@hxce:

I don't wanna leave a post that could be construed as angry, but please, for the love of God, just tell me what your point is already. I've read your comments a couple of times now, and I still can't figure it out. I feel like I'm running around in circles trying to understand, and I'm loosing patience. Sun Tzu said that if the orders aren't clear, and the men aren't obeying the generals commands, then the fault lies with the general. However if the orders are clear, and his soldiers are still disobeying, then the fault lies with the officers.

Well the whole dictionary discussion didn't seem particularly friendly to me.

Anyway, if you take out all the elements that can make you loose Terraria and Minecraft, wouldn't they still be games? Minecraft and Terraria don't need failure states in order to qualify as games, that's something general we can say of games. I see two options. Either we disavow Terraria and Minecraft as games, because they can be played without loss-states, or we acknowledge that games don't need loss-states in order to be games. We can't have it both ways here, and I tend to go with the second option.

What I understood from your initial comment on the traffic/work examples was that you meant that there were some elements of play in them. Which I absolutely agree with.

I guess I must have jumped the gun. I thought your first comment was meant to say that, what we're trying to do is irrelevant, because we already have definitions, like the one on Wikipedia.
I also didn't think that

I didn't think you'd read them all, since you weren't quoting a specific paragraph where you thought our reasoning was wrong. Why don't you do that, and we'll take it from there? I am more than happy to engage in a discussion, when I know what exactly you think is wrong with our reasoning.

I wasn't trying to discredit you or anything, but I can tell you that I wouldn't have made a lick of sense if no one had told me when I was making errors. That's how we improve isn't it?
For instance. I'm still making punctuation errors, since the rules for comma usage is different in my own native language, and I haven't taken the time to learn all the rules yet.

@hxce:

I don't think just because an activity has elements of play in it, that it automatically becomes a game. Traffic has elements of play, because there are certain rules in place. You can't run a red light, you have to stop when there's a stop sign, you can't drive faster than the speed limit etc. etc.
When you're in court, there's a certain way you're supposed to act. You can't make monkey sounds instead of defending your client. So you take on this role of an attorney. That's essentially roleplaying, but it's still not a game. I will update my first post, with our newest definition, and I'll keep it updated until we have a newer one. I strongly recommend that you read the rest of the thread. I know it's long, but there's some really good arguments in there.

As for the counting sheep example. I don't think it's a game. This activity lacks rules that can be agreed upon prior to the start of the game. Oh and the word sheep is an uncountable noun, so it's never in plural. :)

@hxce:

Yes. All sorts of games, and much more. We've discussed The Hunger Games, gladiatorial combat, war, traffic, work, Saw and much more. Some seems to think that some of these activities should be included as games, while others thinks that if we come up with a definition that includes them, then the definition becomes too broad. Indeed many of the online definitions that people have copy/pasted from Oxford or Webster, could include other activities that we don't consider games, or exclude activities that we do consider games. Take Webster for example:

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

A game does not have to be a contest, and it certainly doesn't have to be done for pleasure. Their definition is flat out wrong. That isn't to say that Webster isn't useful, in fact, I use Webster all the time, and Oxford Dictionaries, and The Free Dictionary, but in order to define an abstract concept, such as games, you need to discuss it for more than two minutes.

The Wikipedia article itself even stated, in the third sentence no less, that the distinction from art and work isn't clear cut. In other words, they don't know what a game is either. They probably know what a game isn't, but that's not really the same as being able to say what a game definitively is. And thus we're discussing it.

Well we're not exactly looking for a wiki on a game. We're looking for a specific phrase that includes all activities that we consider games, and excludes all activities that we don't consider games. This requires abstract thinking, and I know that you are capable of that, so feel free to join in the discussion. :)

I think Bloody Butterknife qualifies as a game. But when it's being forced on you then I think it morphs into something else.
You have to do it of your own free will. And that's not even saying enough. If I tell you that you have to do it or your child will die. You'll probably do it, assuming that you haven't left your humanity on Vulcan, but you wouldn't want to do it if your offspring wasn't in danger. Furthermore isn't free will an external force itself? Isn't your willingness, or lack thereof, to play a game an external force? I don't think we should exclude external forces from the equation.

But then again Think of Starcraft. Exact same situation, except you don't loose your hand. Your child will die if you don't play a round of Starcraft. You might not want to play Starcraft at all but you'll still do it. Starcraft is still a game. However, does it morph into something else when you are being forced to play it? The construct of Starcraft hasn't changed, but to the player and everyone observing it's still more than 'just a game'.

As for the whole 'loose your hand part', that does not disqualify it as a game because, as we earlier talked about earlier, a game can have consequences, even severe ones, and as long as you accept those consequences it's a game.
And when I say accept, I mean accept without reservations. Not 'accept' as in "my child will die if I don't".

As for the robot example. If it's a course that can only be played by a robot, then I think it's no longer a game. It might as well just be a process/system. 'Living' things needs to be able to play the game, or else it's a process. Now if the robot was advanced enough to be sentient, then I think it would be a game.

Voluntary participation can't be irrelevant, and I don't think external forces are entirely irrelevant either. Maybe what we need are three categories.

1. Games
2. More than games (games that you play, under protest)
3. Distinctly not games

What do you think of that?

I agree. If it is redundant then it should be left out. If we start including things that a game might have, then it's going to be a long list. The first rule in my first post stated that the definition has to be as short as possible.

We're trying to determine what makes a game in general. We are here encroaching on video-games in particular.

@mastermetal777: Oh to the narrative part or just in general?

We don't agree in general, but I don't remember anyway saying that a game has to have a narrative. Indeed one of the first examples of a video-game didn't have a narrative. Pong.

@EPICCOMMANDER: I think all of us here agree. :)

Guys I was sincerely hoping we could keep things civil here. I think it's fair to say that I am a bit disappointed. Not that I should be of cause, it always devolves into this in the end doesn't it?

Anyway. Moving on with the discussion.

You're saying that softcore mode Terraria is part of the game. If we agree that it is, and we also agree that softcore mode isn't competitive, then we have an example of a game that isn't competitive at it's core. Now correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a competition a struggle of power between people? That excludes the AI.

As for the loss/win-state, I don't think they are necessary. When I fly around in creative mode in Minecraft, there's no way I can die. I also can't win that game no matter what I do. Now most games have got a loss-state and a win-state, but there are instances of games without these artifacts.

I think I'd still call it a loss, but it doesn't change the fact, that there are games out there, where they have either disabled the loss-state, or didn't include one to begin with. Are those games still games? Absolutely. Most games have got them, but it's just not needed in order to qualify as a game.

Now guys what do you think of the following definition?

A game is a system comprised of rules, that govern the interaction among players and/or between the system itself. The existence of the game itself cannot be justified by the necessity of everyday life, while allowing the player(s) of the game, to quit at any given time.

Was there anything I missed?

I take no credit for the proposed definition. It all goes to you fair people. :)
Feel free to phrase it differently if you feel like some parts of it isn't proper English. English is after all not my first language, and the small intricacies of the language is sometimes lost on my poor mainland European brain. Although I do try my best.

Yes! I can accept the definition only if you get to quit at your own choosing. In a war, you can't just put down your rifle, and walk away from the battlefield. Even if you survive, you'll get court martial. You might have entered willingly, but you can't leave at will. I was actually tempted to rule out boxing as a game, but I think it qualifies because they can choose to give up whenever they want to.

I think this insane game of Ludo is still a game, if you get to quit at your own choosing. It all makes sense now. I realize that all that was missing was the "leave at a time of your own choosing" part, because that rules out such activities as war, The Hunger Games and Gladiatorial match. But it of cause does change if there is now a rule that says you can't leave, or your life will be forfeit.

I think you shoot down your own argument by saying that a game of poker can be played for free. Can, being the keyword here. It doesn't have to be played that way. We've talked about E-sports before, and Starcraft isn't played for the sake of entertainment. At least not for the professionals.

Edit: Yes! I can accept the definition only if you get to quit at your own choosing. In a war, you can't just put down your rifle, and walk away from the battlefield. Even if you survive, you'll get court martial. You might have entered willingly, but you can't leave at will. I was actually tempted to rule out boxing as a game, but I think it qualifies because they can choose to give up whenever they want to.