In defence of The Game

no, it doesnt really matter to me, i just enjoy the thrust and parry of an intelectual discussion.
well rounded and presented argument is a fantastic ............game lol

No, it doesn't really matter at all Wildfire. In the scheme of things.
But Craig put up a debating point - one can either debate or just shrug your shoulders - poster's choice!

By the way, some forum users fail to distinguish the difference between a slanging match and a reasoned debate. One is a brawl in a pub car park (which this forum doesn't do) the other takes place in the debating chamber of a renowned university (OK, we don't do that either) but a forum discussion IN THIS PLACE is slanted towards the latter rather than the former. That is to say, most likely the participants most likely know each other and despite clashing of words have common aims and ideas. This forum does NOT do flaming (or whatever its called) but DOES encourage a difference of opinion, expressed well.

This forum does NOT do flaming (or whatever its called) but DOES encourage a difference of opinion, expressed well.

Well said.

Game
Game
Game
Game
Game

Ah, you see Wladek, you are just playing with words in your rather naughty and conceptual way.

A CiA event is an event. That's what it says. You can choose to call it a game, no matter, you can call your left foot your right hand if you wish. You might even say you can walk on your hands therefore it is a foot (but I don't think you would).

a circular point surely, as just as one could call ones hand a foot, one could call ones game an event.

While both 'games' and 'events' (or a substitute thereof) are both fun there is in a change of word an implied definition between the casual and the considered, the silly and the serious.

And my original point remains, that this implied definition is mistaken and we should not seek to condone or enhance this.

When I first started airsoft it was a game - no meaning other than dressing up vaguely like a soldier and shooting other people legally. Awesome fun. For a while. It would be a disaster if someone seeking such entertainment for such... simple entertainment were to join a CIA game - it has happened and it doesn't work. They don't get it.

I acknowledge that for those coming from regular airsoft that there feels to be a need for a substantive way of defining what we do as different from what an open day entails, but using the word 'event' (or anything other than 'game) does not appear to be it. Indeed on almost every thread organisers stress that this is not 'a blat in the woods' or an open day. As you need to state this beyond what you have called called your game/event then changing this name is insufficient and, as a response to this, redundant.

So, 'games' and 'events' are not mutually exclusive, just that one offers more than the other, should you seek it.

By the way, I'm not disappointed Craig, you qualified your statement to show exactly why you think CiA events are more than a game, even if you protest otherwise!

I do see your point, if I have gathered it correctly, despite your deliberate misreading of my statement and with debate like sparring aside there is a common ground.
You use the word event to describe a game that is worth travelling the length of the country for and spend a weekend attending, you are not defining a 'CiA event' as 'not a game', but as a 'game +', or as I put it a 'good game'. This in itself is fair enough, I shall not denigrate the laws of marketing, or your desire to define what you do as 'more than' what some others do.

However, and here is where those with aversions to points that revolve around the use of language (especially in a conceptional way) will want turn away, how we chose define ourselves, and what we do, is important. If we shun this word 'game', if we define what we do as being different to, or better than, a game, then we run the risk of 'believing ourselves', and loosing those elements of what we do which are inherent to a game.

(to continue the debate like sparring)

But again Gadge, you're choosing to define a "game" as something trivial. Think of the millions of pounds and many years of many lives that go into a little venture called the Olympic Games.

I don't hear anyone calling them the Olympic Events

Never heard of the phrase "Track and Field Events" then?

Or even, to take it to its natural conclusion, "Eventing"?

*EDIT* Ah, Nige beat me to it.

If we shun this word 'game', if we define what we do as being different to, or better than, a game, then we run the risk of 'believing ourselves', and loosing those elements of what we do which are inherent to a game.
(to continue the debate like sparring)

There you have it wrong - the word game isn't shunned, its merely seeking a more defining word. Incidentally, debating what others chose to call a happening is hardly worth a debate - it is what it is. Its nothing to do with elitism (if that's what you are alluding to) but saying 'this is different from the bog-standard', in a succinct way.

And my original point remains, that this implied definition is mistaken and we should not seek to condone or enhance this.

Not mistaken or implied, but explicit and intentional and we DO seek to condone this.

As you have said, you see this from a table-top gamer's perspective. We see it from an airsofter's perspective and the meaning this brings. PBI call it 'Airsoft Skirmish Battle', CiA call it 'WW2 Combat Events'. Whatever, but they aren't 'just' games!

I'm inclined to air my view, to put another vote in the ballot box as it were.

Upon lengthy conversations with the right honourable gentleman Craig this afternoon, my designation of what I would call a game is somewhat different than others. For example, Carly says to me "so what's the game about this weekend then?" I don't really pick on the fact that she says game, until perhaps having an opinion on this debate. Perhaps in one situation, a collection of games could be called an event. Much like combat missions, or indeed the CIA format. A number of games which are put together to make the hobby we all love doing. I find myself a bit Tongue tied, how can you describe something using it as the word in context!

To me, a game is something you play, like football, where there is a tageble reward for your success. Some might say that the feeling of victory or indeed taking part (and having a good crack with your mates) is reward enough. I call what we do events, not just because I don't consider it a game. For me it's usually not just the combat element, moreover the banter leading up to the game, social, pre'game' build up and playing it through. All of which I would say amalgamate into what I would refer to as an event!

I never really have been the best at expressing what I mean on the forums in text!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Yes, good call Webby. I suppose 'game' could be associated with winning and losing - my wife might say, on my return, (after "Do you want any help getting out of the car?") "So, did you win the game?" To which I might reply, if I had the presence of mind or the inclination for further explanation, "No one, dearest wifelet - it was an EVENT not a poxy game."

Ah, the common ground has been extensively bombed with, well whatever a very big type of bomb is.

The word is shunned, as you have done it only a sentence after saying that it was not by emphasising that CiA and PBI events are not 'just' games.

So regardless of perspective you say are seeking to find a more defining word? The most defining I can think of is, and you will no doubt be very surprised for me to say this, 'game'. The word 'event' defines, well, nothing does it? beyond that something is happening. However it is not the 'Airsoft Skirmish Battle'/'WW2 Combat Events' titles that I am speaking of. If I invite a friend around to play Flames of War, I say 'do you want to come round for a battle', but I am still aware - as is he - that we are playing a game.

Does a game involve an element of winning and losing? Yes it does, as does what we do. We do not care (I hope), as the experience is why we play, but of course it involves winning and losing. Even if not when looking at the whole event, individual portions of it do. The most basic of our actions involve winning and losing in whether we shoot someone or get shot. It is the competition, the game playing, of how we accomplish or fail this pursuit on which all scenarios, in all games, are structured.

It is possible to play a game where no one wins, where the act of playing the game is the winning itself - do you 'win' a computer game? You do not win it, you finish it, but it is still a game.

Football, played for a tangible reward, I would define as a sport, not a game. If played for your living it is a profession. I have (in my distant and energetic past) played football where I would define it as a game, but that was because there was no score or team, just people playing with a football. You can define football as a game, but it is not the tangible reward that defines it as such, it is you pitching your skill against an opponent while you attempt to accomplish different goals (see what I did there). Which is exactly what we do.

Yes there are other things going on besides the playing of the scenarios, but there are in any game. even if you just go around to someone's house to play snakes and ladders, there is the same social aspects as, but you are still going to play a game.

Definitively what we do is play a game, this may shock you, you may think of yourself as someone who doesn't play games. But you are.

Chomley said that what CiA PBI put on are not 'just' games, so I will ask that immortal question - why? Or more importantly why should they be? They have more thought and effort put into them than an open day, of course they do and rightly and wonderfully so, but all that thought and effort is there to enhance the game, that is it's purpose. They are just games, just good games.

Repeating a mantra in a desperate attempt to justify the unjustifiable does nothing to enhance an argument! I fear you over exposure to the world of little tin men and rule books has skewed your perception. 'Game' is not shunned. Everything has its place. Words mean something.

Its very hard to explain (although I don't really need to explain as I know you know already and are debating for the sake of it) without comparing and contrasting with other's WW2 happenings, which would be rather invidious. However, a PBI Airsoft skirmish battle is a collection of short games - CiA events are one continuous action flowing across a day/weekend. No stopping or starting as all other organised games are. CiA events are distinctly different in their concept and execution and close to a traditional private reenactment battle than a traditional airsoft game. A CiA battle is distinctly different from a Wladek game or a Gunman game or any others in 'Other WW2 events'. CiA events are not just an airsoft game. Hell, they may not even be a 'better game' - they may well be complete poo in a player's eyes. But 'game' is too lame a word as a description - I don't look forward to airsoft games, but I do look forward to airsoft events.

Gosh, I just love the development of language (geek alert!).

If enough of us use a word to describe somethin consistently, they have to change the dictionary to match. So lets be clear amongst ourselves and get it into the WIKI/ spread it around!

Dictionary.com definition of the word game:

game1    /geɪm/ Show Spelled [geym] Show IPA noun, adjective, gam·er, gam·est, verb, gamed, gam·ing.
–noun
1. an amusement or pastime: children's games.
2. the material or equipment used in playing certain games: a store selling toys and games.
3. a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.
4. a single occasion of such an activity, or a definite portion of one: the final game of the season; a rubber of three games at bridge.
5. the number of points required to win a game.
6. the score at a particular stage in a game: With five minutes to play, the game was 7 to 0.
7. a particular manner or style of playing a game: Her game of chess is improving.
8. anything resembling a game, as in requiring skill, endurance, or adherence to rules: the game of diplomacy.
9. a trick or strategy: to see through someone's game.
10. fun; sport of any kind; joke: That's about enough of your games.
11. wild animals, including birds and fishes, such as are hunted for food or taken for sport or profit.
12. the flesh of such wild animals or other game, used as food: a dish of game.
13. any object of pursuit, attack, abuse, etc.: The new boy at school seemed to be fair game for practical jokers.
14. Informal . a business or profession: He's in the real-estate game.
15. Archaic . fighting spirit; pluck.
–adjective
16. pertaining to or composed of animals hunted or taken as game or to their flesh.
17. having a fighting spirit; plucky.
18. Informal . having the required spirit or will (often fol. by for or an infinitive): Who's game for a hike through the woods?
–verb (used without object)
19. to play games of chance for stakes; gamble.
–verb (used with object)
20. to squander in gaming (usually fol. by away ).
—Idioms
21. die game,
a. to die after a brave struggle.
b. to remain steadfast or in good spirits at the moment of defeat: He knew that as a candidate he didn't have a chance in the world, but he campaigned anyway and died game.
22. make game of, to make fun of; ridicule: to make game of the weak and defenseless.
23. play games, to act in an evasive, deceitful, manipulative, or trifling manner in dealing with others: Don't play games with me—I want to know if you love me or not!
24. play the game, Informal .
a. to act or play in accordance with the rules.
b. to act honorably or justly: We naively assumed that our allies would continue to play the game.

What we do is conduct an activity to a set of agreed rules for equipment, dress and conduct. We play game.

Not just any game in CIA as there are games and there are games (see the definition) from the very inconsequential to life and death simulations used by the military (lets play nuclear war anyone?).

That word simulation just crept in, sounds a bit like re enactment without the historical requirement...hmm.

I agree with everyone, its easier that way. But we do play a game but within what we do it is a game on a stupendous scale, a real event, a periodic hapening of suffient impact to mark it out as extraordinary! And it is a simulation of past historic events, a re enactment game...

Call it what you like, I will be lobbying for a return to the Roman Games where wild animal eat people, now thats what I call entertainment!

salve!

Well, a CiA event contains a game - that is a truism, not quite sure why Craig is debating it. But we need to infer more.

I mean, an omelette is made from eggs. No two ways about it, that's what it is. I can whack a couple of eggs into the frying pan and a minute or two later I can be stuffing my face.

However, if I pop into a Gordon Ramsay restaurant and spot an omelette on the menu it wont say "Omelette, made from two eggs". The description would meet my expectation of paying £25 for a delicious comestible. It may have ingredients that are an acquired taste, it may be made from ingredients that are hard for non-chefs to acquire, it will be made with ultimate care and be a delight on the eye as well as the palette. And I have the special, exclusive ambiance and personal service.

Its made with eggs for sure. Its definitely an omelette. But its not just an omelette, pfff I can have that any time of the week.

Words do not define, we attach definitions to words.
To define 'game' for the purpose of CiA all C-W has to do is insert a definition in the rules. That then becomes the CiA definition of 'game'
The same for 'event'.
The 'Living History/Re-enactor' debate pops up every 12 months along the same lines. It's a circular and pointless exercise, most have not got a clue about debating technique and even less idea about logical fallacies. Confusion reigns about attacks on the point or the logic and attacks on the person. Ego drives their debate not the truth. They dont know their post hoc from their excluded middle.

Heh... the same argument occurs in mainstream airsoft as to whether it's a sport or should be a sport..

All a fairly pointless argument, hence why I've not been taking part much.

Personally I'm a gamer, roleplayer and a re-enactor and I have my own views on what I think a WWII airsoft game is. If anything it's closest to roleplaying... Now I know that's going to get some people's backs up! lol...

A short word or two that summarises is what we need, not reams of explanation. A CiA game/event is a "WW2 battle event" - it is because we say it is and doesn't require debate. A Gunman game/event is a "2WW (sic) Filmsim Battle Weekender", a PBI game/event is an "Airsoft Skirmish Battle". No arguments, that's what they are.

Its NOT about redefining words but it IS about distinguishing yourself from any old airsoft game, of which there are thousands every year, and have little to do with what we do other than the tool in our hands. Ahem.

What Craig is doing is proving a truism, which is a bit of a no-brainer. Certainly nothing like the circular Living History/Reenactor debate.

However, a PBI Airsoft skirmish battle is a collection of short games - CiA events are one continuous action flowing across a day/weekend. No stopping or starting as all other organised games are.

But not terribly unlike many open days where the evening is one long 'game' with no stopping or starting for three hours or more as the evening is played as one regen over multiple objectives?

And certainly no different at all from the fireball WWII 'game' you, yith, guy and i went to nearly four years ago where we played a whole days re-gen wwii over a whole site that had multiple key objectives and a break for lunch which was self supplied - not haveing a go but i fail to see how aerial was in any way different from that and how it was in any way less of a 'game' and any more serious.

Equally you could argue that PBI engagements are less like games as they represent a series of short 'actions' with re-orgs happening between (as actually happens in reality in war).. you dont *normally* fight continuously for a whole day... you go to a FUP, you put in an attack , you move off the objective and then re-org, reload, treat casualties and have BCRs sent up the line and then move on to the next phase - i personally consider that more like real soldiering, its certainly how folk were trained to fight then.

Oh ffs, stop turning this into a pissing contest gadge. You may not want to sound like you're "having a go" but that's exactly how you're coming across.

This is not a "who's games am bestest?" debate!

Not at all Pete, I wish you'd stop jumping in defensivley all the time too.

As Dave said its a debate.

Not at all Pete, I wish you'd stop jumping in defensivley all the time too.

As Dave said its a debate.

It's not me that's jumping in defensively. It's you. Constant references and comparisons between pbi and CiA and shameless self promotion!

It WAS a debate, until you reverted to type.

You missed the point Gadge - I illustrated how organisers make their ... errr... happenings different and distinctive. Quite why you take everything as an affront to PBI I don't know. CiA games - there I said games - can be as crap as anyone else's. You have drifted away from the premise to ride a hobby horse again. I keep saying there is NO right or wrong.