All gaming is social

[Blood Brain Barrier]

"Social gaming": the very existence of the term suggests that regular, single-player gaming is not social.

But what makes them different, exactly? Most people would say the social gaming experience differs from the single-player one in that you interact with other people outside the game. Single-player games aren't social because you're only interacting with dead objects with nothing behind them, your friends aren't participating - it's just you alone with the game. Is this true?

Both types of games - single-player and social - place you within a particular type of world, a world in this sense being a 'familiar realm of interwoven significance'. The single-player world is entirely the creation of a group of people we call "developers", which means the responses and reactions to your own actions within this world also spring from the same source. If we can say that the actions of our in-game character are "ours" - a statement I think most here would agree with - it follows that all interactions between that character and the world's characters and objects are simply discourse between the player and the developer.

Now, it is true that the "realm of significance" within the social gaming world extends beyond the game itself, which means nothing more than that the "world" in a social game is extended to encompass your friends as well as the developer-created game-world. When you encounter a character in Skyrim you are essentially encountering a source of pre-programmed activity and reactivity. You do something and the game responds to that; and conversely the game does something and you respond. The actions and reactions are provided by programming, but that programming is supplied entirely by the developers own creativity. The interaction between the player's creativity and the programming is no different from a highly specialized form of encounter in "real-life".

It is the code which provides the programming for objects and characters in a single-player game: in a social game the code of your friends is merely replaced by a nervous system. The fact that this nervous system is, to no small degree, more complex does not distinguish it qualitatively - the mechanism of your friend's reaction to your character's action is the same mechanism which creates the way a monster in Dark Souls responds to your style of battle.

Now let's go back to the word "social": There are three definitions of the adjective, the most appropriate being "of or relating to human society and its modes of organization". What is it that makes social gaming different from single-player gaming? Only the mode of organization; both forms are relating to human society but in a different way, and both are most definitely social within the meaning of the word.

If single-player games are still "social", could we perhaps say that single-player gaming is less social? Possibly, but that is only because the real people in a "social game" are self-aware: They are aware that they are participating in the game and that is what holds significance for them. For that reason we might see their actions in the game as less restrictive.

 

[Zhukov]

Nope.

"Social" in this context means "involves interaction with other people."

When you play a single player game you are not interacting with other people, you're interacting with a bundle of ones and zeroes. You're not interacting with the developers. Your interacting with something they made. The people who made it are no longer involved.

If what you're saying as true then I could say I was socializing with Tolstoy when I read War and Peace a couple years back. But that would be rubbish, what with the guy being dead and all.

 

[Shadowstar38]

The fuck are you on about dude? Context is everything.

Social games are not literally games that are made to socialize with people. The word is meant to signify time wasting facebook games that lack any sort of depth and ropes a bunch of other people into the whole farce so you can annoy every to gift you stuff.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Both types of games - single-player and social - place you within a particular type of world, a world in this sense being a 'familiar realm of interwoven significance'. The single-player world is entirely the creation of a group of people we call "developers", which means the responses and reactions to your own actions within this world also spring from the same source. If we can say that the actions of our in-game character are "ours" - a statement I think most here would agree with - it follows that all interactions between that character and the world's characters and objects are simply discourse between the player and the developer.

I have two problems with this argument. First, you essentially attempt to form a tautology whereby the term social applies to everything therefore making it a useless phrase. Given that the phrase exists to distinguish between, say, Farmville and Skyrim, the effort is largely in vain. Moreover, your attempt is predicated upon the notion of forces outside the game itself, be it codified in some type of metagame (See for example the arguments regarding best PVP ship fittings in Eve Online or build orders for Terrans in Starcraft 2), zeitgeist (the fundamental basis of the "water cooler" moment) or other external factor.

The term social describes a game that has social hooks built within the game itself. While on the face of it this describes literally an game with a multiplayer component, if you look at the games the moniker is attached to you find that the game has, as a fundamental design conceit, the notion that you'll get your friends to play and participate. Combine that with the asynchronous nature of this collaborative effort and you'll find easily enough that the word "social" is being used to describe various mechanisms within the game different from social forces built in or that collect around other titles.

It is the code which provides the programming for objects and characters in a single-player game: in a social game the code of your friends is merely replaced by a nervous system.

This is a useful distinction considering AI is an unsolved problem of computer science. Any game I can think of that has ever existed has featured in one form or another the most rudimentary type of decision making mechanism: the finite state machine. While there are certain arguments to be made based upon the electrochemical nature of the brain that the brain itself has a finite number of possible states (given the set of neurons is finite, the set of all possible neural connections between all possible neurons is finite) but even this tends to fall flat since the structure of the brain is actively mutable. And, while similar mechanisms have been developed in computer science (self modifying programs are ancient for example and the language LISP is almost tailor made for this purpose) the problem remains that for most games the computer player will not be able to pass any sort of rigorous Turing test.

Thus, until the day comes that it is reliably possible to create AI within games that can pass a Turing Test, by definition it is possible to distinguish between the AI and a Human participant. Attempting to dismiss this because there is reasonable evidence to suggest that, in the abstract at least, the human mind isn't all that different from a computer program is folly when little effort is required to demonstrate the difference in most examples you might care to mention.

Now let's go back to the word "social": There are three definitions of the adjective, the most appropriate being "of or relating to human society and its modes of organization". What is it that makes social gaming different from single-player gaming? Only the mode of organization; both forms are relating to human society but in a different way, and both are most definitely social within the meaning of the word.

I think you miss a key point here. To point out that modes or organization are irrelevant when the constituent components are incredibly similar is little more than a transparent attempt to abstract a situation to the point that notable differences are irrelevant. To use sports as an analogy consider the Sports of American Football, Rugby, and International Football.

In each, you have a game that consists of two teams of players attempting to move a ball from one end of the field to another using their hands and feet. You also have a system of rules governing how one uses their hands and feet, how one player interacts with another player, victory conditions and plenty of other parameters. In this abstract world, the games are identical yet I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would agree with the claim that Football and Rugby are identical. They are similar, certainly.

If single-player games are still "social", could we perhaps say that single-player gaming is less social? Possibly, but that is only because the real people in a "social game" are self-aware: They are aware that they are participating in the game and that is what holds significance for them. For that reason we might see their actions in the game as less restrictive.

It is odd that you dismiss the quality of "self aware" given that self-awareness is a required mechanism for any social structure currently discovered in nature. A bit of machine code is not self aware. Thus the best it can do is simulate social structures. And aside from various schools of modern philosophy, most would not call a simulation identical to the real thing.

Fundamentally, the lack of true AI is what keeps games from being what you attempt to say they currently are. This is also what makes it impossible to have a game that is both story driven and non-linear. It is possible to do one or the other, but without some governing construct that allows the story to be guided, the best the game can do is play canvas for an emergent story - a story that the player constructs using various details in the game and filling in any narrative gaps with their own imagination.

 

[Loonyyy]

As Zhukov said: Nope. Socialising involves interacting with other people, in the context of a society. People. Code doesn't do that. You aren't building a relationship with a person by playing single player, nor are they building one with you.

Social interaction involves more than just the mechanics of causality. Shooting an AI in CoD isn't socialising, and shooting a person in real life isn't either. Neither is building a chair. Causal links don't imply socialising, they imply interaction. Socialising is a special type of interaction, between people, where knowledge is exchanged and emotional bonds are formed. Games do not do this, though some may simulate it to varying degrees.

Social games don't really involve socialisation, more the utilisation of a community as an in game resource. You don't socialise, you communise (I'm having fun with words here). Basically, you borrow your friends to use as resources for the game. It's not a cooperative or interactive system, and your friends in this context don't really build a relationship.

I think you should revise your understanding of socialising, realise the problematic labelling of some games as social (Which is more derivative of their location on social networks, and then think about it. The divide is much more clear.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Nope.

"Social" in this context means "involves interaction with other people."

When you play a single player game you are not interacting with other people, you're interacting with a bundle of ones and zeroes. You're not interacting with the developers. Your interacting with something they made. The people who made it are no longer involved.

If what you're saying as true then I could say I was socializing with Tolstoy when I read War and Peace a couple years back. But that would be rubbish, what with the guy being dead and all.

Books are different - they don't react to you.

I think you are missing the point with the interaction aspect. In all social interaction you are interacting with the thoughts and ideas of the person. These are always "something they made". Remember we're talking about games here. For something like sex you could say you are interacting with the person. But replace a tennis player in a game of tennis with a "bundle of ones and zeroes" in a game of Pong and you are in a discourse with the creator of those ones and zeroes. The fact the ideas are static only means the extent of the discourse is limited, not that it doesn't exist at all. That was addressed above and will only change with the development of AI technology.

 

[MagunBFP]

Nope.

"Social" in this context means "involves interaction with other people."

When you play a single player game you are not interacting with other people, you're interacting with a bundle of ones and zeroes. You're not interacting with the developers. Your interacting with something they made. The people who made it are no longer involved.

If what you're saying as true then I could say I was socializing with Tolstoy when I read War and Peace a couple years back. But that would be rubbish, what with the guy being dead and all.

Books are different - they don't react to you.

I think you are missing the point with the interaction aspect. In all social interaction you are interacting with the thoughts and ideas of the person. These are always "something they made". Remember we're talking about games here. For something like sex you could say you are interacting with the person. But replace a tennis player in a game of tennis with a "bundle of ones and zeroes" in a game of Pong and you are in a discourse with the creator of those ones and zeroes. The fact the ideas are static only means the extent of the discourse is limited, not that it doesn't exist at all. That was addressed above and will only change with the development of AI technology.

How is a book reacting any differently then a game? The Author/Developer is communicating their idea with you across a medium. A game reacts to you in exactly the same way a 'Chose-your-own-adventure' novel does when it tells you to turn to page 54 if you choose "something"

A social experience is a shared experience. Playing single player not social, taking about it afterwards, or even talking about it while you're playing thats social.

With the development of AI, would the interaction be with the artifical intelligence you're having the interaction with or the programmer who programed the code that enable the AI program to interact with you?

 

[Starik20X6]

'Social game' is the term given to a game with a large focus on interaction with other players, particularly online. It's not referring to the fact that you might happen to do some virtual socialisation by playing it.

 

[veloper]

You could say the developers are influencing the players of their singleplayer games, but that's clearly a one-way street.

 

[DoPo]

You could say the developers are influencing the players of their singleplayer games, but that's clearly a one-way street.

Speaking of streets, driving would be considered a social thing, since you're being influenced by the guys who made the roads...

 

[SonicWaffle]

If what you're saying as true then I could say I was socializing with Tolstoy when I read War and Peace a couple years back. But that would be rubbish, what with the guy being dead and all.

Rubbish...

...or pretty damn sexy?!

 

[SonicWaffle]

You could say the developers are influencing the players of their singleplayer games, but that's clearly a one-way street.

Speaking of streets, driving would be considered a social thing, since you're being influenced by the guys who made the roads...

Well, given that the majority of the time the way you drive is influenced by the behaviour of others (stop because that woman is indicating, keep an eye on the guy changing lanes, speed up because you see Michael Gove crossing the street in front of you), you might be able to make a case that driving is social.

You're interacting with people, albeit not verbally, unless you're one of those people who screams abuse at fellow drivers or pedestrians. There's a need to be constantly aware of what the peopler around you are doing.

 

[Thyunda]

You could say the developers are influencing the players of their singleplayer games, but that's clearly a one-way street.

Speaking of streets, driving would be considered a social thing, since you're being influenced by the guys who made the roads...

Well, given that the majority of the time the way you drive is influenced by the behaviour of others (stop because that woman is indicating, keep an eye on the guy changing lanes, speed up because you see Michael Gove crossing the street in front of you), you might be able to make a case that driving is social.

You're interacting with people, albeit not verbally, unless you're one of those people who screams abuse at fellow drivers or pedestrians. There's a need to be constantly aware of what the peopler around you are doing.

This is a better point than I think you thought it'd be. The communication, albeit non-verbal, is still communication. You are still part of a living network of signals going from drivers to other drivers, and from pedestrians to drivers, and vice versa. The entire time, though you're not developing a rapport with any of these people - unless you happen to stop at the same lights at the same time every day and wind up sharing the lanes with the same driver nine times out of ten - which isn't all that unlikely - you ARE socialising, because socialising is about the exchange of signals.

It's like, a dog that grows up around other dogs is far less likely to be aggressive to other animals than a dog who was brought up alone with a human family only. The mere presence of others can develop socialisation, and interacting with games is certainly NOT that.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

It is use a set of predefined feedback ALL OF WITCH have already been made.!

Spoiler: you rangggg?

sorry, can't help myself sometimes...

OT: no no no no, as reasons that have been listed by other people, single player games (in most cases) are not social, it's all predetermined outputs for you to enjoy.

 

[BroJing]

I'd actually argue that even social games don't deserve the title. The anonymity that the net provides means that alot of the interactions you're having aren't actually with a 'real' person but the persona someone adopts when there is nothing stopping them from doing so.

The only thing I'd actually call social gaming is local co-op but that's on the way out for the most part. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind online gaming but I just don't consider it a really 'social' activity.

 

[Mr.Squishy]

Are...are you high? Or the reincarnation of EternalNothingness?
I'm sorry, but you're speaking utter gibberish.

 

[LooK iTz Jinjo]

No. Just no. This is the kind of argument a reclusive 14 year old uses on his mother to justify as to why he doesn't have any friends.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Oh man I can't even remember the last time I got that drunk, circular arguments really are a wonderful things... a never ending stream of discussion, until you sober up at least.