There is no desire so prevalent as that for knowledge. Humans play to know and to be entertained. What, then, is entertainment? It is the pleasure of surmounting a travail, and the delight of that which pleases the senses. From experience, I assume that the empirical is paltry and fleeting. Therfore, game designers should always strive toward the former, and moderate the latter goal.
"Children at play are not playing about; their games should be seen as their most serious-minded activity."
-Michel de Montaigne
We are like plants that grow toward the sun, and without play, we wither and die. If play is defined as that which brings knowledge and entertains, then our greatest gain is the surmounting of obstacles. The Platonic tripartite soul hails reason as sovereign in a just soul, libido and spirit as servile. (It is possible to classify both reason as spirit as special subsets of desire, but the aforementioned division is simpler.) We develop our reason by rigorous practice and reflecting on our failures. The Fantasy is reality transferred bodily to the empyrean, so we should use the same process to improve our reason as to become better at playing. Therefore, in an ideal game, the focus would be upon continually creating obstacles for the player's eidolon-the persona he assumes-to pass.
Such practice is by nature difficult and unpleasant in itself, but delightful in the results.
What then? Should play be like the bitter medicine we take because we believe it will augment our knowledge in different roles, or should it be good in itself? The argument for the latter is much like the argument for justice being good in itself in the Republic. I lack the intellectual powers to apply the explication in that treatise to this discourse on play, so I will leave it to your opininos.
Is the analogy between reality and games false, or can we truly discover whether or not play is inherently good by describing it as a recasting of our lives in a different milieu?
On Roleplaying
Critique/Opinion:
"Humans play to know and to be entertained."
I think this is false. There are reasons to play other than to gain knowledge or to be entertained. This depends on how you define the activity that we call "playing". If you define "game-playing" as participating in a game, and you define "game" as an activity where "losing" is defined, then there are other reasons to play a game. For example, a person could play to get the prize, to meet other players, or simply because the player doesn't like to lose. I think we can establish that when a person chooses to do something, the person has a motivation. But we also know that not all motivations are based on learning or entertainment.
"What, then, is entertainment? It is the pleasure of surmounting a travail, and the delight of that which pleases the senses."
Entertainment is a type of activity. It is not a type of emotion, so it cannot be pleasure itself. But you could say that entertainment is an activity that brings the participant pleasure.
"We are like plants that grow toward the sun, and without play, we wither and die."
I don't think that this is true. You said that game-playing is a method to bring knowledge and entertainment. But we also know that there are other ways to get the same things. Therefore, even if gaining knowledge and having entertainment are essential needs of a person (whic I also disagree), game-playing can be substituted by other activities. If you want knowledge, you could read, learn, imagine, explore, or experiment. If you want entertainment, you could also read, learn, imagine, explore, experiment, observe, listen to music, watch a movie, exercise, travel, etc.
"If play is defined as that which brings knowledge and entertains, then our greatest gain is the surmounting of obstacles."
I don't know whether this is true because it requires a way to compare different types of gains to say that surmounting of obstacles is the greatest gain. What are other gains are might have greater value:
o Discovering and accepting obstacles that cannot be surmounted
o Learning which obstacles are worth surmounting
o Learning which obstacles should be surmounted
o Learning how to to be content when there is no obstacle
o Learning how not to create obstacles that can't be surmounted
o Learning how to discern whether what you do now could result in an unsurmountable obstacle
o Learning when not to create additional before existing pressing obstacles
"can we truly discover whether or not play is inherently good"
How do you define an activity being inherently good? Good for whom? Must it always give the participant a profit everytime, or must it give the participant a profit on average?
A reason why some people need to play:
Human evolved as hunter-gatherers. In your brain, there is a circuit that makes to want to perform those activities. In model days, most people don't hunt or gather for a living, but that circuit is still firing there. Perhaps you could say that this urge is a relic of evolution. But when this urge fires, the person wants to chase stuff and get stuff. The motivation is not to learn or to gain anything, but to satisfy that circuit. It is an irrational motivation.
If you beat tailed grass in front of a cat, it is going to want to hit it.
""Children at play are not playing about; their games should be seen as their most serious-minded activity."
-Michel de Montaigne"
I think this is true. But there is a subtle point to consider: Do children play because play is good, or because the instinctive firing of the hunter-gatherer circuit manifests as play in an environment void of suitable prey and gatherables? That can be their most serious-minded activity, be can you say the same for an adult? Are there alternative activites that are even more serious-minded? Or do you need to upgrade games beyond what they were in order to fulfill the argument that game-playing is the most serious-minded activity even in adulthood? If that is the case, wouldn't Invention always be the more serious-minded activity?
"Humans play to know and to be entertained."
I think this is false. There are reasons to play other than to gain knowledge or to be entertained. This depends on how you define the activity that we call "playing". If you define "game-playing" as participating in a game, and you define "game" as an activity where "losing" is defined, then there are other reasons to play a game. For example, a person could play to get the prize, to meet other players, or simply because the player doesn't like to lose. I think we can establish that when a person chooses to do something, the person has a motivation. But we also know that not all motivations are based on learning or entertainment.
"What, then, is entertainment? It is the pleasure of surmounting a travail, and the delight of that which pleases the senses."
Entertainment is a type of activity. It is not a type of emotion, so it cannot be pleasure itself. But you could say that entertainment is an activity that brings the participant pleasure.
"We are like plants that grow toward the sun, and without play, we wither and die."
I don't think that this is true. You said that game-playing is a method to bring knowledge and entertainment. But we also know that there are other ways to get the same things. Therefore, even if gaining knowledge and having entertainment are essential needs of a person (whic I also disagree), game-playing can be substituted by other activities. If you want knowledge, you could read, learn, imagine, explore, or experiment. If you want entertainment, you could also read, learn, imagine, explore, experiment, observe, listen to music, watch a movie, exercise, travel, etc.
"If play is defined as that which brings knowledge and entertains, then our greatest gain is the surmounting of obstacles."
I don't know whether this is true because it requires a way to compare different types of gains to say that surmounting of obstacles is the greatest gain. What are other gains are might have greater value:
o Discovering and accepting obstacles that cannot be surmounted
o Learning which obstacles are worth surmounting
o Learning which obstacles should be surmounted
o Learning how to to be content when there is no obstacle
o Learning how not to create obstacles that can't be surmounted
o Learning how to discern whether what you do now could result in an unsurmountable obstacle
o Learning when not to create additional before existing pressing obstacles
"can we truly discover whether or not play is inherently good"
How do you define an activity being inherently good? Good for whom? Must it always give the participant a profit everytime, or must it give the participant a profit on average?
A reason why some people need to play:
Human evolved as hunter-gatherers. In your brain, there is a circuit that makes to want to perform those activities. In model days, most people don't hunt or gather for a living, but that circuit is still firing there. Perhaps you could say that this urge is a relic of evolution. But when this urge fires, the person wants to chase stuff and get stuff. The motivation is not to learn or to gain anything, but to satisfy that circuit. It is an irrational motivation.
If you beat tailed grass in front of a cat, it is going to want to hit it.
""Children at play are not playing about; their games should be seen as their most serious-minded activity."
-Michel de Montaigne"
I think this is true. But there is a subtle point to consider: Do children play because play is good, or because the instinctive firing of the hunter-gatherer circuit manifests as play in an environment void of suitable prey and gatherables? That can be their most serious-minded activity, be can you say the same for an adult? Are there alternative activites that are even more serious-minded? Or do you need to upgrade games beyond what they were in order to fulfill the argument that game-playing is the most serious-minded activity even in adulthood? If that is the case, wouldn't Invention always be the more serious-minded activity?
Author
Quote:Original post by Wai
Critique/Opinion:
"Humans play to know and to be entertained."
I think this is false. There are reasons to play other than to gain knowledge or to be entertained. This depends on how you define the activity that we call "playing". If you define "game-playing" as participating in a game, and you define "game" as an activity where "losing" is defined, then there are other reasons to play a game. For example, a person could play to get the prize, to meet other players, or simply because the player doesn't like to lose. I think we can establish that when a person chooses to do something, the person has a motivation. But we also know that not all motivations are based on learning or entertainment.
Indeed, but isn't getting the prize pleasurable to us? Doesn't social intercourse pleasure us, help us to learn more about ourselves?
Quote:"What, then, is entertainment? It is the pleasure of surmounting a travail, and the delight of that which pleases the senses."
Entertainment is a type of activity. It is not a type of emotion, so it cannot be pleasure itself. But you could say that entertainment is an activity that brings the participant pleasure.
You're right: I was inexact there. Entertainment is the activity that brings about pleasure (perhaps satisfaction would be a better word).
Quote: "We are like plants that grow toward the sun, and without play, we wither and die."
I don't think that this is true. You said that game-playing is a method to bring knowledge and entertainment. But we also know that there are other ways to get the same things. Therefore, even if gaining knowledge and having entertainment are essential needs of a person (whic I also disagree), game-playing can be substituted by other activities. If you want knowledge, you could read, learn, imagine, explore, or experiment. If you want entertainment, you could also read, learn, imagine, explore, experiment, observe, listen to music, watch a movie, exercise, travel, etc.
But none of those, normally, are interactive. Books and movies are always linear; the focus of the video game is to play. Playing a game is exploration, experimentation and observation, transferred to an exotic milieu. I'll gamble here, and say that it is the combination of human emotions and exoticism that makes roleplay so appealing to us.
Quote: "If play is defined as that which brings knowledge and entertains, then our greatest gain is the surmounting of obstacles."
I don't know whether this is true because it requires a way to compare different types of gains to say that surmounting of obstacles is the greatest gain. What are other gains are might have greater value:
o Discovering and accepting obstacles that cannot be surmounted
o Learning which obstacles are worth surmounting
o Learning which obstacles should be surmounted
o Learning how to to be content when there is no obstacle
o Learning how not to create obstacles that can't be surmounted
o Learning how to discern whether what you do now could result in an unsurmountable obstacle
o Learning when not to create additional before existing pressing obstacles
But the learning that an obstacle cannot be surmounted, or is not worth the time or effort, or how you can prevent and create obstacles is itself surmounting egotism. We are reconciled with the fact that we are not unlimited, and develop our ingenuity to adapt to all and sundry.
Quote: "can we truly discover whether or not play is inherently good"
How do you define an activity being inherently good? Good for whom? Must it always give the participant a profit everytime, or must it give the participant a profit on average?
By inherently good, I mean something that we do not do merely because of its consequences: of course, to an extent, it is impossible to separate the consequence from the action. So let us say that the Good gives us inward satisfaction and reward from the environment.
Quote: A reason why some people need to play:
Human evolved as hunter-gatherers. In your brain, there is a circuit that makes to want to perform those activities. In model days, most people don't hunt or gather for a living, but that circuit is still firing there. Perhaps you could say that this urge is a relic of evolution. But when this urge fires, the person wants to chase stuff and get stuff. The motivation is not to learn or to gain anything, but to satisfy that circuit. It is an irrational motivation.
If you beat tailed grass in front of a cat, it is going to want to hit it.
""Children at play are not playing about; their games should be seen as their most serious-minded activity."
-Michel de Montaigne"
I think this is true. But there is a subtle point to consider: Do children play because play is good, or because the instinctive firing of the hunter-gatherer circuit manifests as play in an environment void of suitable prey and gatherables? That can be their most serious-minded activity, be can you say the same for an adult? Are there alternative activites that are even more serious-minded? Or do you need to upgrade games beyond what they were in order to fulfill the argument that game-playing is the most serious-minded activity even in adulthood? If that is the case, wouldn't Invention always be the more serious-minded activity?
I fear I cannot answer this (for we have not defined the bounds of play) but I will attempt to. If you would distinguish the search for knowledge from that of play, then is play a transitory desire?
Invention is a transcendental humor, a desire to get at the lofty and inaccessible. Is it not by a rigorous play that man invents? I would not make work and play distinct. Since it is possible to train oneself to enjoy hard work, the difference is illusory: if we could change our manner of thought, we would see that they are one and the same. (I believe that an ultimate reality, not our perspectives of things, determines the truth.)
The ultimate goal of a man is to satiate his own ego. A game may temporarily frustrate its players, but those driven by reason would not recognize the setback as a problem, but as a way to improve themselves. Therefore, according to my old definition, a game that pushes the player's bounds, while still being possible, would be ideal.
Thanks for posting. Now I have made my argument somewhat clearer. =)
Quote:Indeed, but isn't getting the prize pleasurable to us? Doesn't social intercourse pleasure us, help us to learn more about ourselves?
I think you are mixing any form of gain or effect that is voluntarily initiated as pleasure. Getting a prize could bring pleasre, but it need not be so. Similarly, a person may engage in a social intercourse not because it is pleasurable, but because it is expected, beneficial, or obligated. A person may enter a competition (which is a form of game), not because of pleasure, but to fulfill a duty or a responsibility. In addition, a person's participation in a game could be involuntary. The person may be in a game (the lion den) where the only possible outcome is death and suffering. But that activity is still a game, and the participant is still a player.
To think more about this argument, imagine an voluntary activity that does not give pleasure. If you cannot imagine it, then any voluntary activity is pleasurable, therefore, no matter what a person choose to do, the person is always being entertained. If you can imagine a voluntary activity that does not bring pleasure, then define an insignificant losing condition for the activity. Then you get a game that a person plays, and the reason is not to be entertained.
So you could say that entertainment and learning are reasons to play, but they are not the only reasons.
Quote:But none of those, normally, are interactive.
In the context, you said that without play, we wither and die. You also said that the two defining benefits of play are knowledge and entertainment(pleasure). My argument was that since play is not the only way to get knowledge and pleasure, it is not a necessary activity. If those are the only things that you can get from playing, then you could do other activities to get the same thing.
Your argument was similar to saying that a person would die if he doesn't drink sugared water, because it provides both sugar and water. My argument was that the person could just drink water, and eat sugar separately, if those are the only needs for a person to survive.
Whether or not the activity is interactive is irrelevant.
A more relevant argument would be that somehow the value of knowledge or entertainment you get in order activities do not measure up to that you get from playing a game. I think that is impossible. That would be like saying the entire scientific community should be playing games to learn about the world instead of directly studying the world. Even if that is a possibility, who creates the game? How does the creator of such a game know what to put in the game so that playing it would result in greater learning about the world? Also, if such a game exists, why wouldn't a simulation suffice to capture the same knowledge, why does the product need to be a game?
Quote:Playing a game is exploration, experimentation and observation, transferred to an exotic milieu. I'll gamble here, and say that it is the combination of human emotions and exoticism that makes roleplay so appealing to us.
I disagree that a game should have exploration, experimentation, and exotic theme. I disagree that having such characteristics necessarily makes all games better. But I agree that exoticism is an appeal of roleplaying.
Quote:But the learning that an obstacle cannot be surmounted, or is not worth the time or effort, or how you can prevent and create obstacles is itself surmounting egotism. We are reconciled with the fact that we are not unlimited, and develop our ingenuity to adapt to all and sundry.
Do you mean that "surmounting obstacles" means the same as learning? So that whenever I learn something, I have surmounted my ignorance? Then what did you say in this sentence?
Quote:If play is defined as that which brings knowledge and entertains, then our greatest gain is the surmounting of obstacles.
You said, "If play is any activity that let's us learn and have fun, then the player's greatest gain in playing is learning."
Quote:By inherently good, I mean something that we do not do merely because of its consequences: of course, to an extent, it is impossible to separate the consequence from the action. So let us say that the Good gives us inward satisfaction and reward from the environment.
According to this, is any action that satisfies an impulse inherently good? Is a game inherently good only if the play plays by himself, with no tool or any visual aid? Wouldn't that be more similar to imagination instead of play? Or do you have to conclude that games in general are not inherently good?
Quote:If you would distinguish the search for knowledge from that of play, then is play a transitory desire?
I think that play is not a fundamental desire but a manifestation of a few desires. The fundamental mental desires may include: satisfying curiosity, forming bonds, finding a role, finding importance, predicting threats, providing for others. I think playing is the most familiar way to satisfy these mental desires growing up. But what happens when a person have grown up? If the person learns other ways to satisfy the desires, is it justified to say that playing is a transitory activity for that person?
Quote:Is it not by a rigorous play that man invents?
I don't think the experiment, analysis and some other mental activities that lead to invention can be classified as play.
Quote:I would not make work and play distinct. Since it is possible to train oneself to enjoy hard work, the difference is illusory: if we could change our manner of thought, we would see that they are one and the same.
My view of life is similar, but I would not express it like that because I prefer to let different words have different meaning. So I would say the same thing by defining work as an activity of a person's occupation (i.e. what you do for a living). This definition doesn't specify whether work is fun or should be fun. "Work is not fun" is an association people may have, that is not part of its definition.
I guess I have to leave it here because in my definition, gameplaying is not necessarily entertaining, so there is no reason for me to equate work to play. I would just say that work can be enjoyable and people should try to see that. An activity can be enjoyable without being a type of game. Eating can be enjoyable and you don't naturally equate it to play. So why suddenly equate work to play if I just want to say that work can be enjoyable?
Quote:Therefore, according to my old definition, a game that pushes the player's bounds, while still being possible, would be ideal.
Because in my definition, a game is an activity that is defined by its format but not its purpose, I cannot dictate its purpose in general, I can't justify what is ideal for games. However, if you are talking about what makes a game fun, then we may be on the same track.
In terms of roleplay, what do you mean when you say "a game that pushes the player's bounds"? What kind of bounds?
"Play" as an Attitude
It seems that a major topic that you intended to discuss is Play as an attitude toward an activity. Without defining that playfulness is, being playful, as an attitude, commonly includes these characteristics:
o curiosity
o motivation
o pleasure
o casualness
I think that you would readily accept the first three characteristics, but not necessarily the last one, because the last characteristics explains why most people don't think that a person should go to work "as if it is just a game".
Casualness refers to the attitude where even if the participant may care about winning or losing, the participant believes that the outcome is not of any significant. It is the mindset where the player thinks, "I want to win, but if I lose, oh well, no big deal." It implies that the participant feels no obligation to complete the activity at hand.
Therefore, casualness may imply irresponsibility in an activity where the participant has a responsibility to "win". This explains why work is distinct from "play" if you define "play" as a playful pursuit.
This also explains the quote more clearly:
This statement tells you that when a child participates in a game, their attitude toward the game is not necessarily that of playfulness. To them, winning and losing is equivalent to life and death. They participate seriously. In their perspective, the game is not "just a game", but the object of the most serious pursuit.
If this is the meaning of the quote (which also matches the common experience), it is not supporting the notion that games should be serious, or that games are the most beneficial activity that people should do, that you seemed to imply in the sentence following the quote.
However, this is not a justification that a person shouldn't work with the attitude of play. One counter argument is, "Does a person become more productive if they go to work with the attitude of playing?" If this is true, it would justisfy the attitude at work.
I think this is the contending mindset:
o curiosity
o motivation
o pleasure
o responsibility
Here I only change one characteristic that I don't think you could readily include in playfulness. If you include responsibility in playfulness, it means that when a person plays a game, he understands that the well-being of some other people depends on his doing well in the game. Because a person could participate in a game in different attitudes, you can certainly find examples where a person plays a game with this attitude, but you could not assume that playfulness shares this characteristic.
Here is another contender, playfulness may also have some of these characteristics. You could determine whether it belongs to playfulness.
o perfection
o creative
o passionate ( purposeful, committed, and with pleasure )
o cooperative
Quote:I would not make work and play distinct. Since it is possible to train oneself to enjoy hard work, the difference is illusory: if we could change our manner of thought, we would see that they are one and the same.
It seems that a major topic that you intended to discuss is Play as an attitude toward an activity. Without defining that playfulness is, being playful, as an attitude, commonly includes these characteristics:
o curiosity
o motivation
o pleasure
o casualness
I think that you would readily accept the first three characteristics, but not necessarily the last one, because the last characteristics explains why most people don't think that a person should go to work "as if it is just a game".
Casualness refers to the attitude where even if the participant may care about winning or losing, the participant believes that the outcome is not of any significant. It is the mindset where the player thinks, "I want to win, but if I lose, oh well, no big deal." It implies that the participant feels no obligation to complete the activity at hand.
Therefore, casualness may imply irresponsibility in an activity where the participant has a responsibility to "win". This explains why work is distinct from "play" if you define "play" as a playful pursuit.
This also explains the quote more clearly:
Quote:"Children at play are not playing about; their games should be seen as their most serious-minded activity." -Michel de Montaigne
This statement tells you that when a child participates in a game, their attitude toward the game is not necessarily that of playfulness. To them, winning and losing is equivalent to life and death. They participate seriously. In their perspective, the game is not "just a game", but the object of the most serious pursuit.
If this is the meaning of the quote (which also matches the common experience), it is not supporting the notion that games should be serious, or that games are the most beneficial activity that people should do, that you seemed to imply in the sentence following the quote.
However, this is not a justification that a person shouldn't work with the attitude of play. One counter argument is, "Does a person become more productive if they go to work with the attitude of playing?" If this is true, it would justisfy the attitude at work.
I think this is the contending mindset:
o curiosity
o motivation
o pleasure
o responsibility
Here I only change one characteristic that I don't think you could readily include in playfulness. If you include responsibility in playfulness, it means that when a person plays a game, he understands that the well-being of some other people depends on his doing well in the game. Because a person could participate in a game in different attitudes, you can certainly find examples where a person plays a game with this attitude, but you could not assume that playfulness shares this characteristic.
Here is another contender, playfulness may also have some of these characteristics. You could determine whether it belongs to playfulness.
o perfection
o creative
o passionate ( purposeful, committed, and with pleasure )
o cooperative
The title of the thread, 'On Roleplay,' implies an interest in behavior patterns.
What is roleplay? I submit that it is the act of learning through repetition of observed interactions. The scoring mechanism that determines which roles to re-enact doesn't seem based on ethical or moral standards, nor even systems that appear to produce a successful outcome. Instead, the propensity to train in a particular series of interactions seems to come from an observation that it fed a hunger within the actors.
To continue that line of thinking into a production environment requires a maturity in the player, where maturity is that the player has already developed a set of interactions they wish to replay, whether consciously or more likely not. Then the game as a product seeks to provide many opportunities for the various patterns of social interaction to be expressed.
Some support for questing for patterns to learn can be seen in anecdotal evidence of the appeal of Replays, to witness what others have done and repeat that which strikes a chord. Some of this is based on the perception of success, but I'm not convinced that success is the key; success seems only an accepted norm for scoring the choices.
Another example is the tales retold on forums of the games played and the characters in it. Much expression is present, playful extrapolation of the thoughts and actions not actually executed but merely presumed within the game.
[Edited by - AngleWyrm on October 27, 2010 6:58:16 PM]
What is roleplay? I submit that it is the act of learning through repetition of observed interactions. The scoring mechanism that determines which roles to re-enact doesn't seem based on ethical or moral standards, nor even systems that appear to produce a successful outcome. Instead, the propensity to train in a particular series of interactions seems to come from an observation that it fed a hunger within the actors.
To continue that line of thinking into a production environment requires a maturity in the player, where maturity is that the player has already developed a set of interactions they wish to replay, whether consciously or more likely not. Then the game as a product seeks to provide many opportunities for the various patterns of social interaction to be expressed.
Some support for questing for patterns to learn can be seen in anecdotal evidence of the appeal of Replays, to witness what others have done and repeat that which strikes a chord. Some of this is based on the perception of success, but I'm not convinced that success is the key; success seems only an accepted norm for scoring the choices.
Another example is the tales retold on forums of the games played and the characters in it. Much expression is present, playful extrapolation of the thoughts and actions not actually executed but merely presumed within the game.
[Edited by - AngleWyrm on October 27, 2010 6:58:16 PM]
Author
I make a poor rhetoretician, but I'll answer your obkections.
Games contain Situation and Interaction, and can be won or lost (but you can debate the soundness of this definition). I'll retract what I said about games being always entertaining, because it's a tortuous road and beyond me to prove.
You're right that voluntary activities don't always give pleasure. However
The interactivity of the game distinguishes it from other media: though it is a fiction, it is protean and reflects reality.
Perhaps our desire to play is a carnal instinct, as you say. It would be a far longer discussion than I welcome to try to disprove it. You seem to accept the Freudian model, which fuses reason and desire; I'm somewhat more pedantic, because I distinguish the intellectual gain from playing a game from the satisfaction you (ideally) gain.
If we define exploration as "that which removes you from your field of comfort and forces intellection", then all games have it, for we do not know how to play them perfectly before we start. Anything that you explore is exotic; people don't explore what they know.
It is not the surmounting of an obstacle, but the reflections on it, that constitute learning. While playing a game, we experiment, and eventually should adapt to the challenges we expect from it.
I meant to type that the object of play is to surmount an obstacle, which leads to learning, and probably entertainment.
I didn't see the implications of what I said until I read a similar counterargument in the Republic, yesterday. I don't equate pleasure with good. However, I'm uncertain of how to explain the inherently good. Is a man who gives to charity selfless, or is he selfish because he does it for the "altruistic glow" he gains from it? I sidestep this issue by calling the good that which gives inward satisfaction.
The player doesn't have to play by himself to get inward satisfaction.
My view of life is similar, but I would not express it like that because I prefer to let different words have different meaning. So I would say the same thing by defining work as an activity of a person's occupation (i.e. what you do for a living). This definition doesn't specify whether work is fun or should be fun. "Work is not fun" is an association people may have, that is not part of its definition.
I guess I have to leave it here because in my definition, gameplaying is not necessarily entertaining, so there is no reason for me to equate work to play. I would just say that work can be enjoyable and people should try to see that. An activity can be enjoyable without being a type of game. Eating can be enjoyable and you don't naturally equate it to play. So why suddenly equate work to play if I just want to say that work can be enjoyable?
I'll answer the rest later.
Quote:Indeed, but isn't getting the prize pleasurable to us? Doesn't social intercourse pleasure us, help us to learn more about ourselves?
I think you are mixing any form of gain or effect that is voluntarily initiated as pleasure. Getting a prize could bring pleasre, but it need not be so. Similarly, a person may engage in a social intercourse not because it is pleasurable, but because it is expected, beneficial, or obligated. A person may enter a competition (which is a form of game), not because of pleasure, but to fulfill a duty or a responsibility. In addition, a person's participation in a game could be involuntary. The person may be in a game (the lion den) where the only possible outcome is death and suffering. But that activity is still a game, and the participant is still a player.
To think more about this argument, imagine an voluntary activity that does not give pleasure. If you cannot imagine it, then any voluntary activity is pleasurable, therefore, no matter what a person choose to do, the person is always being entertained. If you can imagine a voluntary activity that does not bring pleasure, then define an insignificant losing condition for the activity. Then you get a game that a person plays, and the reason is not to be entertained.
So you could say that entertainment and learning are reasons to play, but they are not the only reasons.
Games contain Situation and Interaction, and can be won or lost (but you can debate the soundness of this definition). I'll retract what I said about games being always entertaining, because it's a tortuous road and beyond me to prove.
You're right that voluntary activities don't always give pleasure. However
Quote:But none of those, normally, are interactive.
In the context, you said that without play, we wither and die. You also said that the two defining benefits of play are knowledge and entertainment(pleasure). My argument was that since play is not the only way to get knowledge and pleasure, it is not a necessary activity. If those are the only things that you can get from playing, then you could do other activities to get the same thing.
Your argument was similar to saying that a person would die if he doesn't drink sugared water, because it provides both sugar and water. My argument was that the person could just drink water, and eat sugar separately, if those are the only needs for a person to survive.
Whether or not the activity is interactive is irrelevant.
A more relevant argument would be that somehow the value of knowledge or entertainment you get in order activities do not measure up to that you get from playing a game. I think that is impossible. That would be like saying the entire scientific community should be playing games to learn about the world instead of directly studying the world. Even if that is a possibility, who creates the game? How does the creator of such a game know what to put in the game so that playing it would result in greater learning about the world? Also, if such a game exists, why wouldn't a simulation suffice to capture the same knowledge, why does the product need to be a game?
The interactivity of the game distinguishes it from other media: though it is a fiction, it is protean and reflects reality.
Perhaps our desire to play is a carnal instinct, as you say. It would be a far longer discussion than I welcome to try to disprove it. You seem to accept the Freudian model, which fuses reason and desire; I'm somewhat more pedantic, because I distinguish the intellectual gain from playing a game from the satisfaction you (ideally) gain.
Quote:Playing a game is exploration, experimentation and observation, transferred to an exotic milieu. I'll gamble here, and say that it is the combination of human emotions and exoticism that makes roleplay so appealing to us.
I disagree that a game should have exploration, experimentation, and exotic theme. I disagree that having such characteristics necessarily makes all games better. But I agree that exoticism is an appeal of roleplaying.
If we define exploration as "that which removes you from your field of comfort and forces intellection", then all games have it, for we do not know how to play them perfectly before we start. Anything that you explore is exotic; people don't explore what they know.
Quote:But the learning that an obstacle cannot be surmounted, or is not worth the time or effort, or how you can prevent and create obstacles is itself surmounting egotism. We are reconciled with the fact that we are not unlimited, and develop our ingenuity to adapt to all and sundry.
Do you mean that "surmounting obstacles" means the same as learning? So that whenever I learn something, I have surmounted my ignorance? Then what did you say in this sentence?
It is not the surmounting of an obstacle, but the reflections on it, that constitute learning. While playing a game, we experiment, and eventually should adapt to the challenges we expect from it.
Quote:If play is defined as that which brings knowledge and entertains, then our greatest gain is the surmounting of obstacles.
You said, "If play is any activity that let's us learn and have fun, then the player's greatest gain in playing is learning."
I meant to type that the object of play is to surmount an obstacle, which leads to learning, and probably entertainment.
Quote:By inherently good, I mean something that we do not do merely because of its consequences: of course, to an extent, it is impossible to separate the consequence from the action. So let us say that the Good gives us inward satisfaction and reward from the environment.
According to this, is any action that satisfies an impulse inherently good? Is a game inherently good only if the play plays by himself, with no tool or any visual aid? Wouldn't that be more similar to imagination instead of play? Or do you have to conclude that games in general are not inherently good?
I didn't see the implications of what I said until I read a similar counterargument in the Republic, yesterday. I don't equate pleasure with good. However, I'm uncertain of how to explain the inherently good. Is a man who gives to charity selfless, or is he selfish because he does it for the "altruistic glow" he gains from it? I sidestep this issue by calling the good that which gives inward satisfaction.
The player doesn't have to play by himself to get inward satisfaction.
Quote:If you would distinguish the search for knowledge from that of play, then is play a transitory desire?
I think that play is not a fundamental desire but a manifestation of a few desires. The fundamental mental desires may include: satisfying curiosity, forming bonds, finding a role, finding importance, predicting threats, providing for others. I think playing is the most familiar way to satisfy these mental desires growing up. But what happens when a person have grown up? If the person learns other ways to satisfy the desires, is it justified to say that playing is a transitory activity for that person?
Quote:Is it not by a rigorous play that man invents?
I don't think the experiment, analysis and some other mental activities that lead to invention can be classified as play.
Quote:I would not make work and play distinct. Since it is possible to train oneself to enjoy hard work, the difference is illusory: if we could change our manner of thought, we would see that they are one and the same.
My view of life is similar, but I would not express it like that because I prefer to let different words have different meaning. So I would say the same thing by defining work as an activity of a person's occupation (i.e. what you do for a living). This definition doesn't specify whether work is fun or should be fun. "Work is not fun" is an association people may have, that is not part of its definition.
I guess I have to leave it here because in my definition, gameplaying is not necessarily entertaining, so there is no reason for me to equate work to play. I would just say that work can be enjoyable and people should try to see that. An activity can be enjoyable without being a type of game. Eating can be enjoyable and you don't naturally equate it to play. So why suddenly equate work to play if I just want to say that work can be enjoyable?
Quote:Therefore, according to my old definition, a game that pushes the player's bounds, while still being possible, would be ideal.
Because in my definition, a game is an activity that is defined by its format but not its purpose, I cannot dictate its purpose in general, I can't justify what is ideal for games. However, if you are talking about what makes a game fun, then we may be on the same track.
Quote:In terms of roleplay, what do you mean when you say "a game that pushes the player's bounds"? What kind of bounds?
I'll answer the rest later.
Re:
I don't think it is beneficial to reply to the rest because I think I had derailed what you intended to discuss enough. If the differences are only in the expressions, discussing it doesn't help to understand the main problem. So if you will, let's ignore the branches and pick the most pertinent question and restart there.
I don't think it is beneficial to reply to the rest because I think I had derailed what you intended to discuss enough. If the differences are only in the expressions, discussing it doesn't help to understand the main problem. So if you will, let's ignore the branches and pick the most pertinent question and restart there.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
