3 ms·

Games which you arent supposed to or cant win are called toys. In other languages the distinction is harder. (german spiel vs. spielzeug ; spielen vs. herumspie

Games which you arent supposed to or cant win are called toys. In other languages the distinction is harder. (german spiel vs. spielzeug ; spielen vs. herumspielen) Often you can play games with toys. Or you can toy in or with games. But, you arent playing the game in that moment. So theres a fundamential difference between those types of play. There might be aspects of cooperation in games, but most game design theorist[1] argue that competition (sometimes it's just against the odds) must be part of a game. There are lots of aspects why we play or toy. Winning, or typically called the challenge is only one of eight aspects. Others include sensation, fantasy, narrative, fellowship, discovery, expression and submission[2]. So if your personal reason for playing comes from winning or not, is up to you. Of course there is also the aspect of the flow, to rise with the challenge. And the types of challenges people like to be confronted with (language, mathematics, motion & perception, spatial, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal and naturalistic). [1]: for example : Chris Crawford, on Game Design [2]: Marc LeBlanc, Rules of Play, Game Design Fundamentials : typologies of play

mcphage 3y ago
> Games which you arent supposed to or cant win are called toys. This list includes Tetris, Pac-Man, and Minecraft, among many others. Are you sure this is a meaningful distinction?
- rspoerri 3y ago
  You can win PacMan and Tetris by the high score. Minecraft is mostly a toy.
  - mcphage 3y ago
    I don’t know about Tetris, but in Pac-Man you can play it until the game crashes. I dunno if that constitutes a win, though, especially when the vast majority of the players are unaware that it exists. I think you’d be hard-pressed to argue that it is so significant, that it changes what kind of thing Pac-Man is.
    - rspoerri 3y ago
      My opinion on that would be: If the social group you play with, knows that you can crash it by high score, that would count as the win. Context makes a huge difference on perception when it comes to the fine details of play. And it only matters to people who have to explain it to students every year.
- rspoerri 3y ago
  Additional Explanation: Depending on the rules, something might be a game or a toy. If you speed-run Minecraft you play a game. But basically Minecraft is a toy, with which a lot of people play games (i want to build a secure home, i want to get the best items). Cards are another good example of a toy, you can play lots of different games with them. Also, rules of games can be defined not only by the creator of a game. There are also social rules (in Switzerland playing cards is heavily ruled by social rules and if you don't know them, you will be ridiculed). Another example of social rules might be not to abuse a bug in a multiplayer game, when it is clearly an unintended feature. Where it really gets difficult is when you consider social status and people toying with those as games. Fashion for example (also called mimicry by Roger Calloise [2]) because there are lots of unwritten / undefined rules. Gardening (which is a toy) can also become a game, once you start comparing your produce with others. Often games are more finely regulated by the current group of players, for example in situations which the official rules don't regulate. Also you might be playing a game within a game. For example, a chess competition is a game within a game. You play chess against 1vs1, you play a "knockout" tournament against everyone else in the competition [1]. Modern games are more likely to be toys then early games (especially in computer games). Because game (system) mechanics need to be flexible enough to handle different tasks. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tournament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tournament [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man,_Play_and_Games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man,_Play_and_Games
  - mcphage 3y ago
    > with which a lot of people play games (i want to build a secure home, i want to get the best items) By your rubric, “I want to build a home” isn’t a game either, since you can’t win it. You just eventually stop, or move on to something else. > Also, rules of games can be defined not only by the creator of a game. There are also social rules Sure, but that makes your argument weaker—“game” vs “toy” is not just a statement about the thing itself anymore, but a combination of the thing, and the social environment it is played in, if a toy can become a game in a specific social environment, or a game can become a toy. Basically, I don’t think that the distinction you’re making is well defined or meaningful.
    - 3y ago

mcphage 3y ago

> Games which you arent supposed to or cant win are called toys. This list includes Tetris, Pac-Man, and Minecraft, among many others. Are you sure this is a meaningful distinction?

rspoerri 3y ago
You can win PacMan and Tetris by the high score. Minecraft is mostly a toy.
- mcphage 3y ago
  I don’t know about Tetris, but in Pac-Man you can play it until the game crashes. I dunno if that constitutes a win, though, especially when the vast majority of the players are unaware that it exists. I think you’d be hard-pressed to argue that it is so significant, that it changes what kind of thing Pac-Man is.
  - rspoerri 3y ago
    My opinion on that would be: If the social group you play with, knows that you can crash it by high score, that would count as the win. Context makes a huge difference on perception when it comes to the fine details of play. And it only matters to people who have to explain it to students every year.
rspoerri 3y ago
Additional Explanation: Depending on the rules, something might be a game or a toy. If you speed-run Minecraft you play a game. But basically Minecraft is a toy, with which a lot of people play games (i want to build a secure home, i want to get the best items). Cards are another good example of a toy, you can play lots of different games with them. Also, rules of games can be defined not only by the creator of a game. There are also social rules (in Switzerland playing cards is heavily ruled by social rules and if you don't know them, you will be ridiculed). Another example of social rules might be not to abuse a bug in a multiplayer game, when it is clearly an unintended feature. Where it really gets difficult is when you consider social status and people toying with those as games. Fashion for example (also called mimicry by Roger Calloise [2]) because there are lots of unwritten / undefined rules. Gardening (which is a toy) can also become a game, once you start comparing your produce with others. Often games are more finely regulated by the current group of players, for example in situations which the official rules don't regulate. Also you might be playing a game within a game. For example, a chess competition is a game within a game. You play chess against 1vs1, you play a "knockout" tournament against everyone else in the competition [1]. Modern games are more likely to be toys then early games (especially in computer games). Because game (system) mechanics need to be flexible enough to handle different tasks. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tournament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tournament [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man,_Play_and_Games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man,_Play_and_Games
- mcphage 3y ago
  > with which a lot of people play games (i want to build a secure home, i want to get the best items) By your rubric, “I want to build a home” isn’t a game either, since you can’t win it. You just eventually stop, or move on to something else. > Also, rules of games can be defined not only by the creator of a game. There are also social rules Sure, but that makes your argument weaker—“game” vs “toy” is not just a statement about the thing itself anymore, but a combination of the thing, and the social environment it is played in, if a toy can become a game in a specific social environment, or a game can become a toy. Basically, I don’t think that the distinction you’re making is well defined or meaningful.
  - 3y ago