09-17-2026, 11:39 AM
Quote:Jared: "Yeah! So, this idea jives with the idea that "game" is an emergent property of play (in role-play, specifically). That is, when we play, our play takes on form processually. The form shifts and changes with play in complex, fleeting ways. We can call this form "game," but I think it's worth pointing out that this conception of "game" runs deeply counter to the colloquial idea of what a game is and how game interacts with play.
Looking around, we imagine that games exist in some persistent way in the world. We find a game, we choose it, and we play (with) it, and the game informs or even creates our play. When we stop playing, the game continues to exist, and we can go back and play (with) it again some other time. But if "game" is emergent from play, then all of that is false. Instead, play [i]precedes game, and play persists after game has gone. Different moments or instances of play can resemble one another insofar as their structures (the "games" emergent from them) share some set of superficial similarities, but the whole is so complex and ineffable that it seems unreasonable to call these "the same game" in any meaningful way. Perhaps we could categorize various instances of play in this way to some degree—play with X characteristic, play with Y characteristic, and so on—but are these categories "games" by any reasonable gloss of the way people actually use the word? By this point we've gotten so far afield of anything that actually resembles what folks seem to mean when they say the word "game" (and what it can actually mean in cases like video games and board games that it cannot mean for role-play) that I suspect it's actually a net negative to keep the word around. This is an example of where the eliminativist position with regard to game comes from."[/i]
I can't say I agree with this. A game can exist in multiple degrees of Complexity or Depth simultaneously without those degrees being mutually exclusive. The game that is a physical object is just as real as the game that is an instance of Play with Structure. Even sharing the same terminology, they are separated in meaning by context. Language is often inefficient, with that I do agree, but it also imparts a fluidity that is ultimately to its benefit.
In that regard, I don't believe that "game" can only refer to the emergent categorization of Play with Structure. As Sam talked about in the episode, "game" can also encompass the objective components of that Structure, be they physical "toys", software, rules, etc. It can also refer simply to the name of a thing, to help distinguish it from other things, and associate it with other things of a similar nature. I think those distinctions are useful.