A lot of the activities in GW2 are not gameplay

[Logos.5603]

On 8/28/2024 at 10:16 PM, Rogue.8235 said:

In terms of critical reasoning, the OP started with a conclusion then attempted to validate the conclusion by creating a series of premises which are purely suppositional and provide no factual basis.  The premises, themselves, have no validation and are essentially conclusory assertions themselves.  

When discussing the meta-physics of a concept, you begin with the premises.  Lay the groundwork which describes the structure of the concept and defines, either a priori or a posteriori, the pertinent sub-concepts.  This was not accomplished here.

The OP is essentially a demonstration of the confirmatory bias fallacy followed by belief perseverance.

Alright, this sounds interesting, but it’s not correct:

• I do start with a conclusion and then proceed validate it with a number of other claims. And yes, they aren’t defended with other arguments (this is just a forum, and the expectation is usually not academic rigor, and one is not expected to “prove” things with the same degree of rigor either). They are, however, somewhat defended by appeals to intuitions (hence the examples).  

Speaking as philosopher now:

• You don’t define a concept either as a priori, or a posteriori. How you are using these terms just doesn’t make sense. You are conflating defining a concept with the epistemological aspect of a priori and a posteriori.
• It is true, however, that when making a meta-physical claim one would usually proceed in such a manner (there are exceptions to this process, usually found in non-Western philosophers engaging in metaphysics like Anzaldua, or Lugones). In any case, you are just describing how arguments are arranged.
• As for your other two charges, you would need more context to truly ascertain whether those are charges that applies here.
   

[Logos.5603]

8 hours ago, Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

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).

Yea, and its worse than this. For example, want to make an efficient build without going broke and spending 10s of hours testing it? You need to access some third-party website. Want to understand how attributes function? You need the wiki.

The other issue, the issue that I'm concerned with, is that we spend a lot of time interacting with this game in mindless activities like harvesting resources, picking poop, etc. These aren't skill based activities, so they aren't a game (and I would argue that they aren't even a form of play). They are just chores, busywork to pad runtime. Like pressing a button over and over for hours all to see a number increase in the screen. You know, if they just added a minigame associated with these tasks, then it might be worth it (like fishing).

[Logos.5603]

1 hour ago, Eloc Freidon.5692 said:

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

A) I seriously doubt that picking up flowers or poop, and chopping down trees is part of the immersive experience for any kind of player. If anything, such activity is immersion breaking.

B) Immersion is not a form of gameplay in these kinds of games. You can immerse yourself in the story, and the characters, and experience some enjoyment doing so, but that isn't gameplay. Though the activity is a playful activity because of the nature of the activity itself (immersion cannot be done without involving play), it doesn't make the game playful either since this is not a necessary activity of the gameplay in GW2 (this is because the roleplaying element is ancillary to the game itself...gw2 is a story in which you can't role play, there is no acting the commander...they just act. The player is an audience.).

[Radiancee.6537]

Oh my. 

 

[Flowersunshine.7385]

I don't think you'll find the discussion you're looking for on a games forum. You'll find the games' fans here. They enjoy the game, at least most of it. You'll never get them to agree that this is neither game or play.

And I have to admit you trying to keep game and play separate confuses me to no end. In Dutch there is one word for both. When you play it's called 'spelen'. A game is 'een spel' of 'spelletje'. If you play games, then it's 'een spel spelen' or 'spelletjes spelen'. Anything that is something you play, is considered a game, from sports to role playing (whether it's kids or grown ups) to board games to video games.

So if my language doesn't make the distinction, your point can hardly be a universal one. Which leads me to conclude it is nothing more than semantics, the subtle difference between words that mean almost the same, but that by nature of English's double roots have grown slightly apart in meaning.

Edited September 1 by Flowersunshine.7385
Typo. And sports. I always forget sports. I don't like sports.

[SimBilly.8047]

This is quite possibly the LULZiest thread I've seen on this forum since launch.  Good work!

[Flowersunshine.7385]

@Logos.5603

I recommend taking some history classes. Historians are notoriously good at writing for a public that has no concept of the intricacies of the subject under discussion. You'd get a lot further in this discussion if you wrote like a historian, I think. (I.e. Historians make sure their public knows what they mean when they use a certain word that is not commonly used outside of scholarly papers.)

[Malus.2184]

3 hours ago, Logos.5603 said:

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.

I apologise then, and philosophical claims about real things are utterly useless. Philosophical arguments are about the hypothetical that should ideally never happen.

Those examples you give also require skills that are used in what you see as "gameplay." Namely identifying the target, moving to the target, and interacting with the target.

[Bladestrom.6425]

3 hours ago, Logos.5603 said:

A) I seriously doubt that picking up flowers or poop, and chopping down trees is part of the immersive experience for any kind of player. If anything, such activity is immersion breaking.

B) Immersion is not a form of gameplay in these kinds of games. You can immerse yourself in the story, and the characters, and experience some enjoyment doing so, but that isn't gameplay. Though the activity is a playful activity because of the nature of the activity itself (immersion cannot be done without involving play), it doesn't make the game playful either since this is not a necessary activity of the gameplay in GW2 (this is because the roleplaying element is ancillary to the game itself...gw2 is a story in which you can't role play, there is no acting the commander...they just act. The player is an audience.).

Perhaps you have just grown out of gaming.  Cherry picking elements and mechanics of a game and pointing at it and saying  that's not gaming'  or 'that's grinding' etc etc just demonstrates poor self awareness. As for collecting stuff, you seem to have conveniently conflated with immersion, which is a different topic. 

Gamers value what they own

"Another powerful way to keep players engaged is by leveraging the endowment effect, our impulse to value what we own. By collecting items in a game, players are given a sense of increased personal worth that fuels deeper engagement with a game. "

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

Edited September 1 by Bladestrom.6425

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

42 minutes ago, Bladestrom.6425 said:

Perhaps you have just grown out of gaming.  Cherry picking elements and mechanics of a game and pointing at it and saying  that's not gaming'  or 'that's grinding' etc etc just demonstrates poor self awareness. As for collecting stuff, you seem to have conveniently conflated with immersion, which is a different topic. 

Gamers value what they own

"Another powerful way to keep players engaged is by leveraging the endowment effect, our impulse to value what we own. By collecting items in a game, players are given a sense of increased personal worth that fuels deeper engagement with a game. "

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

this is hilarious to me because when i stated in a past thread that I play for loot/cosmetics/treasure/titles/achievements only, everyone (many of the same people in this thread) said they dont play for loot even going so far as to say "who plays for loot" and that they play for the game and to enjoy themselves or relax or to have challenging gameplay and that I'm playing for the wrong reasons, and they suggested that if you enjoy loot or play for loot that "this might not be the game for you" and that you're playing it wrong lol.

Edited September 1 by Jumpin Lumpix.6108

[Zok.4956]

4 hours ago, Logos.5603 said:

In any case, I’m not giving a hypothesis. I’m making a philosophical claim, not an scientific one.

If you were interested in a serious philosophical discussion, you would have written that in your first text. You should know that precise language and context are important.

The way you presented yourself, you now appear (to some) to be a troll who is better not fed.

[Zok.4956]

3 hours ago, Logos.5603 said:

I seriously doubt that picking up flowers or poop, and chopping down trees is part of the immersive experience for any kind of player.

This is simply due to your lack of imagination and it is a matter of personal preference, so it has more to do with you than GW2.

Edited September 1 by Zok.4956

[GreenZap.1352]

I have no idea what you are trying to say, Logos.5603, and I have read all of your responses, as well as the responses of others.

It is fine to have complaints about the game; I have a few myself, but there are better ways to express your dissatisfaction than going on a pseudo-intellectual philosophical tirade that makes no sense and is not as smart as you think it is.

[Chaos God.1639]

for me there are a lot of reasons to not to play pve. some of the tasks can even be automated by bots and it's not only in this game. there are no challenges and sometimes tasks don't even require much brain activity.

mmorpg games are known for having addictive mechanics so that players keep playing it over and over again. for me it's totally normal to criticize this.

look at people who are addicted to casino rewards. are you also going to say they are playing? they are literally addicted to the random rewards. they aren't even really random, because the goal is to make people lose at long term. and mmorpgs also try to make players addicted by giving random rewards.

I would say that the pve mode definitely needs some improvement like in most mmorpg games.

maybe add a new mode similar to an escape room, where creativity, social communication,... are important and not the brainless grinding for the random rewards.

Edited September 1 by Chaos God.1639

[Malus.2184]

6 hours ago, Zok.4956 said:

If you were interested in a serious philosophical discussion, you would have written that in your first text. You should know that precise language and context are important.

The way you presented yourself, you now appear (to some) to be a troll who is better not fed.

His post reeks of faux intellectualism. This is pure Dunning Kruger.

[Malus.2184]

3 hours ago, Chaos God.1639 said:

for me there are a lot of reasons to not to play pve. some of the tasks can even be automated by bots and it's not only in this game. there are no challenges and sometimes tasks don't even require much brain activity.

mmorpg games are known for having addictive mechanics so that players keep playing it over and over again. for me it's totally normal to criticize this.

look at people who are addicted to casino rewards. are you also going to say they are playing? they are literally addicted to the random rewards. and mmorpgs also try to make players addicted by giving random rewards.

I would say that the pve mode definitely needs some improvement like in most mmorpg games.

maybe add a new mode similar to an escape room, where creativity, social communication,... are important and not the brainless grinding for the random rewards.

You have no idea what gamification is or how it works. Please stop trying to explain things you have no understanding of.

[Sobx.1758]

On 8/30/2024 at 8:26 PM, Gehenna.3625 said:

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

It's not even that. 2 days before he made this thread, this was discussed in another thread and the reason he keeps making all of this up is that he dislikes x part of gameplay (in this case: gathering), so he redefines the meaning of words simply so he can attempt claiming whatever he dislikes should no longer be part of the game. He talked himself into the corner to the point he literally started claiming "mario/tetris have no gameplay" while being unable to address what he was quoting. All he did with this thread was an attempt to "restart" the whole thing in order to mental-flip his way to the conclusion he already wanted to reach.

The way he decided to argue about it here is just ridiculous nonsense: without change I'm awaiting for him to tell everyone the butterfly isn't a butterfly using the exact same reasoning he's trying to use in attempt to establish what "gameplay" is or isn't.

Edited September 1 by Sobx.1758

[Logos.5603]

12 hours ago, Flowersunshine.7385 said:

I don't think you'll find the discussion you're looking for on a games forum. You'll find the games' fans here. They enjoy the game, at least most of it. You'll never get them to agree that this is neither game or play.

And I have to admit you trying to keep game and play separate confuses me to no end. In Dutch there is one word for both. When you play it's called 'spelen'. A game is 'een spel' of 'spelletje'. If you play games, then it's 'een spel spelen' or 'spelletjes spelen'. Anything that is something you play, is considered a game, from sports to role playing (whether it's kids or grown ups) to board games to video games.

So if my language doesn't make the distinction, your point can hardly be a universal one. Which leads me to conclude it is nothing more than semantics, the subtle difference between words that mean almost the same, but that by nature of English's double roots have grown slightly apart in meaning.

Spanish, which is my first language, also lacks a distinction. We call it "jugar." The same happens with the notion of "being" and "Being" when trying to understand Heidegger's work in English. But this is not a semantics debate, which folks seem to think it is (this always a problem when talking about metaphysics with undergrads, for example). This a question about the nature of particular kinds of activities we engage in; activities which in English we refer to as "playing," or "gaming." The question is about the nature of these activities, and whether certain GW2 activities are of that kind.

Maybe that which our native tongues refer to with a single name are in fact different activities. This is the ontological question.

Edited September 1 by Logos.5603

[Logos.5603]

10 hours ago, Bladestrom.6425 said:

Perhaps you have just grown out of gaming.  Cherry picking elements and mechanics of a game and pointing at it and saying  that's not gaming'  or 'that's grinding' etc etc just demonstrates poor self awareness. As for collecting stuff, you seem to have conveniently conflated with immersion, which is a different topic. 

Gamers value what they own

"Another powerful way to keep players engaged is by leveraging the endowment effect, our impulse to value what we own. By collecting items in a game, players are given a sense of increased personal worth that fuels deeper engagement with a game. "

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

No idea what you mean by your first sentence. As for the second sentence, I was responding to someone who actually conflated the two.

This is not about engagement or value, this is about the nature of gaming and playing and whether certain activities in GW2 counts as such.

[Logos.5603]

10 hours ago, Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

this is hilarious to me because when i stated in a past thread that I play for loot/cosmetics/treasure/titles/achievements only, everyone (many of the same people in this thread) said they dont play for loot even going so far as to say "who plays for loot" and that they play for the game and to enjoy themselves or relax or to have challenging gameplay and that I'm playing for the wrong reasons, and they suggested that if you enjoy loot or play for loot that "this might not be the game for you" and that you're playing it wrong lol.

Yea, this isn't surprising. That's because us gamers don't necessary know what it is that we are doing when we are doing it. That is, we don't know the activity we are engaging in. We think that simply because you are playing a video game you are therefore both playing and gaming. But you can be doing neither. You can interact with the video game, while not really gaming or playing. Just like, for example, I can move chess pieces in a chess board and not be doing chess-ing (one doesn't technically play chess, one is gaming chess). Likewise, I can be kicking a ball around for fun (I can be playfully interacting with a ball), and not therefore be "playing" soccer.

[Logos.5603]

6 hours ago, Chaos God.1639 said:

for me there are a lot of reasons to not to play pve. some of the tasks can even be automated by bots and it's not only in this game. there are no challenges and sometimes tasks don't even require much brain activity.

mmorpg games are known for having addictive mechanics so that players keep playing it over and over again. for me it's totally normal to criticize this.

look at people who are addicted to casino rewards. are you also going to say they are playing? they are literally addicted to the random rewards. they aren't even really random, because the goal is to make people lose at long term. and mmorpgs also try to make players addicted by giving random rewards.

I would say that the pve mode definitely needs some improvement like in most mmorpg games.

maybe add a new mode similar to an escape room, where creativity, social communication,... are important and not the brainless grinding for the random rewards.

This is an interesting example.

At first glance I want to say that people don't play casino machines. They aren't even gaming them. I mean some might make a game out of interacting with them, or a playful activity out if it, but the simple interaction of pulling the lever and seeing stuff roll on the screen is neither a game (a kind of skill based activity), or playful. This is in part because of how these machines are designed. You can, on the other hand, game in poker.

[Logos.5603]

11 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

I apologise then, and philosophical claims about real things are utterly useless. Philosophical arguments are about the hypothetical that should ideally never happen.

Those examples you give also require skills that are used in what you see as "gameplay." Namely identifying the target, moving to the target, and interacting with the target.

Sure, but a game isn't just about using some skills. It has a telos, an aim, or goal. It calls for us to develop competence among other things.

[Sobx.1758]

1 hour ago, Logos.5603 said:

But this is not a semantics debate, which folks seem to think it is

Dude starts the thread with attempting to dismiss "what gameplay is" by dissecting the word "gameplay" into 2 different words ("game" and "play") and then says it's not a semantics debate. Once again trying to dig through the wall because he managed to talk himself into the corner. I don't even know why this thread is still open.

Edited September 1 by Sobx.1758

[Logos.5603]

3 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

It's not even that. 2 days before he made this thread, this was discussed in another thread and the reason he keeps making all of this up is that he dislikes x part of gameplay (in this case: gathering), so he redefines the meaning of words simply so he can attempt claiming whatever he dislikes should no longer be part of the game. He talked himself into the corner to the point he literally started claiming "mario/tetris have no gameplay" while being unable to address what he was quoting. All he did with this thread was an attempt to "restart" the whole thing in order to mental-flip his way to the conclusion he already wanted to reach.

The way he decided to argue about it here is just ridiculous nonsense: without change I'm awaiting for him to tell everyone the butterfly isn't a butterfly using the exact same reasoning he's trying to use in attempt to establish what "gameplay" is or isn't.

No need to misrepresent my position. It is not about disliking a part of the game. I can like picking up materials like a mindless bot because I like mindless activities. But I'm not gaming when I'm doing these activities. That's the whole point.

As for the silly butterfly "counterargument"...

It misses the point. The reason why I focus on "game" and "play" is because those are the kinds of things we would normally expect to be doing in a video game, and what we do in a video game is commonly referred to as gameplay. Hence, gameplay refers to the game and play in a video game. It just happens that the words "game" and "play" make up the compound word "gameplay." Thus, it makes sense to explore the meanings of "game" and "play" within this context to understand what "gameplay" truly encompasses and whether certain activities in GW2 count as gameplay.

The butterfly analogy misses the point. The focus on "game" and "play" isn't about arbitrarily dissecting a compound word into its parts and thereby defining it by its parts (that would be silly, which is why you aren't being charitable), but about examining the kinds of activities we expect to engage in within a video game.

Edited September 1 by Logos.5603

[Logos.5603]

33 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Dude starts the thread with attempting to dismiss "what gameplay is" by dissecting the word "gameplay" into 2 different words ("game" and "play") and then says it's not a semantics debate. Once again trying to dig through the wall because he managed to talk himself into the corner. I don't even know why this thread is still open.

See previous comment.