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

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 13:43:00 -0700
Jon Gilbert <jjj at io.com> wrote:


> > You don't have defined goals and you cannot win them.
> 
> Interesting... what are some of those programs? Just curious.

Almost any of the simulation games are pretty open.

They have limits of course, but you are otherwise just doing whatever you
want within the limits of the game.

I know, a lot of people call them simulations.

> 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.

No, but it certainly is closer to that than my cursor, and in SL it certainly
is used for entertainment.

If it really is just a fancy cursor, then why make it an avatar at all?  Why
not just a 3D cursor?

> > 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?

Like almost everyone else I call most entertainment software a game.

SL falls into that category even if you don't use it that way.

There are colleges using NWN based economic and social sims for "real work".
They are still games though.

> 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:

If you are a language scholar then you must know that language is defined by
the people using it.

Most of the people in this discussion have defined SL as a game, and well,
that's how language works.

It drives pedants nuts of course, but millenia of human history does a good
job of showing how futile their efforts are.

It's especially frustrating to try and put rules on a bastardized mess like
English.

> "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.

If I buy Neverwinter Nights and use it for college classes to study
interaction and economics, and I paid $50 for it and pay $1200 for the class,
how is that a game?

You keep drawing lines where there are none.

It's not a game to you.

It is a game to me and most of the people here.

> I disagree with you on the first point: I think amusement of some  
> kind *is* required for it to be a game. 

That's interesting, because there are many professional athletes who hate the
game they play, or at least don't think of it as amusing.  They are doing it
for the money.

Those aren't games?

This pretty much proves, or should, that you can't really draw hard lines
here.  My cousin *LOVES* baseball.  A local player I met in a pool hall a
few years ago hates it, but does it for a living.

For my cousin it is a game, for the other guy it is a job.

> 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.

...which is something we've all been trying to tell you for some time.

We find SL to be a game, you don't.

Now you've even validated this with a historical example.

Bravo!

> 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. 

Therefore, since several "marketed games" can be used for non-game
activities, it would be a logical fallacy to define the whole thing as a
game, right?

This is fun...

> 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.

Awesome!


-- 
shannon / Asus A8N5X - Opteron 170 at 2.5GHz | But you know, a little Sun Ultra 1
-------'  2GB RAM - nVidia 7900GS         | is doing all the hard work...