[geeks] Games, was Re: Ubuntu partition on Bootcamp Mac?

[Jon Gilbert]

On Aug 7, 2007, at 8:02 AM, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 00:44:02 -0700
> Jon Gilbert <jjj at io.com> wrote:
>>
>> Actually, Second Life does not inherently have any goals. Or can you
>> win things.
>>
>> That said, people themselves can custom-program Second Life to
>> establish goals and prizes for themselves and others.
>
> There are programs published on the market as games that have the same
> characteristics.
>
> You don't have defined goals and you cannot win them.

Interesting... what are some of those programs? Just curious.

>
>> I do agree that it can be a virtual sandbox, but last time I checked,
>> a sandbox is just a box of sand. (And not a game.)
>
> A sandbox is most certainly a game for the people playing in it.

Well, I think there are different meanings of "sandbox" that are out  
there. Certainly, a "sandbox"-style game like Grand Theft Auto III is  
a game. A real life sandbox, which is usually designated as a  
children's play area, could be loosely considered a type of game.  
Even the designated "sandbox" areas within Second Life could have a  
"play-time" connotation, at least it could be argued.

However, is an empty construction yard a game? What makes it differ  
from a children's sandbox? Just size? No one will argue that a  
construction yard is a game; there is going to be work done there, as  
opposed to play.

I would argue that an empty, undesignated plot of land in Second Life  
is more like a construction yard, than a sandbox. Now, there are  
areas in Second Life which are specifically designated as  
"sandboxes," which can be useful in both work and play type  
activities. However, a raw, empty sim that has been purchased  
specifically for commercial real estate development is much more like  
the "empty construction yard," and is therefore a "work" type area,  
and not a "game." It would have been purchased by people who are  
intending to make money with it, just like people who intend to make  
money off of a real-life plot of real estate.

>
>> Can you list a few of those "game elements" for me? I do not view
>> having a virtual representation of yourself as a "game element,"
>> since all computer interfaces are founded upon the idea of virtual
>> representations of yourself (cursors). Making a more advanced form of
>> a cursor (an avatar) does not inherently make it a game; it does not
>> add an element of competition.
>
> My cursor is not a virtual representation of myself.  It's a  
> pointer that
> tells me which physical part of a display I'm accessing with the  
> mouse.
>
> It's a meter, not a representation or illusion.
>

Some of the first cursors were pictures of a hand with a pointing  
finger. Just because an arrow is a more abstract representation, as  
opposed to a "realistic" one (like a hand or body), doesn't make it  
any less of a representation of your current place of action within  
the virtual space of the computer desktop. I don't see how it could  
be called a "meter," since a meter is a device of measurement (like a  
clock or battery gauge.)

That said, I concede your point that a cursor is not intended to  
represent yourself entirely (just to represent where you are pointing  
with a mouse).

I would argue that an avatar differs from a cursor in that it  
represents yourself (as opposed to other users) in a virtual multi- 
user space, much like an avatar icon does in a 2D chat-room. It is  
more descriptive and illusory than an abstract arrow cursor. However,  
like a cursor, it represents the user's point of action in the 3D  
multi-user interface vis-a-vis other users. I don't see this as  
inherently game-like.

Whether the thing which represents your current state of action in  
the virtual space is an abstract or a realistic representation seems  
irrelevant to whether or not it makes the interface game-like. I had  
to endure Macs being called "toys" for their GUIs all through the  
1980s and early 90s, because only a "plaything" would have a cartoon  
trash can and human-like faces that pop up in "dialog boxes."  
Eventually people came to accept that these interface elements were  
not indicative of it being a "video game," I guess because, for a  
long time, only video games had such elements.

> Competition is not a required element of a game, and neither is  
> winning or
> having a goal.

Well, then, what *are* the required elements of a game, in your  
definition? What distinguishes a game from other types of software?

I have to admit, as a language scholar, I tend to be kind of  
persnickety when it comes to definitions, since without meaning,  
language is pointless. All of the definitions of the term "game" that  
I have been able to find in the dictionaries and encyclopedias seem  
to enumerate various properties that define games:
"Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and  
interactivity."
(from Wikipedia)
> 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.
(Dictionary.com)

Honestly I cannot see how Second Life fits into any of these  
definitions of "game." If I buy a sim for $1500 and pay $300 a month  
for it, build something business-related in that area, and use it to  
make real money -- how is that a "game"? It's not an "amusement" or  
"pastime," there is no competitive activity going on (other than  
business, and if you want to say that all of business is a game, then  
whatever), etc. etc.

Even definition 2. does not work for SL, because SL is not "the  
material or equipment used in playing certain games". It is more just  
like the planet on which certain games might be able to be played;  
but a planet is not a game.

>
>>> Game engine, simulation engine... no real difference.
>>
>> Huge difference.
>
> No, there isn't.  Game engines are used in simulations all the time  
> and vice
> versa.
>
> You can't even say the simulation engine is more versatile, because  
> quite
> often it is much more limited than a game engine.
>
> The differences were perhaps more pronounced 20 years ago, but most  
> elements
> of each have merged over time.

OK, I'll concede you that the engines which underlie modern games are  
very similar to those used in simulations (and vice-versa). But I  
don't know, then, what the point is of calling it a specific type of  
engine (i.e. "game" or "simulation").

>> You bring up an interesting point, though inadvertently. The military
>> is designed to fight wars, which are contests between two
>> adversaries. The only thing that makes wars *not* games is that they
>> involve death and other horrible things that are in no way "fun."
>
> Fun is not a requirement for a game either.
>
> We play games all the time that frequently enough result in death.   
> The
> players and the spectators still think they are a lot of fun.
>
> Some ancient games were even more deadly than what we play today.

I disagree with you on the first point: I think amusement of some  
kind *is* required for it to be a game. Games are a form of "play."  
That is not to say there is not risk involved in games. Something  
like the Roman gladiatorial competitions were probably not much of a  
"game" for the participants who died, though for the Emperor, crowd,  
and victors, it was.

>
>> The point where Second Life differs, as a simulation, from these war-
>> games is that Second Life does not have an adversarial aspect built
>> in.
>
> Neither do the war simulations!
>
> You only get the adversarial aspect when data is entered into the  
> system,
> just like SL or any other game/simulation/virtual engine.
>
> Input different data, and you might even be able to make them  
> simulate buying
> and selling MREs for a profit.
>
> You are trying to claim that two engines are different just because  
> of the
> data that they use by default.

Engines by themselves are not games. It does not become a game until  
something game-like has been programmed on top of the engine (like  
your competition to buy and sell sea-rats). My argument is just that  
there are alot of areas of Second Life which cannot be considered  
"games" because they do not share the properties of "games" and are  
not intended as "games." They do not have adversarial aspects in the  
data that has been input. They do not have "fun" as an intended  
consequence.

>
> SL works like a game,

How is that? How does it work like a game?

> "plays" like a game

Again, can you elucidate me? How is, say, it anymore of a game than  
buying a real piece of land and building a subdivision on it?

> is used for gaming

It's not entirely used for gaming. It's a logical fallacy to define  
the whole based on what some of its parts are used for. A firearm is  
not a game, just because there are competitive shooting games that  
exist. A road is not a game, just because some roads are used in car  
races. A plot of grass is not a game, just because some plots of  
grass are used as football pitches. The world is not a game, just  
because people play games in the world. The virtual world is not a  
game, just because people play games in the virtual world.

> and feels like
> a game.
>   It looks like a game on top of all that.

It's in 3D, and has an avatar, so it must be a game? Is that what we  
are down to here? Is all of virtual reality doomed to be thought of  
as merely a game?

>
> It's OK if you want to call it something else, but you'll find that  
> most
> people aren't going to draw lines like you have, and most of us  
> have good
> reason for not doing so.

Well, I think this is an interesting debate. I'm not saying you don't  
have reasons for your current views, and I think you have brought up  
some very valid and interesting points.

-
Jon Gilbert
PGP fingerprint: 7FA9 B168 73CA A698 DD9E  2DF2 EE1A 3E73 3119 741F