3 ms·
yes, technically well kinda, but not the most common definition of it. when defining something it's also pertinent to ask yourself what isn't included in that
by gryn 3y ago
yes, technically well kinda, but not the most common definition of it.
when defining something it's also pertinent to ask yourself what isn't included in that set.
what isn't a game in this case ?
almost any dynamical system would kinda fit your definition. including turing machines.
to go the absurd length.
If I identify as a vegetarian but mostly eat meat then what is that word even supposed to mean ?
words value in communication come from their discriminatory nature helping the listener filter the state of possible valid answers to smaller subset that what they started with.
the more a word is stretched to includes the closer it comes to becoming a filler expression.
- Supermancho 3y ago> almost any dynamical system would kinda fit your definition I've thought about it a lot. It's a definition that came from a psychology book and various definitions I've encountered over the years. Games teach us about reality, using an abstract set of rules. Anything you can interact with, to see what happens, in pursuit of a goal. When there's a finite set of outcomes, you can optimize, but for complicated systems that do not offer any amount of control, the game loses something necessary.
- gryn 3y agopersonally I think what's missing from your definition is that most games have an intentional lack of stakes/costs that are associated with the original process they were mean to abstractly simulate. (and the focus on entertainment, at the expense of accuracy) - when a lion play with its cub the danger of heavy injury and death is minimized. - when you play chess there's no danger of you being beheaded due to a failed military strategy. - when you lose at monopoly due to failure to grasp the nature of the game or your social skills you don't end up old and destitute as a result. etc...