Re: [Request] North Pole Glory Hole
You are correct in surmising that (as much as I hate it) the definition of words changes over a period of time. Because the commonly accepted definition (read as: the one found in dictionaries and encyclopedias) has already been established and there is very little contention among experts on that definition, you are bound to that definition.
Because even the worst M&F games meet the criteria of "game" you can't fault someone for thinking an interactive visual novel is a game at its core. I mean, if Nim can be a game...
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be Master - that's all."
Humpty Dumpty is wrong about words, but right about power. If the meaning of words were up to every individual's decision, communication would be impossible. We are given language, and we must use it appropriately in order to community our intentions. But who gives us language? Society, history, and people. You said yourself than language changes over time. This is because societies change, and with them meanings. Nor is society uniform in its understanding of meaning; words that appear in one subculture may not appear in another, or may have an altogether different meaning.
The important thing to grasp, if you are not to be a slave, is that you are not "
bound" to any definition; you can only choose to be bound, to be subject to the authority of dictionary-makers and their power to standardize meaning. The meaning of words can be contested: to struggle over language is to struggle over values.
I'm with moomoo; VNs shouldn't be considered, games - at least not primarily. However, I can't beat JohnDoe's definition in terms of succinctness, so this isn't an argument I can win. At the same time, it isn't a very good definition, because it's broad enough to include things that most of us would not consider to be games.
Is a debate or an argument a game? We speak of "winning" arguments. We use formal rules in debates, and informal rules in arguments (we try to be logical, we make arguments rather than physical attacks, we try to be objective, we make an effort to convince or persuade). And arguments are definitely challenging. Despite these features, the concept we have of games does not include things like arguments. The definition needs to be tightened in some way. I get the feeling that doing so will remove things like VNs from the definition as well, but again, I do not have a better definition.