{"title":"Easy games are still games for Suits","authors":"Micah D. Tillman","doi":"10.1080/00948705.2023.2257778","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTBernard Suits is commonly thought to have defined games as challenges. This paper argues that Suits could not have done so without ruining his larger philosophical project. It then argues that he did not do so. Suits defined game playing in quantitative terms (i.e. being more or less efficient) not qualitative ones (e.g. difficulty, struggle). The paper concludes by exploring the consequences of this shift in perspective.KEYWORDS: Bernard Suitsgameschallengedifficultyefficiency Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1. This is not Juul’s only problem with applying Suitsian theory to video games, but it is the one that is relevant here.2. Upton, apparently, was unaware of chapters 9 through 12 of The Grasshopper (Suits Citation2014), which Suits devoted to dealing with make-believe specifically, and role-playing games more generally.3. Nguyen (Citation2020) won the American Philosophical Association’s Book Prize for 2021 (see American Philosophical Association Citationn.d.).4. ‘Beyond formal and historical considerations, there are countless personal or idiosyncratic reasons that particular players might find a game difficult’ (Jagoda Citation2018, 207). See Strojny, et al. (Citation2023, 7) on ‘subjective difficulty’. See also Dziedzic and Włodarczyk (Citation2018, 710–11) and Paraschos and Koulouriotis (Citation2023, 1). Cf. also Suits (Citation2014, 40) and Boutros (Citation2008).5. In this paragraph, I imitate a line of argument by Suits himself from chapter 13 of The Grasshopper (Suits Citation2014, 155).6. The original version of Suits’s definition says that the rules of a game limit the means available to players. The final version of his definition says that those rules limit players to means that are less efficient than would otherwise be available.7. In fact, Suits worked ‘Is Life a Game We Are Playing?’ into Return of the Grasshopper as chapter 5.8. See, e.g. Suits (Citation1981; Citation1989, Citation2004, Citation2006).9. There is not enough room to quote these passages in full, but here are the relevant terms and their locations (all from Suits Citation2014) – Within chapter 3: a) p. 32: ‘dull’ and ‘easy’; b) p. 33: ‘harder’ vs. ‘more efficient’; c) p. 39: ‘effective’ d) p. 39: ‘useful’; e) p. 40: ‘simplest’, ‘easiest’, ‘most direct’, and ‘most efficient’ vs. ‘more complex’, ‘more difficult’, and ‘more indirect’. Outside chapter 3 there are also relevant passages: f) p. 64: ‘effective’; g) p. 90: ‘more difficult’; h) p. 91: ‘easier’ vs. ‘more difficult’; i) p. 91: ‘more efficient’ vs. ‘less efficient’ and ‘difficult’; j) p. 191: ‘challenge’, ‘difficult’.10. He used to be on the island with Jones, but they were playing a game called ‘Homicide’ and Smith ‘won’ (Suits Citation2023, 58–59).","PeriodicalId":46532,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Philosophy of Sport","volume":"63 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Philosophy of Sport","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.2023.2257778","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ABSTRACTBernard Suits is commonly thought to have defined games as challenges. This paper argues that Suits could not have done so without ruining his larger philosophical project. It then argues that he did not do so. Suits defined game playing in quantitative terms (i.e. being more or less efficient) not qualitative ones (e.g. difficulty, struggle). The paper concludes by exploring the consequences of this shift in perspective.KEYWORDS: Bernard Suitsgameschallengedifficultyefficiency Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1. This is not Juul’s only problem with applying Suitsian theory to video games, but it is the one that is relevant here.2. Upton, apparently, was unaware of chapters 9 through 12 of The Grasshopper (Suits Citation2014), which Suits devoted to dealing with make-believe specifically, and role-playing games more generally.3. Nguyen (Citation2020) won the American Philosophical Association’s Book Prize for 2021 (see American Philosophical Association Citationn.d.).4. ‘Beyond formal and historical considerations, there are countless personal or idiosyncratic reasons that particular players might find a game difficult’ (Jagoda Citation2018, 207). See Strojny, et al. (Citation2023, 7) on ‘subjective difficulty’. See also Dziedzic and Włodarczyk (Citation2018, 710–11) and Paraschos and Koulouriotis (Citation2023, 1). Cf. also Suits (Citation2014, 40) and Boutros (Citation2008).5. In this paragraph, I imitate a line of argument by Suits himself from chapter 13 of The Grasshopper (Suits Citation2014, 155).6. The original version of Suits’s definition says that the rules of a game limit the means available to players. The final version of his definition says that those rules limit players to means that are less efficient than would otherwise be available.7. In fact, Suits worked ‘Is Life a Game We Are Playing?’ into Return of the Grasshopper as chapter 5.8. See, e.g. Suits (Citation1981; Citation1989, Citation2004, Citation2006).9. There is not enough room to quote these passages in full, but here are the relevant terms and their locations (all from Suits Citation2014) – Within chapter 3: a) p. 32: ‘dull’ and ‘easy’; b) p. 33: ‘harder’ vs. ‘more efficient’; c) p. 39: ‘effective’ d) p. 39: ‘useful’; e) p. 40: ‘simplest’, ‘easiest’, ‘most direct’, and ‘most efficient’ vs. ‘more complex’, ‘more difficult’, and ‘more indirect’. Outside chapter 3 there are also relevant passages: f) p. 64: ‘effective’; g) p. 90: ‘more difficult’; h) p. 91: ‘easier’ vs. ‘more difficult’; i) p. 91: ‘more efficient’ vs. ‘less efficient’ and ‘difficult’; j) p. 191: ‘challenge’, ‘difficult’.10. He used to be on the island with Jones, but they were playing a game called ‘Homicide’ and Smith ‘won’ (Suits Citation2023, 58–59).
期刊介绍:
The Journal of the Philosophy of Sport (JPS) is the most respected medium for communicating contemporary philosophic thought with regard to sport. It contains stimulating articles, critical reviews of work completed, and philosophic discussions about the philosophy of sport. JPS is published twice a year for the International Association for the Philosophy of Sport; members receive it as part of their membership. To subscribe to either the print or e-version of JPS, press the Subscribe or Renew button at the top of this screen.