'just a game'!

GePap · July 4, 2002, 14:20

I hate

'just a game'!

This is obviously a spinnoff of the ethics discussion, were the most often heard argument against a code of ehtics (which seems to have had the support of over half our citizens) was that this is 'just a game' people, so why go throught the trouble. Well, i see two glaring faults with that argument, flaws that are obvious on its face:

First, if it is just a game, then we gamers have the right to play anyway we want, including in a way that creates self-limitations on the play style. Second, if we lose by these self-limitations, so what??? It is just a game so what matters is having fun, not victory or defeat. All that happened is that our fake civ died, big deal, its just a game.

Second, if this is just a game, whats the point of this forum, of all the time spend creating and nurturing political parties, having political discussions, creating war plans, writing a freaking constitution! The very fact of this forum makes the argument of 'just a game' seem ludicrous, since if you trully believe that, why are you here

when you could be playing fine alone, or creating a "civ3 dem just a game forum"?

If someone in this forum has a problem vs. lets say, a code of ehitcs, there are many ways to argue against it: Not historically fitting, a different code, based on the virtues of war better for civ than one based on pity or equal rights, so forth and so on but to say 'just a game' is both wrong as an argument against anything in a game and not fitting for someone participating in this forum.

Fatwreck · July 4, 2002, 15:47

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

Second, if this is just a game, whats the point of this forum, of all the time spend creating and nurturing political parties, having political discussions, creating war plans, writing a freaking constitution! The very fact of this forum makes the argument of 'just a game' seem ludicrous, since if you trully believe that, why are you here

when you could be playing fine alone, or creating a "civ3 dem just a game forum"?

Well spoken GePap...I totally agree with your point of view, I was actually thinking in the same terms, glad someone else does too...

Jon Shafer · July 4, 2002, 19:22

Yep.

That's what I was saying in there with my one good post.

Spiffor · July 4, 2002, 20:20

GePap, you're brilliant. I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Robber Baron · July 4, 2002, 22:30

Yer right, G.
We're not so much just a game, in this democracy g___, as "just a fascinating experiment in human social dynamics.
Though I still say, no code of ethics.

MrWhereItsAt · July 5, 2002, 01:49

Ignore the people who say "just a game".

They are obviously just gamers, and thus not very interesting.

FrantzX · July 5, 2002, 01:51

Christ, it's just a game. No need to get worked up about it.

I'm sorry, but you asked for it.

MrWhereItsAt · July 5, 2002, 04:55

To FrantzX and others: I think the point is that, no matter how well any discussions about such things as ethics go, some people infuriatingly pull out their "trump card" of "it's just a game", and refuse to go any further. More than this, a lot of us are trying to find the most fun we can out of this game (and why shouldn't we?), and some of this fun is thwarted so annoyingly by those who just want us to play the game as if it was the Ministers supplying polls, everyone voting "YES", the Prez playing the game, and that's it.

If it were "just a game" to everyone, we wouldn't have such great discussions on war plans, ethics, and many other ideas - why not just blindly accept the Ministers' ideas, 'cause if we lose it doesn't matter: "it's only a game". We wouldn't have political parties - that's silly 'cause "it's just a game".

Hell, if "it's just a game", what's the difference to you playing a game on your own? The democratic aspect lends itself to a whole host of options to us - we have to decide collectively, and this means we can do this using any method from the modern democracies we live in, or anything else we can come up with.

There are some great and highly entertaining (if not always very effective or popular) ideas in operation here, and people like me are having FUN through them. That is, after all, the main aim of people posting here. What else? To prove we can win? WHAT?!

So to those who just want to play and get on with it - remember that not all of us are so satisfied. If you oppose something and think it makes things overcomplex, by all means say what you think, but do NOT just mindlessly parrot "For Christ's sake, it's just a game" whenever you are confronted with something you don't like. State your case, clarify if you need to - but don't piss the rest of us off by responding to our well-thought out roleplayed reasonings with such an overstated phrase.

jdd2007 · July 5, 2002, 11:12

your point: its more than a game. millions of bananas depend on us!

History Guy · July 5, 2002, 11:18

My honorable friend Mr. Gepap is absolutely correct in his statement.

Captain · July 5, 2002, 12:27

I have said the same for a long time without effect. I am glad more people are realizing that the use of "it's just a game" is a cheap shot, a cop-out, a way of avoiding reasonable debate. Of course it's a game, no one denies that. But just because it's a game doesn't mean you don't have personal investment. If there is potential for elation, fun, and joy... in a game, then there is also potential for disappointment, frustration, and being pissed off. Just think about reactions to the World Cup or the Olympics. Perspective is important to maintain, but if a game is to be worthwhile, then it must have some sense of personal investment. It must mean something to you, in proportion to how involved you want to be (though really well designed games can just suck you in without your choice).

GePap and MrWIA
interesting to see your consensus on this, even though political roleplaying places you two at odds...