Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
60 Posts
Prev «  1 , 2 , 3  | 

Abstract Games» Forums » General

Subject: Solitaire abstract games rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Richard Moxham
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mb
russ wrote:
bxrrr wrote:
Would it then be considered a game?
(I'm not saying that it necessarily would. I'm raising the question.)

Edit: I'm not interested in whether the game would be eligible for inclusion in the BGG database; I'm interested in whether or not it could be classified as a game. Perhaps not a board game, but a game nonetheless.
If you don't mean a "game" according the BGG-specific definition, I think that you nonetheless would need to define what definition of "game" you mean to be able to answer that.

Otherwise the answer seems trivially "yes" because "game" in a fuzzy general / colloquial sense can cover all kinds of leisure/fun activities, including those without any rules or goals, e.g. the game of playing "peek-a-boo" with a baby and a blanket.
And it doesn't have to be leisure and it doesn't have to be fun (nor even one of the two).

Afterthought. Tellingly, Wittgenstein chose "game" as his example when proposing (in Philosophical Investigations) the concept of 'family resemblances' - i.e. conformity to some but not all of a group of typical features, where pure definition proves impossible.

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
bxrrr wrote:
But would you - Russ, and the other posters here - consider them to be games (in more than the general/colloquial sense)?
I suppose I would in a very loosey-goosey kind of way. But it doesn't sound like the sort of thing I normally think of when I think of the word "game".
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig Duncan
United States
Ithaca
New York
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mocko wrote:
Afterthought. Tellingly, Wittgenstein chose "game" as his example when proposing (in Philosophical Investigations) the concept of 'family resemblances' - i.e. conformity to some but not all of a group of typical features, where pure definition proves impossible.
Serendipitously, and apropos of Wittengenstein's remarks on games, a link to the following article appeared this morning on a philosophy blog that I read:

From golf to Grand Theft Auto, why do we love playing games?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Piovezan
Brazil
Jundiaí
SP
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
I consider puzzles as games, no need for for added elements. But who am I? Who are you? What is the meaning of life?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
christian freeling
Netherlands
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmb
BozoDel wrote:
I consider puzzles as games, no need for for added elements. But who am I? Who are you? What is the meaning of life?
'My question exactly', 'I don't know' and 'a movie by Monty Python'.
4 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rex Moore
United States
Woodbridge
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BozoDel wrote:
But who am I? Who are you? What is the meaning of life?

1. Some dude on the internet

2. Some dude on the internet

3. Abstract games, which connect us to the rest of the universe
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Meyers
msg tools
bxrrr wrote:
russ wrote:
bxrrr wrote:
Would it then be considered a game?
(I'm not saying that it necessarily would. I'm raising the question.)

Edit: I'm not interested in whether the game would be eligible for inclusion in the BGG database; I'm interested in whether or not it could be classified as a game. Perhaps not a board game, but a game nonetheless.
If you don't mean a "game" according the BGG-specific definition, I think that you nonetheless would need to define what definition of "game" you mean to be able to answer that.

Otherwise the answer seems trivially "yes" because "game" in a fuzzy general / colloquial sense can cover all kinds of leisure/fun activities, including those without any rules or goals, e.g. the game of playing "peek-a-boo" with a baby and a blanket.

Here's the BGG definition of games:

In the abstract, a game is something where a single person or a group competes or cooperates toward a goal whereby one or more players win or one or more players lose. This also includes solo games where a player must make choices based on hidden information (not mere puzzles) and solo dexterity games with a failure and/or score and/or timed-play component.

What I am suggesting is the addition of losing (and also winning) conditions.
I am asking whether, by adding this element, whilst still retaining the 'zero hidden information' element, puzzles such as "BoxOff" become games.
They wouldn't, according to BGG.
But would you - Russ, and the other posters here - consider them to be games (in more than the general/colloquial sense)?

BoxOff can be morphed to a 2-player format, in which case it would unequivocally satisfy bgg's definition. The best 2-player format I've come up with is what I call "Good-versus-Bad BoxOff." The colored stones are laid out randomly to fill the board as usual. One player, called Good, tries to make good matches that make it easier for the puzzle to be solved (which happens when the board is entirely cleared of stones). The other player, called Bad, tries to make bad matches to make the task more difficult and ultimately impossible. A number is chosen, something between 0 and the total number of spaces on the board. Good wins if the colored stones are reduced to this number or less, otherwise Bad wins. Settling on a number which is fair is the tricky part, and definitely not an exact science, since some layouts are inherently more difficult to clear than others.

Steve
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Kreutzer
United States
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
orangeblood wrote:
BozoDel wrote:
But who am I? Who are you? What is the meaning of life?

1. Some dude on the internet

2. Some dude on the internet

3. Abstract games, which connect us to the rest of the universe
To intersect with the quantum universe.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Rodriguez
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
swshogimeyers wrote:
bxrrr wrote:
russ wrote:
bxrrr wrote:
Would it then be considered a game?
(I'm not saying that it necessarily would. I'm raising the question.)

Edit: I'm not interested in whether the game would be eligible for inclusion in the BGG database; I'm interested in whether or not it could be classified as a game. Perhaps not a board game, but a game nonetheless.
If you don't mean a "game" according the BGG-specific definition, I think that you nonetheless would need to define what definition of "game" you mean to be able to answer that.

Otherwise the answer seems trivially "yes" because "game" in a fuzzy general / colloquial sense can cover all kinds of leisure/fun activities, including those without any rules or goals, e.g. the game of playing "peek-a-boo" with a baby and a blanket.

Here's the BGG definition of games:

In the abstract, a game is something where a single person or a group competes or cooperates toward a goal whereby one or more players win or one or more players lose. This also includes solo games where a player must make choices based on hidden information (not mere puzzles) and solo dexterity games with a failure and/or score and/or timed-play component.

What I am suggesting is the addition of losing (and also winning) conditions.
I am asking whether, by adding this element, whilst still retaining the 'zero hidden information' element, puzzles such as "BoxOff" become games.
They wouldn't, according to BGG.
But would you - Russ, and the other posters here - consider them to be games (in more than the general/colloquial sense)?

BoxOff can be morphed to a 2-player format, in which case it would unequivocally satisfy bgg's definition. The best 2-player format I've come up with is what I call "Good-versus-Bad BoxOff." The colored stones are laid out randomly to fill the board as usual. One player, called Good, tries to make good matches that make it easier for the puzzle to be solved (which happens when the board is entirely cleared of stones). The other player, called Bad, tries to make bad matches to make the task more difficult and ultimately impossible. A number is chosen, something between 0 and the total number of spaces on the board. Good wins if the colored stones are reduced to this number or less, otherwise Bad wins. Settling on a number which is fair is the tricky part, and definitely not an exact science, since some layouts are inherently more difficult to clear than others.

Steve

In that case I'd say submit it. I've been playing the app and I like the game.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Grider
United States
Minneapolis
Minnesota
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mrraow wrote:
Muemmelmann wrote:
Rubix cube is probably the closest to a "lifestyle" game like chess or go.
Would Japanese logic puzzles count? Slitherlink FTW!

I totally agree with this. Logic puzzles feel like solo abstract strategy games to me.

A few months ago (at Gencon actually), I purchased a book called Puzzle Ninjas, and it's a really nice intro to the genre, giving about 10 examples of a ton of different types of puzzle. This has led to my purchasing a bunch of other books of various puzzle types. Fillomino and Hashiwokakero have been my two favorites lately, but I also play a lot of nonograms/Picross, mostly just because they are so readily available in digital form.

Notably, I've been working on a few different puzzle ideas for Thrive (formerly Eigenstate). The original intent was to have chess-style "here is the board state, how can you win in X moves" puzzles, but I've got some other ideas I like a lot better than that. Not sure when in the kickstarter they will be revealed, if ever, but I will definitely make them available online at some point.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Prev «  1 , 2 , 3  |