Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferok
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I don't really have any response to your second half, because that's not really a point I'd contest with you.
Slot machines and lotteries I wouldn't define as games. The very simplest of games in most books is rock-paper-scissors. And of course, there are leagues and whatnot who play it competitively - for that very reason, it does involve choice and (optionally) strategy. Similarly, poker is a game; blackjack; etc.
Random 100 isn't a game to me. It's just luck. If there's no skill, no choice, nothing that can give me an edge on my competitor (or vice-versa) based on something that I do, you're more-or-less a spectator.
|
Jan-ken-pon is not a particularly simple game. The rules involve abstract cultural references that are meaningless to some people--scissors in particular are advanced mechanical constructs known only in contemporary civilizations. The game play is also quite complex, involving reading one's opponent and detecting patterns of non-random behavior. I would argue that, because of the real-time element, janken is actually more difficult to play than poker, but that is likely because math comes more easily to me than real-time analysis.
The simplest game is probably a foot race. Another simple game is guessing how many fingers one is holding up, although that requires the concept of counting. The most simple game involving paraphernalia is probably drawing straws.
Many games are determined in large part by luck, thus the term "games of chance".
If you are genuinely interested in topics like this, I would recommend the book Games and Information: An Introduction to Game Theory by Eric Rasmussen.