I haven't played any CAG's since I had a Sinclair Spectrum 48k back in the early/mid '80's. I did have a look at a couple on the Amiga - (my brother played a couple while I watched), but decided I wasn't interested.
After all the research I've done over the past two years, (I've been studying games as a matter of linguistics), however, I've come to understand why I've never really liked them much.
My problem, is that I've always recognised, (though only recently fully understood, due to my research), the difference between a game and a puzzle. Adventure games have always been a bit of a mixed bag as far as being games are concerned, and this is what put me off them - they're a mixture of games, puzzles and art, - (I don't think they have anything to do with competitions? I might be wrong, though, since I can't say I've played that many). Since when I play a game, I expect and want it it BE a game, however, and not a puzzle/work of art/competition, I never really liked CAG's, (or any other games that contain puzzles especially at the expense of the game itself). (Puzzles and games have limited compatibility in such a manner).
No - what he's saying, is that years are counted in arrears - by Jan 1st 2010 - we'd HAD 10 years, and that was the start of the 11th. It's about to be the start of the 12th, but we only count the year that's just ending, since that is the last FULL year - so we call it the 11th.
In my opinion, (from my experience helping a friends kid with their homework quite a while ago), the real problem starts even earlier than that.
Basic mathematics/arithmetic is only hard if you don't understand numbers, and this is where I think the root of the problems lie. The problem I ran into (and have seen a lot of evidence elsewhere to support it - (number posters etc. form 1-100)), is that kids are taught to count from 1 to 10. (I'm in the UK btw. so YMMV). The problem with that is, of course, that our decimal system works from 0 to 9. It can be tricky to teach kids that, (especially when they use their fingers so much for 10), but I think it's really important - everything else they learn will be based upon such a thing. As soon as they understand 0 to 9, (and have them work out the symbols of 10 for themselves, if possible), basic arithmetic becomes much easier to work out - especially on paper, which then makes it easier to visualize and do it in their heads...
Actually - games being 'fun' is a completely subjective application of something that has no place in their definition...
Games are no more about fun than puzzles, art or competitions. The only reason people think that is the case, is because they confuse play as a verb, (which describes what we do in a game), with play as a noun.
Games, art, puzzles and competitions have no relationship with the words work or play when used as a noun. Such words need to be subjectively applied, and therefore can be applied, to almost any aspect or type of human behaviour.
And therein lies the root cause of this problem, (which I'm currently working on a paper about): the English language has another type of word that is not, nor has ever been, recognised for what it is - a type of NOUN which ultimately represents an application of some aspect/combination/type of BEHAVIOUR, which, because it's abstracted as a 'thing', it's what people currently think such words represent.
Unfortunately, the English language as it's currently recognised to exist, is not best equipped, (or taught/learned), to actually deal with this problem in a consistent, objective manner, as it must. Thankfully, however, the language has a solution, but it involves solving another problem first...
I've been having the same problem on slashdot for a while now, and it's really annoying:( I only want to view the post I selected on that page - not select it in isolation:-/ Feels like it's double-clicking instead of single-clicking or something similar? (Using firefox 3.6.8 (about to upgrade to 3.6.9) on win-xp SP3).
Kreigaffe is correct, though few people will probably recognise that.
The reason for this, is the lack of recognition of the basic types/aspects of human behaviour words such as games, puzzles, competitions and even art represent.
Art and competitions are all about things done FOR, (and therefore TO), other people.
There are two types of puzzles - those we create, (which are things done FOR and TO other people aswell), and those we do not. An example of the latter would be figuring our how the universe operates, (covered by the sciences etc.). An example of the former would be a jigsaw, or crossword/sudoku etc.. All puzzles are about people interacting with things done TO them. The puzzles we create are therefore about creating things FOR other people to interact with.
Competition is about people TRYING to gain something, (either by something that happens TO them, or something they DO), at the expense of, or in spite of, the others. (The actual goal/reason for competing does not matter).
Competitions are about people competing (by whatever means) to have something done TO them. (To be told whether or not they have won).
Games, are about people competing by DOING something FOR themselves, which may involve something done TO other people or things. (Games are not, therefore about any goals that may be reached, just the process of trying to attain them). The most basic games of all, are a race, fighting, competitive movement and/or throwing - almost every game in history is either purely that, or an abstract derivation of such things, from snakes and ladders, (which if take away the race, just leaves a board/dice game and turn-based, which are types of games, not games in themselves), to football and World of Warcraft. If a product does not contain any of this, then the chances are extremely big - (if not certain) - that it is not actually a game to begin with - it's probably either a puzzle, competition or just a work of art instead.
Games are DEFINED by what the player DOES, and what they use to do it with!
Yes, the line between doing something FOR ourselves and interacting with something done TO us, is extremely fine, which is why people have problems... Though it's NOT helped by people taking things which are already considered to be puzzles OUTSIDE of a computer, and then calling them a GAME just BECAUSE it's ON a computer!
Note that because the behaviour the words puzzle and game represent are mutually exclusive - (either it's something you DO or it's something that happens TO you) - puzzles and games CANNOT co-exist!
(Note I've been working on another more fundamental reason for the problem here within the English Language, though I really need to re-write the paper about it - hint: it's because the way we learn and use the language to recognise human behaviour is generally subjective).
There is NO equivalent of game for 'work' (i.e. productive) - in fact games other than those meant for 'play' (non-productive), are usually called 'serious' games or something similar - (Tom Clancy used that in Airborne for example).
Games are merely something we DO in a structured competitive environment. The nature of what we do, the competition, or the structure involved DOES NOT MATTER. (Hence the use of 'game' during the first world war). For this reason, until someone comes up with an exact equivalent for 'work' games can be 'serious' too, and therefore 'fun' does not matter for games in general.
IT does not matter if games are fun or not in themselves - it only matters if your audience wants them to be.
Although we use the word 'play' with a game, since there is no equivalent of game under 'work', games (things we do in a structured, competitive environment), can be used for both work AND play.
Of course, understanding what the word game truly represents is the real underlying cause of most of it's problems anyway...
Using lessons from game theory/= making something into a game.
Game theory is all about psychology - the 'how' and 'why' of games - it's not about 'what' games actually are. (This is a distinction which most people don't seem to appreciate, unfortunately).
Game theory can therefore be applied to almost anything we do that uses similar applications of psychology, which as it happens, is almost 'everything'...
To say RPG's are about specialisation, is to miss the wood for the trees.
Character development - (which is what crpg's SHOULD be about, though I could go into more detail...) - is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Specialisation is nothing more than a side-effect of what cRPG's are actually about - what the character development is really there to achieve, and it's THIS reason, that most games using RPG elements these days don't use them to their full potential, (assuming any have ever come close to doing just that).
There is a very good reason WHY the above is true, and I'm currently trying to write a paper on it - (and it's a lot more fundamental than you'd probably expect).
IMO, the most important thing in teaching mathematics from a young age, is children being able to count properly.
(P.s. I'm in the UK).
I once babysat for some friends children, (~6/7 years old), and helped their daughter with her maths homework once. The main reason she was having problems was simple:
It seemed she only knew how to count from 1-10. Unfortunately, that is NOT how our numerical system works - (as any programmer should be able to tell) - we actually count from 0-9!. So I re-taught her that, (letting her practice writing the symbols), and then let her figure 10 out for herself. After teaching her a lot of other numbers - (I think we went up to a million) - basic addition and subtraction was easy...
(Don't how she's doing now though, must be pushing 15 years ago...)
What I have is something SO basic and simple it's ridiculous. Here's an analogy:
Imagine a world where people only knew about birds when they were flying overhead, and so, because of that, they defined birds not just for what they are, but also by the ACT of flying.
Imagine that this then caused problems when it came to fully understanding other animals and objects that can also fly.
Imagine then, that someone came along later - (800 years later!), and pointed out that within the language itself, (i.e. how it is used), a bird, (or any other object), and the act of flying are treated completely SEPARATELY from each other, and therefore defining a thing, (a noun), by it's application, is simply inconsistent with the rules of the language, and therefore wrong.
Because of this, that person then wondered if such a thing, a bird, could actually EXIST independently of such an act, and then, after some exploration, found that they DID. (He found them simply sitting there on the ground or in their nests, and even walking around - they were not flying, yet they still (obviously) exist).
Because of this, people then were fully able to recognise and understand how all the things that can fly, are now fully related to each other within the language, and so can now fully understand and define them for what they are.
And it was all because of the way they defined one thing in a manner that was inconsistent with its use within the language.
Such is the nature of the problems I've found, (and am trying to write a paper about).
(though not that one), but to be honest, (although this may seem like I'm blind with arrogance;) ), I don't think I really need to.
The reason why, is simple:
I have found two extremely simple and basic fundamental problems within the English Language.
One of these problems has lasted for over 800 years, since it isn't recognised to even exist. (Until now;) ). The other problem has ALWAYS existed, and from what I can tell, is NOT just limited to the English Language, and again, has never been recognised for what it is, (again, until now;) ).
In fact, given the nature of the problem, if ANY common language had solved the problem by now, then why haven't we just borrowed the solution from them, (such is the nature of the English Language)?
The problem with so many books dealing with such matters as this, is that they CAN'T HAVE a proper foundation upon which to build ANY simple theory and definition of games, simply because the (English) language as it currently exists DOES NOT SUPPORT IT, (the way we need it to).
(And if you think games are the only area with such problems, think again).
Again, the paper I need to write and publish will explain all of this, and provide the solid foundation upon which almost EVERYTHING can be built/re-built, but...
I've been thinking about this, and I've come to the conclusion that neither of us are right - the truth is actually somewhere in the middle...
Although I was talking about fun in the post above purely as related to games, I've been trying to think of it in a more general sense...
Fun is about us being fully active or reactive in an activity we enjoy doing - (makes us happy). Anything which is totally passive, therefore doesn't really count as being 'fun', merely 'enjoyable' - (i.e. passively watching films, listening to music etc.).
When an activity is passive, i.e. something that happens TO us, the only way for it to be 'fun', is for it to have a physical 'reactive' element to it, and it's here that surprises become necessary, in order to force us to to physically react. The main types of activity I'm thinking about here, are of course fairground/theme-park rides etc. - although they're still things that really happen TO us, it affects us in such a way, that forces us to physically react, and it's this that makes it 'fun'.
When it comes to activities that are purely active, however, i.e. things we DO, such as dancing, games etc., then because we can have some, even full control over the activity, surprises are not fully necessary in order for it to be 'fun'.
But yes, I still have a better way of explaining it...
Well, I've been studying games all by myself, never been to university, and can definitely claim I probably understand them for what they are as well as anyone else. If only I could get this damn paper out of the door, it would certainly help...:-/
And, again, we see more symptoms of the problem my paper, (will, hopefully), be there to solve...
Fun, is defined mainly by things we DO, and the consequences of doing them.
GAMES, are about things we DO. None of what was said above about fun is tied to things we do, and therefore isn't precise enough:
I could just stand there and have people throw money at me - I'd certainly be happy and surprised, but if I don't have to DO anything, is it really 'fun'?
I have a MUCH better way of explaining all this, but it's too closely linked with my paper, and so wouldn't mean anything apart from it:-/
And this is why there is a big difference between merely what the fans SAY they want, and understanding WHY, as well as WHAT it is they are complaining about...
But again, we all come back to fully understanding what it is that makes a game, a GAME - which isn't fully understood at this point, (which is why there are so many 'problems').
Unfortunately, we still have a very big problem at this time, lying at the centre of ALL of this, but I'm trying to write a paper about it, and so can't really discuss it fully (:-/).
Suffice to say, that at this moment in time, GAMES, (as a whole), are NOT fully understood/recognised for what they are... Things such as game theory etc. cover the psychological aspects underpinning the mechanics of games, (i.e. how and why they work), but don't fully explain what they actually ARE, and how they fit in and are related to everything else we do. (Which is exactly what my paper is about).
So yes, even though we can discuss games from a psychological, (and from there, biological), and philosophical perspective, it's still NOT enough, and so I REALLY need to get this paper written (and published) - but I'm finding it really hard.. (I need help - I have NO academic background at all, and it shows:-/ ).
Actually, humanity always learns in BOTH directions - including things we do - (which of course covers games) - as well as things that happen TO us...
This is all related to paper I'm (trying) to write, that helps to explain how and why everything fits together. (I need help:-/ (I've never tried to write anything like this before)). If you read some of my past postings on slashdot - you'll see some of the process I went through to figure things out). (And what I have is IMPORTANT).
It's more than that - they are actually DEFINED by the process, and not any ending - a perpetual game is fully within the definition - or should be - (I've seen some theories and definitions of games that disagree though). (The word story is not defined by the fact it must end...).
There is of course one thing you can do with music - use software instruments and MIDI parts. I have quite a collection of Bach organ pieces I ran through a couple of pipe-organs on my DAW.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't played any CAG's since I had a Sinclair Spectrum 48k back in the early/mid '80's. I did have a look at a couple on the Amiga - (my brother played a couple while I watched), but decided I wasn't interested.
After all the research I've done over the past two years, (I've been studying games as a matter of linguistics), however, I've come to understand why I've never really liked them much.
My problem, is that I've always recognised, (though only recently fully understood, due to my research), the difference between a game and a puzzle. Adventure games have always been a bit of a mixed bag as far as being games are concerned, and this is what put me off them - they're a mixture of games, puzzles and art, - (I don't think they have anything to do with competitions? I might be wrong, though, since I can't say I've played that many). Since when I play a game, I expect and want it it BE a game, however, and not a puzzle/work of art/competition, I never really liked CAG's, (or any other games that contain puzzles especially at the expense of the game itself). (Puzzles and games have limited compatibility in such a manner).
No - what he's saying, is that years are counted in arrears - by Jan 1st 2010 - we'd HAD 10 years, and that was the start of the 11th. It's about to be the start of the 12th, but we only count the year that's just ending, since that is the last FULL year - so we call it the 11th.
In my opinion, (from my experience helping a friends kid with their homework quite a while ago), the real problem starts even earlier than that.
Basic mathematics/arithmetic is only hard if you don't understand numbers, and this is where I think the root of the problems lie. The problem I ran into (and have seen a lot of evidence elsewhere to support it - (number posters etc. form 1-100)), is that kids are taught to count from 1 to 10. (I'm in the UK btw. so YMMV). The problem with that is, of course, that our decimal system works from 0 to 9. It can be tricky to teach kids that, (especially when they use their fingers so much for 10), but I think it's really important - everything else they learn will be based upon such a thing. As soon as they understand 0 to 9, (and have them work out the symbols of 10 for themselves, if possible), basic arithmetic becomes much easier to work out - especially on paper, which then makes it easier to visualize and do it in their heads...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007617%20600012349&IsNodeId=1&name=1920%20x%201200
Actually - games being 'fun' is a completely subjective application of something that has no place in their definition...
Games are no more about fun than puzzles, art or competitions. The only reason people think that is the case, is because they confuse play as a verb, (which describes what we do in a game), with play as a noun.
Games, art, puzzles and competitions have no relationship with the words work or play when used as a noun. Such words need to be subjectively applied, and therefore can be applied, to almost any aspect or type of human behaviour.
And therein lies the root cause of this problem, (which I'm currently working on a paper about): the English language has another type of word that is not, nor has ever been, recognised for what it is - a type of NOUN which ultimately represents an application of some aspect/combination/type of BEHAVIOUR, which, because it's abstracted as a 'thing', it's what people currently think such words represent.
Unfortunately, the English language as it's currently recognised to exist, is not best equipped, (or taught/learned), to actually deal with this problem in a consistent, objective manner, as it must. Thankfully, however, the language has a solution, but it involves solving another problem first...
I've been having the same problem on slashdot for a while now, and it's really annoying :( I only want to view the post I selected on that page - not select it in isolation :-/ Feels like it's double-clicking instead of single-clicking or something similar? (Using firefox 3.6.8 (about to upgrade to 3.6.9) on win-xp SP3).
Kreigaffe is correct, though few people will probably recognise that.
The reason for this, is the lack of recognition of the basic types/aspects of human behaviour words such as games, puzzles, competitions and even art represent.
Art and competitions are all about things done FOR, (and therefore TO), other people.
There are two types of puzzles - those we create, (which are things done FOR and TO other people aswell), and those we do not. An example of the latter would be figuring our how the universe operates, (covered by the sciences etc.). An example of the former would be a jigsaw, or crossword/sudoku etc.. All puzzles are about people interacting with things done TO them. The puzzles we create are therefore about creating things FOR other people to interact with.
Competition is about people TRYING to gain something, (either by something that happens TO them, or something they DO), at the expense of, or in spite of, the others. (The actual goal/reason for competing does not matter).
Competitions are about people competing (by whatever means) to have something done TO them. (To be told whether or not they have won).
Games, are about people competing by DOING something FOR themselves, which may involve something done TO other people or things. (Games are not, therefore about any goals that may be reached, just the process of trying to attain them). The most basic games of all, are a race, fighting, competitive movement and/or throwing - almost every game in history is either purely that, or an abstract derivation of such things, from snakes and ladders, (which if take away the race, just leaves a board/dice game and turn-based, which are types of games, not games in themselves), to football and World of Warcraft. If a product does not contain any of this, then the chances are extremely big - (if not certain) - that it is not actually a game to begin with - it's probably either a puzzle, competition or just a work of art instead.
Games are DEFINED by what the player DOES, and what they use to do it with!
Yes, the line between doing something FOR ourselves and interacting with something done TO us, is extremely fine, which is why people have problems... Though it's NOT helped by people taking things which are already considered to be puzzles OUTSIDE of a computer, and then calling them a GAME just BECAUSE it's ON a computer!
Note that because the behaviour the words puzzle and game represent are mutually exclusive - (either it's something you DO or it's something that happens TO you) - puzzles and games CANNOT co-exist!
(Note I've been working on another more fundamental reason for the problem here within the English Language, though I really need to re-write the paper about it - hint: it's because the way we learn and use the language to recognise human behaviour is generally subjective).
There is NO equivalent of game for 'work' (i.e. productive) - in fact games other than those meant for 'play' (non-productive), are usually called 'serious' games or something similar - (Tom Clancy used that in Airborne for example).
Games are merely something we DO in a structured competitive environment. The nature of what we do, the competition, or the structure involved DOES NOT MATTER. (Hence the use of 'game' during the first world war). For this reason, until someone comes up with an exact equivalent for 'work' games can be 'serious' too, and therefore 'fun' does not matter for games in general.
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DarrenTomlyn/3291/
(Not gotten round to the post about games yet - (next one!) (Competition/competitions and games)).
IT does not matter if games are fun or not in themselves - it only matters if your audience wants them to be.
Although we use the word 'play' with a game, since there is no equivalent of game under 'work', games (things we do in a structured, competitive environment), can be used for both work AND play.
Of course, understanding what the word game truly represents is the real underlying cause of most of it's problems anyway...
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DarrenTomlyn/20100505/5089/An_objective_foundation_upon_which_to_build_a_theory_of_games.php
Using lessons from game theory /= making something into a game.
Game theory is all about psychology - the 'how' and 'why' of games - it's not about 'what' games actually are. (This is a distinction which most people don't seem to appreciate, unfortunately).
Game theory can therefore be applied to almost anything we do that uses similar applications of psychology, which as it happens, is almost 'everything'...
That's because:
a) I'd have to divulge too much of what my paper is about, (and I don't want to (yet)).
b) If someone (anyone else?) out there actually fully understands games for what they are, then the answer is really obvious...
To say RPG's are about specialisation, is to miss the wood for the trees.
Character development - (which is what crpg's SHOULD be about, though I could go into more detail...) - is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Specialisation is nothing more than a side-effect of what cRPG's are actually about - what the character development is really there to achieve, and it's THIS reason, that most games using RPG elements these days don't use them to their full potential, (assuming any have ever come close to doing just that).
There is a very good reason WHY the above is true, and I'm currently trying to write a paper on it - (and it's a lot more fundamental than you'd probably expect).
IMO, the most important thing in teaching mathematics from a young age, is children being able to count properly.
(P.s. I'm in the UK).
I once babysat for some friends children, (~6/7 years old), and helped their daughter with her maths homework once. The main reason she was having problems was simple:
It seemed she only knew how to count from 1-10. Unfortunately, that is NOT how our numerical system works - (as any programmer should be able to tell) - we actually count from 0-9!. So I re-taught her that, (letting her practice writing the symbols), and then let her figure 10 out for herself. After teaching her a lot of other numbers - (I think we went up to a million) - basic addition and subtraction was easy...
(Don't how she's doing now though, must be pushing 15 years ago...)
mad scientist? No-where near, lol.
What I have is something SO basic and simple it's ridiculous. Here's an analogy:
Imagine a world where people only knew about birds when they were flying overhead, and so, because of that, they defined birds not just for what they are, but also by the ACT of flying.
Imagine that this then caused problems when it came to fully understanding other animals and objects that can also fly.
Imagine then, that someone came along later - (800 years later!), and pointed out that within the language itself, (i.e. how it is used), a bird, (or any other object), and the act of flying are treated completely SEPARATELY from each other, and therefore defining a thing, (a noun), by it's application, is simply inconsistent with the rules of the language, and therefore wrong.
Because of this, that person then wondered if such a thing, a bird, could actually EXIST independently of such an act, and then, after some exploration, found that they DID. (He found them simply sitting there on the ground or in their nests, and even walking around - they were not flying, yet they still (obviously) exist).
Because of this, people then were fully able to recognise and understand how all the things that can fly, are now fully related to each other within the language, and so can now fully understand and define them for what they are.
And it was all because of the way they defined one thing in a manner that was inconsistent with its use within the language.
Such is the nature of the problems I've found, (and am trying to write a paper about).
(though not that one), but to be honest, (although this may seem like I'm blind with arrogance ;) ), I don't think I really need to.
The reason why, is simple:
I have found two extremely simple and basic fundamental problems within the English Language.
One of these problems has lasted for over 800 years, since it isn't recognised to even exist. (Until now ;) ). The other problem has ALWAYS existed, and from what I can tell, is NOT just limited to the English Language, and again, has never been recognised for what it is, (again, until now ;) ).
In fact, given the nature of the problem, if ANY common language had solved the problem by now, then why haven't we just borrowed the solution from them, (such is the nature of the English Language)?
The problem with so many books dealing with such matters as this, is that they CAN'T HAVE a proper foundation upon which to build ANY simple theory and definition of games, simply because the (English) language as it currently exists DOES NOT SUPPORT IT, (the way we need it to).
(And if you think games are the only area with such problems, think again).
Again, the paper I need to write and publish will explain all of this, and provide the solid foundation upon which almost EVERYTHING can be built/re-built, but...
I've been thinking about this, and I've come to the conclusion that neither of us are right - the truth is actually somewhere in the middle...
Although I was talking about fun in the post above purely as related to games, I've been trying to think of it in a more general sense...
Fun is about us being fully active or reactive in an activity we enjoy doing - (makes us happy). Anything which is totally passive, therefore doesn't really count as being 'fun', merely 'enjoyable' - (i.e. passively watching films, listening to music etc.).
When an activity is passive, i.e. something that happens TO us, the only way for it to be 'fun', is for it to have a physical 'reactive' element to it, and it's here that surprises become necessary, in order to force us to to physically react. The main types of activity I'm thinking about here, are of course fairground/theme-park rides etc. - although they're still things that really happen TO us, it affects us in such a way, that forces us to physically react, and it's this that makes it 'fun'.
When it comes to activities that are purely active, however, i.e. things we DO, such as dancing, games etc., then because we can have some, even full control over the activity, surprises are not fully necessary in order for it to be 'fun'.
But yes, I still have a better way of explaining it...
Well, I've been studying games all by myself, never been to university, and can definitely claim I probably understand them for what they are as well as anyone else. If only I could get this damn paper out of the door, it would certainly help... :-/
Note - GAMES are NOT about TELLING stories, so I don't know why learning how to make a better game would involve telling a better story?
And, again, we see more symptoms of the problem my paper, (will, hopefully), be there to solve...
Fun, is defined mainly by things we DO, and the consequences of doing them.
GAMES, are about things we DO. None of what was said above about fun is tied to things we do, and therefore isn't precise enough:
I could just stand there and have people throw money at me - I'd certainly be happy and surprised, but if I don't have to DO anything, is it really 'fun'?
I have a MUCH better way of explaining all this, but it's too closely linked with my paper, and so wouldn't mean anything apart from it :-/
And this is why there is a big difference between merely what the fans SAY they want, and understanding WHY, as well as WHAT it is they are complaining about...
But again, we all come back to fully understanding what it is that makes a game, a GAME - which isn't fully understood at this point, (which is why there are so many 'problems').
Unfortunately, we still have a very big problem at this time, lying at the centre of ALL of this, but I'm trying to write a paper about it, and so can't really discuss it fully (:-/).
Suffice to say, that at this moment in time, GAMES, (as a whole), are NOT fully understood/recognised for what they are... Things such as game theory etc. cover the psychological aspects underpinning the mechanics of games, (i.e. how and why they work), but don't fully explain what they actually ARE, and how they fit in and are related to everything else we do. (Which is exactly what my paper is about).
So yes, even though we can discuss games from a psychological, (and from there, biological), and philosophical perspective, it's still NOT enough, and so I REALLY need to get this paper written (and published) - but I'm finding it really hard.. (I need help - I have NO academic background at all, and it shows :-/ ).
Actually, humanity always learns in BOTH directions - including things we do - (which of course covers games) - as well as things that happen TO us...
This is all related to paper I'm (trying) to write, that helps to explain how and why everything fits together. (I need help :-/ (I've never tried to write anything like this before)). If you read some of my past postings on slashdot - you'll see some of the process I went through to figure things out). (And what I have is IMPORTANT).
It's more than that - they are actually DEFINED by the process, and not any ending - a perpetual game is fully within the definition - or should be - (I've seen some theories and definitions of games that disagree though). (The word story is not defined by the fact it must end...).
They do create art - just not necessarily GOOD art.
But then, it's merely a subjective application of an objective definition - which is EXACTLY how it's supposed to work...
(Art = creative story telling).
There is of course one thing you can do with music - use software instruments and MIDI parts. I have quite a collection of Bach organ pieces I ran through a couple of pipe-organs on my DAW.