Rogerioandrade said:
Here's the problem with saying that: it's assuming that just because it requires one to be able to overcome those challenges that those challenges are the focus.
Challenges and goals are always the focus on a game. If there´s not challenge to be overcome, then they´re not games. Simply put.
So your definition of a game is something that have to have a challenge. And I never made a refute to "goals" HOWEVER YOU made the claim that stories are always background and I challenged that and you sort of ignored it.
However, books are neither observatory nor interactive.
you have to read them, then they´re observatory anyway.
Definition of observe:
-
notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant:[WITH CLAUSE]: young people observe that decisions are made by others
-
1.1watch (someone or something) carefully and attentively:Rob stood in the hallway, where he could observe the happenings on the street
-
1.2take note of or detect (something) in the course of a scientific study:the behavior observed in groups of chimpanzees
-
1.3[REPORTING VERB] make a remark or comment:[WITH DIRECT SPEECH]: “It’s chilly,” she observed[WITH CLAUSE]: a stockbroker once observed that dealers live and work in hell
-
2fulfill or comply with (a social, legal, ethical, or religious obligation):a tribunal must observe the principles of natural justice
-
2.1maintain (silence) in compliance with a rule or custom, or temporarily as a mark of respect:a minute’s silence will be observed
-
2.2perform or take part in (a rite or ceremony):relations gather to observe the funeral rites
-
2.3celebrate or acknowledge (an anniversary):many observed the one-year anniversary of the flood
NONE of these defiintions would count reading a book as an art style as "observation"
Again, I disagree. We can't assume all games are out to do only offering a challenge.
Again, if they don´t offer a challenge or a goal to achieve, they are not games.
#1 I didn't say they don't offer a challenge and I never said anything about a goal not being necessary
#2 Your definition of game is not shared by most people if the purpose of the game was only to create a challenge/"goal" as people make games for story-telling as well. You mean to say that those aren't games, but many games you probably actually do consider games do this.
#3 You seem to misunderstand the fact that you are doing EXACTLY what I said; assuming that all games are out there only to offer a challenge and pretty much nothing else. Anything else, what you're assuming, is background and unnecessary.
By definition, that would make it that blind people cannot experience nor create art (given they were born blind).
A blind person has other senses rather than vision to guide their observation skills. He can hear a song, a story or touch a statue, there´s no point in saying that blind persons can´t experience art. Sorry, but your statement seems very offensie towards blind people. Those are able of much more than you think.
This is NOT my viewpoint. I was using this argument to counter the fact that art is NOT defined by observation, because if it is that would mean that blind people cannot experience it due to the fact that they cannot observe.
So here's the thing about what you're saying... you're admitting art is NOT observatory. It goes beyond that, and what YOU said is art here... it makes no sense as to why games as it is cannot be considered art.
|
