Mr Khan said:
Aiddon said:
Mr Khan said:
You're new to speaking to Helios, i see. He's not putting any stock in the whole idea that "games as toys" is derogatory, he's merely asserting that the two are different in their first principle, though serve much of the same functions
|
I think about it this way: you play with a game, you plays with a toy. They'll always be toys and no amount of abitrary fidgeting will ever change that. This is why Nintendo is so good at what they do; they approach gaming like they're designing a toy.
|
I (and Helios) am speaking in Metaphysical terms here. I don't disagree with what you're saying, that the core appeal is the fun that is had and not the goals that are attained, but primarily a game is a goal-oriented diversion, which differentiates it from a toy, though the end goal for both is amusement (which is what a lot of game designers forget)
|
That's it, yes.
In additon, you will find it difficult to base a cogent line of reasoning on the peciculars of the common vernacular. You 'play' with a piano - is the piano a toy? You 'play' with swords - are swords toys? You 'play' with words - are words toys? Realize that the word 'play' has a wider application than either 'games' or 'toys', and that it is a fallacy to recklessly equate its many uses.
As for the argumentum ad populum - you know that's a fallacy as well, right? In any case, the academic consensus is that games are, in fact, not toys. I find that perspective quite useful, myself.
