Further to today's discussion I'm not sure I'm completely in agreement with the drift towards defining a game as anything that can be treated as a game or be fun.
It seems that a game should possibly be a metaphor/practice for a "more important" struggle.
In that sense a game is "false" or at least "life-lite".
I thinks games cannot have "dire consequences" if you lose.
A game should perhaps still potentially be fun (although obviously not as much fun) even if your losing.
Obviously then the "status of being a game" is influenced by the attitude of the agent to the game.
Is Russian roulette a game?
Is losing the family home, your family's livelihood and inheritance in a poker hand a game?
Is it appropriate to treat life as a game ie as of some diminished significance?
Brian Eno (while cultural embassador for the EU) defined culture as "everything we don't actually need to survive".
Games certainly are part of our culture. They may be regarded as "life-lite".
But could we survive without them?
ok... i suppose... like those miners in chile, who need a structure to their daily lives... games... and their construction need and share similar structures. We will look at this on monday
ReplyDelete