A lot of the activities in GW2 are not gameplay

[Mithral.8516]

>hears the word 'ontological' once

>becomes mighty philosopher

[Apraxis.4803]

Gr8 b8 m8 👍🏻 

[Zily.3152]

This isn't what they mean by the saying,  "make something out of nothing."

[Bladestrom.6425]

 

On 8/28/2024 at 9:49 PM, Logos.5603 said:

Again, the "play" in role play is not the same as the "play" that you do when you were a kid in the bathtub, for example. Words can and do mean different things in different contexts...um, homonyns they are called. In the case of role play, it means acting, or pretending to be someone (AKA a role), for example.

Please, if you want to stroke yourself with self appeasing references, take it out of the gaming forum.

Edited August 29 by Bladestrom.6425

[Darklord Roy.2514]

This is the most pointless discussion about how semantics relate to a video game that I have ever read or heard.

Every MMORPG that has ever existed has these elements of "non-gameplay" that you're complaining about. They are a core part of this genre, and always have been. These elements have been proven to be enjoyable for people who play this genre of game, which is why they have been in these types of games for well over 2 decades.

If YOU'RE annoyed by them, then you really should have thought about that and spent more time researching this game before you decided to spend money on it. MMORPG's aren't for everyone. You spent a lot of time typing a lot of words without actually really saying anything at all.

[Bladestrom.6425]

The problem with the OP is that this is really about him not liking collecting based activities so he wants to try and compartmentalise collecting as something that's not gaming. However what he fails to understand is that collecting is a mechanism that's a part of gameplay i.e, I use my skill and knowledge to control my characters while navigating the map to collect stuff for a bigger objective and reward. 

Strip of the noise and what we have here is another 'I hate grinding' player, playing in a mmorpg and trying to to argue away a key mechanic of all mmorpgs..

https://www.applovin.com/blog/collection-game-mechanic/

 

[Neathra.1950]

9 hours ago, yoni.7015 said:

Not true. It takes a while but you don’t have to hand in the tokens. 

Actually I was talking about the pomegranate hell that is the like 2 events that contribute to that heart. 

[anninke.7469]

4 hours ago, Zily.3152 said:

This isn't what they mean by the saying,  "make something out of nothing."

There's one in my language that goes "making a whip out of sh... excrements" that would be fitting here, I guess.

(And for just this once - kitten you, kitten filter!)

[Solanaar.3714]

On 8/29/2024 at 5:42 AM, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

Yeah, nah, sorry. 5 year old kids are a better authority on what can count as play.

_"um, actually"_ there is a clear definition of roleplay and to that degree OP is correct. You distinguish role play as a sub category of play from things like movement based play like catch or exploring physics via play like catching ball or building a tower out of wood blocks. There are different categories of play.

But here's the kicker that amused me about OP. They're either someone who studied pedagogy or educational sciences or have read a lot about it. I recognize the things they say cause I've studied it. But obviously OP fell victim to these definitions and is very confused about what's actually relevant. Cause even if OP were factually correct in all regards it is not relevant. 

And to OP: here's another perspective: play is flow (not all flow is play, of course). A enjoyable, positive flow experience to be exact. And it'll make it MUCH EASIER for you if you rate play by how much flow you experience instead of if it fits definitions of play that were defined before anybody cared about computer games. 

[Malus.2184]

On 8/28/2024 at 7:53 PM, Logos.5603 said:

However, some video games also have playful activities–these are activities that don’t have any rules attached to it, where fun itself is the goal, and where one doesn’t worry about competence.

When you present a hypothesis or a statement give examples, else you just sound like a git. That's an interpretation of what I learned when I had about The Scientific Method. No dissertation or hypothesis can stand without examples to either prove or disprove the argument made. Those examples will then be challenged. If they stand to the challenge they're valid, if they fall they're invalid and really just a waste of everyone's time.

By providing no examples you've essentially created an unfalsifiable hypothesis with goalposts that you can constantly move if people bring up examples that you might have thought of privately and when expressed do show the traits that that you've defined yourself that make it gameplay.

There's no value in anything you wrote without also adding examples. This is just  "I'm very smat."

[Radneck.5307]

The worst thing about this post is that I lost my time reading it. I should know better by now.

[Malus.2184]

16 hours ago, Bladestrom.6425 said:

The problem with the OP is that this is really about him not liking collecting based activities so he wants to try and compartmentalise collecting as something that's not gaming. However what he fails to understand is that collecting is a mechanism that's a part of gameplay i.e, I use my skill and knowledge to control my characters while navigating the map to collect stuff for a bigger objective and reward. 

Strip of the noise and what we have here is another 'I hate grinding' player, playing in a mmorpg and trying to to argue away a key mechanic of all mmorpgs..

https://www.applovin.com/blog/collection-game-mechanic/

 

Even without referring to anything fancy Collection events are gameplay since they use three mechanics that are present in everything he would call gameplay, movement, identifying a target, and interacting with the target.

[Gehenna.3625]

On 8/28/2024 at 7:53 PM, Logos.5603 said:

Games are structured, rule-based activities that test skills and have the particular telos or end goal of succeeding at the task. It involves developing or acquiring competence. For example, chess is a game, and so is beating a world-boss in GW2 .Engaging in these activities is gaming.

However, some video games also have playful activities–these are activities that don’t have any rules attached to it, where fun itself is the goal, and where one doesn’t worry about competence. It involves an attitude of being open to surprise or a new experience. To borrow from the philosopher Lugones, play is an activity that "has no rules, though it is certainly intentional activity and we both understand what we are doing. The playfulness that gives meaning to our activity includes uncertainty, but in this case the uncertainty is an openness to surprise...we are there creatively." Examples of play include splashing your siblings with water at the pool is a form of play, and so is painting an image, dancing wildly atop the bed, or playing with dolls. In GW2 activities like dressing up your character, and decorating your home are a form of play. While these activities can be turned into games, they are inherently different from gaming.

(I’m aware that in English we say “let’s play a game,” but that's just confusing language. What should be said is “let’s game a game” or “let’s game.” You can’t play in a game, and you can’t game when you play.)

Why should this matter to you?

Gameplay, if it refers to anything at all, refers to these activities in video games.

Activities for heart completion are not gameplay. For example, picking poop or collecting trinkets is neither a game, nor a playful activity. Likewise, collecting materials is also not a form of gameplay. When we engage in these activities we are not playing, nor are we gaming.

As a buyer, who presumably bought the DLC to both play and game, you should be a bit annoyed that the inclusion of these activities in your video game. Especially when these non-gameplay elements make up a large part of the experience.

Translation: GW2 doesn't have enough challenging content in the OP's opinion.

[SoulGuardian.6203]

Edit:

I didn't quite grasp at first what OP means. 

Thought they were talking about grinding. 

But I can see their point of view.

There are certain aspects of the game, such as housing now, which seems more like the sims, or a chore to do.

But apparently it was a popular request, so now you're forced to go through it to proceed in the main story.

It's one of them. 

I don't think they're about to change anything.

Ir is what it is.

Either play the game or don't. 

Edited August 31 by SoulGuardian.6203

[Cyninja.2954]

8 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

Translation: GW2 doesn't have enough challenging content in the OP's opinion.

Haha, this one did make me giggle.

Also: yes! 😁

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

I agree with OP, 99% of the game is inventory managment making it a spreadsheet/database simulator, which is not gameplay.  If you dont do it you are literally paralyzed and cannot pick up any loot and cannot play the game. 

Also 99% of all content requires you to look up the wiki, which is also not gameplay because its too confusing to do achievements/quests/crafting legitimately.  Just yesterday I had to do 1 event 3 times because there were 3 achievements associated with it, (which I didnt know, and there is no way to know, unless you check every achievement in a zone and have it all memorized in your head at the same time and then somehow magically know how and where and when to complete said achievements).

Edited August 31 by Jumpin Lumpix.6108

[costepj.5120]

1 hour ago, Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

99% of the game is inventory managment

So you play about 1 hour a month and spend the rest of the year managing your inventory? Sounds like this isn't the game for you.

[kharmin.7683]

28 minutes ago, costepj.5120 said:

So you play about 1 hour a month and spend the rest of the year managing your inventory? Sounds like this isn't the game for you.

This is why I don't have max slot bags.  I can't imagine the time it would take to empty out once they got full.

[Ashen.2907]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Claims made here may make the OP feel better about his opinions but change nothing for anyone else.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

2 hours ago, costepj.5120 said:

So you play about 1 hour a month and spend the rest of the year managing your inventory? Sounds like this isn't the game for you.

oh so you dont spend inordinate amounts of time on your inventory? I guess you must not loot the enemies (be careful not to get that mastery that autoloots... yikes) or you must throw it all out, which is also time consuming, especially when they make you type in the entire item, spaces + caps included.  You must enjoy those typing class games, though as the OP stated those aren't really games are they (at least not games that any sane person would play/enjoy)?

Edited August 31 by Jumpin Lumpix.6108

[Vayne.8563]

On 8/29/2024 at 5:12 AM, Logos.5603 said:

Well one of the benefits of my definition is that it neatly distinguishes between game and play. Doesn't let in any confusions. It also tells us why things like chess,  futbol, and some activities you find in video games are all games.

Dictionary definitions don't aim to capture the essence of something (which is what I'm trying to capture), that's not their purpose. They just capture the common way in which something is understood, or try to establish a common definition for usage. Whether they are ontologically sound definitions is an open question. They won't help you (us) here.

You also say that I make conflicting comments in my posts. Care to point to them?

One of the benefits of english is context. For some people picking up poop is THE gameplay, because they don't care about fighting hard bosses. The problem is, you really can't say what gameplay is, only what YOU consider gameplay.

In pen and paper D&D, some people are purists who apply the rules specifically. The DM makes a dungeon and we try to figure out how to get through it. Other people are more dramatists, playing D&D and playing out long conversations with no action at all. They simply sit and chat. There's no goal. Nothing to win. Not even any rules, except maybe stay in character. To those people that is the game.

I don't really care what you find in a book with a single definition of game play, because that's ludicrous. It's unlikely the that authors of that definition never envisioned anyone interpreting that text with such a narrow and selective point of view.

Dictionaries don't get to choose what gameplay means. Text on the internet doesn't. People play how they play.  Games have changed definition over the years. Things are different than they were when chess was invented. And sure chess is a game. But it's not the only type of game. 

Edited August 31 by Vayne.8563

[Eloc Freidon.5692]

Throwing everyone who sees the tasks as part of the immersion game play right into the trash, aren't you?

[Logos.5603]

On 8/30/2024 at 1:18 PM, Malus.2184 said:

When you present a hypothesis or a statement give examples, else you just sound like a git. That's an interpretation of what I learned when I had about The Scientific Method. No dissertation or hypothesis can stand without examples to either prove or disprove the argument made. Those examples will then be challenged. If they stand to the challenge they're valid, if they fall they're invalid and really just a waste of everyone's time.

By providing no examples you've essentially created an unfalsifiable hypothesis with goalposts that you can constantly move if people bring up examples that you might have thought of privately and when expressed do show the traits that that you've defined yourself that make it gameplay.

There's no value in anything you wrote without also adding examples. This is just  "I'm very smat."

In fact, I did give examples of both game and play. An unfalsifiable hypothesis is not one that simply lacks examples, but one that by it’s very nature can’t be tested. For example, “how many angels fit in an 8oz glass of water?”. In any case, I’m not giving a hypothesis. I’m making a philosophical claim, not an scientific one.

[Logos.5603]

On 8/30/2024 at 5:59 AM, Solanaar.3714 said:

_"um, actually"_ there is a clear definition of roleplay and to that degree OP is correct. You distinguish role play as a sub category of play from things like movement based play like catch or exploring physics via play like catching ball or building a tower out of wood blocks. There are different categories of play.

But here's the kicker that amused me about OP. They're either someone who studied pedagogy or educational sciences or have read a lot about it. I recognize the things they say cause I've studied it. But obviously OP fell victim to these definitions and is very confused about what's actually relevant. Cause even if OP were factually correct in all regards it is not relevant. 

And to OP: here's another perspective: play is flow (not all flow is play, of course). A enjoyable, positive flow experience to be exact. And it'll make it MUCH EASIER for you if you rate play by how much flow you experience instead of if it fits definitions of play that were defined before anybody cared about computer games. 

I study philosophy. I do study philosophy of pedagogy, but I also study philosophy of games (among other specialized topics). 

I don’t understand what falling victim to these definitions means. However, it is true that I took them kinda for granted, but you have to start somewhere. They seemed like a good place to start (it synthesized some accounts of play and game, and accounts for the supposed similarities between different forms of activities that we usually term “play” and “game”). Also, the kind of activities I critiqued as not being play would not qualify as play under the definition of “play as flow” (unless you assume a very diluted version of this concept). Further, the literature does not in fact reduce play to flow, but speak of it as a component of play. Regardless, most studied definitions of play (given by those learned in the topic concerned with the ontology of play) would agree that such activities are not forms of play (hell, a cursory glance in google scholar and a slight observation of the activities mentioned would reveal this). In fact, my definition of play is quite liberal compared to some of the ones that dominate the literature. For instance, here are some requirements from popular definitions of play: (1) the activity leads to a kind of self-transcendence; (2) that the activity is one that you necessarily do with others; (3) the activity throws off constraints (which is a step removed from simply stating that the activity lacks rules); the activity leads to a good end; (4) the activity is necessarily fun.

A few more things:

• You have to show that it is not relevant. You just can’t expect me to take that at face value.
• I’m not really interested in rating play.
• Also, why should these definitions depend on the technology that has been developed? I mean, maybe, just MAYBE, some of the things we think are play and games aren’t! We have been hoodwinked for a profit margin. Just because X is currently the way we talk about things doesn’t mean its the correct way to refer to what we are calling X. It would be silly for me to insist, for example, that driving is a form of walking simply because the term walking was invented before cars existed, and so it can and should apply to what we do we cars.
   

[Logos.5603]

On 8/29/2024 at 2:00 PM, Mithral.8516 said:

>hears the word 'ontological' once

>becomes mighty philosopher

But I am, in fact, a philosopher. Have my own PhD and everything. So, yea.