I agree :D



I subscribe to Chris (from Patton vs. Rommel) theory that games (Starcraft, Chess) without direct interaction of opponents are competition (Trackmania, Rally), a competition without opponents is a puzzle (Tetris, Pentamino), a puzzle without goal is a toy (The Sims, Action Figures).

No - that is one theory which isn't backed by how the words are USED - which is all important ;)



What all these words represent, based on HOW they are used, is actually very basic and simple - which I think is part of the problem...

"-Defining games is like trying to define art: it's subjective, a personal opinion grown over time. Games are more like art than they are like movies, that's what I am saying, they are larger than a "medium"."



No. Do not mistake how a word is used and applied for what it represents. Based on how such words are used, recognising what they represent is not just possible, it should even be simple. These are all symptoms of a very basic and simple problem:



The subjective manner in which we USE the language has come to affect what we perceive, understand and define other words within the language as representing, often in an inconsistent manner.



This has affected games, especially video games in that people do not understand WHY the word represents what it does, outside of a computer, (even though its use is very consistent), and therefore why it is used in such a manner.



The problem we have with games, along with art, puzzles and competition(s), is the equivalent of calling every colour red just because it is on a computer, since we don't understand what (and why) the word colour represents is still consistent with what computers have to offer and function in the first place.



The main symptom of the aforementioned problem, however, lies deeper in the language than just the words game, art, puzzle, competition etc..

Darren, could you give a specific example to explain what you're getting at more clearly?

I wish it was easy to give a specific example, along with a meaningful analogy too - but such is the nature of this problem, that only describing the problem itself, and explaining how all the symptoms are related to it, will do the job properly.



Needless to say I can do that, and even have a blog post ready that explains the root of the problems of which the word game etc. is merely a further symptom. However, such is the nature of this problem, that I feel that just putting a blog post up is never going to do it justice - this is such a basic and fundamental problem, that it should not surprise people to learn that it is affecting the language itself in a fundamental way.



(And to think I was only originally focused on, and started with an argument about cRPG's, :p (It's only taken me about 18 months to figure it all out - it's been like an onion - you try and fix one problem to find another one lying underneath - and I actually started with a 'solution' to this problem, (for a few words, such as game), and then had to figure out why it was important and actually mattered...)).



What I can do, however, is give you a simple demonstration of a single symptom of this problem, (which I'm using as such in my blog post).



This is the general definition of art from my Mini Oxford English Dictionary:



art. n. 1 the expression of creative skill in a visual form.



Now - can ANYBODY agree that that definition is perfectly consistent with how the word art is used in general within the language? No - you shouldn't. Why? Because with the addition of 'visual form', the definition has become SUBJECTIVE - an APPLICATION of what the word art represents in its use, rather than what the word represents in general, that can then BE applied in such a manner. Since the word art is used to represent 'things' that are not consistent with such an application - music/martial arts and even con artist etc. are all part of the words general use - this definition is not consistent with how the word is used, and therefore wrong.



Not only that, but this definition does nothing to indicate or describe how the word is related to other, similar words, either, by what it is they represent.



So, as I said, the way we use the language to describe what other words within the language represent, has affected what we perceive such words to mean, in an often inconsistent manner. Such inconsistency is the ENEMY of language, since it gets in the way of it doing its job, and is the fundamental reason why games are not fully recognised or understood for what they are at this time.

I separate games in real-world games and electronic games (I use that particular term a lot).



Then I divide electronic games in non-programable system games (I think I need a better word for that), computer games and video games.



I don't "hate" video games, but I have my personal love for computer games :D (and I hate to see my favourite series being consolized).

But the word game is not used in such a manner that the distinction matters - computer games are merely a TYPE of game, not game in themselves, just like board games, card games, etc. - a type of game that is defined by the media used. There are other types of game that are defined by what people DO, that may, or may not be related to such media, even if such media are not, in themselves, considered to be a game at all, (like a computer).



The problem with defining the word GAME, in itself, by the media USED, is that the word is NOT consistently used in such a manner, and neither are the media themselves. There is a good reason for this - the media are merely used to enable and promote something ELSE, and so they do not matter so much in themselves for what the word game represents in its general use, and so are/must be part of a derived SUB-definition of what the word game represents instead - (there is another good reason for this, but that is a more direct symptom of that mentioned above).

Again, (after the post above in reply to Adam Bishop), what you are talking about is an APPLICATION of what the word game represents, not what the word represents in itself.



The lack of recognition between the two is a further symptom of the problem I have described above.



As I said, until games are fully recognised and understood for what they are in general, video games will not, nor ever, fully mature in a consistent manner, and everyone will complain, just without fully understanding why...

What does it mean to "fully mature in a consistent manner"? And what is "everyone" complaining about?

I'm more and more convinced that Darren has fallen into the the big trap that linguistics do these past decades: over-thinking words and their meaning in such a manner that the rest just doesn't care anymore. let's take a quote here.



"what you are talking about is an APPLICATION of what the word game represents, not what the word represents in itself."



Now this doesn't make any kind of sense when considering the use of words. Words are always applications of representations of objects/concepts, they are communication tools. Words never have a representation on itself because they're constructs of the mind.



If words can stand on themselves, that implies that what they represent is still present in reality when no sentient being is alive, this is not possible because of their nature as a imaginative construct. The act of playing games is still present without the presence of sentient beings, there's just no one saying "they're playing a game". All sorts of species play games, they can't use words (or have the self-aware capability) to point out their game or act of playing a game.



That, or he's forgetting that words, as a visual and/or audio stimuli is extremely context sensitive in which the actual meaning of the word (often combined with other words) or the representation of itself is incredible fluid and by nature non-definable. And that's not a bad thing, that's how languages and their evolution works. People come up with meanings for words all the time, shifting meanings from one word to the other. The reason why Latin died was because of the very strict uniform way it was made during the Renaissance. It lose its dynamic power as a language and died.



What is important, within a scientific essay, is pre-defining what you mean when you use a certain word (or set of words) and why. The words on themselves are not that important, as long as you can deliver the meaning and spirit of your message. The academic fields that have wasted years of energy just around the "good" use of words are countless and in the end, it didn't really matter because language on itself evolved already.

No, no, no. You're at it again - running off on a tangent that means nothing to the matter at hand.



Words, especially NOUNS, represent certain types of 'things' that can be further applied by their use within the language, by the words used in combination, (such as computer, board, or first-person shooter, play etc.) - and this is the problem here. What the word game represents, based on its use, and how such a 'thing' is APPLIED are treated separately by the language itself! People, however, are not making the distinction, because they do not fully recognise or understand the difference, since they do not fully understand or recognise what it is the word game represents in the first place, either in isolation OR in relation to other words.

You really should get your blog post posted and clear all this stuff out. It's getting really really confusing.



When you say what a word represents based on its use, that's the communicative function of language depending on the context and combination of words right?



And you have found an significant disparity between the use of the word "game" and the actual act of gaming. Where the act is sometimes not even called "game" ,when it should and at the same time the word "game" is used to describe acts that are not games, right?



Am I still following correctly? :p

Basically - what people think the word game represents in ITSELF, is getting confused for how such a thing is used and applied, and because of that, the relationship between what the word game represents, and other, similar concepts/words, is not recognised nor understood.



There is a good reason for this, however, because of the problem I gave before - how we use the language itself to describe what it is such words represent, has affected such perceptions in a manner that is inconsistent with how the words are used. The word game, and other, similar words, because of this, have become subjective in meaning.



I'd love to just put my blog post up - but as I said, I really don't think it's the best way of dealing with this problem, (which is bigger than just that I've explained here), because of how basic and fundamental it is. I've already been told to go to university and write a paper about a solution I found for this problem, (that matters for the word game and similar words), that I had before I actually knew what the problem was that I'd actually solved!



I really think that what I have here, is very important, and potentially quite a big deal, (considering how old this problem is, and how many words it would appear to affect), and for that reason, I'm not quite sure what to do with it at this time. I've only written it up as a blog post just to get it all down, and make sure it's all worked out fully, so I can explain it as such.



I've been trying to talk to a English lecturer at the local University (Leicester DeMontfort), but without any luck so far. (The only person I've managed to talk to at all, in any way so far, was Dr Anthea Fraser Gupta at the University of Leeds, and it was she who took one look at what I had at the time, (about a year ago), and told me to go to Uni and write the paper up on it. (And I've got far more now than I had then)).



The use of the word game has evolved a bit over time, but generally in a very uneven and inconsistent manner throughout - again, precisely because it has, to my knowledge, based on what little etymology I can find, never been fully recognised or understood for what it truly represents.



It's only very recently, however, that such uses have been fully INCONSISTENT with what it must represent. (Most of the previous inconsistency was mainly, as you say, not using the word for things that ARE, and would be consistent with what it must represent, based on it's existing use, even at the time, whereas lately, it's gone the other way - being used for things that are NOT consistent).



So yes - there's always been a fairly big disparity, but it's only recently that it's become a PROBLEM, (even though it's really just a symptom of a deeper problem within the language, and how old THAT is, and even how many languages it may affect, I have no idea).

To be fair, I'm not reading anything special or not discovered decades ago. Didn't the Post-Modern Critique already unveiled this deeper problem with language? And such, didn't a bunch of soft sciences like History, Sociology, Anthropology not already formulated answers to this problem? And weren't linguistics part of coming up with those answers (the Linguistic Turn)?



What I am always referring too is, hasn't the cultural sciences community already conceited that every use of words is subjective anyway, a construct of the user and that finding out why those words were used is more important then going in circles of what the word actually really means?

Of course how words are used is subjective - but what they represent cannot afford to be, or the language has no consistent meaning, and therefore function. It's a fairly specific symptom of this problem, however that's causing the problems we have with words such as game etc., and that, at this time, is certainly NOT recognised for what it is...



However, I feel like being nice today, so I'm going to give you an example, or rather let you figure out the example, of the simpler symptom - that the word game is not being used to represent things that it could, or should, based on its use elsewhere, (due to it not being recognised for what it represents in general). Hopefully this may give you some insight into (at least some specific symptoms of) the problem at hand:



Snakes and Ladders is fully recognised and considered to be a game, in a manner that IS consistent with its use. What element (thing/mechanic etc.) does Snakes and Ladders possess that defines it AS a game?

That's easy, it's an abstraction of aspects of life within a set of borders/rules with an educational function. Aspects of life and borders/rules defined very very broadly.



Educational function in relation more so to the development of skills (animals also play games, albeit not cognitive aware they are).

Nope. There is ONE element of Snakes and Ladders - one very specific element, that defines it AS a game. None of what you're talking about applies - sorry - it's NOT that general, and it should be no surprise to know that, since the word game is not used in such a general manner either - (except as metaphor). You're trying to examine games in a manner that is NOT reflected by how the word is USED. That the word game reflects anything to do with humanity means, on the face of it, nothing - since EVERYTHING we create does so - games are of our own creation so they reflect something of ourselves.



HOW and WHY the word game represents what it does, is not the issue here, which is what you are getting confused by. The issue is to find the ONE element Snakes and Ladders contains that defines it AS a game, in itself - the WHAT - the one element it contains that applied to ANYTHING ELSE, (or even in isolation!), (in the same/similar manner), would also turn that into a game...



[EDIT: I'll give you a hint as a head start, so you'll have some idea of what we're talking about...



Snakes and Ladders is a BOARD GAME. This merely defines it as a TYPE of game, however, and not a game in itself, and so does not apply.



So, what other elements does it have, and which one defines it as a game in general, in itself, in a similar manner that defining something as blue, would automatically define it as being colour(ed)



Over to you....]

See, now this is were the gap between linguists and...everyone else comes up.



What I said is based on combining insights and conclusions from research within Sociology, Anthropolgy, Behaviorology and a couple of handbooks about games (you'll recognize Johan Huizinga's magical circle in the statement) coupled with my own insight in History. It's short, but I could make more fleshed-out if you want, I'm making a blog-post about it anyway.



What I said defines the actual process of ANY GAME-ACTIVITY, therefore also EVERY GAME (human or animal). You can not find an exception, really try it, try finding a game that is not defined by what I proposed. With that, I have cleared rule number one of definitions: being inclusive. The activity of playing a game is a game, therefore anything that defines the activity also defines the actual subject at hand.



Games are abstractions of (actually present of perceived/conceived) aspects of life with border/rules and with a educative function (mostly in direct relation towards the specific abstractions of life the game does). This has been the case 10 000 years ago, this is the case when two lion cubs are playing with each other. The act is the subject. There is no such thing as creativity, just the act/behavior that is recognized as "being creative" and we called it creativity for communicative purposes and so forth. What we call something is almost always the cognitive end-result of the actual processes and activities that actually define it.



The process, the how and why is far more important then the what, mostly because the what is superficial cognitive babbel resulting from again a series of processes and activities and babbel is defined by those activities and processes. This is line of thinking is a direct result from the Post-Modern Critique, this is the reform within the cultural sciences that happened.



Also, debate is mostly the result from defining the same thing differently. So how about stopping the guessing game and just telling that element and explaining why that is in your view. Then we can actually get things done, debate-wise.

Ermm - I am a musician and composer, and a LOT of what I do within that would meet such a definition you posted above and yet is NOT considered to be a game by humanity, therefore it is not consistent with what games ARE.



What humanity considers to BE a game is very specific according to how the word is USED. Trying to define other actions that are not fully consistent with that, as-well as for other creatures is usually an act of anthropomorphism.



None of what you have posted above shows how game is different from art, puzzle or (a) competition, or even work or play, based on how the words are used, therefore it fails.



Humanity does not use the word game in such a way as reflects such meaning as you've posted - in fact, humanity generally thinks in a far simpler manner, depending on the words being used. And game, art, puzzle and competition (along with work and play) ARE simple - obviously TOO simple for people like you to fully understand and recognise, because you probably have a hard time accepting that words CAN represent concepts that are so simple, yet also quite specific. It's probably the reason why the word art has been argued about for so long, even though that is probably even simpler and more straightforward than the word game in what it represents.



As I said, the problem is with the language we use to describe such things, and in some ways, what you've posted is a good example of that.



I'm still not going to tell you outright what element the game Snakes and Ladders has that defines it as a game, however, since that will destroy the whole point of the exercise - to get you thinking about games from the right perspective, at the right level from which humanity itself recognises and understands the word in the first place, based on how it's always been used.



Instead I'm going to list more elements it has, and ask you which one I've left out - which one I've missed.



Snakes and Ladders is:



A board game.

A multi-player game involving direct competition, but optional interaction.

Turn based.

Chance based, using dice (rolls).



All of those elements are types of game, based on how and why the game works, including the media used, not WHAT the game is.



So, what is it?



[EDIT: I've been toying with something ever since I wrote this post, since I wasn't too sure how you would respond to it, but after thinking it over I've decided to talk about it here, anyway.



You'll notice that I haven't mentioned rules in relation to Snakes and Ladders, and therefore left it off the list, even though they technically belong there. As I said, this was a deliberate decision made at the time, since I had a feeling you might get confused.



The specific rules OF Snakes And Ladders, should be on the list because all they do is help to define that game AS snakes and ladders and not a game in itself. However, as you'll most likely point out - rules ARE part of what the word game represents in general - BUT - they are only part of it, and a set of rules by themselves, in isolation, do not define anything as a game whatsoever.



Just thought I'd point that out...]

There's big mistake in your elements being optional interaction. Games do not have optional interaction, games have mandatory interaction. The active participants need to directly interact within the game's borders/rules for it to be/function as a game. Which was the part also missing from my definition, the interaction part.



So let me rephrase, A game is defined by:



1) An abstraction of aspects of life, a pseudo-simulation, let's call this the Universe layer. This makes games different from competition since competition is an aspect of life (Darwin). But games can have competition, but in a abstracted form. Also, your work as a musician and composer is exempt from this as well. Music is not an abstraction of life, it's just part of. Also work is not an abstraction of life, work is part of it. Of course work can be taught trough a game, but again, the aspect work is then abstracted.



2) A set of rules and/or boundaries and/or mechanics, let's call this the Playfield. Now this Playfield is heavily connected with the Universe. Why the Universe is an abstraction of aspects of life is because of the Playfield. Football is a game, but with high competitive value because the inherent rules, but isn't some "eat or be eaten" real-life competition because the rules make the abstraction.



3) A educational function linked to the skills needed to play the game or about teaching about life trough the abstraction of the aspects of it. This function is millions of years old and has been refined in a Darwinistic manner and is employed by animals. This has nothing to do with anthropomorphism but about observing behavior in other species and recognizing that it has the same base-function as our games. Ours are just far more linked with our self-awareness and cognitive abilities, but the base-function of education has not been changed. Games, from a Behaviorologic standpoint, engineer behavioral patterns within bodies (being human or animal) who become so-called skills to survive in the contextual variable environment of said body.



4) Interaction within the Playfield and Universe from the active participant(s). Also the interaction allowed must be of a specific reactive input kind. The game reacts to input of the active participant within the bounds of the Playfield/Universe. This makes games different from puzzles. Puzzles have a fixed end but also a fixed manner of getting to the solution. That's why Tetris is an Action-game, not an Puzzle-game. This is also why games have such re-playability, which puzzles often lack.



Also...the Right perspective?? Really? I'm not so arrogant to call my method the right perspective, just the most accurate and likely to be true one my own knowledge without disregarding that there still factors unaccounted and/or insights I have not heard about for because of lack in scientific technology.



Also, how humanity uses it? How it always was used?? I know enough of linguistic history and the dynamics of linguistics that this is impossible to pinpoint by anyone. Hell, Behaviorologists have already conceited that words are extremely relative, just a cognitive layer of varnish. They just recommend to use the broad social accepted words, but purely for communicative purposes.



That's why looking at the act of gaming and looking at it's function is far better and even more basic. The word may change in use and meaning and does frequently, but the function of the act hardly does. And if it does, because you look at function and the behavioral patterns behind, you're far more able to adapt to that change. Also following all this reasoning, a toy is a tool that can help facilitate a game. In this regard: anything can be a toy (even if it isn't morally, socially or culturally accepted as one).



Unless you can come up with something better theory-wise and scientifically (And I mean a "hard" science, not a "soft" science), I'll be happily using those defining features of a game knowing that they're far more objectively objective.

Note: the optional interaction was in the context of that sentence - i.e. in the context of multiplayer - the players do NOT necessarily interact with EACH OTHER while they play the game, therefore it cannot be used to define it.



Your problem is that you are getting confused between the WHAT, the HOW and the WHY, not just of the word game, but of the HOW and WHY OF WHAT it represents - there is a difference between ALL of these things.



This difference is the reason why recognising and understanding WHAT the word game represents, is PURELY a matter of linguistics and nothing more.



The problem you have, is that in NOT fully understanding and recognising WHAT it is the word game represents, you fail to see and fully understand the relationships between the other elements in a consistent manner (EDITS:) to and BY such a thing.



Some of what you talk about is NOT specific to the word game whatsoever, and is merely implied, or a side-effect of what the word (and others) represent(s). Since you consistently demonstrate a failure to fully understand WHAT it is the word represents, however, irrespective of the HOW and WHY, it is obvious you do not recognise the difference.



(Yoda voice):

That is why you fail.

(/Yoda voice).



What I'm trying to do with this EXTREMELY simple problem is to get you thinking about such matters at a level where the WHAT, the HOW and the WHY of the word game exist SEPARATELY from each other, and where the HOW and the WHY OF what it represents, (mainly psychology), does not matter at all, whilst still giving you an example of how and why the word game is not being used in a manner to represent things that it could, due to how it is used elsewhere.



One step at a time... If you can figure this one out, then you MIGHT be ready to take the next step. If you can't, however, then there is literally NO HOPE for you whatsoever.



(Analogy - this is the equivalent of talking to someone on a site about the design and creation of toys, and them not knowing that the one element that makes Barbie a toy, is that it's a doll).

This is getting nowhere, now you're talking about categories...Also, my definitions is inclusive and applies to any kind of game. Is there overlap with other stuff you do not consider a game? Sure...that's what Humanity is really really good at, creating giant overlaps.



Sure Barbie is a toy because it's a doll, but my pencil is a toy because I USE IT AS A DOLL (Mr. Pencillickestone) and because I use it as a doll and a toy, I'm playing a game with it, and one of the rules are: pencils can be dolls. Usage is how objects/subjects are defined. You can use a hammer or use a piece of metal or the other end of a screwdriver as a hammer. Function of the object/subject defines said object/subject. And usage is behavior ergo, using behaviorology to explain what a game is is completely accurate. Any game in use will comply and does those four aspects I've given you, no exceptions. I've not yet added the more player-centered consequences, but that's not fitting for this.



What you do not seem to get is that you do not rebuke anything by just saying it's wrong and drone about the why, how, what in circles without proper explanation. You want to debate stuff, good, but do it properly. Trow out what you got, define it, explain it. You're to fixated on the matter of what a game is and are not asking yourself what can have the use of a game, the function of one. The latter will produce far more fundamental and inclusive answer (and has).



Actually, this is the equivalent of talking to a Newtonian-only physicist and coming in with Einstein's relativity theory.



Also, Behaviorology trumps psychology when it comes to making accurate statements about human behavior and "thinking". And they achieve it by stating that people do not have internal agents in their heads or Free Will. Neurology also confirms this.

(Ok - I admit my last analogy wasn't very good, but it was all I could think of at the time... However, the level at which we're dealing with with matter is similar, which is what I was mainly trying to point out).



As I said - since you obviously DO NOT UNDERSTAND - you will never succeed in fully recognising or understanding games for what they are.



Objects CAN be defined by their use, but also by shape and other attributes - and since objects can exist and be used independently of such a description, such a description isn't always consistent. The words pencil and doll represent two separate independent things - using either word for a single object is an independent application of such a description, that has no bearing on the other, just like art and game represent separate things that have no bearing on the other either, although they may be compatible in certain ways and applications.



Since WHAT the word game represents is something so simple, yet also specific, (and the HOW being related to that is quite subjective), it's the WHY that really matters, and that's where psychology comes in. (I assume you know of game theory?)



P.s. based on their use: toy != game. (Here's another question for you - WHY is that true?)



I'm not really here to debate anything atm, tbh - I'm more interested in trying to help people help themselves, until I can do the best/something viable with what I have.



I've been trying to explain that until you know WHAT a game is, the HOW and WHY of ANYTHING related to games, is essentially meaningless, since it has no real context! Because you don't understand what a game is, (although you THINK you do, in a manner that is not fully consistent with how the word is used, and therefore wrong), you do not see where and how all the lines and relationships between what the word game represents and many other (often similar) words, exist.



The latter is part of the problem we have with the word game at this time, anyway, and so it is not completely surprising. However - precisely BECAUSE of that fact, I am trying to help you in a very specific way, to help you figure out exactly WHAT it is the word game represents in a manner independently of the HOW and WHY. Only when you have fully figured that out and understand it, will you be in a position to fully understand how everything fits together and where the problems lie.



So - what IS Snakes and Ladders that defines it AS a game, and not merely Snakes and Ladders, (or even a specific version of Snakes and Ladders)?

Fun. Escapism.

Nope - both of those things apply to too many other words, and not just snakes and ladders, or the word game for that matter. Do games have to be 'fun' or provide escapism in order to exist? Or is it merely some types and applications of games which do? Are the games played by the military 'fun' or provide 'escapism'? There are in fact many uses of the word game which would not be covered by such things, therefore they cannot have any place in the word's definition.



What we're trying to do, is to find out WHAT it is that the word game actually represents in its general use within the language - preferably in its most basic, simple form(s). (There are a few other uses which are derived from its main, general use, however, so it's important not to get confused between them). We do that, by studying HOW it is used, and WHAT it represents when doing so, so we can then group as many examples of such things together and find out what makes them unique, and so describe the word game purely for what it must represent. Once we've done that, we can then further examine what it represents in relation to OTHER words in the language, and so help ALL of these words be described in a manner that demonstrates just such a relationship where and when applicable.



This is a very basic, simple matter of linguistics and nothing more.



Snakes and Ladders is a game. Many of its components, however, merely define it as a type of game, or just as, (even a specific implementation/version of), Snakes and Ladders itself. There is one thing it has, or is, however, that does not - this element is what defines it AS a game in the first place.



So what is it?

That first paragraph is merely a demonstration of the problem. Language is NOT, nor can ever BE that subjective or it would not be able to function. (Language is of human creation, with all that implies).



The job of language - the primary reason for its existence - is to communicate meaning. It can only do that if it has a required level of consistency IN its meaning. This is why, although it CAN be that subjective, as you demonstrate - it's purpose is only fulfilled by the OPPOSITE - what you are describing there is therefore not how language is required or supposed to work!



The closer any language gets to that point, the less of a language it becomes.



However, that all has very little to do with anything in regards to the matter I'm discussing, since that is ONLY applicable to the ENGLISH LANGUAGE ITSELF, as defined by its general USE.



Therefore any mention of the language that is NOT consistent with such use, has no meaning or relevance to this discussion. The HOW and WHY of the English language and its existence in itself, therefore, is NOT applicable here. This discussion is purely concerned with one particular word within the English language itself - game, and how it relates to the rest of the language as defined by its USE.



Any part of the discussion which does NOT reflect such use, is therefore irrelevant.



If you wish to argue about language in general - this is not the place to do it... Since everything here is fully consistent with the rules OF the English language itself, only the use of the language is of any importance.



Only once the use of the language is fully recognised and understood in relation to the rules of the language itself, will any meaningful conversation or discussion about the language in general have any context.



Since you consistently fail to fully recognise and understand the problem in regards to how the language is currently USED, nothing you are saying has any meaning for this matter.



Based on how the language is used, however, Snakes and Ladders is a game. What is it about Snakes and Ladders that defines it AS a game, based on how the language is USED?



[EDIT: To give an analogy as to what you're doing:



Imagine this is a web-site about the design and creation of furniture, instead of games. Now imagine that we had problems because PEOPLE, (not humanity) are not quite sure of what the word furniture truly represents in itself, irrespective of how it is used, and how it's then related to other words and things, such as art/sculpture, electrical equipment etc..



What you're talking about is the equivalent of how molecules are formed by joining atoms together to make different substances.



What I'm talking about is the equivalent of needing to understand what the words chair/table/bed etc. represent so we can then study such things and figure out from them, what furniture actually is.



Which one do think is more relevant to understanding what the word furniture represents?]

I am wondering what you consider correct or incorrect usage of the word “game”.



1) My perception is that the activity we are taking part in right now is a game in itself. You are in effect conducting a type of “guessing game”, where you have a specific answer in your mind and the player’s objective is to figure out what it is, and you provide clues to help solve the “riddle”.



In your opinion, is this a correct usage of the word “game”? If so, then the very element that makes Snakes & Ladders a game must also be present in the exercise we are currently involved in?



2) Approaching the problem from a different angle, perhaps we can first look at how the English language is used with regard to what a game is NOT. For instance:



a. “This is not a game, this is real life.” (or “Relax, it’s just a game.”)

b. “No time for games, we have work to do.”



We might then conclude the following:



a. Games are NOT to be taken seriously because they do NOT have direct “real-world” consequences.

b. Games are NOT an obligation or responsibility.



In your opinion, is this a correct usage of the word “game”?

No. The first problem we have with the word game, is separating out the different uses of the word which cannot be fully compatible, and therefore must be separate, (but still related) definitions.



Again, we run into symptoms of the basic problem here quite quickly - i.e. the perception of what the word game represents is not matched by how it's used, but because such a perception has affected how it's used, it has, essentially, created another definition of the word, (that's derived from its main, general use).



One of the biggest problems affecting the word game in this manner, is the perceived link between the word game, and the word play when used as a noun - (i.e. an activity that is non-productive). The reason why it's a problem, is, as I pointed out before, that the word game is used in a manner which contradicts such a perception - (i.e. games can, and are being played for work - as activities that are productive). This means that any use of the word game which represents a purely non-productive activity (play as a noun), cannot be part of its main, general definition, and must be a separate, derived definition if required.



(Note: that the word game is not the only word with which the word play as a verb and the word play as a noun when used are not actually related. (Music/concert are other examples - which also has some relevance to the word game...)).



This means that the word game, in its main, general use, has nothing to do with the words play or work when used as nouns - i.e. a game can be either non-productive OR productive depending on the SUBJECTIVE opinion of the beholder - a subjective application of what work or play (as nouns) represent in addition to, and upon, what the word game represents in it use. Its main definition therefore has to exist independently of such things.



As I've been trying to point out - until people fully know and understand WHAT it is the word game represents according to its use, arguing about the how and why is meaningless.



(And no, I wouldn't agree that what is happening here is a game, based on what I know the word game to represent - the rules do not appear to be the same (or accepted as is) for everyone, let alone what we're (or I'm) trying to do and how).

"What I'm talking about is the equivalent of needing to understand what the words chair/table/bed etc. represent so we can then study such things and figure out from them, what furniture actually is."



No, that's what I'm doing, but from the perspective that actually has relevance: the scientific one, looking at the actual processes behind the making of those words and not what more. Also, again, you're talking about stuff that the cultural sciences have fixed these past decades thanks to the post-modern critique (you pre-define what you mean by that word, which then becomes part of your premise and keep going from there, this how cultural scientists have been doing it the last decades).



The Post-Modern critique actually even states that your "knowing" the actually meaning and representation within the English language is subjective.



You're insistence to keep seperating the "actual" (yours) meaning and the "derived" other meaning reveals this. Only limiting yourself to the english language also betrays this. In Dutch and French, the noun game and the verb play have the same spelling (base). What if, trough maintained repeated use that second one becomes the norm, is already the norm. That's the extreme relativity of language. Deal with it.



This extreme relativity is FACT. Yes, this implies the constant changing of words, making communication difficult because meanings, uses and such change constantly, but that's at the core of humanity: creative self-destruction. Latin died because Renaissance intellectuals uniformed it to a extreme extent, it lost it's dynamic. Language changes constantly because people find new functional uses in it. Finding out the process, the behavioral patterns is again more important, finding out that function is far more important. Later on you can put some linguistic label on it.



Really, you're becoming more and more the equivalent of "In my days, we didn't use that word for that, we used it for this! Dagnabbit, where's my theeth!"

No - the word game is ALREADY DEFINED WITHIN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE BASED ON HOW IT IS USED. The process underlying such a thing does not matter simply because it still obeys the basic rules of English grammar! Why did they choose the word game to represent such a thing - who knows? (Ask an etymologist) - but such a thing has no bearing on WHAT the word represents.



Without understanding WHAT a word represents based on how it is USED, the how and why has NO context within which to work.



Any other language or any other context means NOTHING. How the word game is USED in general is VERY CONSISTENT. Change in its use is and has merely ADDED additional uses and therefore definitions, not replacing or changing its general definition as it already exists, (and has existed for a very long time), except when not recognised or understood in such a consistent manner.



The USE of a language is PARAMOUNT - anything that does NOT coincide with such USE is therefore INACCURATE and problematic! A lot of what you've talked about suffers from that problem. If the overall USE of the language in regards to a word is consistent, and therefore the subjectivity is minimal, then that is NOT part of the problem.



The ONLY way we can figure out what a word represents is to study how it is used! Without such use - a word does not exist!



NONE OF WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT HAS ANY RELEVANCE TO THE USE OF THE WORD GAME. ITS GENERAL USE IS ONLY SUBJECTIVE ON BEHALF OF PART OF HUMANITY AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT - BY STUDYING HOW THAT PART OF HUMANITY USES THE WORD ITSELF WITHIN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE!



Studying the behaviour of the word game is only relevant when you already KNOW WHAT behaviour it represents - which you can ONLY FIND OUT BY STUDYING HOW IT IS USED.



LINGUISTICS 101.



If you want to study language in general, then yes, a lot of what you're talking about might be relevant, but we're not talking about such generalities here - we're talking specifics! A specific word in a specific language, using specific rules and 'behaviour'!



Unlike you I've DONE my homework and STUDIED how the word game is ACTUALLY USED WITHIN THE LANGUAGE! The definition I have for the word game is therefore extremely specific to such use! Because you fail to understand HOW the word game is used, you therefore fail to understand WHAT it represents.



[EDIT:



Just like the word furniture has some basic examples to demonstrate and define what the word means - chair, table, bed etc. SO DOES THE WORD GAME. There are a few BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL games from which ALL OTHER GAMES ARE DERIVED, based on how the word is, and has always (to my knowledge) been USED.



If you understand like you say you do then you will know precisely WHAT these ARE. BUT if you DID, then you would IMMEDIATELY know the answer to my question!



So - what GAME is Snakes and Ladders?]

Now you're answering some question, even if you don't know which ones. I'm not fighting (directly) your capability of using the English language to define "game". I'm fighting the underlying premise. This is what I'm gathering.



1) Your premise of "knowing" what games are is extremely limited to specifics. No problem there, if you're a linguist (and can be interesting within the field of English linguistics). Being a Behaviorologist, it is more interesting to know the actual behavioral patterns behind the act of gaming, this specific linguistic absolutely has very limited meaning or relevance, the general one has some more. You made it seem that knowing what the word means you would have the end-all answer to everything game-related (you having THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE, remember). Now it's clear, you will not. This is why I wanted you to per-define everything before-hand.



My mother tongue is Dutch, while I can fool many an english man into thinking I'm one of them, I do not possess the extreme subtleties of English Grammar or vocabulary (which combined make English one of the most complicated languages in the world). So I can perfectly make a set of inclusive and accurate properties used by every game (which I did) by looking at the actual behavioral patterns during the act of gaming without knowing the meaning of the word game...in English.



2) You still do not account for the fact of relativity. The use of the word game is an behavioral pattern. People need to be conditioned to use that word in a certain context of external stimuli to have your minimal subjectivity factor. It's clear those stimuli change from language to language or even within languages. The word fag has changed meaning from a bundle of long thin sticks to start fires with, to old useless people to a offensive word for homosexual people to, if South Park has it's way, to people being extremely annoying in public (called assholes in Top Gear because they drive BMW's/Audi's).



Also, the "I'm dutch-speaking, so don't need to know the English representation" argument jumps up again.



3) Again with the categories. Something is a chair if I use it as one. If I sit on a big wooden log, then that big wooden log is my chair, if all my chairs are big wooden logs, than that's part of my furniture. How said object/subject makes me behave defines said object/subject. If I pertain in activities (activated trough external stimuli with presence in my brain of the necessary conditioning) that have rules/borders and trough them there is achieved a abstraction of an (perceived/conceived) aspects of life but within those rules/borders there is reaction to my input and I develop skills/insights (new or refining existing) related to the abstraction of life-aspects while doing said activities (aware or non-aware), I'm an active participant in a game.



Those elements on their own are maybe not exclusive to games, but together they are. It's almost impossible to define elements of behavior without overlap when taking those elements separately. But a combination of behavioral elements can be unique. I mean, the use of the word "game" has giant overlaps with the use of other words when looking it at behavioristic.



Do I need to know the actual meaning of the word "game" in the English language to come this, pssht of course not. Doesn't add or diminish the accuracy of the statements.

Again - you're looking at things from the wrong direction, which is why you're having problems (without realising it).



What words represent ONLY matters for the people that use it. This is why the word game has more than ONE definition! However, we MUST study HOW the word is USED in general, order to find out how the uses differ, but relate to each other, so we can derive the definitions from them.



The problem you have, but don't realise it, is that BECAUSE of the way the word is USED, the MASSIVE difference between WHAT the word represents, and how it (what it represents) is APPLIED, is NOT BEING RECOGNISED.



The reason for this is simple - GAMES ARE LABELLED BY THEIR APPLICATION, not WHAT they're an application OF.



The reason why you're having problems is that you do not recognise the link between the application, what the word game represents in itself, and the how and why OF what the word represents.



This is WHY I've been trying to get you to recognise and understand the WHAT upon which these games are built, and therefore DEFINE them AS games in the first place, instead of how it's APPLIED.



Only WHEN you KNOW and UNDERSTAND WHAT the word GAME IS, by how it is used, will you be able to relate everything else to and by such a thing.



So - WHAT game IS Snakes and Ladders - independently from its application (AS Snakes and Ladders)?



[EDIT: Your problem, T Ta, is that YOU'RE being very subjective, in a manner that is NOT reflected in the way the English language is USED IN GENERAL.



THIS is why almost EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS IRRELEVANT. WHAT you say has NO bearing on how HUMANITY uses the words and intends them to mean when doing so - what a few individuals, such as yourself, intend, MEAN NOTHING IF IT'S INDIVIDUALLY SUBJECTIVE AND INCONSISTENT WITH EVERYONE ELSE. You may call the colour blue, red, as much as you want, but it isn't going to matter one iota for the rest of humanity.



Subjectivity ONLY matters for meanings of words, when the meanings of words are subjective. The meaning of the word game, based on how it is USED is not, in general, that subjective at all. It has become subjective in a limited manner for a group of people in relation to computer/video games, precisely because the word is not fully recognised or understood for what it represents, either in isolation, or in relation to other (similar) words - and the reason for that, is also very specific within the English language.



At the end of the day, we have a very long chain - connecting specific individual games at one end, to the overall types of ingredients in games, (psychology/physics/mathematics etc.) at the other. The problem we have at this time, is that there are a couple of links that are missing, and a couple that are incomplete. This means that people like you, who try and connect links that are not directly related, run into problems - unfortunately, often without realising it (again, like you).



If we start at one end it goes:



1) Specific individual game/application - (say, Texas Hold'em Poker/Chess)

2) General individual game/application (optional) - (Poker/Snakes and ladders - (since you can have different individual versions of each game)

3) Type of (game)/application based on action of player (optional) - (shoot'em up/beat'em up etc.)

4) Type of (game)/application based on media used - (Computer game/card game/board game etc.) + Type of game based on other application - (single/multi-player with or without interaction - real-time/turn/phase-based - skill/chance-based etc.)

5) Basic games - (independent of application)

6) Definition of game

7) Type of word - (in relation to the language as a whole)

7.5) Elements such word(s) represent



At this time, 5, 6 and 7 are either not recognised at all, or are incomplete. NONE of what you've described applies to any of that at all, which is why it's irrelevant. 7.5, which is part of what you're talking about, only applies once 5/6/7 are fully recognised and understood.



Again, what YOU think they should be, is irrelevant. It's what humanity (or as much of it as possible), feels they should be, based on how it uses the word that matters! As I said, I've studied the word and its use, which is why I know what 5/6/7 above ARE.



It is for this reason, WHY the question I've repeatedly asked you, is to help you recognise and understand (part of) the answer to 5. If you can't recognise the difference between what a word represents and its application - you're never going to get very far...]

The problem I have, is that, for the English language specifically, (the method in doing so), defining the word game in a manner that is fully consistent with how it used within the English language as a whole, involves re-defining a fundamental part of the language itself, (since its current definition and perception and understanding of what it represents is not consistent with how the language is used, and is causing problems for understanding the word game, not so much on its own, in isolation, but in relation to the rest of the language itself) - number 7 on the list above, (as-well as affecting other, similar words too).



I'm assuming that having to do such a thing, would be seen as being a big deal for the language as a whole, and so a little blog post here, on this site, would not be the best place to publish something of that kind. Christian (Nutt), based on the reply he sent me, obviously feels that what I sent him is suitable for that, but I still don't feel content with just throwing it out there on a blog like this.



Considering the advice I had, about one specific word I'm also involving in this matter, (which would be used in writing such a definition, and related to 7 on the list too), from Dr Anthea Fraser Gupta of Leeds University, which was to go to university and write a proper academic paper on the subject, and that the matter here is FAR more fundamental, and therefore important, than that one word, I'm viewing posting a blog entry about such a thing as a last resort.



The whole reason I've been doing all this research in the first place, was to find out WHY using that word in describing what the word game represents is so important, if not necessary, in the first place.



But this is approaching the word game from only one direction - to work out what it represents in relation to the rest of the language. The other direction, to work out what the word represents in isolation, based on how the word itself is used within the language, is just as, if not more important, even if it is incomplete without the rest, at least for the English language.



But working out WHAT it is the word game represents, in isolation, according to its use is EASY. This is the equivalent of knowing what chairs, tables and beds are on a website devoted to the design and creation of furniture. That no-one has been able to answer my extremely basic and simple question about Snakes and Ladders, is actually incredibly damning for anyone who's read it, and doesn't know the answer.



That games have become confused for their application, is a issue that professionals should not suffer from - if they can't simply work this out, then maybe they're in the wrong industry... As a musician and composer, I recognise and understand the difference between types of instruments and the sounds they make - if I didn't, then I wouldn't be very good at what I do, now would I?