![candy_land_game[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/WH4tIde.jpg "candy_land_game[1].jpg")
ITT: Apparently friendly games that hide a dark secret in their lore, their gameplay, or that they bring the very worst of any person into play.
>>43993956
Monopoly
>>43993956
I know nothing about Candy Land. What's so dark about it?
>>43993956
![magic-the-gathering-logo[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/n4aw2Wl.png "magic-the-gathering-logo[1].png")
>>43993956
>>43994296
The dark secret is that it's not actually a game. At no point does a player make an actual choice
>>43994642
Choosing to play and accept the outcome of the cards is a choice, just like most forms of gambling.
Really, it has no more or less choice than Chutes and Ladders, with the only difference being the medium of the random chance.
>>43994699
I didn't claim it was unique in that respect, though I'll point out that there are plenty of forms of gambling with player choice that is both meaningful and non-trivial.
![rpgcover-large[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/WW9Phjs.jpg "rpgcover-large[1].jpg")
>>43994642
Oh, I thought you meant because it was made for kids who had polio and couldn't eat sweets, or some other old-timey disease we don't have to worry about anymore.
>>43994908
If you want to claim that Candyland isn't a game, you'd also have to agree that Chutes and Ladders isn't a game. And a good number of others, to more or less of a degree.
I don't think I agree with your definition of a game.
>>43994642
So horseshoes isn't a game? You don't make any choices in horseshoes. You just step up and pitch the horseshoe.
I guess you could choose to drop it on your foot instead of try to throw it right and score, but that's not really playing horseshoes anymore.
>>43994699
>like most forms of gambling.
Except all the ones with cards.
>>43995260
I think what he meant was that it's not based on any skill whatsoever, in which case he has a point.
You might as well be rolling dice and see who can come up with the highest number the most times.
>>43995260
>you don't make any choices in horseshoes
You choose how you throw, how hard you throw, how far you throw, the technique you use when you throw, etc.
He clearly meant that the game doesn't take any skill whatsoever but if you wanna act like a dick and start bitching about semantics then there you go.
>>43995206
Chutes and Ladders has a spinner or dice, though. With Candyland and War, the outcome is decided by the initial shuffle of the deck and nothing that happens after affects it. They're very different.
>>43995372
>You choose how you throw, how hard you throw, how far you throw, the technique you use when you throw, etc.
But there's only one correct solution. If you throw too high, too low, too hard, too soft, etc., you'll miss the target. The target's always in the same place so you're trying to approach a perfect throw to that spot each time.
>>43995405
>>But there's only one correct solution.
That's incorrect. There are an infinite number of correct solutions to achieve the goal of 'hit the target' based on where you stand, how hard you throw vs how high you aim, ect ect.
If you were always throwing at the exact angle, with the exact strength from the exact spot THEN you would have no choice beyond playing.
Like in Candyland. Where you shuffle the deck once and leave it for the rest of the game.
>>43995405
That is a test of skill, which is a game.
However both snakes and ladders and candyland are tests of luck, which make them potentially not games.
RPGs in general have tests of the player's skills in terms of optimisation and character choices.
>>43995303
Except that would actually be more of a game than Candyland. At least in your scenario you'd be rolling the dice more than once and you'd know the result immediately after the roll.
>>43995379
>They're very different.
The difference is superficial. Whether the randomization happens before or during play, we're still talking about no choices being made, and the outcome of each turn being a mystery to the players at its start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_%28card_game%29
Basically the same game as Candyland. Is this some kind of deep commentary on the futility of war?
>>43995441
>There are an infinite number of correct solutions
In the same way there are an infinite number of values inbetween 2.0 and 3.0. But none of them are 1 or 4.
You don't have any meaningful choices
when playing horseshoes, you either throw it at the target or you're not playing anymore.
>>43995443
This is a better way of looking at it than the whole "do you have choices" angle, IMO.
>>43995466
I'd say the difference is more than superficial. There is no element of chance at any point during the game of Candyland, it has been predetermined. If you wanted to, you could tell who would win without even playing. With Chutes and Ladders, the only way to figure out who would win is to play.
>>43995471
It's easier to cheat in War.
>>43995543
The amount of historical war crimes speaks to the opposite.
>>43995527
>You don't have any meaningful choices
when playing horseshoes, you either throw it at the target or you're not playing anymore.
Correct. The game is about throwing the horseshoe at the target. Just like the game of Blackjack is about trying to get to 21.
The point is choice. In horseshoes you can choose to throw left or right handed. You can choose to move to the left. Or aim higher. Or throw harder.
In Blackjack you can choose to hit or stay. To split. To bet. To fold.
Choice.
In Candyland, War, Snakes and Ladders...all you do is roll the dice or draw the card and do what it says.
No choice.
It is how you play the game, but the difference is agency. You could remove players from a game of Candyland and it would play itself. The players exist only to flip cards and move pieces. They are not playing a game. They are running an engine.
>>43993956
Poker.
Advance in life by being a paranoid, lying, cheating fucker trying not to give away that he's a paranoid, lying, cheating fucker.
Also you assume everyone else is either as paranoid and cheating as you or a sucker.
>>43995530
Shuffling the deck is part of the game.
More importantly, the card order is not revealed until the end of the game, so to the players it's not really that much of a difference when the card is determined.
If you are willing to say "you could tell who would win without even playing", that's only possible if you change a fundamental aspect of the game, ie. when the cards are revealed.
Similarly, with Chutes and Ladders, if you decided to make all the rolls before the game and wrote down the outcomes, you could figure out who would win before playing.
>>43995527
But the game isn't "throw or not throw".
Like darts, or golf. There are a ton of choices. Just because some of those choices are determined by muscles and not conscious though doesn't mean there aren't choices.
>>43994324
I enjoyed this
>>43995607
Wow, you really fucking love semantics, don't you mate?
The point that is trying to be made here is that from the moment you sit down to play Candyland, the winner is already determined. It doesn't test skill and no decision made by the player will effect that outcome in any way.
>>43995260
You'd have to be literally retarded to believe there's no agency involved in aiming and throwing a projectile. The game's central mechanic involves the outcome of your own skill directly.
>>43995530
>If you wanted to, you could tell who would win without even playing
You arrive at an interesting point: in the "game" of candyland, there isn't really a difference between playing and "see who wins without playing". They both involve shuffling a deck and then looking at each card in order. They both involve the exact same actions.
>>43995805
But it's not a game when you could just have one player look at the deck, the three other "players" sit on the couch watching tv, and then the first player tells them who "won".
>>43995607
But, since the only mechanics of those "games" are to shuffle and roll dice, respectively, how is "figuring out who would win before playing" any different from "playing" normally. That's why I'm arguing that you can't actually play them, because they involve no agency.
If the outcome of a game can be predicted perfectly before you play it, it isn't a game and you're not really playing. A function that randomly generate a number or randomly orders a set of objects isn't a game, it's just a function.
>"Hey /tg/, wanna play int fun = random.int;?
![pic536690[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/pL450rg.jpg "pic536690[1].jpg")
>>43995845
That's what I'm saying. It isn't a game because the game is over once you've shuffled the deck. Some might argue that shuffling is therefore the mechanic, except that shuffling doesn't have a win state.
>>43995876
Fuck you, Russia, you piece of shit.
I want the Black Sea.
>>43994642
>not house ruling that if you draw your player's color you get to draw again
plebian
>>43996150
...that still doesn't introduce any choice.
>>43996166
no, it introduces a single meaningful choice
>>43994258
Monopoly was ripped off a game intended to demonstrate the unfairness of the current realty market.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord's_Game
>>43996183
Whether or not to add the house rule?
That's no a choice affecting the game, that's a choice affecting the the play. You still have no choice when playing the game.
>>43996227
You choose which color you get to draw again on (in addition to wether or not to use the house rule).
I fail to see how this isn't a choice that affects the game.
>>43996208
>Mao: Let's play Chinese Checkers instead
>You can't move your marble that far!
>Mao: Yes I can, it's a Great Leap Forward
...I'll see myself out.
>>43996236
Because you make that choice before any cards are drawn. It's just as meaningless. All it does is speed up the one player drawing to figure out who "won" while the other players are still on the couch watching TV.
>>43996236
Player colours are assigned randomly.
Adding the rule affects the game play. It doesn't change the fact that you do not have any choice when playing the game.
You have as much input in those games as you would in watching paint dry.
>>43996236
It is, but it is not a choice that can benefit from player knowledge. Everything will come back to the fact of a deck of cards determining the winner,
>>43995687
Are you daft?
>No decisions you make will effect the game in any way
So exactly like other games your definition is shit
Even a bad game is still a game and superficial choice is stupid like tic tac toe the game has choice but it is still a bad game decided usually in the first move
>>43996515
There ARE no decisions in Candyland. In tic-tac-toe, the first player can make one of nine moves. The second can make one of eight moves. Yes, most of those moves are retarded, but you can still make them.
You DENSE motherfucker.
>>43994615
Completely irrelevant, you can choose when and how to cast your cards, You can even forget to perform some actions you would have done had you noticed otherwise. With Candyland the player HAS to play exactly the same every time, unless you perform some sort of 3rd party action that can mix things up, like a party foul forcing you to skip a turn or a house rule that says to shuffle the deck before each draw.
>>43996515
Were you dropped on your head as a child, or are you just a naturally dense shitheel?
I want to harvest you and turn you in to science as the densest material alive.
In Tic-Tac-Toe you have a diminishing number of choices, starting from 9 and counting down.
In Candylane you have literally no choice. None. Zero player agency.
In Chess and Go, you have an explosion of choices that change based on the choices your opponent makes.
IN CANDYLANE YOU DRAW THE FUCKING CARD ASSIGNED TO YOU AT THE START OF THE GAME, ON YOUR TURN, AD NAUSEUM UNTIL THE GAME DETERMINES AN ARBITRARY WINNER.
PIC.
FUCKING.
RELATED.
>>43996648
Dude, chill the fuck out.
OP was talking about games with a hidden dark side or that bring out the worst in people.
Anon. is just pointing out that Magic brings out the worst in people.
Interestingly enough, this discussion has actually vindicated that Candylane turns people violent.
>>43996677
I think the fact that it took the thread nearly four hours to point out why that post wasn't participating in the actual discussion just goes to show how little anger the Magic community has here. You are the one who "needs to chill out", this thread is about Candyland, not "the topic."
>>43996515
>Exactly like other games.
There's plenty of games where your choices have legitimate effects on the game.
Chess is literally nothing EXCEPT your choices.
For a less direct result, Magic the Gathering, despite having a heavy luck element, has, at given moments, superior and inferior choices.
The real definition of a game, to me, is that it is an ongoing competition between the players of skill, intellect, athleticism, or luck, taken for amusement. OR, it is an ongoing competition between the players and difficulties presented to them by the Game itself, a single oppository player, or a moderator (GM. DM, etc. This party could be considered simply a refinement of "single oppository player")
Using this definition, we can see that Candyland fails the ONGOING portion, because the instant the deck is shuffled, the competition is resolved, unknowingly.
Meanwhile, Tic Tac Toe is a BAD game, because it is SOLVED. There is a correct way to play Tic Tac Toe, it ends with no victor. You cannot win it. It's no longer a genuine COMPETITION.
>>43996648
You may note that this is, despite appearances, a thread about games that seem friendly, but are not, not simply about what is/is not a game.
The joke is that Magic may seem nice, but it brings out the worst of any person that plays.
>>43993956
Trivial Pursuit counts, I would think, because, as many miss, it actively insults those who are skilled at it. A "trivial pursuit" is a worthless hobby or goal. Being good at the game means you are wasting your time learning things that will never be useful to know.
You know, the major thing I would also note is how many games make sport of a relatively serious topic. Battleship is an approximation of bombarding enemy ships. Clue is about learning which of the people you are CURRENTLY sharing a house with is a murderer, King of Tokyo is a game about figuring out which monster gets to stomp the shit out of Tokyo. Smallworld is, at its core, a game about genocide.
>>43996677
What about my post seemed aggressive?
>>43996712
>this thread is about Candyland, not "the topic."
New contestant for densest mother fucker alive.
The post referencing Candyland was literally the 5th in the thread and quite fucking obviously was answering OP's thread of
>>ITT: Apparently friendly games that hide a dark secret in their lore, their gameplay, or that they bring the very worst of any person into play.
Now, your trolling is done for the day, I bid you good morrow and off you must fuck.
>>43996726
The fact that you didn't read the OP post, and failed to notice that what the Anon was talking about was not that Magic lacks choice, but that Magic brings out the worst in people.
You literally made up an argument to have with yourself.
>>43996719
You may think that Trivial Pursuit is a trivial pursuit, but when I was a kid, growing up watching The Simpsons, whenever I didn't get a joke, my parents told me it was because I didn't learn enough. "The more you know, the more jokes you'll get." I've lived by that advice, and it's served me well.
Never wallow in ignorance. At the very least, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
>>43996624
>>43996664
You have one of three moves
Middle corner or side,middle is the best move but playing with someone who knows how to play will 100% of the time be a tie because the moves become the same every game.
>>43996735
I think it's clear that guy meant "regardless what the original post was, this thread has clearly turned into an argument about Candyland". Yes, the Magic post was before the thread derailed, but some might consider it too late to drag it back.
>>43996743
Oh, I'm quite good at trivia games, and spend far too much time just learning new things rather than doing things.
I just thought that it counted as a notable 'dark secret': Trivial Pursuit's very name mocks you for being good at Trivial Pursuit.
It's like if the game was named "Being a Dumb Ass", it's just hidden behind Victorian phrasing. (I am aware of the trivia game named "Dumb Ass")
I considered it a secret because I ran into people in college who were unaware of the phrase, and saw no irony in announcing "I'm great at Trivial Pursuits!"
As a quick addition to the general list, I'm going to throw up a summary of a Cracked article about this thread's very topic:
Life used to include the Suicide card, and some other dark shit (poverty, Ruin)
Clue(do) was invented during the bombing of London.
Monopoly is the first half of a game called Landlord, meant to show how shitty Monopolies were, stolen by Milton Bradley.
Trivial Pursuit was 1/3 stolen from one guy's book of facts, which the guy could prove, but courts didn't give a shit.
And Chutes and Ladders was originally made to represent the difficulty of achieving nirvana over many lifetimes (the dice rolls).
A game where you have no real choice is Trouble. You're at the mercy of the dice
>>43996813
I have gotten a fair few wins by starting in a corner simply because I didn't go straight for the middle.
Sometimes a victory can be determined by the first move simply by being unexpected.
Against someone who treats it as nothing more then a mathematical formula, this won't work however.
>>43996858
>Chutes and Ladders
What?
Do you mean Snakes and Ladders?
>>43996961
I want you to know, with no sense of insult, that that question implies you're non-American. (Just as my use of the other name implies I am.)
Because in America, the game is Chutes and Ladders. In England, it's Snakes and Ladders. I have no idea which version is more prominent in the rest of the world, though I assume the English colonies use the English version.
But yeah, same game, different name. (name change was solely because the initial test with American kids showed they didn't like snakes.)
>>43994296
He was obviously referring to Candyland II, Rise of the Candy King.
>>43996997
I'm Australian.
And yeah, it's Snakes and Ladders out here and I don't think I've ever heard Chutes and Ladders before today.
>>43996997
I'm conflicted. On one hand, snakes are cooler than chutes, but on the other, you actually slide down chutes, whereas snakes don't really work like that. I mean, when was the last time you watch some Bond knockoff movie where the villain activated a trap door that sent somebody sliding down a snake into a pit of chutes?
>>43997021
>>43996961
Google gives me 419k results for "chutes and ladders" (in quotes) vs. 1,060k for "snakes and ladders". This would suggest that Snakes and Ladders is bigger, but that Chutes and Ladders is also fairly common. Of course, I'm in Murica, so maybe that skews the results more towards "Chutes and Ladders".
>Snakes and Ladders is an ancient Indian board game regarded today as a worldwide classic.
Thank you, Wikipedia. But I already gave you $20, so quit asking me for money.
>>43996813
This is true. But the fact remains that choice exists.
It's not much choice, and if you're aim is to win or draw certain choices will be predominant over others.
But you have choice.
>>43996858
>>Yes, the Magic post was before the thread derailed, but some might consider it too late to drag it back.
The anon literally searched out a post that was on topic and then acted like the post was discussing the Candyland dilemma. It's shitty reading comprehension 101.
>>43997122
>>43997021
>>43996997
>>43996961
>>43994642
It's a proto-game that teaches kids how to play games, taking turns and so forth. It also levels the playing field so that your kids have an even chance against you. If you play chess against your 4 year old, you usually end up winning.
>>43996961
>>43996997
I'm American, and I've heard both all my life, even before I learned one was British and the other American. I always say Snakes because, as some anon said, Snakes are cool.
But, the fact is, both those names are tacked on. At it's core, that game is older than your native language (unless you're Basque)
>>43996858
>Life used to include the Suicide card, and some other dark shit (poverty, Ruin)
Harsh
>>43996858
Which version of Life are we talking about here, do you mean they got rid of those cards in the latest 2005 version or 1991 version?
>>43994490
daaaaaaaark
>>43997077
>I mean, when was the last time you watch some Bond knockoff movie where the villain activated a trap door that sent somebody sliding down a snake into a pit of chutes?
I honestly laughed out loud. Well done.
>>43996240
>>43999803
I mean the original version of Life was made in the mid 1860's, because Milton Bradley lost his previous job selling lithographs of Abraham Lincoln when Lincoln grew a beard. (That's actually what happened.)
He made Life on his own, and the first few editions had that. I think they were removed like, in the 1930's.
>>43997021
Regional things like that are always jarring when you hear the difference.
Different regions of America can't agree on what "Carbonated soda water with flavored syrup" should be called. (Sprite, Coca-Cola, Root Beer, etc.) Some say "pop", some say "soda", some call it all "Coke".
My favorite linguistic double-take is the difference in usage of the word "quite" between standard English vernacular and American vernacular.
When an English person uses "quite", they're typically using it in a mildly ironic sense: that quite is the least compliment they could give without seeming impolite. A "Quite Good" meal is likely merely adequate, or acceptable. Potentially even poor.
On the other hand, the typical American doesn't use "quite" very often, so it stands out, leaving it as a typical intensifier, of roughly the same tier as "Remarkable".
Hence, there's a mildly humorous tumblr post (yes, yes, Tumblr is typically pretty awful) of a British poster and an American poster both being shocked at the discovery that the other country has been showing a very different level of enthusiasm than they believed. (The British poster realizing the song "I Miss You Quite Terribly" is much more emphatic than they had assumed.)
>>44004618
"Duck, Duck, Grey Duck" will always be superior to "Duck, Duck, Goose".
>>43995527
Do I knock, do I block , or do I score? Git gud, fagit.
>>43995450
But in Candyland, you draw a card more than once and you'd know the result immediately after drawing.
>>43995687
(Actually, with enough players, it's really not always predetermined as you have to shuffle the cards to get another pile to draw from.)
Actually decisions on how to shuffle would affect the outcome.
>>43995805
You would still need the board though, to determine when someone one (otherwise just drawing the cards is meaningless) and it's easier to keep track using the pieces, which puts you right back at the starting point.
>>43996997
Not him, but American.
I've played both as a kid. I had Snakes and Ladders as part of a big multi-game board book.
>>44007198
Was it gigantic and also have some space game and a game in a house with mice?
>>44006746
Wouldn't the extra syllable make it easier for the grey duck/goose to prepare themselves?
>>43996880
But that's wrong. Do you move out on a six or move a piece up six spaces? Do you stay aggressive and keep pace with a piece in front of you, risking overtaking it and then being capitured, or do you play reserved . do you really want to end that move sitting on a home space of another color?
>>44007238
>Was it gigantic
Massive. I want to like 3ft tall or so.
>also have some space game
Yeah, I think so. Can't remember it too well but it rings bells.
>game in a house with mice
Vaguely familiar.
There was also a red thing in the top-right corner. I think it was the electronic dice roller.
>>44007300
Usually players say it pretty fast, so it's not a lot more time. Can add a bit more challenge to the person picking though. I just find that the final phrase as a bit more flow.
>>44007367
Yep, my grandma had the same book when I was little. I remember the dice roller.
>>44007238
Ah, wait. The Space game.
I think it was a 100 tile spiral towards the center of the board. Forgot what the actual aim was (Earth, Sun, center of the universe, ect.)
>>44007496
There was some other spiral one though, but I don't remember the goal either.
>>44007496
Let's get this weak shit out of here.
>>44007518
This is what I was thinking of.
>>44007095
It's still not really a game. The point of shuffling is to randomize the cards completely. If you do it badly, you're doing it counter to the intent of the rules, which means that you're essentially cheating.
Changing the rules via cheating is still not a decision that is within the bounds of the rules as written.
>>44007131
You could do without any of the actual bits of the game if you had a sheet of paper, a pencil, and a good enough memory.
I mean, people play mental chess. You don't need the board if you can remember the game state, and it's the same for Candyland. The only reason nobody's done it for Candyland yet is that it's a total waste of time.
>>44007496
>>44007530
>>44007581
Dang it, this shit bro. We played this all the time with my cousins.
I wonder where that game ended up at.
>>44007300
>grey duck
Is there a single place outside of Minnesota that says this?
>>44007815
Nope, far as I know we're the only ones. No idea why, either.
They don't have a decent pic for what started all this. This is the best I could find
>>44007797
Same. No idea where mine went.
Nostalgia's a hell of a drug.
>>44007238
Here's the mouse game.
>>44007797
I found the high-res pictures of it on an Amazon sale.
http://www.amazon.com/Giant-Game-Board-Book-Electronic/dp/088705739X
>1 Used from $175.00
I'm hoping it's just one idiot.
>>43995900
found the turkeyfag
>tfw turkey and russia ally and the rest of europe has to band together to stop the steamroller
>>44007903
I've actually got ours. Took it when we moved my grandma into a nursing home. Sadly the dice roller went missing years ago.
![nh6B3tV[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/tWO6V2f.jpg "nh6B3tV[1].jpg")
>>44007943
Holy shit, I loved that game but none of my cousins liked playing it.
Just look at this chill motherfucker
>>44008134
>Holy shit, I loved that game but none of my cousins liked playing it.
Why? Looking at these games now, they're all kind of the same, aren't they?
I guess I liked the space game the most because I loved space as a kid, but still.
>Just look at this chill motherfucker
Smug as fuck.
>>44007903
"Snakes and Ladders" as name must be fairly widespread in America, because when Sponge Bob used the game they called it "Eels and Escalators".
>>43996997
Chutes and ladders is Milton Bradley, and doesn't have morals and vices written on each transport method.
Also, its proper name is Moksha Patam, as it originated in India.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzLYKY1nPsY
>>44007530
I played an electronic version of this.
>>43995206
Most academics in ludology wouldn't call either a game. Decision making is inherent to the definition.
>>44008309
Snakes and Ladders is the Generic name.
Chutes and Ladders is the Milton Bradley version. They changed the name for trademark reasons.
You can't trademark chess. But if you swap the colors and piece shapes and call chess flumberbuss extreme, suddenly you can trademark it, despite having the exact same rules.
I've always loved Monopoly and don't understand why people think it's bad.
>>43995591
Poker teaches you the greatest and most important life lessons then.
>>44009258
If your definition of a game rejects snakes and ladders, you need a new definition.
>>44009587
its not a game though. there is no player participation. it plays itself. its a program.
>>44010075
Salman Rushdie disagrees.
"All games have morals; and the game of Snakes and Ladders captures, as no other activity can hope to do, the eternal truth that for every ladder you hope to climb, a snake is waiting just around the corner, and for every snake a ladder will compensate. But it's more than that; no mere carrot-and-stick affair; because implicit in the game is unchanging twoness of things, the duality of up against down, good against evil; the solid rationality of ladders balances the occult sinuosities of the serpent; in the opposition of staircase and cobra we can see, metaphorically, all conceivable oppositions, Alpha against Omega, father against mother."
>>44010238
its teaching inevitability. it does so by not giving you a role in what occurs in the game
it plays itself. its a morality teaching simulation program.
>>44012008
It is a game. It's in the board game aisle, it's got board game on the box, it's called a game by everyone, it's a fun and pleasant activity you play with your friends that just so happens to not be a sport.
It's like trying to argue that pancakes aren't cakes because your definition of cake includes "eaten for dessert, and never for breakfast."
The problem isn't with pancakes, it's with your definition.
>>43996997
Can no one in this thread use Google? The game originated in India and featured snakes
>>44012268
No, its like arguing that motzah is a form of cake.
Cake and Motzah are both bread. But motzah is not a cake. It has no eggs. No sugar. And since the official definition of a cake is "soft, sweet food made from a mixture of flour, shortening, eggs, sugar, and other ingredients, baked and often decorated." motzah does not count.
Components of a "game" are goals, rules, obstacles, and interaction.
It has obstacles. It has goals. It has rules. It does not, however, have interaction. It is merely a system of progression based on randomly generated integers. Its a formula.
>>44012312
see
>>44009281
>>44009168
>>44012542
you merely observe the rules of the system interact with themselves, until it finishes its procedure. then it ceases.
Like winding a toy.
>>44012542
Find me a person who calls Motzah cake.
Pancakes are cakes. Snakes and Ladders? That's a game.
You've chosen a definition that pointlessly excludes it. And, because of that, I reject your definition, and also on the grounds that you seem to think "interaction" is limited to the mechanical components of a game.
Have you never played Snakes and Ladders?
You can try to pretend you're smart by calling it a program, a system, or a formula masquerading as a game, but at the end of the day, it remains a structured form of play, which satisfies the common definition of a game.
Your choice in using a flawed definition to exclude one of the oldest games simply highlights that your definition doesn't work.
>>44012542
These same core concepts are why many tell-tale games can't truly be classified as a games. Interaction yes (selecting a choice). Rules, yes (this choice will result down this path). Goals? Eh, not so much, but one can count completion of the story if they must. Obstacles? None. The characters experience obstacles, sure. But the player is never issued a challenge, just choices to select from that take them to an eventual end.
One could make a game out of it, by issuing the self-created challenge of intentionally reaching a particular ending. This both creates a solid goal, and the choices you make become obstacles you must navigate.
And now that some of them have quicktime events, it has obstacles, and at least shortterm goals. This makes it as much a game as warioware, just with very long cutscenes in between minigames.
But ones where you only make choices? Not a game unless you make it into one by adding the rule to target a particular ending. Properly classified as an interactive cinematic.
For another example of "not a game until you make it one," to illustrate the concept's legitimacy, movies aren't a game til you add a drinking competition triggered by events within the work.
>>44012783
Except that just like that of the cake, it is not my definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game
>>44012783
>oldest games
*oldest teaching tools about morality and ones inability to control fate
>inability to control
>how do yo play a game if you're not controlling an aspect of what's occuring?
>You don't
>you're not playing that game
>you are not a participant
>its operating purely on its own laws
>because its not a game
>>43995559
Considering that we can only judge this based on the number of war crimes we know about makes it somewhat a moot point. Unless I misunderstand your initial conclusion.
>>44012908
Did you even read the page you linked?
There's multiple definitions of "game."
You've chosen to subscribe to one that excludes Snakes and Ladders.
>>43995591
That's not true at all. Poker doesn't encourage cheating in any way at all and paranoia is often a trait that gets you punished. Bluffing also differs from lying in a small but very important way. You just sound like an asshole.
>>44012991
>*the like, 8 that exclude snakes and ladders
>>44013022
You mean, Crawfords, Salen&Zimmerman's, Costikyan, and Apts? Aside from those four, the other definitions accept Snakes and Ladders.
>>44012991
>only a plaything if [interactive] (crawford)
>participants that [make decisions] (costikyan)
>[decision makers] (Clark Abt.)
>voluntary [control] system (Avedon and Sutton-Smith)
>[engage in activity] directed toward bringing about a specific state of affairs (Suits)
>voluntary [participation] (McGonigal)
The only ones that support your insistence are Wittgenstein, Caillois, and Maroney.
>>44012821
This is not only retarded but it's also factually incorrect.
All of the Telltale games I've played (Walking Deads, Wolf Among Us and GoT) have fail states in which the player can fail an objective and die, resulting in a game over.
Your definition also ignores classic LucasArts style adventure games (Monkey Island will be my go to as it is the one I am most familiar with) since they literally have no lose states. This is of course assuming that you do not include things like 'USE rubber chicken with pulley on it ON rope' as obstacles, which I'm assuming because every Telltale game has those styles of 'puzzles', even if they are significantly simpler than classic adventure games.
You're thinking of Visual Novels (and even then, only 'pure' visual novels since things like Ace Attorney and Zero Escape have puzzles and occasionally loss states), of which Telltale games are objectively not.
>>44013255
and those are their later ones, which include quicktime events, not just choices.
did you pay attention?
>>44013201
I would argue that Suits and McGonigal both accept Snakes and ladders, since taking part in the game is voluntary participation directed towards bringing about a specific state of affairs.
Choosing to play the game is a choice that affects the outcome, and the desired outcome is to be the winner, an impossible achievement if the person chooses not to play.
Either way, what we're looking at is several definitions, and it seems like several of them are quite flawed because they are too narrow in their scope.
If you want to say "Snakes and Ladders is not a game, because I choose to follow a particularly narrow definition that is not universally accepted", then I'm going to just have to say "It's a game. I'm using common sense."
>>44013340
accept you're not a participant. its playing itself you're just facilitating that.
>>44013340
The logical response to that being "It's a shit game. Let's play something better."
>>44013359
You seem to subscribe to a stupid definition of "playing" as well.
Are you really just an idiot? When you see a group of kids sitting around a table, rolling dice and moving pieces around a board, do you say "Oh look, those kids are playing Snakes and Ladders!" or do you say "Oh look, Snakes and Ladders is playing itself!"
I almost feel like you're just not very familiar with how people speak.
>>44009542
>I've always loved Monopoly and don't understand why people think it's bad.
Because most people grow up playing house rules version of Monopoly that make the game broken and flawed.
Shit, I love monopoly and I didn't even realise Auctions were a thing until I brought my own monopoly set.
>>44013340
and Im using common sense to say that if its something no one actually plays you just watch and root for one side to, then it can't be a game.
Since all of the randomized rolls eventually result in one of two sides reaching the goal, it is flipping a coin and being told, if it lands on heads, you "win."
Not choosing which face wins. Just part of the rules. Heads = "'win.'"
Wanna play again? Okay, heads is a win. you "lose" this time.
Okay once more? 1 is a win.
>>44013422
I say, those kids are running snakes and ladders. they're not playing it. just running it. like a video tape.
>>44013450
will you win? will you lose? so exciting.
Rolled 2 (1d2)
>>44013450
Rolled 2 (1d2)
>>44013557
nope. "game"Anon loses.
Shall we have him "play" again?
>>44013569
Another loss.
Really not his day. But that's alright. He has no say in this. We can have him "play" as long as we want. He's bound to "win" eventually.
>>44013450
You can't force me to play your game.
You can say "I'll flip a coin, and I win if it's heads," and I say "No", congrats, you don't have a game. You're just flipping a coin, trying to tell me I win or lose while I just stare at you like you're insane.
However, if both of us agree to the rules, suddenly we are both playing a game of chance.
It's a really simply game, but we've both evaluated the rules, gauged the odds, placed our bets, and decided to participate. We've made a decision, a decision based around an unknowable outcome (because otherwise, the destined loser would simply choose not to play), and that's really all that's necessary to satisfy the criteria to call it a game.
>>44013569
Sure.
You seem to lack the capacity to make the distinction between a good game and a bad one.
Snakes and Ladders, Candyland, War - these are all bad games. They lack player agency. You have no choice. Your part in the proceedings can be replaced by a mechanical function and it won't change the outcome one iota.
But they are still games.
Rolled 1 (1d2)
>>44013582
Truly, an involuntary participant.
Because when it decides everything itself, who or what decides who is and is not a player?
>>44013608
>the distinction between a good game and a bad one.
THIS.
>>44013612
You're an idiot.
WE decide who is a player. Not IT, and certainly not YOU.
>>44013612
Ah, look, see, you won that time.
>>44013608
except you can also replace the proceedings of a chess player with a sufficiently complex mechanical function (deep thought) and it also doesn't change outcome one iota.
The difference is, chess requires a difference engine. something to evaluate the situation and make choices, informed decisions.
snakes and ladders can be played by clockwork. not a player. just something to facilitate the rolling of random integers and to move pieces the corresponding distance.
>>44013483
>like a video tape.
Except everyone already knows how the tape will end every time after the first.
Rolled 1 (1d2)
>>44013643
Will he win? Let's find out.
>>44013715
The movie is Clue. We put in a shuffle feature so that every time it goes through, it chooses one of the four possible endings and plays that one.
Now is it suddenly a game?
>>44013714
For someone who thinks he's so smart, you're really a moron.
Next thing I know, you're going to be forced to say that solved games like Checkers are no longer games (since there are no real choices to make aside from following the optimal script), and then you're going to realize that Chess is merely waiting to be solved in order for it to be stripped of its game status.
>>44013821
no choices if one only chooses to play optimally is not the same as no choices.
metagame is not the game itself.
>>44013791
Do you really not understand how games work?
If a movie is shuffled, it's just a shuffled movie. But, if something is tied to a particular outcome, even as simple as "if this ending plays this time, I win", then yes, it has become a game.
And, still, you don't realize you can't force people to play your game.
>>44013860
Dude, if you're just stupid and are going to make pointless and stupid posts, at least capitalize once in a while so it's not obvious.
Or use a trip already, so I can filter you and be done with you.
>>44013918
You clearly don't belong here. Just filter the whole board and move to greener pastures.
>>44013934
No, there's still some people who aren't idiots.
Maybe if you stopped for minute to learn something, instead of mindlessly smashing at your keys, you'd stop being such an embarrassment. You too can stop being an idiot.
Theoretically.
>>44013898
the fact of the matter, is, is that you also cant stop me from forcing you to play it, any more than I can force you to play it. because truth be told, there's nothing here to play. its not a game. its just sitting around masturbatorily interacting with itself and no effective players, succeeding on doing nothing but annoying you with its mere existence.
Rolled 1 (1d2)
>>44014029
like so
>>43995471
Son, are you telling me you don't track your opponent's plays while stacking your captured cards so that you'll win it all on the next go?
>>44014029
Your childish insistence that I'm playing is basically you just trolling.
Fine. I now force you to play my game.
You lose.
That's right, it happened that quickly.
You lose again.
You lose again.
And again.
And again.
Wow, you suck at this.
Do you understand yet? This isn't a game, nor is what you're doing a game, but above all else, it has nothing to do with what we are discussing. It's just you being flippant, stupid, and upset, hoping that you can troll your way out of facing that your argument is faulty.
Unless we both agree to it, it's not a game. But, if we both agree, we have made a decision to play, and suddenly it's game on.
It's that simple.
>>44014113
Except that its literally the same thing as Snakes and Ladders.
I can "deal you into" a snakes and ladders "match" from across the world, and without your knowledge, and nobody has to "play for you" because nobody has to play at all. it doesn't involve playing. it just does and you watch.
>>44014161
No, you stupid fuck.
If you and I agree on a coin flip, we are playing a game, a game similar to snakes and ladders.
You can't make me agree to play your coin game. You don't have that ability. Only I can choose to play or not, because otherwise, you are literally just playing by yourself, and hoping that I am a spectator.
It isn't until I agree to your terms that I become a participant, no matter how hard you try to assign wins or losses to me.
By accepting the terms of the game, and deciding to play, you have made a choice, a calculated decision.
If you really are this stupid, I guess that all that's left to say is "you lose."
Thanks for playing.
>>43996961
>not play eels and escalators
>>44014217
you don't have to agree.
and I'm not playing by myself, I'm not playing at all, as I'm not the one winning or losing. I'm just the one flipping the coin.
In this thread we have learned the true evil that lurks in the hearts of man, and that evil is Candyland.
>>43995591
You sound like a terrible poker player.
>>44015174
Or is he?
To change the subject slightly, what are your favorite board games that you love despite them starting fights and general frustration?
The obvious things that come to my mind are Risk and Monopoly, the former because my friends and I would always be adding entire mechanics as house rules and making complex agreements, the latter because my family and I had fairly complicated house rules regarding Joint Ventures, player-to-player loans, and paying a percentage of your earnings to another player to avoid paying rent on their properties.
Although, Scrabble could get pretty heated, too, as we had fairly liberal and undefined rules regarding non-English words, but there would always be people trying to get away with using all V's in Latin words or trying to argue that special characters like ash or thorn should receive double their derivative letter's points. Half of it was ironic, the other half sadly wasn't.
>>44007530
> 1. Mechanism failure. Go back to the Sun.
>>44017062
Me and my friends play Sheriff of Nottingham sometimes and people get really butthurt when they tricked into opening one of their bags or when the sheriff gets double tricked into opening a bag without illegal shit in it.
>>44017062
I despise Risk. Too much luck involved, and normies get too involved in the game. I'd rather play monopoly, even knowing its faults.
>>44013315
Okay so Sam and Max and the sub-optimal Monkey Island sequels aren't games? There has never been a tell-tale adventure game that doesn't have puzzles or obstacles in it. If you're simply saying that a lack of a loss state means that something can't be a game I refer you back to my initial comment where I called your claim retarded.
If you really want to go so far back one of their first games was a fucking Poker simulator.
You are literally and objectively wrong about your claims.
