Any way i'm pissed off now because i've just realised that my whole theory is wrong. I've been trying to continue the dialogue and its all going to shit: heres whats happened:
Z - Needless to say, I would like to incorpororate my family home game into the videogame medium. It is ofcourse necessary to look up ?game? in the oxford dictionary of modern English at this point, since, the definition will decide whether or not we can even think about arguing the inclusion of my game under the term.
Z leaves the room to look at the dictionary before returning 3 minutes later
Z ? Ok well that does it, every definition which relates to the conceptual area to which we refer, implies aim, achievement and competition. And so my family home thingy bob certainly is not a videogame, and neither, perhaps is the sims, ; that is unless we give the vote to popularly held opinion. I imagine that most people would at first define a videogame along the lines of aims, competition and achievement, but they would not likely refuse the sims or my game the title. That is, they wouldn?t instinctively, but naturally, on closer inspection they would have no choice but to refuse them the title.
I am not happy however with the distinction between a videogame like Halo and a thingy bob like my family home game. As I mentioned earlier, a thingy bob like the sims could easily be turned into a videogame simply by making up an aim. And similarly, Halo?
X ? No, no, no. Halo would not be fun without the aim. Are you telling me that you would enjoy going, ?hmm, I wonder what would happen if I shot the other player x many times?low and behold, he dies, how very interesting.?, no, it?s not interesting. You might reply to that by saying, ?Right, so it?s not a very interesting game?, but it is, we both enjoy playing it. It becomes interesting when you play with an aim. The rules are boring, but when you pit your ability to use them against someone elses then a certain outside element has entered. This is what makes a game.
Z ? Hmm, well I have to admit that my confidence is rather wavering, but I shall attempt to salvage my point nonetheless. I think we need to take our study of the interest of a game or ?thingybob?s? rules to another level. While some events and actions may be interesting in themselves (this is often the case with rules governing social dynamics and also with rules governing physics, the later you are probably familiar with), rules like, ?if you get shot x many times, you die?, are not interesting, they are just obvious. But as you said, treated in a certain way, these ?boring? rules can become interesting. So perhaps we can look at what the rules imply, where this can be the subject of interest.
X ? I?m listening?
Z ? So if we consider a bunch of the rules in Halo,
Z - Needless to say, I would like to incorpororate my family home game into the videogame medium. It is ofcourse necessary to look up ?game? in the oxford dictionary of modern English at this point, since, the definition will decide whether or not we can even think about arguing the inclusion of my game under the term.
Z leaves the room to look at the dictionary before returning 3 minutes later
Z ? Ok well that does it, every definition which relates to the conceptual area to which we refer, implies aim, achievement and competition. And so my family home thingy bob certainly is not a videogame, and neither, perhaps is the sims, ; that is unless we give the vote to popularly held opinion. I imagine that most people would at first define a videogame along the lines of aims, competition and achievement, but they would not likely refuse the sims or my game the title. That is, they wouldn?t instinctively, but naturally, on closer inspection they would have no choice but to refuse them the title.
I am not happy however with the distinction between a videogame like Halo and a thingy bob like my family home game. As I mentioned earlier, a thingy bob like the sims could easily be turned into a videogame simply by making up an aim. And similarly, Halo?
X ? No, no, no. Halo would not be fun without the aim. Are you telling me that you would enjoy going, ?hmm, I wonder what would happen if I shot the other player x many times?low and behold, he dies, how very interesting.?, no, it?s not interesting. You might reply to that by saying, ?Right, so it?s not a very interesting game?, but it is, we both enjoy playing it. It becomes interesting when you play with an aim. The rules are boring, but when you pit your ability to use them against someone elses then a certain outside element has entered. This is what makes a game.
Z ? Hmm, well I have to admit that my confidence is rather wavering, but I shall attempt to salvage my point nonetheless. I think we need to take our study of the interest of a game or ?thingybob?s? rules to another level. While some events and actions may be interesting in themselves (this is often the case with rules governing social dynamics and also with rules governing physics, the later you are probably familiar with), rules like, ?if you get shot x many times, you die?, are not interesting, they are just obvious. But as you said, treated in a certain way, these ?boring? rules can become interesting. So perhaps we can look at what the rules imply, where this can be the subject of interest.
X ? I?m listening?
Z ? So if we consider a bunch of the rules in Halo,
