Anybody ever read on Wittgenstein's definition of videogames?

Wrong.

i get you're trying to be edgy to start a conversation but you do more harm than good when you shitpost like this
please don't reply with some variation of "prove me wrong"

Video games are a good representation of the ontological incompleteness of reality *sniffs*

Attached: comfyzizek.jpg (710x710, 67K)

Attached: bick hazard.jpg (442x465, 80K)

ok retard

>(((stein)))
philosophy is pseudoscience that doesn't matter. Imagine getting a PhD in "im right ur wrong lol"

His philosophy of mathematics is much more interesting, to be honest.

Attached: tsui no sora 2.jpg (993x736, 45K)

I've only read the tractatus but its been some time since so I probably forgot a good part. Also fuck you, I know that this thread was made just because you read subahibi, get fucked.

Attached: 1466906308014.jpg (212x300, 29K)

Only PhInvestigations really matter. Tractatus is a pile of dogshit that says nothing (yes, this is a reference) constructive. Brown book has a bunch of interesting ideas though.

Wittgenstein's greatest achievement is shitting on the logicians, positivists, and """scientists""" seeking an absolute foundation for their theories in rigid formal language while making statements based on wonky semantics of natural language that can't ever be eliminated. Philosophical Investigations are one of the greatest sceptical works of the XXth century. And it's kind of ironic that after good old Ludwig's death formal language "scientists" tried to adopt its ideas for scientistic cause.

Attached: 1549099066452.jpg (758x644, 64K)

youtu.be/Jmq3imrHPMk?t=671
based and sniffpilled

(((Stein)))

Sure, but there's plenty of niggas who take an interest in this content. Yea Forums may be invariably fucked by marketers and their kiddie audience, but the old Yea Forums isn't dead either, just avoiding the shitfest threads. This isn't one of them.

Based thinkpad poster gets it, the sciences have become a vector for cancer as they are no longer grounded in evidence and clear reasoning over sophistry and highly logical nonsense. The infiltration of the sciences by dogma was trivial in this climate.

Attached: smoke of relief.gif (500x367, 817K)

Doing my reading here on the backs of this thread, I can instantly see around Wittgenstein's statement that a game is indefineable. Defining what makes a game a game is something I stumbled upon while assessing the role of randomness in games, and how it can improve and harm the experience based on application.

I came to recognise two main strands of reasoning as to why people - we - go ut of our way to play games. The first factor I call "Scenario" and the second I call "Challenge". You may think of them as broadly the story, art, setting and aesthetics of the game, and as the gameplay and mechanical crunch, but the devil is always in the details. Scenario is the aspects of a game that let us play out a scenario that is either impossible, fatnastical or far too difficult, risky or incovnenient to attempt in reality. There doesn't have to be an element of plot to this, as there are many interesting non-plot events fulfillable by video games. Most people will never drive a Formula 1 racecar, or fly a rocket ship to the moon. Some people do this, and they often spend their entire lives under high stress preparing for and managing this incredible reality, with terrible risks for lapses of judgement. So most are content to play a video game that simulates driving an F1 car, or flying a jetship, or even simulating ice road trucking. Wanting to play a video game for the sake of feeling like you're waterskiing is of the same the same nature as wanting to play one to partake in a plot to rebel against an evil kingdom, or rob a bank or any other number of stock plots.

On the Challenge side, we have all aspects of a game that are engaging because they are difficult to accomplish - they cannot be taken for granted and require skill in various respects. In short these parts of a game must be "beaten". A balance must be struck between an overly easy game that feels meaningless to win, and a frustrating and unintuitive set of nitpicky obstacles (since even the hardest

Attached: 2Pwb8Uz.gif (550x550, 13K)

challenge in any game can be reduced to autistic grinding). Much as there are different Scenarios for a game to conjure up and emulate, there are different Challenges. I feel this is something most people experienced in video games already understand and do not need as much elaboration on as with Scenario.

Musing on this, I came to see that both Scenario and Challenge are different expressions of the same phenomenon, which is Simulation. Scenario is of course simulating fantastical or overly inconvenient/risky real world situations for convenient experience - on examination so is Challenge, as Challenge lets the player partake in a difficult or dangerous task and test their skill and the success of different strategies and approaches without actually having to get into a sword duel, firefight, military struggle and so on with real consequences.

This becomes interesting when you understand that 99% of all video games are purely recreational. Although much has been said and research has been poured into the beneficial effects of playing video games (such as improvements in spatial abilities from playing FPSs), ultimately and in general video games are not played for the sake of the skills we might gain and insights we may develop from the experience - or at least not directly so. Actually I think many of us feel on some level that the difference between low and high video games is the sense that you've come away with something from the experience, but that doesn't mean you know specifically what that would be going into it. Video games are generally not "training" tools - and when they are they tend to be clearly indicated and marketed as such. Shooter games exist specifically in the military for instance. It's in this vein that video games fit into the same model of media that encompasses books and films, which exist in pure and mixed forms as entertainment (which may have a deeper lesson) and as functional or instructional devices.

What video games

Attached: 1551295695614.jpg (1440x810, 171K)

do that books and films do not is provide interactivity within the simulated framework of the setting. Interactivity is done by plenty of other things, but only video games provide the sense of delving into a complete other world through the use of text, pictures, sound and movement AND simultaneously letting the player or user interact with and manipulate its components and explore its mechanics and rules. This is critical to fleshing out both the Challenge and Scenario halves of the Simulation, and tying them together as all games do to create a total experience. Such an experience can be both a utilitarian means and a fundamental end in and of itself just like any other medium.

In summary, video games are a high-fidelity Simulation used to provide Scenario and Challenge in unique tandem as a way of actively exploring alternate or distant aspects of reality beyond the scope of daily living. Compared to regular games, sports and eercises, video games are unbound by real life mechanics and laws and let the player experience different powers and abilities to what they can feasibly achieve in real life; compared to books and television, video games allow interactivity and participation in the setting beyond passively receiving it. Video games represent the true juncture, the optimised mutual hybrid between these forms of passtime, insightful experience and pleasure, encompassing both their strengths in one.

Addendum: what video games are to television and film, classic pen and paper games and tabletop board games are to books. In this way, video games are not that new or alien, being a natural successor to the development of movies and radio. What still sets video games apart is the capacity for mechanical skill testing on the challenge side, and the gradual revelation of a complex branching sequence of events on the Scenario side. Only physical sports and the presence of IRL games masters can otherwise provide these features, with inherent limitations.

Attached: 1549821663655.jpg (999x561, 63K)

good post

Wittgenstein's view on 'games' is just that there is no fully satisfying definition that we could articulate, no articulable set of properties that would apply to all and only games. It's a rejection of a way of thinking about words/concepts and has nothing special to do with vidya or really even games in general.

The point is that we don't need to be able to define a term in order for it to have meaning. Definitions are clues for learners learning a term, not the structure of a term's meaning.

I agree with you that the main two factors of video games are scenario and challenge, but I would call them aethetics and gameplay, and I wouldnt say they were both aspects of simulation. Tradtional games like board games or sports are completely abstract and have no element of simulation but they're still games. Simulation is part of the aethestics of a video game

no and why should i listen or believe in anynoe with a surname that ends in STEIN?

Why didn't you throw it in the toilet?

I love me a good waffle stomp but you should get a better drain.

Wittgenstein was a Catholic who went to school with Hitler, before we get any more ((())) posts.

But Wittgenstein said he fucked your mom last nite. How can one ever recover from that?

>mfw masters degree in philosophy and don't know a lick of wittgenstein

Attached: 1513176602409s.jpg (125x72, 2K)

What was your thesis?

> philosophy is a pseudoscience
That in itself it's a philosophical statement, you just got wittgenstein'd lmao get fuck kiddo xdd

Attached: roja.png (32x32, 516)

>Ricebottle posting on Yea Forums
I thought you post only on /r9k/?

Getting a degree in philosophy only to be taught that philosophy is useless probably wouldn't make the best impression on the student. Unless they leave him for last, like a prank.

*ahem*
FUCK PHILOSOPHY
AND FUCK PRIVATE LANGUAGES

Attached: wittgenstein.jpg (196x266, 22K)

can't have science without a a solid epistemological framework, which itself is philosophy. retard.

Not bad. Have you ever looked into formal game studies? I think you'll find much to your liking.

I think at the very core of games is playing pretend. Even in the absence of what that user called a "scenario", in one of those purely abstract games that consist only of rules, there is an element of pretending, and it is this: we pretend the rules matter. There is nothing real preventing you from breaking them.

Yes. This was my February stack though Discipline and Punish and my Xenoblade Chronicles 3D are bleeding over into March.

Attached: 20190303_073816.jpg (5312x2988, 3.7M)

Not him but any recs? I've been looking for more academic stuff on games

Did he solve Video-games like he solved Philosophy?

>kissinger

Have you read his thesis?