel I could draw on is the gladiator battles of Rome; the only difference being setting and what they are fighting for, which I don't think impact whether this is a game or not by definition. By the nature of competition itself (or at least as far as I understand it from research I've done), there is always a winner and loser, and in that case I don't think you can't separate them from each other.
(Had to delete my previous comment because I've been up for far too long and I need to sleep if I'm gonna try and properly nail down what I think constitutes something as play, a game, or whatever without sounding stupid.)
(Had to delete my previous comment because I've been up for far too long and I need to sleep if I'm gonna try and properly nail down what I think constitutes something as play, a game, or whatever without sounding stupid.)
@tehdarkside my definition of game is actually an activity with a win/loss definition engaged in playfully. survival (like enslaved gladiators forced to fight to the death) is not a game unless you make it one in your head; even if spectators see it as a game, they're not the ones fighting/"playing". if you're stranded on a beach and trying to stop another guy from killing you over a ration crate, does that feel like a game?
ALSO worth bringing up: it's better to think of "win/loss" as "success/failure" bc the two are more or less the same but the former has game/play connotations. success/failure i would consider part of the objective-focused character of instrumental play: you succeed at your objective or you don't. but even when you take away the play part, the success/failure still remains; i just think it should no longer be framed as win/loss. does that make sense?
I understand your perspective, and it makes sense. I guess I just disagree that something needs to be engaged with playfully for it to be a game. I don't think games themselves need to give the people playing a certain feeling for it to qualify as such, it just is (if that makes sense). Like, my dad made me play Basketball when I was a kid and I hated every second of it, but I would still say what I played was a game, just not one that did anything for me. I guess I would say that games need to be able exist outside of play for games to make sense as like, a concept to me.
Your definition does work, I guess just don't like how variable and subjective it can be (Which isn't a problem really; just different interpretations of the medium and all). I would also say that for your definition, the distinction between success/failure and win/loss is important. I would imagine that it would sound confusing without the explanation though lmao.
Sorry if this all sounds dumb; I'm not very good at expressing my thoughts on this stuff in writing.
Your definition does work, I guess just don't like how variable and subjective it can be (Which isn't a problem really; just different interpretations of the medium and all). I would also say that for your definition, the distinction between success/failure and win/loss is important. I would imagine that it would sound confusing without the explanation though lmao.
Sorry if this all sounds dumb; I'm not very good at expressing my thoughts on this stuff in writing.
yea i really am shifting the definition of "game" to be more in line with the sentiment of "making a game of something", because i feel like "games" as objects can be interacted with in different ways with different affects. also, this is a bit nit-picky but i don't think that "games themselves need to give the people playing a certain feeling for it to qualify as such"; it isn't the game's ability to induce affect but simply the affect brought to the table so to speak, which could be induced by anything in the world (game included).
i do make a distinction between win/loss and success/failure, but perhaps i wasn't clear enough: win/loss is success/failure in a game (i.e. playful) context.
the practical problem with my line of inquiry is that it necessitates finding a new word for a "game" outside of subjective interaction. and there's nothing wrong with new words! i like erato's term "videoplay" very much. but i'm not sure what would be appropriate or stick for that matter... any suggestions?
thanks for contributing to the convo btw ! good to think more about things i've said without necessarily putting a terrific amount of thought into it first time lol
i do make a distinction between win/loss and success/failure, but perhaps i wasn't clear enough: win/loss is success/failure in a game (i.e. playful) context.
the practical problem with my line of inquiry is that it necessitates finding a new word for a "game" outside of subjective interaction. and there's nothing wrong with new words! i like erato's term "videoplay" very much. but i'm not sure what would be appropriate or stick for that matter... any suggestions?
thanks for contributing to the convo btw ! good to think more about things i've said without necessarily putting a terrific amount of thought into it first time lol
I'm glad I let pangburn tag in first. I dont think we are at a point of branching paths and creating an internal epistomology around the physical realities that create how people interface with digital simulations is really important. i don't really know how set theory works (which is why I tagged him in) but I think its ok to dare to be intellectually rigorous with this stuff, if there is a lot of overlap then idk it could just be that theres a venn diagram there worth building more clearly. for instance I think by this point games have almost entirely merged with work which is one of the reasons I been so deeply suspicious of using the term since (as you can probably expect) im philosophically anti-work. It made sense to be also anti-games as just feeding into the work system but in order to convey that in a way that isnt puritanical and scoldy a rigorousness is necessary. I'll try to expand on that with time.
You're welcome on Zhea reccomendation, shes one of my favs.
You're welcome on Zhea reccomendation, shes one of my favs.
If I were to theorize I would probably just make them as venn diagrams which I guess is maybe what set theory is but idk.
definitely with you on rigorous epistemology creation ! i know that it's beyond my capability to think it all through myself which is why we have discussions like this! because "game" has become a label with its own connotations and consequences to describe a thing, i personally think that a shift away from describing what something is and towards what something can become and how and why might be very fruitful. "playing" and "gaming" and "working" as actions instead of calling hardware and software inherently "playthings" or "games". what makes up a "videogame"? there's code, there's assets, there's even sometimes a physical disc and box and booklet! i could remix art assets in a collage. i could take the program and transfer it into audio data in audacity to create glitch music. i could play frisbee with the CD. instead of "playing the game", i could just open up an empty map in quake to play around or do exercise, jumping around the architecture, interacting with it and the controls playfully. i could be a streamer beholden to playing a single game my persona has become tied to beyond the point of it being enjoyable, "play" reduced to repetitive strategies for winning (or even just empty motions without significant mental engagement or stimulation, while performing commentary, because i need the donations simply to scrape by. you see what i'm getting at? there is no essential game to me. this is the line of thinking that currently captivates me.
Erato_Heti
1 year ago
You can also make it look really nice by putting these [] brackets with () brackets directly following to make it look nice. [ [Like this] ] ( (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a63V_fAPNaA) )