Full Transcript for Episode 4: Playing with Definitions

do we need a a scoring system? Or are we just making it up along the way, since we're breaking all the c all the conventions? Peter: I mean, is it going to be this like we just always vote for our favorite answer, which is our own, and then we end up with a tie, and then you win because it's your podcast? Ulrich: Well, that as we can already tell, this clearly doesn't work. So I guess we'll have to cooperatively come up with who did better. And by that, we're probably already in the terrain of non-Sucian games, so games that do not accord to the Suthian definition of game, which we looked at two episodes ago in in depth. But I guess we'll just do something like that. okay, let me just quickly say who these definitions are about. I'm not gonna fully quote all of them. That would take like half an hour in and of itself. you can go check them out in Rules of Play by Zalen Zimmerman, which is a fantastic book to get anyway, if you're in any way interested in game design, but even as a player. so the definitions are by David Parlett. Also known as the designer of Hair and tortoise? but also did extensive work on the theory of games. Then Clark C. Apt, Johann Hoesinger, which we have looked at, Rogers Calois, which we looked at, Bernard Soutz, same thing. Then Chris Crawford, Greg Kosickian, Elliot, Everton, and Brian Sutton Smith. you Anyway, let's get into the thing. and we're starting off with a banger because the first element is Proceeds according to rules that limit players. So I have kind of something here. I first thought this is the one where I'm not gonna have anything because it has rules is like I'm very interested what you got here. Peter: so should I shoot first? Ulrich: your what you're Peter: Okay, like I I come up with a very special thing. It's a game that I that does not exist because I came only up with it. But I do think it's a great Ulrich: Okay, that's that's Peter: example game. so this is a mobile game, it runs on your phone and you open it and it's the winners game. So when it opens, all you have in this game is a big red button that says win. And you can press that button. And then the game goes boom, you won. Awesome fireworks. And then it asks you, do you want to play again? And then you can say yeah, I want to play again, and then you can again click the win button and you won. Ulrich: is there a lose button? Peter: No. win. You can Ulrich: You can only win. Peter: maybe also quit the game. or restart the game. So but you would still have a game there. It is just Ulrich: Mm-hmm. Peter: like no obstacle, no limits, just like pure dopamine push for pressing the button you're supposed to press. And it's I also guess it's like a very boring game, but maybe you can like make some interesting animations of like hugely eyed mascots that That are like throwing golden stars at you. So people might be continue playing it and buy some skins for it. Who knows? Ulrich: I mean, I I think it's a wonderful example because I think what you've done there, there is this concept of the minimal playable game. Peter: Yes. Ulrich: is a design philosophy as in break down your game as far as you can possibly break it down to get to the core loop. What are you actually doing? And I think you've just done that with every single cow clicker game. It's just press Peter: yeah. Ulrich: a button, get stars, and and you're told you've you're doing great, or in your case, you win. And one could argue that in this case, especially because the help of digital, there is not really a rule perceived by the player because there's just the button. And and I mean one could argue a button is a rule that you can press it or not, but I think that that that's that qualifies. what I have as the main example, because as I said, first I was like, okay, this is the one where I'm just not gonna find anything. then I started browsing through the BoardGame Geek forums and geek lists and stuff, and then I stumbled on a game called A thousand blank white cards. BTG lists Riv Connor and Nathan Phoenix as the designers, but also in its text claims that it's public domain. I'm just gonna read the first paragraph of the description on BoardGame Geek because I have not played this. but a thousand blank white cards is a public domain card game which allows the players to make the cards during the course of the game. There are no initial rules, and while there may be conventions among certain groups of players, it is in the spirit of the game to spite and denounce these conventions as well as to adhere to them religiously. And so from the descriptions, I found the idea is kind of or or it's suggested, but you're welcome to do it otherwise. That basically you do a play one, draw one kind of thing. And if you play a card that has nothing on it, you just put stuff on the card: a picture, a name, a rule, whatever. But in its initial state, in its purest form, if you really basically play it like improv theater, there are no initial rules. And then very quickly there are, because you will write stuff on the cards. But I found it interesting again because I thought a game without rules is gonna be very hard to find. Peter: I mean this thing does have rules because you can like write on cards and then these rules do apply to the game. Like that that is kind of a rule in there, but it i I do agree that here since new rules are created, like which is also similar to like Zendol. and all these come up with the rule games how does this limit me if the thing does not even exist yet? Like like the rule that is about to limit me, I have to create it first, following other rules. Ulrich: Yeah, yeah, yeah. But as soon as the rule is there, it is limiting you because it's a rules that th that i explicitly allows one thing and disallows others. Peter: Yeah, not not necessarily. I mean it also enables me, like mostly, like I can just write down I win and play the card and I win. Ulrich: most I'm sure in the rules there are like you know,

things not to do to make it more fun. And that would be obviously one in there, but it's an interesting thought experiment to just do that Peter: Not Ulrich: and see if you wanna do that again, if you're that petty. Okay. I mean, I just quickly want to mention another thing I thought about, but more in the veins of it's using the premise in an interesting way, is das Regeln wir schon by Karl-Heinz Schmiel, which was further into Democracy by Bruno Feiduti, but with an explicit citation of the previous game, which only ever came out in German. which is a game where You basically constantly change the rule. We vote on new rules, and those rules will tell you blue tokens are now worth more points than red ones and stuff like that. But we vote on that with set tokens, and it's a very interesting riff on what are rules, and it's I also feel it's much more meta than many games we've seen in the last 20 years, because I think it's from the late nineties, if I'm remembering correctly. At re at least that shown definitely is. Peter: Okay, I also had like my my last example here is also from the nineties, and which is Magic the Gathering by Richard Garfield. Because Ulrich: Okay. Peter: the argument here is one thing that Magic the Gathering does excessively is you have rules on cards and then you play them. So you change the rule set of the game. Ulrich: So who wins this round? I mean, I have to say I'm I really like the the you win button. because it's kind of a poignant critique on the cow clicker genre. by the way, if you're wondering what a cow clicker is, if you're not familiar with the term, it just means like These games like Farm Wheel, where your only activity is to log in every half hour and click on everything that's done, and every single click will generate stars and we all of that. okay. So I guess I would give you for that answer, I would give you three golden stars. Peter: Oi, amazing. Do I get some fireworks too? Ulrich: yeah, we can we can we can steal the the ludology fireworks here. I'm sorry, Ludology. Peter: yeah. Ulrich: We are big fans, so but fireworks. Peter: Fireworks. Ulrich: So three golden stars. Okay, let's Peter: Nice. Am I now supposed to give you also something or do you Ulrich: No, no, no. I I I just decided you won in this instance because I Peter: Okay. nice. Ulrich: I think it's a much better example than my flimsy thing that I came up with. Let's go to the next element of a definition, which is conflict or contest. And I guess I'll start this round. I mean, what I came up with, and it's probably not the only Possible example is Rory's Story Cubes by Rory O'Connor. if you're not familiar, it's just there's like 57 different sets by now, but each set just has a few dice, and each die has on each side a pictogram of something. You roll them. And then you tell a story with the symbols that are there. And in its freest form, there are like in the rule set, there are a few forms that you can play with this object, which are a bit more rule-bound, and and there might even be something where you play against each other. But in its purest form, you just roll those and come up with a story together. And this is probably also true for other. like these pure storytelling games where you're just getting a prompt. Because not only is it cooperative, you also do not have an adversary in the game. You you just get a prompt by the game, which I would argue is even helpful and not a hindrance. Peter: Your your nemesis is the absence of your creativity, kind. Ulrich: so that's what I came up with here, where I cannot see because Peter: That is very nice. Ulrich: like first I thought, isn't that just any cooperative game? And then I realized, especially through one of the definitions, which mentions yes, Sutton Smith says, in which there is a contest between powers, explicitly not players, but powers. And that obviously then would include every cooperative game where you're kind of playing against the game. So I had to throw that idea out the window. But these things, these storytelling games, as I said, Rory Story Cubes and others, I don't see a contest here. Peter: Yeah, so I also I mean I was like way more nitpicky because Ulrich: Ha ha ha. Peter: first off I thought conflict or contest, uh-huh. So they mean every so every type of obstacle that you could go about. Like you play, you meet something that hinders your path and then you come over that and then you pfft win or whatever or get to the next level. I looked at all these like quoted definitions and I found out that it is like a contest or a conflict or a contest. And then I thought, well, what if there is simply no contest or no conflict? And then so my first example is obviously the winner's game. the second Ulrich: Which is the one from before, I see. Peter: And the second one, which is something where I might get your sympathy with because I know that you played it a lot, is finished by Friedemann Friesen. In there there is Ulrich: How is there no conflict in there? Peter: there is no conflict. You you just you are sorting files, you are sorting numbers. Like, yes, there is a game system that makes things complicated, but there is no area control, no armies, there is n not not a contest where I go against someone else or a virtual player that kind of has the same goal than me, and we have a contest against that. I just like do my thing. Ulrich: I strongly disagree because the and you also played finished a lot. Okay, just one sentence finished, Peter: That's true. Ulrich: Friedemann Friese, fantastic game. both of us have played it a lot, and I mean a lot. I play it basically every day. you have the cards numbered one through forty-eight, you shuffle them, and then according to certain rules, you need to just sort them into so in the end your deck starts with a one, ends with a forty-eight. Peter: Passions for Eurogamers in a nutshell. Ulrich: Yes, but very much for Eurogamers. I would argue that it's just the

state of your initial deck is your hindrance, your conflict, your context, your your what are they saying? your your opposing power. Because you can absolutely lose the game. If you're not sorted the deck with like seven times going through the deck and sorting. then you lose. and you can do better or worse. I can I think today I did quite good actually. but just yesterday I had a horrible run and it just didn't. I just lost. Peter: What? Ulrich: yeah, yeah, yeah. Sometimes I'm just tired and I just want to throw move some cards around and it's it's it's at This point, like I think like five hundred games in, it's more a matter of meditation than of actually playing the game. in order for me to accept what you're saying, how is this not conflict? Peter: I mean it's a challenge, yes. It's an obstacle from for me winning the game, yes. like conflict that is like involves at least two parties that do have some sort of argument or fight. And Contest is like something like, we try to run 50 meters as fast as possible. We start at the same time, whoever crosses the finish line first wins. and both things I do not see in an unorderly stack of files that I have to sort. Because Ulrich: Okay. Okay. Peter: there's not there's simply not it. another party that I am competing with in any way, shape or form. Ulrich: Yes, but if you put it that way, it goes back to what I said before, then it applies to every cooperative game. Peter: Yes. I do I I Ulrich: Which I would strongly disagree with, especially with the Sutton-Smith definition of between powers, because there's many cooperative games where there is some kind of a system of okay, we do our moves, and then we take one card from the bad things happen deck. And you could argue that that bad things happen deck, which is usually shuffled to some degree, is just another version of the Starting deck in finished, which basically also just says, I dare you. Can you do it in this configuration? Peter: I mean, my my point here would be it is maybe looking too much into fictional things, but if the bad things happen, Dek, if it is like there has been a traffic jam, is that really a conflict? I would say no. If it is Doctor Evil sends his minions to to rob Ulrich: Okay. Peter: The bank, then I would say yeah, this seems to be like some sort of conflict with me, the the true and good and beautiful law enforcement. Ulrich: I see, I see. Okay, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Peter: but I do think that Rory Story Cubes is the better example. Even then the winners Ulrich: what do I get for it? Peter: game. Ulrich: Okay, then great. I I get points. What do I get? Peter: I I think three golden books maybe because it's the story cubes. Ulrich: Three golden books. Okay, cool. Let's move on to the third one, which is goal-oriented or outcome-oriented. I started the last round, so what do you have Peter: So I read these definitions and my brain goes. all these attempts of defining games seem to assume that all games come with a defined goal which is intended to be achieved by players. Ulrich: Mm-hmm. Peter: And consequently, I do assume that this is more a shorthand for a good game rather than a game. Ulrich: Mm-hmm. Peter: It is kind of more going like, what games are out there? All these games that I can think of give me An objective or give someone an objective. Therefore, objectives must be part of all games, but I really disagree with that. because generally speaking, objectives are more or less a motivational device that is like used very, very often in all sorts of games. So to to keep the joke rolling. it's not my real example, but I have to mention it first. It's the bottom game, which is very much like the winners game, but There is no end and there is no winning. Ulrich: So it's just the same as the winners game, but there's just no button. Peter: Yeah, you can just you press the button and nothing happens. And you you Ulrich: I see. Peter: do not even get the objective of pressing the button, but you can do it. So but a way better example is I sadly did not find it in my books, but I'm very sure I read about it, is the Yes game by Keith Johnstone, which is improvisational theatre Ulrich: I unfortunately gave those books away years ago because I did I I I studied acting, so I did some improvisational theatre, so I obviously got the two Keith Joneson books because they're like just the first thing you get when you get into improvisation. I do not remember the Yes game. Can you remind me? Peter: Yes, game is you have a group of people and somebody suggests what everybody is doing and everybody else shouts yes and then does it. And I do think there is like one more rule that like there there's somebody who can just stop it all. or anyone can veto. But what then happens is that you have like Twenty acting students that just like run around the campus and like play drums on trash bins and then they rob around on the floor. Ulrich: I feel enormously triggered. Peter: And having the time of their life simply by accepting something that is spontaneously thrown at them. Ulrich: I am pretty sure we did that, never as a performing tool, but as a training tool, because what comes out of that is that very famous phrase, yes and, which is at the basis of every improvisational theatre. Peter: yeah, so but like the the base supporting argument is here when you start this the defined goal does not exist yet. And then You just immediately fulfill any objective there could be. So Ulrich: Mm-hmm. Peter: it is not never about the journey from start to there's my goal, I go towards the goal. Like that does not happen. It just goes from I start, I fulfill my goal, by clapping Ulrich: Yes. Peter: with my feet. And then somebody says, No, no, we should be clapping with our elbows and then we do like very weird movements. Ulrich: Again, so triggered. okay. my pick is very boring because it's just Minecraft or SimCity. I mean the digital versions, not the Minecraft

games I published. Peter: sandbox. Ulrich: Just open world sandbox. Because yeah, sure, in Minecraft you could argue you can always finish the adventure path, and that's the goal. But Even outside of creative mode, you can just ignore that and do other things. And you can still spend weeks and months and years playing the game, having fun, without ever achieving a goal that the game set you. And in that context, what is interesting because I kept trying to come up with a board game example, but everything that calls itself sandbox in a board game version is usually coming down to it's just a euro with where you could do very many different things, but in the end we distill all that down to points, and then we c we have a we can see who did better. Peter: you actually already had a game like that, the thousand blank cards. Ulrich: That's true. That's true. Yeah. But so that's my example. which is clearly worse than yours. So Peter: I Ulrich: give you two yes and for that. Okay, let's go on to the next one. it's an activity, process, or event. When thinking about this, I realized: is this even a meaningful category for a definition? Because let's go through those three words. an activity, it depends on how narrow you want to define that. But in appreciating any kind of art form, I cannot think of a single one where not an activity is involved because I will have to listen to music, I will have to read a book, I will have to. Play the game and so on. because I'm pretty sure they don't mean like physical activity. Because, yeah, sure, I move my arms to move some pieces in a board game, but I'm sure that's not what they mean. Process. Yeah, I guess there's some value in there that it's not like. No, but even doing just one thing over and over is still a process. It's like. Again and event is also like as opposed to what? What what what is what even is or I guess in all three cases, what is the absence of an activity process or event? What is that? probably we're getting way into I mean yeah, Peter: Metaphysics. Ulrich: you or or like super deep. phenomenology like what is the absence of a phenomenon? that answer. Peter: that is like what w what is nil in in programming? Like yeah, Ulrich: Yes, exactly. So okay. Peter: can how many nils can you stack on top of each other? Ulrich: So what I'm saying is, and let me say that obviously the point of this whole exercise is not to like badmouth any of these definitions, which is having fun with them. But in this case, I really think like what's the value of saying that? It's not telling me anything because how can it not be an activity? Peter: yeah, but where's your example? Ulrich: Unless you're describing something not done by humans. I mean I mean the sun rising is not an activity, but Peter: I mean I I do agree. My my first reaction is like, what is this definition? What does it even want? Like it is like I define Earth as it is a collection of substance in the Milky Way. Like that is kind of that is how

descriptive this definition. Ulrich: Mm-hmm. Peter: would be because activity pro Ulrich: And I would argue even less. Peter: it just says activity process or event. Like I don't know mitochondrium making energy in one of my cells is a process. a bottle falling over is an event and briefing is an activity. So How do we distinguish games from all of these things? Ulrich: Yes. the argument I'm trying to make that yeah, sure it's true, but it's also it it also doesn't tell us anything. But Peter: Okay. Ulrich: I still came up with something. Kind of. in the game So You've Been Eaten by Scott Olms. It's a two-player game and There is a bot system. I mean, the two players are asynchronous, they have very different things to do. And for each side, there is a bot if you want to play the game solo. A bot you can, and that's of officially in the rules, you can play the two bots against each other. So obviously, if you do it physically, you still have to move the pieces and all that. So it's still an activity. But if you if we imagine a digital port of this game, the playing of this game in that moment would and we're back to the winning game, would literally just be starting pre pressing a button and tell the to tell the two bots to play the game against each other. And if I'm then not watching it, then one could Peter: I mean Ulrich: probably argue I it's not an activity for me. Peter: I I do not think that that is a good example because two bots interacting with a game I would argue that bots do not play a game because they do not are not eligible for playing because like of like voluntary action and stuff like that. But Ulrich: Yeah yeah yeah Yeah, yeah yeah, I I I Peter: It's clearly a process and probably one of the bots will be winning, so there is also Ulrich: Yes. Peter: an event. So I would say Ulrich: Okay. Peter: you you cut successfully the activity out of there with this, but it is like an or cons conjunction, so it is like activity or process or event. And I would say there's very much a process involved. Ulrich: Okay, that's I can accept that. Then I'm very much looking forward to what you've got. Peter: Okay, because first off I was like what even is this? because we are trying to define games here and this assumes a game that is currently being played and not the game as such. So my example is the monopoly on your shelf that is not being played. That is clearly a game. Ulrich: my god, that is fantastic. Yes. Peter: So and even if this does not make the cut, I also came up with a different example which is playing diplomacy with letters over time. Where Ulrich: Mm-hmm. Peter: the gameplay takes place outside of the actual game and you only write instruction and sending them off. by post, and that is the only time where you play. And then you just wait. So you are actually not having activity process or event for the majority of time there. And then if you stretch it a little bit, you could even say that if you look at idle games on a mobile thing, so now it gets a little bit technical because there's this illusion that these games like you click something and then they just go on over time and you come back later and it made so much progress. But unless they have like the stupidest programmer in the entire industry, this game only runs and does any calculation while you look at it. So it just looks at the timestamp when have you been back last, now we have this time, so you do the calculation on the fly and just like throw it at somebody. So Ulrich: Mm-hmm. So what you're saying is it doesn't Peter: even Ulrich: actually run while you're away. It technically Peter: Yes. Ulrich: runs the second you reopen it. And then Peter: Yes. Ulrich: it just fills in the blank. Peter: Yes. So I mean this is like I do think that the monopoly is still the strongest example. This you Ulrich: absolutely. Peter: you can shoot holes in this, but there there's Ulrich: Yes, no no no no I I I like the monopoly on the shelf. Because as with books, it's it's such a common thing to. I mean, how many games have I given away without ever playing them? And the unfulfilled potential of it, and you know, and sometimes you buy yourself a book, especially like I think the whole self-help market works on people buying books because they want to change their lives. They leave through it for like 10 minutes when they come home with it. And then they put it on the shelf and never look at it again. So the the unrealized potential, I find there's a a certain poetry in that. And I will absolutely give you two times 200 while you go over start. For that. With that we come to the next one, which probably is going to be very simple, at least for me it was, and that is involves decision making. Peter: Okay. can can can I bet a point that you have the same that than me? Ulrich: Yes, you can. You can. And you're probably right. Peter: Amazing. I do it. Ulrich: we can all agree there are games that are clearly games that do not involve decision makings. They're not gonna be good games, but I have war and shoots and letters. Peter: dammit, I had Candyland I considered shoots and letters. I Also, need to throw some shade here because involves decision making that applies to play, not to game. Ulrich: one could say a good game as an artifact has the potentiality of decision making in it, but obviously that will only be realized when it is being played. But that is true for so many other parts of what a game is, because otherwise we're back at the monopoly on the shelf. Peter: but it is I do think when it is about like if if we go for the div definitions of what is a game if we then do not define the game but something entirely different, like Ulrich: Mmm, I mean you know, the game artifact as just the physical object. Or, you know, in case of a digital game, the the code just lying around. If you're not playing it, you're never gonna be able to define it because otherwise a board game is a collection of cardboard and plastic

and wooden pieces that happens to be packed in a box for some weird Peter: Yeah, I would Ulrich: reason. Peter: I would even go further and say like here's an idea of the game and the physical copy is an instance of that that is produced. Ulrich: Mm, mm, mm. Yeah. Peter: Also, you you could say that yeah the the playing of a game is definitely the purpose of the game. But Ulrich: Yes. No, what I no, actually not even the purpose. What I'm saying is the artwork of game is only realized when it is actually being played. Peter: Yeah. But it Ulrich: You know, like a theater text, yes, a theater text in and of itself, you can just read it. That is an artwork of its own, but it's kind of not realized if there's not a production of it. Peter: Yes. Still if I try to define a car and I do that by a car is something that moves me from A to B Ulrich: Mm-hmm. Peter: that does not really define the car. Ulrich: Yes, but I think that's where art is different to what Heidegger calls stuff as in objects with a purpose. As in and a pure just like they're they they exist because they have a purpose and that's it. What I'm saying is art is different as in Its inherent value is not solely in the object. It needs some Peter: Yes. Ulrich: form of interaction with it, even if it's just beholding it or listening to it, to become art. So talking about the game that isn't played and only that can define the term game, I find questionable. Peter: Still I I do not I I do think it would be a better definition for a car to say that it has wheels and and an engine than like what is driving. Ulrich: exactly my point. In in case of a Peter: Like I sit there like s on a steering wheel and press the gas pedal. Like that is not what what a car is. Ulrich: Yes, but that's exactly my point that An artwork cannot be defined by just its physicality. It that's not its point. The point is to interact with it and then it does something with you ideally. So I absolutely think that game can only be defined if you think of a game that is being played. Okay. I think this is I think this is a whole episode. let's earmark that. we were Peter: Yeah, also. Ulrich: at involves decision making and I think we're just gonna not decide on points here because it was just too easy. And Peter: Yeah. Also I I wanna quick side note. I made this game called Peshfogel, and it's generally hated by gamers because you have very, very little decisions and it is like the the entire premise of the game is that you have a dice game that is very random and you mostly always lose. And which is like the Like it's not rewarding, no, it is like losing. And and has frustration as a resource, which gives you minus points when you lose, so like and this game you always have to continue rolling dice until you have a result, which by default like mostly will be losing. So but sometimes the dice do not comply. So you have people that are just forced by the game to owe the same pair of dice twenty times without getting a result and then in the end most likely just lose. And there here there is no decision making. in this part of the game, but it is w one of the strongest psychological effects that this game has on players. Because they kind of get into the treadmill and they have to behave like a hamster and then they get nothing for it. Ulrich: But there is there is I I'm sorry, I still haven't played it. There is a win state. So if you roll Peter: Yeah, they Ulrich: something particular, then so basically what you're doing is something like Flappy Bird or Dark Souls just with very different means, as in making the success a huge emotional event, which Flappybird and Dark Souls make by making the game absurdly hard, and you're making the g just the game Peter: Tedio Ulrich: meaningless tedious task so that then if if the win state actually occurs it's Peter: N nah, it is not that emotional to win. Also, like people will take it away from you probably. So no, it is just like this as like there is a win state and there is a lose state, and like somebody will win in the end, but it is more about the moment where the game forces you to do something where Ulrich: I see. Okay. Yeah. Peter: I mean it is a better example because there is there are decisions in this game to be made. Ulrich: Okay, so as I said earlier, we're just not gonna decide on points because that was far too easy. So no one is getting any Peter: Yeah. Ulrich: points. And we're just gonna go to the next one, which is not serious and absorbing. Which is also weird because it's actually just in Huizinger's definition, which reads being not serious, but at the same time absorbing the player intensely and utterly. I think it's your turn to go first. Peter: Okay. Yeah, mean pretty easy I think because Ulrich: Yeah. Peter: for not serious, my example would be roulette. because you can have very, very serious consequences and l lose all your life gains and that of your family in a single night. No problem. Ulrich: Absolutely. mine are professional sports or tournament poker or magic that kind of thing. Same Peter: Yes. Ulrich: same argument as yours. Peter: and then also it is not the case that games are always absorbing. So we have all played games where Andy takes half an hour for every turn, and then you just sit there, then you go out, smoke, come back, and it's still not your turn, At the same time, you're probably out of the game. cannot win. You complain a little bit, at least I do. Then I do my turn within twenty seconds because I know what I wanted to do for half an hour Ulrich: Yeah, you also had Peter: And then like this drags on for four hours. Like Ulrich: Yes. Peter: and it's torturous. Like how is this absorbing? Ulrich: I mean, as I said, it's only this point is only in Huisinger's definition, and as many things in Huisinger's definitions, like I covered in episode two of this podcast, they're more like stating things that are usually true or like tendencies and not like hard definitional

boundaries. You know, I I guess Peter: I also like Ulrich: we both understand what he means by it. But clearly Peter: Of course. Ulrich: it it i it's not a good tool to define what a game or even play is. Peter: I I would s guess even, like I I have not read the part in Husinger within the last twenty years, but I would guess that it is not even an attempt to define games. It is just like here is something that games can do which then gets misused as this is defining games. Ulrich: No, I mean Huisinger clearly he's trying to define play. He's Peter: Also that Ulrich: I haven't read through the whole thing. I've read a few bits here and there that have been quoted in papers. but he's clearly Peter: Mm. Ulrich: not defining games. He's interested in play. Peter: yeah, but even there it is like it is not it is play if it is not serious and if it is absorbing. Like that is not the logical structure. It is more like yeah, this is what what games actually can do to people and that is amazing because it's culture. Ulrich: Yes, absolutely. Because that's exactly his his point usually. This is what builds culture. And I think we can just conflate into that the next point before we go on giving us points, because that is also I know this is in Huisinger and Kalwa, and Kalwa is basically just making Huisinger a bit more exact and all. And that is never associated with material gain, because all I wrote here is just same as above. So professional sports, gambling, tournament magic, tournament poker, and so on. did do you have like a very different approach to this point? Peter: no, I I I I have something like streamer streaming games, like I have pro gamers, I have like the entire concept of Web3. Above them all The doubling die in Beckhammon that Ulrich: Remind me, it's been ages since I played back and I haven't played a lot at all. Peter: So So if you think you're winning, you have a die in there. So because by default you are playing like you are betting money. And Ulrich: Mm-hmm. Peter: you have a six sided die in there, which I believe starts at one. And then you can say, I am winning, I put this die on two. And then the other person can say at some point, because you cannot raise it yourself twice in a row, the other person can say, huh? That was a bad call. I'm going to double the odds here. And then it is times four. And this die goes up to times sixty-four the amount of money that was bad in the beginning, I believe. Or thirty-two or sixty-four. And this is instrumental to playing this game and to do the trash talk on the table and to like actually losing like f you think you have it under control but then it goes out of control and it is your money that you're losing. Ulrich: Yeah. It's there is something similar that I cannot remember what the actual mechanics of that was in Mahjong, where you can play several games and you can like increase and like double the bets and something like that. I I don't remember. again, also a very long time that I

played Mahjong. okay. So who gets the points for not serious and absorbing and never associated with material game? Peter: Maybe we should both get half a point. Ulrich: Which what kind of a point are we Peter: Half and golden NFT. Ulrich: A half an NFT, that is perfect. And then we come to the next one, which is artificial or safe or outside ordinary life. I think it's my turn again. With this one, I actually need to say that I was very surprised that what they left out here, and it's at least in Huizinga and Koalwa, is the fixed time and place definition. because What I'm quoting here is the game I had in the back of my head when I was like just thinking about it, not actually looking at this list, because I just assumed it's gonna be in there. but with the outside ordinary life, we're as as as close as as as we get to that with the list that Salem Zimmerman collected. My pick is Sneaky Cards by Cody Borst. Which is a deck of cards with like challenges that you do just in real life. It's they're all if I re I haven't played it, but I've seen people like play it, and I think I even got a card. The thing is, each card tells you you need to give this card to a person that. Peter: Mm-hmm. Ulrich: And it invites like Everyday little interactions and and stuff and then that next person is invited to give the card again and you can even I think there's even you can even register it online and see where the card goes. Something like that. My point being It's it's literally played during your real life. Your the idea is you you you have your current card with you, and you just look out for situations where you could give it away, and once you've done that, you go to the next one. And one could argue that yes, in that little moment, kind of a game is played, and then it's still outside ordinary life, but I think it's the the best example I could come up with with a transgression of that that it's integrated into everyday life. What's your pick? Peter: my pick is tank tactics. Ulrich: I am not familiar. Peter: so they it's a computer game. No, it it was actually a paper prototype, but so there is a kind of famous GDC talk, game developers conference talk, called the game that got banned at Halfbrig. Halfbrick is an Australian computer game studio. was designed by Luke Muskett and Joe Gatling. and here my take is if it was artificial, safe, or outside ordinary life, it could not bleed into the real life. Now this game they started doing it in their studio and within a day, roughly. It took over the entirety of the social life of the entire studio. And there were alliances, diplomacy, backstabbings, people who were not even in the game but had a good line of sight onto the board, got involved and got bribed into telling other people about who's approaching, even. I think they ran it for a bunch of days, maybe two weeks. like Ulrich: And it's like very roughly is it like area control or something, or what do we imagine w without going too deep into it? Peter: So we I do believe s like you you you have a grid and you have a little tank on it and you have I think tank has like a life or two life or three life and then every player gets three action points per day and can spend them. An action point would be I think move, turn and shoot. Now the t kicker is you can donate your action points to other people. And you have an entire day of scheming before you have to pull put in your action. Ulrich: No wonder they Peter: So Ulrich: had to ban it. That sounds anyone who has ever played diplomacy knows that this is a bad idea. Peter: So somebody comes up with the plan, wouldn't it be funny if we would kill our not so beloved middle manager or whatever and gets fifteen people on board for a mobbing session? But this is only the excuse to get all the action points and just to go on a rampage. And Like up to this day there's people who are not talking with each other anymore at the studio, I believe. Like it had severe consequences. so in a way I also noted diplomacy for being a famous friendship ender. And I even put down Neptune's Pride, which is an old browser game that I'm playing from time to time. Which is like a four X game, which has this thing of yes. like if you wanna send a ship to the neighboring star, like from star to star, and they're really close, it just takes eight hours. So a a game takes like six weeks and everybody is vulnerable. You cannot possibly win by yourself. You have to ally. with other people and people can simply backstab you. And there's like a lot of inside and outside of the game social ties between people and it is incredibly intense. Like Neptune's pride makes me wake up way before my alarm clock rings and this is unheard of for me. Ulrich: Okay. so your main example was the game from tank Peter: Tank tactics. Yeah. Ulrich: tactics. I mean it's probably again a whole episode about the the safety aspect because what are these games doing differently than others that these games and friendships and others where you're also mean to each other are fine. But I do not have an answer for that yet. into that. Peter: Yeah, I I do think though, like this this point of outside of ordinary life, it it does go towards like the fictional nature of games, which is a very good point, but I do think that it is like worded not not well like. Ulrich: I I I think I have a gut feeling because from what you said it was again that like very limited action actions per day in tank tactics. But a lot of time for plotting and scheming. Which Peter: Yes. Ulrich: then obviously is not happening while we're sitting around a table or something, or Peter: Yes. Ulrich: again in the what's the definition? The the concrete space and time the or discrete space and time. So it automatically happens alongside ordinary life. So in in the example, they would go Peter: Yes, and it results in massive Ulrich: on working, but then plotting and scheming for two minutes over there and then go on working again, and

then you have this bleed and it all becomes murky. And what is the game and what is reality? Peter: Yes, and also as a side effect the productivity of the entire studio plummeted during that time. Because this game as an event took over so much. Even though it is like, yeah, you can go in and do your action within a minute. On a day, that's all you need. Ulrich: Yeah. Okay. I think your example is clearly better. And I Peter: thank you. Ulrich: would give you three ended friendships for that. Peter: that's nice. Ulrich: it's a much better example for how you break the outside of ordinary life thing. which brings us to the next one. Creates special social groups. And I'm just gonna start with this because for me, again, it's a thing where it kind of bleeds into each other. I could not come up with something good that. Breaks it because with this one I felt it was almost easier to come up with games that do not adhere to this. Because yeah, sure, a lot of games have the potential of creating social groups. And yes, us sitting around the table is a social group, but I found that too weak. So I just said diplomacy as in that's a good example. Where a social group is being created for all the reasons we just talked about. Peter: Or disassembled. Ulrich: Or disassemble, but it's still even more so if you play it over time via post, via mail, via whatever. When there's even more plotting and scheming going back and forth, that clearly creates a social grouping. I find it a weak definition. I know I think it's again Justin Heusinger this one. What do you have? Peter: I mean it says here it promotes the formation of social groupings, which is cool. I do not know how far fetched that is, but I wanted to come up with an example that actively works against social groupings by just Ulrich: Uh-huh. Peter: being a game that you play by yourself and you do not stop. And that is bilateral by local funds. Ulrich: You do stop, I can tell you. Because Peter: But what but what does it take? Ulrich: about one and a half years of daily playing, because I stopped. I the only thing I have not achieved is the last challenge, which is, and now we're just playing without jokers. And I tried it like at least 50 times. And at some point I decided, unless the cards come out exactly right, there is no chance you're gonna win this. And then and that's the moment when I lose interest. If I'm just If I'm just expected to click and click and click and click until I get the right car combination, then my interest is gone. But before that Peter: Okay. But how much Uno with other social groups could you have been playing in this time? Ulrich: No, the problem is then I went back to Slate Aspire because all that the physical version of Slate Aspire did for me was reignite my desire to play Slate Aspire the digital game. Because Peter: Nice. Ulrich: because I was just like, it's doing exactly the same thing and it takes ten times longer. I am not interested, and I don't know why everyone

loves this. But I do want to go back to the Peter: So I got a like one comment that I wrote down here as well is that social interaction is one of the strongest motivators there is. Like it's not only very healthy for like mental health things, but also it is a crazy good motivation to meet other people and to have social contact. So I would like to point at the self-determination theory there, which is like a behavioristic psychological theory about motivation, that is like applied to workplaces and sports and also to games with a quite famous book called Glued to Games, which like goes into the thing there. Also here I I do have an example for a game that r very much creates social groups and that Ulrich: Mm-hmm. Peter: would be Magic the Gathering, because like l you you you have like a very specific breed of human that does this to themselves and I recently have joined them again. Ulrich: god, you have restarted playing magic. Did you feel Peter: Yes, and I I Ulrich: your bank account was too full or what did you Peter: Yeah, that was definitely an issue. also I I just won my first commander game with a beautiful Oz of politics game. Ulrich: My magic days literally were like the late nineties and I stopped in time. I Peter: Yeah. Ulrich: you know, like all the respect for that design, but I'm not gonna getting back into it. Peter: Yeah, I gosh. Like I I even do think that like what what makes magic tick is all the things outside of the game. It's just not not even what is in of the game. Ulrich: I I actually also th thought about magic as a good example of a game that creates a social grouping or any other like you know, those kinds of games where you only play that, like chess, go, Warhammer, magic, Peter: D and D Ulrich: D, and a few others, where it's very common that people play this game and this game only for years. Peter: Yeah. Also I mean like guilds in World of Warcraft, like Ulrich: yeah yeah yeah. Peter: or in any other MMO PG. Ulrich: But I'm just realizing that the category still creates social groups that literally any single player digital game Is breaking that. Peter: Yes. Ulrich: And it's exactly because before I said something along the lines of I don't see the value in this statement. I wanna revise that because it's exactly something that board games can do very easily, very directly. Or or it's almost the default state of board games, where in digital it's the opposite, where the default state is single player. Obviously, in both worlds, the opposite is now also common, but not the default state. Just as reminding ourselves in board games that this is a big quality we have. We bring people at a table together, and that's probably the reason for a lot of people why they play board games. So that. So create social groups. Your main pick was what again? Peter: Palatro. Ulrich: I mean for that I'm giving you five jokers because Peter: I know how to play you. Ulrich: Yes, Alright. we come to the next point, which is voluntary.

And I think it's Peter: Yes. Ulrich: your turn to start. Peter: yeah, so voluntary. So once again this is like goes into play and this does not go into game. me being nitpicky. I do feel that it is very similar to the decision making point in that sense. And also it does touch on another very strong motivator in games, which is agency. Like the thing that I decide what I want to do, or I can Ulrich: Uh-huh. Peter: do what I want to do. and if you are having something that happens involuntarily within a game, this can be extremely powerful. And so I did not go for playing an entire game involuntarily, but doing something in a game involuntarily, and the thing that I would Point two is ripping up cards in pandemic legacy. Ulrich: yeah, and that triggered a lot of people, yes. For you that was Peter: But this is my Ulrich: an involuntary process. I kind of enjoyed it, I have to I have to admit. And I did actually Peter: Nah, Ulrich: rip them up. Peter: yeah, Rob Robo and Matt Lee Cock, right? Was it? Ulrich: Yes, yes. Peter: Okay. yeah, but I do think that like if I do not voluntarily play a game but involuntarily I would agree with Kaloir. that I am not playing. Like I'm interacting with the game, yes, but I'm not playing. so that is why this is a kind of a very weak point I because I do agree to the voluntary part to be constitutional for play. Ulrich: Yeah, I mean I made it easy for myself. here I just have any play any game played in the setting of a corporate training exercise. There are games I I have actually for a while like worked for a company that did these kind of things. there are games made specifically for that. But I've also been personally in situations or heard of situations where just normal regular games were played as a team building exercise and so on. And obviously that is not a voluntary buy-in. It can still result sometimes in the people having fun. Sometimes and and I would guess that's the goal of whoever puts this thing in front of the people, but it's clearly not voluntary. Peter: Yeah, because you're very much judged and like who knows how it affects your promotion, how you play against or with your boss. So I mean I'm having a warp perspective here because like I work in a video game company where where people actually do like to play games. And but yeah. Ulrich: That has nothing to do, as I said, and I have seen that you can still then have fun eventually, maybe. But your buying into the game was not voluntary because it's not like you could have just said, no, I'm not I don't feel like I don't know, Catan today. I'll just go and do my emails. Peter: Yeah, I do work in companies where I actually do have the possibility to opt out, which is nice. But Ulrich: I mean that is that is great, but it's probably not the standard for corp corporate culture. Peter: No. I I do see your point there and I do think it is the bigger point than ripping up cards in Pandemic Legacy. I also would. So I would give you two performance improvement processes for this one. Ulrich: wow, okay. Okay. two performance improvement processes for me. which brings us to the next point, which I this is this is where I would bet a point that you have the same as me. And that is next point is uncertain. And it is my turn to start. And I have tic-tac-toe or any other game that has been solved for a human. I mean, there's plenty of games that have been solved, but only for computers. but tic-tac-toe is the best example of unless you're four years old. and are introduced to tic tac toe for the first time, it is not uncertain who will win. Or how the game progresses even. I mean, there's slight variations of how you can go about, but it will end in a draw and you know. Peter: Yeah, I so now it is a little bit bad that I have like three examples and one of them like the last example was Tic Tac Toe when played properly. Ulrich: Well well Well see. Okay, what are your two others? Peter: I yeah, first off this seems to be rather about the state of mind of a player than about the a defining quality of a game. Ulrich: Mm-hmm. Peter: So additionally it seems to be more of a mark of quality of games rather than an inherent quality of a game. so you might ask, how could it be that the outcome of a game appears uncertain to me as a player but is very certain and deterministic? And my first example here would be Candy Crush, which has per level a defined random seed. So the the same thing happen. Depending on my actions, I may take like a different branch, but it is 100% deterministic what is about to happen also based on my actions. another example that I have, like my third or second example. is to play Candyland with an open draw pile. so in Candyland i if it's your turn you take you you reveal usually the next card and then that card shows a color and then you go to with your pawn to the next field that has this color. So from the start the entire game is certain but people do not know what exactly this certain is. So I thought you could make it a little bit more obvious but by also opening like by removing the uncertainty there. Ulrich: I mean there's plenty of games that are Close to deterministic if you would just reveal how the deck is constructed. But the uncertainty or what I'm saying is the uncertainty only comes from the fact that cards are not revealed yet. Peter: Yes. Ulrich: Okay. So I guess I would give you one. What's like good candy in candy crush. I haven't played in ages and only for like two hours until I got bored. Peter: I think I never played it. I mean candy seems good. one one for Ulrich: Yeah, just okay. You get two pieces of candy. That's Peter: for the crush and one for the land. Ulrich: Yes. let's go to the next one. Make-believe and or representational. what we said. Peter: So yeah, the the quotes say like with Calois, accompanied by a special awareness of a second reality or of a free unreality as against real life. And Crawford is quoted with that subjectively represents a

subset of reality, and creates a subjective and deliberately simplified representation of emotional reality. So and here's the thing. I kind of understand these takes as like defining games as there are fictional happenings that happen through playing a game and Ulrich: Mm-hmm. Peter: guided by the game. And I absolutely do agree. So I do I do not wanna shoot against this. However, my biggest concern with this kind of definition is that it seems to me very easy to hijack the make believe part for different agendas. Like if you are trying to go for a game simulate a part of reality kind of simulationist approach. which I associate Rough Costa with. so I do think that this definition could be like misused in a way. Ulrich: That actually if I can just jump in here because the only thing I came Peter: Yes, please. Ulrich: up with here is any gamification that happens in real life. So leaderboards for the fastest cashier or or just eBay or you know Any injection of game mechanics into real-world things can obviously not be representational. I also think they're a horrible idea, and and I also think that's why gamification doesn't really work or is not a thing anymore. Hmm? Peter: Yeah, but it's also then not games. But then if it's gamification then it's not games, right? Ulrich: Yeah, but it's trying to be. And we've been very loosey-goosey with our picks my point the cashier that is evaluated with a leaderboard as opposed to other cashiers in the sh same shop is not gonna feel like that's representational or make-believe. They will feel that they are exploited to go harder. because probably whoever's at the bottom of that leaderboard is gonna have a talk with the boss. Peter: Yeah, so that is not very much make believe, yes, and it is like also used to to to bad ends. So here my pick is goes into the other direction so it is not like against it but for it because I do think that this make-believe includes any sort of roleplay that you could have and also any sort of here is a game and the game changes the rules of reality when playing it And my thing that I would pick here to illustrate it would be food chain magnet Ulrich: That's not what I expected with that preface. Peter: Okay. Ulrich: Okay, elaborate. Peter: where you basically assume the role of a CEO of a small fast food restaurant and you just pull every trick in the book to not pay people to exploit them and to like destroy your competitors by making people wanna eat burgers when the others people are only serving pizza. Ulrich: So you're saying it's it's doing a good job as basically a simulation? Peter: It does a great job in giving me in kind of putting me into the position of an evil capitalist. Ulrich: Splotter has always been very good at that. I have not played still not played Fujian Magnet yet because I will probably be horrible at it. And it also takes a long time and you need you need a few people that want to do that. But I do kind of admire Splotter for They have this ability that at least sometimes do like something that is clearly a an economical simulation, but have basically the critique built into it by being quite realistic. They had like this game years ago, like greed.inc or something. Which was basically a comment on the dot com bubble. there was a commodity called blah blah, if I remember correctly, which you could sell for a lot of money. The game had a few problems or or we didn't really click with it, but it was very simulationist and at the same point very critical by showing exactly what's happening, which I find interesting in an economical context. Peter: had actually a second example here Ulrich: Yes. Peter: which it goes in a complete different direction which is I do find it very interesting when games or when the dynamic of a game b bleeds back into reality. So where you kind of have Ulrich: Mm-hmm. Peter: a make-believe within the game that then like bounces back into reality and you go like holy shit what is happening here Ulrich: Mm-hmm. Peter: and my pick for That would be the mind where Ulrich: Mm-hmm. Peter: basically I try to like synchronize my sense of timing with other people and sometimes it just like magically works too good so that I suddenly think I'm am I a telepath or anything. And you have like this like small epiphanies that are mainly just like random or like very close random misses, but it kind of has the make believe within the game and then snaps back into reality of like make you believe in reality, Ulrich: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. That's I I totally get what you're saying. interestingly for me, the mind didn't have this effect because we did in drama school, we did so many exercises that basically went into the same direction. Peter: Mm-hmm. Ulrich: including one where it was just about counting. Basically, the task was as a group, we need to count. just starting from one, as far as we can go, but the moment two people speak at the same time, we have to go back to zero. And you know, like the first five tries, you make it to like 10. Yeah, if you do that for a whole day, especially in a group where you know each other very well, You get to like 2000. And this experience of this almost magic or this telepath feeling. I've had this so many times before that the mind didn't do that. I was looking at it, I was reading the rules, I was like, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's gonna work. Because I already Peter: Ha ha. Ulrich: knew, so it didn't have to have this, like for many other people, this this this bafflement that this can work. Peter: Yeah. Ulrich: but I absolutely get what you're getting at. And because of that, I'm just gonna give you. What is there in the mind? There's really just numbers. There's nothing I can give you. Two minds, I guess. Peter: This a shuriken that you can throw to destroy. Ulrich: two shurikans. Yeah, okay. That's that's Peter: Yeah. Ulrich: I completely forgot about those. Yeah, Peter: thank you. Ulrich: because of that, even though I really admire the

design, I've only played it like once or twice because I was like, Yeah, yeah, yeah, this works. I know. Yeah. Peter: Yeah yeah, I I really liked it. I for for me that was like the game world needed that. That that this is like that this Ulrich: absolutely, yes. Peter: is possible and it's even like economically viable to do a strange thing like this. Like I I Ulrich: Yes. Peter: really I I found it great. Ulrich: No, I also, as I said, I I have the greatest sympathies and and admiration for this design. It's just for me, it didn't do something new, but that is entirely my history's fault and has nothing to do with the game. The game is fantastic. And if you haven't played, Peter: Yeah, I I do have Ulrich: go out, buy it now, play it five times. Have we mentioned who it's by? Peter: no, that is Wolfgang Warsch is the map. Ulrich: The The Mind by Wolfgang Warsch. Go out, get it, play it if you haven't. Peter: Yeah. in my humble opinion his best design that I've played, but that is just my opinion. Ulrich: Yes. All right. So let's get to the next one, which is inefficient. you start because I will have a whole discussion here. Peter: That is fantastic because for me it's very short. Ulrich: Okay. Peter: I do think this is a bad point. I would argue that if rules prohibit more efficient means is true, that reality would be even less efficient than. the game as it does not even let me achieve anything that only a game's rule would constitute. Ulrich: Mm-hmm. Peter: So I do not see the argument like games are inefficient because you do not get to do the ultimate thing that the game wants you to do. because this thing only exists because I played the game. So for I kind of do think it is a a pointless point. Ulrich: I also don't have an actual pick for inefficiency. I could not. really find a game, but I find it's an interesting point. That A lot of Eurogames, moral analytical games, are at their core efficiency puzzles. So the game's whole point is being efficient. And I find that an interesting you know, an interesting divergence between but since you're not even on board with the inefficiency definition at all, I guess we have a non starter of a discussion here. Peter: I guess so. I mean taking that argument like yeah, game super inefficient in a Euro game because why should I spend four hours if I just can put my wooden piece on Coin Trek five million. I mean that is like the argument. Ulrich: Because you want to play the game. Because then, as Suits put it, you're only adhering to the pre-lusory goal and not to the illusory goal, which is the goal within the context of its rules. The pre-elusory goal is just the runner wants to be at the end of the track. Or I want to be the highest up on the score track in this case. But Okay, I guess since it's about inefficiency we're just not giving out any points because that Peter: That that is absolutely something for that. Ulrich: Okay, then then I give myself one convoluted argument. Peter: One convoluted

argument. That is perfect. Ulrich: Okay, and we come to a system of parts, resources and tokens. No, it's two things. It's either a system of parts or resources and tokens I have not gone back to the actual text from Kosickian. But depending on how that is defined, my pick would be the game I spy with my little eye. Because it's clearly a game, but there's I mean, one could argue that the game tokens are the things in the real world that I can spy with my little eye that are blue. Peter: You know that I have had prepared to play exactly this game with you and the thing that I am seeing that you are not seeing is actually blue. Ulrich: Can I see it on the screen right now? Peter: No. Ulrich: Well that's that's an unfair game of Ice Five with my little eye. Then I forfeit my seventeen points and ask you to just tell me. Peter: It's the box of El Grande that you gave me. Ulrich: right. The old edition. Well no points for no one because we had the same thing. Which brings us to the last point. Is a form of art. And my point is quick and simple, and I will not be moved from this. There cannot be an example of it breaking because Either games are art or I I can what else would they be? If if the answer is, well, they're just entertainment, then I would ask you to re-evaluate what entertainment is, if not art. And the existence of bad artworks does not discredit the art form itself. So just because pulp novels exist does not mean literature is not art. Peter: Well I Ulrich: Well. Peter: I would disagree that all instalments of all games are a form of art giving given their very specific circumstances. And here is my pick for something Ulrich: Mm-hmm. Peter: where I would say I would have trouble accepting this as art. Ulrich: Mm-hmm. Peter: And this is a game called Uno, which was published by a company called Kara Magic Exports from India, which is a counterfeit Uno, which itself Ulrich: Yeah. Peter: is based on public domain games such as Mau Mau. So this is a Ulrich: Okay. Peter: one in one copy of Uno. It changed one letter in the title and then they got sued into oblivion by Mattel, I think. Ulrich: Mm-hmm. Yeah, I can see what you're doing there. I was also thinking when thinking about this point, what about like Nazi propaganda board games, of which I'm certain there were some? I guess my point is more that As soon as it's an instance of game. It is part of the art form of games. And yes, then there are very absolutely horrid examples of it. Or, you know, like Peter: Yes. Ulrich: actual Russian roulette or something like that. But I guess my point is more about games as a medium and also particularly board games. I think the discourse in the digital world is a bit further than in board games. What possible other thing than an art form can it possibly be? the only answer I could imagine people saying is it's entertainment. And entertainment for me is just like, yeah, that's just an artwork that is not too demanding. It is still an artwork. You cannot tell me that entertainment is not art. I mean not all forms of entertainment But like an entertainment through a movie or a book or a game is clearly engaging with an art form because what what else can it possibly be? And I think we need to our expectation of artwork from high achieving. Peter: I I do not even think that we are like in a horrible disagreement here. because like Ulrich: no no no no. I'm I'm just it's just something I'm passionate about. That's maybe that's why it sounds like this. Peter: Like is our games art yes. Does it mean there is bad art? Very likely. are there cases that somehow manage to exclude themselves from being art? Even that probably yes. Like that is I kind of think we are we we can be consistent here with each other. And I would like to quote Antoine Bozin, he who said in interview like a very, very famous French board game designer. Ulrich: Seven Wonders and among other things, Hanabi, Peter: Tunab ye Ulrich: many, many, many great games. Peter: in an interview he was asked if games were art and he said You make something out of nothing. How could that not be art? Ulrich: Yeah, that that I need to yes, I will keep that in mind. That's a good answer. I just came up with a thing without wanting to open too much of a discussion here, because this would be three episodes. A game entirely created by AI I think that's where the line for me would be. Because I believe without an artist there cannot be an artwork. Peter: Judges on the question if I sample art, do I still do art myself? Because that is how AI works. Ulrich: Yes, but without intent. Peter: Yes. Ulrich: Sampling is very different than prompting. Sampling is finding samples and putting them together. I can absolutely accept that that is art. Because you have found them and you have put them together with intent. Peter: Yeah, and that is not the same as a vector database. Like I I do see. Ulrich: Yes. Okay. And for that, I guess we both get a Greek marble statue. Because horribly that is if you say if you shout art at people, that's what they will think of. And I think it's a problem. Peter: so we Ulrich: I think people, especially in board games, and that is really near and dear to my heart. We need to understand that it's an art form. Because if don't We will not create works that people who doubt that it's an art form will recognize as artworks. Because then we will always be in like this entertainment category that I strongly believe is still art, because what else is it gonna be? And or as Antoine Bozar says, it's creating something out of nothing. But to round up this game, I'm not gonna actually count, but you have more points slash golden stars slash yes and slash NFTs slash ended friendships jokers candy and shurikans. So congratulations, Peter. You win, Peter: Thank you, thank you. Ulrich: you win a warm and fuzzy feeling, maybe accompanied by a victory lap. But that's up to you. Peter: That's amazing. I I can can use a warm and fuzzy

feeling every now and then. That's that's good. Ulrich: Right, right, it's a nice thing. So, Peter, this was absolutely amazing and great fun. And do you have anything to plug? What's your current game or is there something coming out soon? Peter: so there there's a game from me coming out in Korea right now. I I do not know if it's published yet or not, because I'm not not checking daily. it's called Big or Bang with Korea bot games. that but Ulrich: Is it is it one of those cases where if you're at Essen Spiel and if you run on Thursday, you will get a copy of one of the 20 copies they brought? Peter: no, they it's it's going to be on display for for demo purposes, but it's not going to be for sale. Ulrich: Okay, then what's your last published game that is a bit more widely available so people can go out and get it? Peter: Ooh, it depends on where you live actually. one of the the more popular games that I have out there is called The Brain. It is a cooperative card puzzle. I do think it's pretty good. It's like on the shelves in the Netherlands and in Belgium. There is also a version in the US published by play to z and I had heard that it's probably coming to Korea as well and to Italy in not too far future. So depending on the continent you're on Ulrich: Yes. Well, I would hope we have sooner or later listeners from all of these countries. Peter, I thank Peter: How I guess. Ulrich: you so much. This was really just a lot of fun. for you listeners, now comes the pretty weird game segment. Stay tuned. And Peter, I'll hope I'll see you another time. Yes. Peter: Thanks for having me. This was fun. Sounds: you Ulrich: Okay, this is the Pretty Weird Games segment where I talk about what's going on with the publishing house Pretty Weird Games. I'm gonna keep this very brief because this episode is already quite long, but I hope you enjoyed our discussion. So, the first thing I have to tell you, unfortunately, is we're moving the launch of the crowdfunding for the games we played to the spring. Of 2027. Originally, when we started this project more than a year ago, we were shooting for a launch date in the first half of 2026. This very quickly became apparent that that's not realistic. We then moved it to November of 2026, but now where this date is drawing closer, we realize We could somehow make this work, but we're doing this the first time, so We want to be ready when we launch. We don't want to be one of those projects where you wait forever for your game to arrive. So we want to make sure all the I's are dotted, all the T's are crossed when we launch. On a more positive note, the work on the game itself is going fantastic. We have a beta version already with all the illustrations and a lot of the graphic design done. We're currently running a first round of blind playtests where people get the game without any further comment and play through the whole thing. And send us back their notes. And the first reactions we're getting are very satisfactory. We're very happy with how it's been received so far. and we're also starting to work in a few of those criticisms that the first blind testers had to make this game as good as it can possibly be. And soon we're gonna launch a second round of blind play tests with those changes already in the game, and then we'll see how the reactions to that version are and we will improve the game even further. and that is actually all the news I have for you at the moment. If you want to keep up with us, the best way to do that is to go to prettyweirdgames.com and sign up for the newsletter. You will get these kinds of informations, along with information of new episodes of this podcast coming out and Everything else that might be relevant if you're interested in pretty weird games. You can also follow us on social media, on Instagram, and on Blue Sky. And the next episode of this podcast will come out in the first week of November. And I really hope you will tune in again for that. If you have any comments about this episode, go to prettyweirdgames.com and under each episode you will find a comment section. looking forward to getting into a discussion with you. And with that, I wish you all a wonderful October. Have fun at Spiel in Essen if you're going. And most of all, dare to be weird. you