Game?

[phinehas]

.

[cloj63]

stop being a troll; it is a sandbox game, I think it is pretty obvious...

[Darvince]

Darnit now the troll callers have found here. D:

[Dan Dixon]

Why are there a lot of people referring to Universe Sandbox as a "game"?

Not a troll question at all. Likely, in part, because it's being sold on Steam which referees to to it as a Simulation Game:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/72200/

[atomic7732]

I'm sure there are people who will do that but Universe Sandbox is an adequate name to tell people "Hey this is probably about space, and it's probably a simulation." Also now you're stereotyping...

[karakris]

In some ways it is a GAME.

Sure it is a Simulator - but then Flight Simulators on PCs have always been sold as Games.

Hoever - in that it allows you to try out "what if" scenarios in Galaxy, Star and Planet Systems - it is a kind of Game.
Not all Games are so obsessed with Goals and Competition - children used to play Games whic were for FUN - not for Competition.
Unfortunately - we are teaching our children to be competetive and even confrontational at an earlier and ealrier age - but once upon a time things were different.

As a young child I played Cricket with my family - for FUN, to enjoy trying to get a run before the ball was caught, trying to stop a ball hitting the Wicket, trying to hit the Wicket with a ball.
Running around and PLAYING was the essence of a Game in those days, along with make-belief Games of our own invention.
It was only when I went to School, that Games came to mean competing, points scoring - and all the FUN was lost.

So Uni Sand is a Game - like building Sandcastles on the Beach - seeing if you can make one that will last - seeing if you can build one where the moat will not fall in, having Fun - not competing.    

[AndyShell]

In some ways it is a GAME.

Sure it is a Simulator - but then Flight Simulators on PCs have always been sold as Games.

Hoever - in that it allows you to try out "what if" scenarios in Galaxy, Star and Planet Systems - it is a kind of Game.
Not all Games are so obsessed with Goals and Competition - children used to play Games whic were for FUN - not for Competition.
Unfortunately - we are teaching our children to be competetive and even confrontational at an earlier and ealrier age - but once upon a time things were different.

As a young child I played Cricket with my family - for FUN, to enjoy trying to get a run before the ball was caught, trying to stop a ball hitting the Wicket, trying to hit the Wicket with a ball.
Running around and PLAYING was the essence of a Game in those days, along with make-belief Games of our own invention.
It was only when I went to School, that Games came to mean competing, points scoring - and all the FUN was lost.

So Uni Sand is a Game - like building Sandcastles on the Beach - seeing if you can make one that will last - seeing if you can build one where the moat will not fall in, having Fun - not competing.    

Exactly.



-

[karakris]

Not ANY activity making something

Making something for yourself, not paid for by others
Making something which serves no useful or functional purpose ( like the Sandcastle ), but just satisfies your own non-functional needs - things in your head.
Trying things out and learning - it has been argued that part of learning is a kind of Game - and that children learn things by playing Games.

And a Flight Simulator is classed as a Game - when all your have to do is land safely.

If you set-out to create a Simulation which does something you wanted to try - then it is a Game
If you learn how to do it better, from how it turns out - so you can try again, then it also qualifies as a Game

If you run a pre-set Simulation, without interacting with it - that is a Simulator, not a Game

[Darvince]

These examples are not attributes of what makes a game a game.  The reason why people would consider learning as a type of game is because like a game, there are objectives.

That would mean that several popular games are actually simulations, while they are clearly games.

[Hedd]

Webster dictionary:

Definition of GAME
1 : activity engaged in for diversion or amusement


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/game


Checkmate.

[atomic7732]

Webster dictionary:

Definition of GAME
1 : activity engaged in for diversion or amusement


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/game


Checkmate.

Win my friend. Win.

@phinehas Take Europa Universalis III for example. There are no preset goals for you (not even world domination), you can do whatever you want with your nation, purposefully destroy it, conquer your neighbor, or all out dominate the world. Go on to the paradoxplaza forums and try telling them it's a simulator, they'll tell you it's a "sandbox game".

[Darvince]

Webster dictionary:

Definition of GAME
1 : activity engaged in for diversion or amusement


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/game


Checkmate.

Win my friend. Win.

@phinehas Take Europa Universalis III for example. There are no preset goals for you (not even world domination), you can do whatever you want with your nation, purposefully destroy it, conquer your neighbor, or all out dominate the world. Go on to the paradoxplaza forums and try telling them it's a simulator, they'll tell you it's a "sandbox game".

@phinehas The whole genre of "sandbox games" are actually simulations in your point of view.

[atomic7732]

Actually wrong.  The "sandbox games" you speak of are actually games because they do have objectives and in most cases, rules....if not winning and losing of challenges.

I knew you couldn't actually name any.

There aren't really rules at all. It's like Universe sandbox, but with the world. yeah there are limited options (just like anything else), and times where you can't use certain features, but you choose a nation, and you're put in control with it. Let me make it clear that aside from the little missions that you are given in game (which you can click "Cancel mission") there are no objectives at all. I think that is the main point I needed to make.

[atomic7732]

I was still replying to it. I can do that can't I?

[Darvince]

No.

[atomic7732]

Ok.

[dprice1291]

phinehas:
If a game is only a game if it has inbuilt goals to accomplish, then what becomes an activity that has none but is treated as one by the person playing? To that person, it is a game. To you, it isn't. In actuality the only thing you are arguing for is that your specific, subjective definition of 'game' is correct, and others have risen to refute you. Ultimately, though, the idea of gaming is defined by whomever plays it.

Consider an argument about musical tastes. One person likes, say, opera, and the other likes, say, R&B. Objectively, from an outside standpoint, neither genre is better than the other; there is no objective standard for one to be superior to the other. 'Music' is simply defined as 'rhythmic sounds that convey emotional feelings in the listener'. Each person may have their own reasons for liking their respective genres, but ultimately their reasoning is based on how the music made them feel, and on their emotional thought linked to the game. One may convince the other, but not through rational appeal - only through emotional appeal. In this way, definitions of 'gaming' suit the persons who hold them, but may not go further than the inside of their skull. I'm inclined to agree with those who say that UniSand is a game to most of those who play it. That means, to those people, it IS a game, regardless if you agree.

Look at the full Webster's definition of 'Game' (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/game). Most people here would consider UniSand to be under definition 1)a)1); your definition of game is limited to definition 3)a), which is more inclusive and would exclude UniSand. This is due to your unique and particular point of view. However, UniSand CAN be defined as a game by the parameters of those falling under definition 1a1, so UniSand CAN be a game to someone.

In short, the definition of 'game' includes a wide range of potential experiences and definitions. Each one may be held - correctly - by someone, but in direct opposition to that held by another. And so, both are right, but to each other, they are wrong. Ultimately, there is no right or wrong, because we write those rules.

[atomic7732]

All of your comments were complete gibberish, racist and highly offensive.  See how illogical the rationalization of no right or wrong and writing our own rules actually is. 

It's quite obvious that you didn't think this was true, so technically that doesn't count. Someone in their right mind wouldn't be completely illogical and really think this.

[atomic7732]

Isn't that what dprice was getting on about?

[dprice1291]

@phinehas, you have refuted nothing. Subjective morality is not a circular argument: it is a description of how the world actually is. Would you argue for there being an objective baseline for these ideas, written into the fabric of the cosmos? A set guideline for what is and is not a 'game'? Sorry, but humans developed the idea of a game, and it differs according to context and individual.


I would ask you to explain how subjective morality is circular in reasoning. I would also have you explain why you would disagree with the seemingly self-evident observation that the only objective reality is the universe we live in, and that our perceptions of this reality are therefore necessarily subjective (but closer or further from the truth depending on the methods one can attain knowledge).

[dprice1291]

I have never said there is no right or wrong... I'm not sure where you're getting this. Like I said, reality is the only objective right, and all things within our heads are necessarily subjective due to our differences in perception.
I don't understand why you insist on mockery and sarcasm. Perhaps because you lack logical basis? If you could please address my arguments we could have an intelligent argument, rather than just me dealing with a troll.

To clarify (once more), I argue that reality is the ONLY OBJECTIVITY; what is, is. Our perceptions of it vary, making us have SUBJECTIVE outlooks. And since, before the existence of humans, there was no definition of game, it is a HUMAN CONSTRUCT which developed as part of our sociology. This would mean that there is NO SET DEFINITION of what a game is, and that it is defined by consensus at any given time. Dictionary definitions provide a summation of the consensus of what a word can mean. And a definition for 'game' that I presented contains the parameters met by UniSand, which concludes that it would most likely fit any given group's idea of a game. I have already stated this, and would appreciate not having to say it again.

Recognizing this fact is subjective, as well, because it occurs within the human mind. But a person can be more objective than others by basing their subjectivity on observations and interpretations of the objective. Therefore, 'right' and 'wrong', while always in the eye of the beholder, are ultimately descriptions of correctness in the cosmos; what's right is what's real (or most likely at any given time, since the universe itself contains quantum uncertainty), and what's wrong is anything contrary (or anything extremely unlikely); due to the uncertainty, there is always a touch of gray. This is how the real world works. I posted to declare these points above, so that you would understand that you could not argue your subjectivity on a subjective basis and expect to be correct, especially since there you have yet to present objective arguments.

[Dan Dixon]

I'm not sure why this issue is so contentious or why it needs to be defined in a black or white way. It's a game to some, a simulation to others, or a mix of the two depending on how it's used.