Webpages, games and the meaning of life?

[Melooon]

There is a fun philosophical theory from the 70s about games (The Grasshopper by Bernard Suits). The core theory is that, if you take away all needs, wants and duties; imagining a perfect utopia of leisure, the last thing left for anyone to do is play games - therefor playing games must be the highest purpose of life, there can't be any greater meaning to existence 

Along side that there is a definition for a game;

• it has collectively shared rules that deliberately limit some aspect of your interaction (infinite freedom is not a game)
• participation in the game must be totally voluntary (if you are there for any reason other than playing, its not a game)
• there must be no product or outcome of the game (if there is a reward or product, its not a game).

That's a conflict to me because I've always felt websites are games (i call myself a game designer), yet they produce outcomes (lasting pages, communities etc). Likewise, I consider websites to be art (I call myself an artist) and I consider the webpages to be artworks. 

Currently my working theory is that, art (and websites) are not outcomes, they are game engines. All websites are therefor like chessboards, and our participation in them is the act of playing the game. Each game is a loop; when you "play" a website that gives you GIFs for your homepage, and you then use those GIFs to create a new page, you are creating a new micro game engine that someone else can play. This is a really good explanation of the Everyone Site and I'm quite pleased with it.

However it raises some interesting points! For example, a website that you must use (like your bank, or booking a ticket) does not qualify, since your usage of it is not voluntary, it fails the game test. A social media site is a game engine, unless you become addicted to it, then it stops being a game since you are not freely choosing to be there. The rules question is complex because websites can have many rules and sub-games going on at once; for example I think neocities qualifies as a game, its rule is that everyone must make a website to keep playing.

This is very much a working perspective that's been floating at the front of my mind the last few days. I'm curious what people think, and I will report back if I have new thoughts too! 

[KrazyKoen]

there must be no product or outcome of the game (if there is a reward or product, its not a game).

I really struggle with this concept. What is a product or outcome? Could the joy of playing a game itself be a product or outcome? What about the memories of playing the game? What if you get more skilled at the game?

All things have a product or outcome, something only really happens if it affects something else and things only exist in relation to each other.

[Melooon]

What is a product or outcome?

I think its more literal than that, a product or outcome is, pay, a trophy, a manufactured item, a social status etc - it is something external to you.

So its not a game if it's your income, its not a game if you are playing in a tournament, baking a cake is not a game, painting a picture is not a game (although the picture is a game engine, so this is a bit grey).

Knowledge is more of a grey area too, knowledge of the game and its mechanics is obviously fine, learning the mechanics of a game is part of playing and its often the most fun part.

However a game that has a purpose like teaching you how to fly a plane so you can get a job as a pilot, that is not a game, because its objective is external to the game itself.

SO is a tutorial website a game? (no its a game engine ) but reading a tutorial site is a game, IF you intend to make a website yourself just for fun (as an extension of the game), whereas if you are doing it to start a career as a web designer, then its not a game.

This is also a really nice way of explaining the difference between web revival sites, and processional sites. Visiting web revival sites qualifies as playing a game (they should be fun), and learning to make them should feel like a game too It's also why most social media sites fail to fit into the web revival, they have expected outcomes (gaining followers or ad money) so they are not games.

[Seechain]

There is a fun philosophical theory from the 70s about games (The Grasshopper by Bernard Suits). The core theory is that, if you take away all needs, wants and duties; imagining a perfect utopia of leisure, the last thing left for anyone to do is play games - therefor playing games must be the highest purpose of life, there can't be any greater meaning to existence 

This sounds a bit like hacker ethics to me.

Allow me to ramble a bit: you can play with just your mind, but after a while it starts to feel like a dream. To prevent that from happening, you need rules, tracking and recording tools. Can a book be a game? Yes, they exist, and some are quite elaborate. So I deduce that webpages, as the heirs to books, can indeed be a game.

[d.eastwood]

All things have a product or outcome, something only really happens if it affects something else and things only exist in relation to each other.

exactly.

don't all games have winners and losers as well?

[Melooon]

don't all games have winners and losers as well?

A win/lose is not a product, its a mechanic of the game, its part of the games rules. A product of winning would be something like a trophy or payment (like a claw machine), but the actual win on its own is not a product as far as I can see.

[Noah_S]

exactly.

don't all games have winners and losers as well?

No, they don't. Have you ever played a city builder?

[NoxidKin]

Here's to Football 17776.

https://www.sbnation.com/a/17776-football/chapter-1

It imagines a world where humanity has pretty much solved all the problems, and stagnated for thousands of years.  Society seems to largely revolve around ever more absurd games of American Football.

It's told from the perspective of ancient deep space probes.  And it's one of the most beautiful stories I've experienced.