Dastardly said:
mfeff said:
Big fan of Raph Koster's stuff. Basically all he's saying here is that games require opposition, goals, and rules, and that the opposition may or may not have free agency (as to include human and automated opponents). And I can agree with all of that. The challenge comes in just how esoteric we allow interpretations of some of these terms to get.
I knew you wouldn't let me down! Good show ole' bean!
Fan of Raph as well... (tip of the hat for Ultima Online), and I like your assessment of his definition. As far as esoteric, what I attempted to do with the Chess analog was too begin a dialog that states that as far as:
Explicitly strongly interactive game systems exhibit a "system" that entails that all rules are demonstrably present in the structural framing of the product/itself.
That is to say that all the rules of chess must be present in the codified structure of the program. If we where to program a chess game, all the rules would have to be sufficiently represented. If we leave out or modify rules, it's no longer chess.
While chess leverages a strong system, it's opponent structure is implicitly weak to the point of near irrelevancy. We may react to an opponent, but that reaction is in opposition to the field not necessarily the opponent. The optimum response is not opponent driven, it is system driven to the field of play. That is to say that the best chess game one could play, is played arithmetically. As you mentioned, one is calculating the maze, not another rat for the cheese.
I may go a step further and state that a strong systems game has a finite amount of "games" as may be "played" that is calculable. There is a limit to the number of Chess games that may ever be played. Something like 10 e 120 games... most of which are fail, 10 e 100 ish are potentially solutions.
-----
hentropy said:
The good thing about a game is that it has no walls. Thing about the word in general, away from video games, and anyone with a small child could tell you that literally anything can be a game. Even things that aren't games to adults, like clean-up or cooking. So what's a video game? Anything like that that you interact with in some kind of video format.
Going to pick on hentropy real quick... "the good thing about a game is that it has no walls."
Ever play Final Fantasy 13? More walls than the movie "The Wall".
As I mentioned above, chess is decidedly a game, and it is demonstrably finite as to any game played, with respect to any movement of any of the pieces.
Clearly it is a box with 4 walls. Now one could make a "game" out of just about anything, but the intent would not be a codified game (or to codify a game), it would be something "other" than a game. Making it structurally less game (as theory) and more game (as study). The game is then a "device", "tool", "toy", in which the "other" thing happens.
My email is not a "game". It's email. If I write a thank you letter to someone, it's a thank you letter to someone. Where is the game?
Clearly it is "outside" of the context of the email.
The button in question here... has the same issue. Sure, one could "interpret" it's "game" aspects... but... internally, within it's own code structure, none of that "interpretation" would be present.
I could not simply reverse engineer "the button", and discern the "point" of the game. I would have to be told outside of the context of "what it is", as to "it's point".
Thus, it's not explicitly a game. It's a tool that requires extraneous information in which to define it's "game" aspects. That makes it as a system "weakly interactive". As ludology, perhaps strongly interactive. It is akin to narratology because it needs a substantial amount of "context" in which it would be defined as "a game".
The game can't tell you. Cause it's not in the game. Because it's not a game. The "game" is everything but "the game or the button" whatever they want to call it.
----
When I play 1-on-1 basketball against someone, let's say to 10 points, it's clearly a game. There is opposition, and there are rules and goals. But if, say, I choose to play basketball by myself to 10 points... what now?
One might say there's no opposition. Another might say that the opposition is between my Skill and the Forces resisting it -- gravity, exhaustion, limits to my concentration or hand-eye coordination. Basically, physical and mental calisthenics (You are your own resistance/opposition). What's more, forces like gravity have predictable rules, and my goal is clearly to put ball in hoop.
I agree with all this. So much in fact that what you have described is potentially codify-able in an interactive simulation. I wouldn't have a problem with calling such a systematized product a game. However, until it has been systematized, it is (to me) a narrative of what "could be", not "what is".
I would propose simply 2 sliding scales, one of system interactivity, one of self referential narrative. As the game becomes more systematized and the interactivity falls onto calculation the reliance on "contextual" narrative falls away. Let's say, it transitions from meta-esoteric-transcendental to a more formed structural system (gives rise to internal context and consistency). This helps us get away from wallowing in the metaphysical or metastructural (is that even a word?).
Playing Solitaire makes the deck, or perhaps the notion of "probability," your opponent. If probability can be an opponent, why not gravity? See where they line can get cloudy? (As an aside, both gravity and probability -- or even the concept of "a deck of playing cards" -- are "existing frameworks" these games are built upon, so I'm not sure how much weight that particular nugget carries.)
Again though in a game of Solitaire there is a finite result of the number of games that could ever be played. It's deterministic, the probability is a hidden factor from the agency interacting with the game structure. It's not random in play (only in the shuffle - and that is probably debatable), the player just doesn't have access to the what I call "total systems knowledge". It's uncertainty in the agencies approach to a finite system's problem.
A maze looks like a maze from the top down. 1st person... it's a totally different ball game. That is inconsequential to the maze though.
Probably relate it to an old problem with Artificial Intelligence, in that the computer opponent is often structured to have complete access to everything in the field, and as such, is not hindered by the myriad unknowns.
When player agency circumvents this "fog of war", it is often referred to as "cheating". It has diminished the systems side in exchange for a narrative approach by the agency. I'm simply proposing that sliding the scale all the way over to narrative, makes the system's transparent to the point of not existing. That is, it stop's "being" a game, and starts "being" something else... lets say... "a tool"... a narrative game emerges that is existential to the agency rather than to the tool. It's a context shift.
Folk who are not particularly "systems" people frame positions from ludology or narratology about as regular as an atomic clock. Many many of the proponents of these "games" hold degrees certainly... almost without fail... liberal arts degrees.
Similarly, "systems" people can often overlook
intent. Two identical mechanical experiences can differ greatly in their intent, and I feel that can greatly shape whether or not the system holds a particular label... but that being said, it can also introduce a grey area (which "systems people" tend not to like).
If I take an experience that is profoundly
not a game, but I
make it a game through my own intent, is it? If I take something that is
definitely a game, and I use it with some other intent, does that remove its "gameness?"
Again, I certainly agree... I miss this all the time! Running down framing of various people and discerning how and why they believe thus and such is always a concerted effort. That being said if and when I do work on projects I find it valuable to have people from different perspectives offer their input on the project. It's an old philosophical problem, figuring out "intent" and conversely how something will be "perceived". As with anything though, intent must be met with solid work and delivery. I don't think anyone ever engages in, let's say school, with the intent of failure... yet failure does happen.
Heck, I think if I were to discuss this any further I would be waxing vainly on "risk -assessment and management".
Sadly I am the asshole who wants focus groups, product samples, rapid prototyping... I hate unknowns... especially when loot is on the line.
(In a sense, it's a game, but you've taken on the role of the automated opposition, rather than the player-challenger. You're the rules.)
I do think I have been working around that idea some above and in the previous post, as the codified rule structure becomes or is non-existence, the "game" shifts contextually/existentially to the player agency. I would just use the term "pretend".
And coming back to the "playing with," we don't want to bog ourselves down in terminology. Most folks I know call it 'playing Fetch,' too. It's just we don't usually say, "I'm playing Fetch with the dog" all in one sentence. We tend to emphasize either the game (We're playing Fetch) or the company (I'm playing with the dog).
I think the dog understands interactivity, but not necessarily the game "fetch", the person does... but the person is also in a "pretend" mode when it comes to the nature of the game being played. I don't know how to ask the dog if it understands what a game is. It's just interacting with the field, one being modified by the player. So in that sense, one is not only the rules, but the computation machine keeping the rules, making all the decisions, deciding what is fair and not... thus, there is no structure outside of self reference. Which sounds an awful lot like "pretend"... smirk... as in pretending it's a game.
I agree completely. But no one has, to my knowledge, posited that the button is the game. There's a clear recognition that the button is the tool on which the game is played. Better to attack this would-be game based on the activity, not the interface.
That's just it though, one has to pretend it's a game, because the button cannot tell you in the course of it's nature. Kinda liking this... wonder how much traction I can get off it...
As I said, same page. It's not a game, it's a tool. How a tool is used is a reflection of the person using it... not the tool itself.
But part of the "gameness" of an experience may just be tied to intent. The creator's intent, the player's intent, it can play a huge role.
While I might look at the button and think, "Not a game," someone else might say, "The opposition is my own self-preoccupation, the rules are 'hit the button,' and the goal is to be one of the people that did." Another person might think the goal is to see how many people we can get to hit the button.
Yeah, but that is just it though. That is existential to the player agency as to it's purpose and it's merit as a game. The button, as codified, cannot nor could ever "tell" us this upon an examination. Thus the game, is the one that the player is concocting in the player's own mind, the button, a tool, just facilitates that internalized "what if". I suppose it is an interesting approach to the chain letter. I also question how internalized that "what if" was before the "intent" of the game was written out to the side of the button.
It's like a lot of nonsense, it needs a philosophy paper to describe what it is... because what it is... is a button. The game, is the philosophy paper next to the button and the imagination of the participant that is stirred by the paper.
The button is a tool in a game, and the game is a tool in attempted social manipulation. Maybe it's an attempt to get people to think about gratitude... maybe it's an attempt to get people to simulate gratitude... maybe it's just there to allow people to feel they've met their 'gratitude quota' by proxy.
I have no idea either... that's that whole "intent" aspect which is very difficult to discern especially when the creator is "at liberty" to change what they say at any given moment to suit the breeze. See: Cheating.
All I'm saying is that we're better off placing this in its own category of (bad) games than we are trying to argue that it is not a game. For all its ridiculousness, "gamification" has a point -- with the right intent, a person can turn nearly anything into some kind of game.
The reason "gamified" things bother me isn't because they somehow sully the good name of gaming by taking up the label of "game." If I take someone's hunting rifle and I use it to commit a crime, I haven't made it "not a gun." I've just misused it.
Gamification misuses gaming, in my opinion. It uses gaming to manipulate a person's behavior for someone else's reasons. To me, that is a more worthy direction to take this, as it puts the focus on what its results rather than its structure.
I agree again, although I am of the mind to say it doesn't need it's own category... because (for me) it clearly has not demonstrated sufficiently "anything" that merit's it as "a game". To call it a bad game, is still calling it a game. It's no more a game than my email is a game.
It's a tool, with a philosophy paper tossed next to it. I suspect it data mines and all sorts of unseemly rubbish.
It's no more a game than some software one would write to phish for peoples account information. I mean, there is a game being played... more like a confidence trick... but it's (the button) is not a game.
I mean... what's wrong with calling shit "fraud"? Whatever happened to that word?
