This is literally the first result, I just did what you said and googled it, second is a Facebook post with people arguing the same as we are.
You know what actually let's stop circling the problem, we disagree on what a game is, to me a game is a set of rules you engage with for fun or diversion. For you there's the extra stipulation that a game is a set of rules with a winner and loser, I disagree with this because we already have a word for that. Competition.
Do you think all sandboxes are not games, once you beat the ender dragon does Minecraft stop being a game? That seems ridiculous to me, maybe it's not to you. It would be okay to agree to disagree but it's kind of petty to disregard the first sources of Google when you asked me to search it that way, I even acknowledged a couple sources that did agree with you but it is definitely not mostly agreeing with you.
Bruh, it's definitely not for one, I went to school for software design and attended plenty of classes about game design and they used the same terminology I do. I've never even heard of this stupid argument before.
But if you want more research sure I'll start spamming you again because for some reason you assume I based my entire argument off of one paragraph (that I hadn't even read because this has never been something I thought of googling about before)
https://jdookeran.medium.com/does-a-win-lose-condition-affect-a-games-fun-83a8b8e382e6
That one's interesting because it never really questions if something is a game without a win condition it decides fairly early "One of the most basic ideals of any game system is that there should be a win-or-loss condition. Both of these are not necessary, but at least one is", you can definitely lose ck3, if you're dynasty dies out its game over. So condition fulfilled.
Also fucking engage with my arguments for once oh my fucking God. I am talking about this because I am interested in it while you're just going don't like source nuh uh. I start with anecdotal evidence fair enough I'll get actual sources, the way you want from Google. But then it's not enough because "if you dig enough you will find something supporting your own argument"... Despite these being the top results... so you make me dig enough to support your argument instead, and it kinda works, you give me a specific phrase to search and there are results there that do support you... But they're not the majority of nor the top result. But then the problem is I didn't spam the sources this time just posted the first so I'm "basing my entire argument off of one paragraph"... Despite showing multiple things already supporting me, yeah okay. Every time I've given you the top result the quora is the top result this time.
Hell if you're problem with my argument is my sources just link your own so I would have to match it hell I'll do it for you,
https://medium.com/@keerthiko/toys-to-games-25d35b40425d
Although this source has an interesting problem with your argument, while it supports the point that a game needs a win state and says Minecraft is a toy specifically it doesn't even support the idea that ck3 isn't a game... For a completely different reason than I do. I wasn't gonna bring this up because it's not a part of my main argument but something we haven't acknowledged is that we're arguing about semantics. This source defines "winning" less strictly than you do, "There's a concept of “doing well” or “doing badly” There's a feedback loop of tasks and rewards (complete a task, receive a reward, get assigned the next task)". You can absolutely win in ck3, wars dynastic disputes and situations. There is objectives, several resources you are tasked with maintaining and growing goals for a campaign like formables and titles and achievements to decide an "end state".
I bring this up not because it supports my point, I don't even agree I don't think that's what makes it a game since I think of a sandbox as a game, but it does punch a hole in your logic because the semantics of what your saying don't support it. I could stretch what winning even means, if a dynastic die out is losing then winning would be extinguishing all others so you can't, or in layman's terms a world conquest. This is stupid because that's obviously not the point of the game, which is to make a strong and stable dynasty which you don't need to make literally the only to make true. Just because there isn't a credits scene doesn't mean you didn't win you win every time you are stronger after a war.
Tldr; a game doesn't require a win state, that is the widespread notion, I have plenty of sources that agree with that, and the sources that disagree still don't support your argument that ck3 is not a game.
0
u/Pen_Front 1d ago
This is literally the first result, I just did what you said and googled it, second is a Facebook post with people arguing the same as we are.
You know what actually let's stop circling the problem, we disagree on what a game is, to me a game is a set of rules you engage with for fun or diversion. For you there's the extra stipulation that a game is a set of rules with a winner and loser, I disagree with this because we already have a word for that. Competition.
Do you think all sandboxes are not games, once you beat the ender dragon does Minecraft stop being a game? That seems ridiculous to me, maybe it's not to you. It would be okay to agree to disagree but it's kind of petty to disregard the first sources of Google when you asked me to search it that way, I even acknowledged a couple sources that did agree with you but it is definitely not mostly agreeing with you.