Ghool said: We have enough entertainment in video games to last a lifetime. I also want a game, not a devoid amusement park ride that straps me in and I follow the rails. I want to be challenged. I want things to be difficult. I want some things to suck so bad I avoid it at all costs. Not everything has to revolve around pleasure when designing a game, and this is where modern design falls down, and why you hear so many nostalgic comments about 'The good Ole days'. There is no challenge in modern gaming. There is no feeling of accomplishment against the odds. Its no longer about the challenge. Its no longer about using your wits and skill to surmount the obstacles put in front of you. It's all boiled down to ' Did I get that thing or not?' There is no level of achievement anymore. It's become so blase that any hinges you accomplish is merely about data points and has nothing at all to how an obstacle feels when it's overcome. And that is what's missing from modern games. They're missing the game part. It's all about equal opportunity, when it shouldn't be about that at all if you want to actually feel a sense of accomplishment with a task. I haven't felt that way about a game in over 20 years. I really hope VR puts the 'game' back into gaming. I also hope Pantheon is a good gaming experience, and not just more empty entertainment for anyone not willing to understand that the key to feeling an accomplishment is the struggle and suffering that comes with wanting to achieve it. Games these days are too padded against any disappointment or frustration. Which incedentally spurs one to act and overcome those obstacles.
you can thank society for what we see in modern day gaming. self indulgence, materialism, instant gratification, everyone is a winner mentality.
stellarmind said:i can understand why consequences are frustrating for players with time constraints. if you have 1 hr of playtime, you don't want to spend 15 mins looking for a group, 15 for traveling, 15 looking at a grey screen and leaving yourself with a 15 min window to complete the content.
A 1 hour play session is (generally) too short to engage in difficult group content that requires 30 minutes to get started. Instead of expecting the game to adapt to you, you're better off setting your own goals that do fit inside those shorter time frames. Maybe traveling from A to B itself, to prepare to go to a certain dungeon in a future session, could be part of that. Back when I played EQ in highschool I'd sometimes have some time to waste before I had to leave home, and I'd spend that time doing some fishing and hopping on a boat to move to another continent when I felt like it. It's up to the developers to make sure there's sufficient options, but I believe it's already been said that 1-2 hours is about the minimum to make any significant progress in Pantheon.
Also, corpse runs shouldn't (relatively) take a larger portion of game time for a gamer who has less time to play overall, simply because they'll likely die less often than someone who plays more than them, as well.
Tanix said:Nimryl said:Syrif said:Nimryl said:Tanix said:Nimryl said:@Tanix :) -- I'm against you. I'm trying to say that yes it's litteral but it's not from my perspective.
Your perspective is irrelevant in the face of facts.
Sorry, but you don't get to feel your way through a position and ignore the reality of word definitions and basic understanding of concepts.
Ahh your taking that approach. Then there is no reasoning with you... you've made a flat statement; there's not really much point to it that anyone can really contribute. You've stated the obvious.. I thought I'd chip-in with something abit more; which you've rejected it because it's non-literal. Fair enough; end of the discussion. Flat statement is flat statement. /nod.Truth is truth. Anyway, I agree with Tanix.
Well if you wanna take the literal route then yes, you and Tanix are correct. As a flat statement there is nothing really to argue against in the first place. I was merely adding my own perspective into the mix. Which was rejected for being non-literal and I understand. So yeah, nothing more to say really.That was the entire point of this discussion Nimryl . If you take a subjective position on a subjective topic, I will not take issue, I may disagree that pie is better than cake, but I will accept that this is an issue of personal taste.
When it comes to objective topics, subjective evaluation is not relevant as there is no place for it when it concerns a quantifiable topic. So while I respect that you may "feel" a certain way aboiut some things, those feelings can never have purchase in topics where we have quantifiable fact (ie literal definitions of words to establish clear meaning).
This isn't a slight on you, but if we start inserting subjective influence on objectively established topics, it is essentially insanity.
My points here are not to antagonize, insult, or disparage any person here. They are simple observations of the nature of positions taken and that of the factual aspects of what a game is and how these differing views create conflict to what is expected with a games development, especially a game like this and its goals.
All I was saying is that a game is also more than it's litteral meaning. A game is art, whether graphically, musically, or by design etc.. the whole process is imagination and creation and big companies do follow trends and community perspectives/ideas to generate more sales while ignoring this innovating aspect to games; don't get me wrong it isn't always the case (indie games too).. but what I was saying that this is in-part of the "bigger picture" as to why you get people arguing. The devs will engage there community for their perspective and feedback too (some good some bad) aka "listen". You're stating the smaller picture approach/argument; I was adding the bigger picture approach to it. But you rejected as non-litteral and subjective. When it's factual. I felt "disparaged" and insulted when I was taking your side then rejected for additionally supporting you with the bigger picture argument. It's displaying an additional part to your argument; nothing more. It isn't debunking you or your statements.. you are litterally correct. But you rejected my statements then I guess creating something unscientifically proven is grounds for insanty too "apparently". I.e. art/games are insanity. I guess I'm not qualified to be in this discussion for reasons of insanity too. lol :)
Kaeldorn said:stellarmind said:i can understand why consequences are frustrating for players with time constraints. if you have 1 hr of playtime, you don't want to spend 15 mins looking for a group, 15 for traveling, 15 looking at a grey screen and leaving yourself with a 15 min window to complete the content.
A 1 hour play session is (generally) too short to engage in difficult group content that requires 30 minutes to get started. Instead of expecting the game to adapt to you, you're better off setting your own goals that do fit inside those shorter time frames. Maybe traveling from A to B itself, to prepare to go to a certain dungeon in a future session, could be part of that. Back when I played EQ in highschool I'd sometimes have some time to waste before I had to leave home, and I'd spend that time doing some fishing and hopping on a boat to move to another continent when I felt like it. It's up to the developers to make sure there's sufficient options, but I believe it's already been said that 1-2 hours is about the minimum to make any significant progress in Pantheon.
Also, corpse runs shouldn't (relatively) take a larger portion of game time for a gamer who has less time to play overall, simply because they'll likely die less often than someone who plays more than them, as well.
you really get to see what type of people you are playing with when you are all looking at a grey screen for 15 mins(not all at once but 3 mins here, 5 mins there adds up).
Tanix said:Iksar said:All seems pretty subjective to me. Trying to claim specific "objective" definitions/meanings for words is rather silly.
Yeah, dictionaries are silly like that.
They are, somewhat. Context is everything. Dictionaries don't contain 'truths', they contain nothing more than common definitions. Explaining one word/concept in terms of other words/concepts can often lead to misunderstandings, since, at some point, you think you know all the terms being used but maybe you don't or maybe the definition of a term being used to explain another isn't so objective or clear, etc, etc.
It's not like maths where you can break a massive complex theory down to simple 'truths' like 1+1=2 (and even in maths, that isn't 'true' in some situations...)
I misunderstood your summarised definition of 'game' - even re-reading it now knowing I misunderstood, I'm still not sure I fully understand why you used some of the wording you did. Also, when you say "for our purpose", who is the "our" you speak of? Everything can be changed by context, even the most seemingly concrete and simple concepts.
To relate it to your post, you appear to be trying to break down the concepts to small components that are somehow 'true' or 'objective' to support the validity of your overall theory about the 'game', but I don't think you can, as even a seemingly "straight forward definition of the objective term" isn't, really.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I actually agree with much of what you say. But I guess I can't accept a lot of what you present as objective fact.
It's an interesting thing to try and do that, though. Good post.
Sorry I was so negative initially. I've come from a place of having 'competitive types' in another game really have a detrimental effect of my enjoyment of the game ;^)
Nimryl said:Tanix said:Nimryl said:Syrif said:Nimryl said:Tanix said:Nimryl said:@Tanix :) -- I'm against you. I'm trying to say that yes it's litteral but it's not from my perspective.
Your perspective is irrelevant in the face of facts.
Sorry, but you don't get to feel your way through a position and ignore the reality of word definitions and basic understanding of concepts.
Ahh your taking that approach. Then there is no reasoning with you... you've made a flat statement; there's not really much point to it that anyone can really contribute. You've stated the obvious.. I thought I'd chip-in with something abit more; which you've rejected it because it's non-literal. Fair enough; end of the discussion. Flat statement is flat statement. /nod.Truth is truth. Anyway, I agree with Tanix.
Well if you wanna take the literal route then yes, you and Tanix are correct. As a flat statement there is nothing really to argue against in the first place. I was merely adding my own perspective into the mix. Which was rejected for being non-literal and I understand. So yeah, nothing more to say really.That was the entire point of this discussion Nimryl . If you take a subjective position on a subjective topic, I will not take issue, I may disagree that pie is better than cake, but I will accept that this is an issue of personal taste.
When it comes to objective topics, subjective evaluation is not relevant as there is no place for it when it concerns a quantifiable topic. So while I respect that you may "feel" a certain way aboiut some things, those feelings can never have purchase in topics where we have quantifiable fact (ie literal definitions of words to establish clear meaning).
This isn't a slight on you, but if we start inserting subjective influence on objectively established topics, it is essentially insanity.
My points here are not to antagonize, insult, or disparage any person here. They are simple observations of the nature of positions taken and that of the factual aspects of what a game is and how these differing views create conflict to what is expected with a games development, especially a game like this and its goals.
All I was saying is that a game is also more than it's litteral meaning. A game is art, whether graphically, musically, or by design etc.. the whole process is imagination and creation and big companies do follow trends and community perspectives/ideas to generate more sales while ignoring this innovating aspect to games; don't get me wrong it isn't always the case (indie games too).. but what I was saying that this is in-part of the "bigger picture" as to why you get people arguing. The devs will engage there community for their perspective and feedback too (some good some bad) aka "listen". You're stating the smaller picture approach/argument; I was adding the bigger picture approach to it. But you rejected as non-litteral and subjective. When it's factual. I felt "disparaged" and insulted when I was taking your side then rejected for additionally supporting you with the bigger picture argument. It's displaying an additional part to your argument; nothing more. It isn't debunking you or your statements.. you are litterally correct. But you rejected my statements then I guess creating something unscientifically proven is grounds for insanty too "apparently". I.e. art/games are insanity. I guess I'm not qualified to be in this discussion for reasons of insanity too. lol :)
umm ok... uhh good talk.
disposalist said:Tanix said:Iksar said:All seems pretty subjective to me. Trying to claim specific "objective" definitions/meanings for words is rather silly.
Yeah, dictionaries are silly like that.
They are, somewhat. Context is everything. Dictionaries don't contain 'truths', they contain nothing more than common definitions. Explaining one word/concept in terms of other words/concepts can often lead to misunderstandings, since, at some point, you think you know all the terms being used but maybe you don't or maybe the definition of a term being used to explain another isn't so objective or clear, etc, etc.
I misunderstood your summarised definition of 'game' - even re-reading it now knowing I misunderstood, I'm still not sure I fully understand why you used some of the wording you did. Also, when you say "for our purpose", who is the "our" you speak of? Everything can be changed by context, even the most seemingly concrete and simple concepts.
To relate it to your post, you appear to be trying to break down the concepts to small components that are somehow 'true' or 'objective' to support the validity of your overall theory about the 'game', but I don't think you can, as even those a seemingly "straight forward definition of the objective term" isn't, really.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I actually agree with much of what you say. But I guess I can't accept a lot of what you present as objective fact.
It's an interesting thing to try and do that, though. Good post.
Sorry I was so negative initially. I've come from a place of having 'competitive types' in another game really have a detrimental effect of my enjoyment of the game ;^)
Context was established and I think I went to extreme lengths to achieve this.
Facts do not require acceptance, they exist regardless of belief.
You won't ever offend me, maybe annoy, irritate, or confound, sure... but don't worry about offending me. I don't rattle easily.
stellarmind said:you really get to see what type of people you are playing with when you are all looking at a grey screen for 15 mins(not all at once but 3 mins here, 5 mins there adds up).
Agreed.
There's the "Never give up, never surrender!" types.
The "Where did we go wrong and how can we fix it?" types.
Then there's the "Nooooo my XP!" *leaves group* types
You have the "WTF were YOU doing?!?!" types.
And finally the silent (and brooding) types.
I usually fall into category 2, sometimes 5 :p
Kaeldorn said:stellarmind said:you really get to see what type of people you are playing with when you are all looking at a grey screen for 15 mins(not all at once but 3 mins here, 5 mins there adds up).
Agreed.
There's the "Never give up, never surrender!" types.
The "Where did we go wrong and how can we fix it?" types.
Then there's the "Nooooo my XP!" *leaves group* types
You have the "WTF were YOU doing?!?!" types.
And finally the silent (and brooding) types.
I usually fall into category 2, sometimes 5 :p
You forgot the tantrum throwing log out types. *chuckle*
Tanix said:disposalist said:Tanix said:Iksar said:All seems pretty subjective to me. Trying to claim specific "objective" definitions/meanings for words is rather silly.
Yeah, dictionaries are silly like that.
They are, somewhat. Context is everything. Dictionaries don't contain 'truths', they contain nothing more than common definitions. Explaining one word/concept in terms of other words/concepts can often lead to misunderstandings, since, at some point, you think you know all the terms being used but maybe you don't or maybe the definition of a term being used to explain another isn't so objective or clear, etc, etc.
I misunderstood your summarised definition of 'game' - even re-reading it now knowing I misunderstood, I'm still not sure I fully understand why you used some of the wording you did. Also, when you say "for our purpose", who is the "our" you speak of? Everything can be changed by context, even the most seemingly concrete and simple concepts.
To relate it to your post, you appear to be trying to break down the concepts to small components that are somehow 'true' or 'objective' to support the validity of your overall theory about the 'game', but I don't think you can, as even those a seemingly "straight forward definition of the objective term" isn't, really.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I actually agree with much of what you say. But I guess I can't accept a lot of what you present as objective fact.
It's an interesting thing to try and do that, though. Good post.
Sorry I was so negative initially. I've come from a place of having 'competitive types' in another game really have a detrimental effect of my enjoyment of the game ;^)
Context was established and I think I went to extreme lengths to achieve this.
Facts do not require acceptance, they exist regardless of belief.
You won't ever offend me, maybe annoy, irritate, or confound, sure... but don't worry about offending me. I don't rattle easily.
Well, you did a very good job of describing how *you* understand the concepts, but that doesn't make them 'facts'.
Take the very first definition you introduce "activity engaged in for diversion or amusement".
What does 'diversion' mean to you? Distraction? Immersion? Interest? Occupation? Engrossment? Even those words are tricky concepts. "Amusement"? Good grief, the range of that concept is immense. Gratification? Pleasure?
What about "victory or challenge completion". But a game is a game whether or not you complete it and even if it's a draw.
All I'm saying is, definitions are not facts.
@Disposalist -- There's no stating anything. He'll dismiss you. It was a flat statement nothing else will be accepted or can be argued against. I don't really get where hes going with this. It's not up for discussion so why state what he stated?
disposalist said:Tanix said:disposalist said:Tanix said:Iksar said:All seems pretty subjective to me. Trying to claim specific "objective" definitions/meanings for words is rather silly.
Yeah, dictionaries are silly like that.
They are, somewhat. Context is everything. Dictionaries don't contain 'truths', they contain nothing more than common definitions. Explaining one word/concept in terms of other words/concepts can often lead to misunderstandings, since, at some point, you think you know all the terms being used but maybe you don't or maybe the definition of a term being used to explain another isn't so objective or clear, etc, etc.
I misunderstood your summarised definition of 'game' - even re-reading it now knowing I misunderstood, I'm still not sure I fully understand why you used some of the wording you did. Also, when you say "for our purpose", who is the "our" you speak of? Everything can be changed by context, even the most seemingly concrete and simple concepts.
To relate it to your post, you appear to be trying to break down the concepts to small components that are somehow 'true' or 'objective' to support the validity of your overall theory about the 'game', but I don't think you can, as even those a seemingly "straight forward definition of the objective term" isn't, really.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I actually agree with much of what you say. But I guess I can't accept a lot of what you present as objective fact.
It's an interesting thing to try and do that, though. Good post.
Sorry I was so negative initially. I've come from a place of having 'competitive types' in another game really have a detrimental effect of my enjoyment of the game ;^)
Context was established and I think I went to extreme lengths to achieve this.
Facts do not require acceptance, they exist regardless of belief.
You won't ever offend me, maybe annoy, irritate, or confound, sure... but don't worry about offending me. I don't rattle easily.
Well, you did a very good job of describing how *you* understand the concepts, but that doesn't make them 'facts'.
Take the very first definition you introduce "activity engaged in for diversion or amusement".
What does 'diversion' mean to you? Distraction? Immersion? Interest? Occupation? Engrossment? Even those words are tricky concepts. "Amusement"? Good grief, the range of that concept is immense. Gratification? Pleasure?
What about "victory or challenge completion". But a game is a game whether or not you complete it and even if it's a draw.
All I'm saying is, definitions are not facts.
Definitions are not facts?
So what are they, made up words where everyone just decides what they will beleive?
You ask me what they mean, why don't you look them up rather than injecting your assumptions on the meaning. They have definitions themselves you know. It is like you don't even understand how to use a dictionary.
They are facts, they are an established meaning of a word so that people can understand each other. They are a central point to which we can establish an agreement in meaning.
If I use a dictionary and you decide you will just make up whatever meaning you want, that is not logical, it is not functional, it is pure insanity. Without a basis to explain and agree upon a given understanding, there can be NO understanding.
Much like some are showing here by claiming that they don't use definitions, they just "feel" their way around as they see fit.
It is silly and ignorant.
A definition is an accepted means of understanding to which we found ourn communication on. They are the establishment of factual discourse and to claim otherwise is to ride a magic bus to a realm of fairy land to which all logical debate is irrelevant.
If that is your position, then please, with all due respect, do not enter a discussion with me because nothing you say is worth listening to as it could mean anything at any time due to your loose application of language.
Sorry to be blunt, but your statement is insane.
Nimryl said:@Disposalist -- There's no stating anything. He'll dismiss you. It was a flat statement nothing else will be accepted or can be argued against. I don't really get where hes going with this. It's not up for discussion so why state what he stated?
You mean I used a dictionary, I base my argument on the widely accepted defined meanings of the words and I have the audacity to expect you guys to hold to them rather than just subjectively interpeting meanings as you see fit?
Why I am so unreasonable, so harsh on you, I mean! How dare I provide logic and standard definitions!
So unreasonable I am.
/facepalm
Tanix said:Nimryl said:@Disposalist -- There's no stating anything. He'll dismiss you. It was a flat statement nothing else will be accepted or can be argued against. I don't really get where hes going with this. It's not up for discussion so why state what he stated?
You mean I used a dictionary, I base my argument on the widely accepted defined meanings of the words and I have the audacity to expect you guys to hold to them rather than just subjectively interpeting meanings as you see fit?
Why I am so unreasonable, so harsh on you, I mean! How dare I provide logic and standard definitions!
So unreasonable I am.
/facepalm
I guess the point they're trying to make is that the interpretation of that definition can change depending on where you place the emphasis.
Just like there can be differences from one person to the next regarding what they find to be a reasonable challenge.
What it doesn't change is that not every aspect of a game needs to be fun by itself for it to have merit as a mechanic. And that's the core of your initial message as far as I interpreted it.
SoWplz said: In the words of Stellarmind. " I'm just going to leave this here " https://youtu.be/Id_wIAQO1ig
Your right.. I'm done with this thread. He must be trolling.
If you don't accept that human communication of complex and subtle concepts involves way more than trading dictionary definitions, then, indeed, there is no point discussing anything more.
People don't use dictionaries like they are mathematical formulae or even physics models. No one is ignoring the definition of words, they are just accepting that you cannot apply strict logic to concepts that are not discrete. It's not maths or physics (and even those disciplines are very hard to draw 'truths' from).
To interpret the definitions of complex concepts like "game", "entertainment" and "fun" in terms of other equally complex concepts and then try and extrapolate some kind of logical, factual truth from it puts you in the driving seat of a magical bus to fairy land.
You simply cannot explain one difficult concept in terms of three other difficult concepts and call that proof of anything factual. All you are doing - all anyone can do - is explain their understanding using different terms in as many different ways as needed until you reach an agreement. Even then, you may have misunderstood when the concepts are tricky.
Sorry to be blunt, but *your* statement is insane.
I just cannot agree with disposalists analysis. Dictionaries exist for a reason. Can you argue about the meaning of words? Sure! But there are widely accepted definitions of words and their meaning, yes context can completely change the meaning of a word but I don't think Tanix did a bad job setting the table so to speak. You certainly can define concepts such as game, entertainment, and fun. If we couldn't, nobody would have any idea what we meant when we used these words! Conversation would be impossible, because of all that complex subtlety! For example nobody would understand what I meant when I used the phase "setting the table" they would immediately argue about what the heck I meant by that. Yet somehow most people here will know what I mean by the turn of phase, that I am not saying Tanix was literally setting the table but that he was setting up his argument. And they would understand what I meant if I used a different phase like "setting the board".
Calling the words game, entertainment, and fun complex concepts is amusing to me because they really aren't. The dictionary does a great job of describing them complete with examples. English is trickier than many languages because of using so many means for the same word...this much is true, yet experienced English speakers can quickly figure out the meaning of the word through context. Even without using a dictionary humans quickly create common slang that is widely understood. Most people know what a game is, even if they cannot define it quite as clearly as the dictionary. Overcomplicating communication will only make it that much harder to get your point across.
I think what Tanix said was perfectly clear.
I think words have meanings and do not mean what the reader wants them to mean.
The meanings change over time. Quickly, sometimes. Use "cool" in a context where the meaning is indeterminite. Will all of us read it as referring to a relatively low temperature? Will even *most* of us? But words *do* have meanings.
I spent 30 years professionally dealing with words - often taking long and complex matters and breaking them down intro short simple summaries. Let me try this with what Tanix said.
"We play games to have fun. But fun is judged on an overall basis, not was any short period of time entertaining. In a longer and more complicated game especially we enjoy the game as a whole - the gestalt - a lot more if it is difficult - if it is challenging - if we sometimes fail and feel pain and disappointment because looking at our gaming experience as a whole we enjoy success far more if it wasn't easy, if it wasn't assured. if it reflects a lot of effort and perhaps skill rather than being assured by the game design, if it is preceded by failures that drive home to us that things in the game are challenging."
I fail to see the relevance of word definitions and dictionaries actually - I thunk the meaning was both clear and unambiguous.
Which means it is time for Tanix to post and tell me I am obviously wrong because I entirely misunderstood the point.
dorotea said:I think what Tanix said was perfectly clear.
I think words have meanings and do not mean what the reader wants them to mean.
The meanings change over time. Quickly, sometimes. Use "cool" in a context where the meaning is indeterminite. Will all of us read it as referring to a relatively low temperature? Will even *most* of us? But words *do* have meanings.
I spent 30 years professionally dealing with words - often taking long and complex matters and breaking them down intro short simple summaries. Let me try this with what Tanix said.
"We play games to have fun. But fun is judged on an overall basis, not was any short period of time entertaining. In a longer and more complicated game especially we enjoy the game as a whole - the gestalt - a lot more if it is difficult - if it is challenging - if we sometimes fail and feel pain and disappointment because looking at our gaming experience as a whole we enjoy success far more if it wasn't easy, if it wasn't assured. if it reflects a lot of effort and perhaps skill rather than being assured by the game design, if it is preceded by failures that drive home to us that things in the game are challenging."
I fail to see the relevance of word definitions and dictionaries actually - I thunk the meaning was both clear and unambiguous.
Which means it is time for Tanix to post and tell me I am obviously wrong because I entirely misunderstood the point.
From what I got, I think he meant to split people in thoses looking for fun throught achievement, and thoses looking for fun from entertainment.
I didn't suggest that enterpretation of dictionary definitions will always vary wildly between different readers, but there is a HUGE difference between that and suggesting that dictionary definitions of a few words can establish some kind of undeniable or even meaningful logical 'truth' about a complex concept like 'fun'.
And, yes, of course it's a comple concept. When you are talking about something emotional like what an individual finds 'fun' it is definitely complex.
Let's get to the truth of what "fun" means by using the dictionary
Fun means...
Something that is amusing which means...
Something you find comical which means...
Something accepted as entertaining which means...
Something that is charming which means...
Engaging which means...
Interesting which means...
Enjoyable which means...
Fun... oh damn...
So, yeah, by the time you gone through a long circle of definitions, you might think you're getting close to an understanding, but once things are this complex, how likely is it that your understanding exactly the same as someone elses? This isn't just about logic and truth, it's about interpretation, experience, linguistics, intelligence, empathy, even neurology!
To suggest dictionaries somehow house "the truth" is so simplistic when it comes to anything more than very simple nouns is just useless.
Even then, it doesn't work.
Chair: "A seat, especially for one person, usually having four legs for support and a rest for the back and often having rests for the arms."
Well, what if it has three legs, but a back and arm rests? What if it has four legs, but no back? Is that a stool? What if it has four legs but is tall and has a very small back? A chair? Or a bar stool?
All a dictionary does is suggest what might be accepted as a useful definition to assist us in communicating. There is no 'logically true' definition of even something like 'chair', but we think there is for something like 'game' or 'entertainment' or 'fun'?
Ok...