 Hi everybody, sorry to break from the gossip and muck-raking but I thought I would post the first part of my latest endeavor. It's an attempt to codify exactly what it is that we're doing here, are we playing games? Are we building virtual worlds? Both? Neither?
Any attempt to answer this crucial question involves a set of working terms with which to discuss the greater issue. So here's the begining of my two-cents. As always feel free to comment and suggest, it obviously could do with a bit of editing for clarity and if you find a thought uncompleted or insufficently explained, or just plain wrong, please: let a brotha know.
Games: Goal oriented systems that players navigate in direct competition with each other or AI opponents. While there is often an element of luck involved in all games we choose to preclude the so-called ?games of chance? that remove all elements of player skill from the equation (i.e. Roulette, Craps Paper/Rock/Scissors (although there is certainly a fair amount of psychology involved) and near all casino games which are more akin to physical manifestations of statistics than games-proper). Also we should endeavor to remove from this definition all games lacking sufficient complexity to eliminate the forgone outcome (i.e. Tic-Tac-Toe, etc., for proof of the futility of these exercises watch Wargames with Matthew Broderick). Also we should differentiate a Game from other Game-Like structures. For instance, Gymnastics is not a game in the proper sense, nor for that matter is the majority of the Olympics. Gymnastics is not a game, even though you are in a sense competing against other Gymnasts, rather it is an indirectly comparative test of skill. You perform your tumbling routine, receive a score, I perform mine, receive a score and then we compare the two to determine who the victor is. At no time during this exercise is there direct competition from either my opponents or from integral elements of the system we are navigating. While one can make a case that the field of navigation in a gymnastics routine (rings, bars, that horse thingy) present obstacles to the player, that would not be entirely accurate. Rather, the obstacles in a gymnast?s field are integral parts of the system upon which the gymnast performs. Think of it like plastic base upon which colors are placed to create a Rubik?s cube. With out the underlying structure the task of completion is impossible, and while the navigation of this structure (either through the jumping and tumbling of a Gymnasts routine or the twisting of a Rubik?s Cube) presents a certain challenge it does not work to defeat the player. Instead the player either succeeds in navigating these obstacles or they fail to complete their goal. The obstacles in Gymnastics are, in fact, not really obstacles at all; they would more aptly be termed as ?the field of play.? Much like the Astroturf, sidelines and goalposts are elements that define the field of play of a Football game, the horse, rings and parallel bars are elements that define the field of play in a Gymnastics competition. A blinding snow-storm during a football game would be an obstacle and, for the most part, tests-of-skill attempt to reduce the competition to the player and the field so that the comparison between competitors can be free from influence. The navigation of field is the skill being tested, the field is not actively working against your ability, in fact your ability is contingent on the field it self (it would be rather difficult to exercise a Rings routine without the rings) nor is the field an extra-systemic anomaly that alters your ability (like bad weather during a football game). Take the Rubik?s Cube for example. It is a puzzle first and foremost, and, while one can, and many have, made a competition of speed-completion of the Cube, it cannot be aptly be termed a game. Again, while there may be a psychological effect that one score or time may have on the following or even concurrent (like in race) player the competition at its core is based upon comparison of judged feats rather than upon the influence and opposition which game-proper is based. The Psychological impact that one competitor has upon another is a happy side-effect of humanity rather than an integral element of the competition. So we can now eliminate all tests of skill and indirect competitions from the definition. Or can we? There can be games that are based on indirect competition that avoid the trappings of comparative skill tests. Billiards and Chess are both good examples. Players are not in direct competition in these games, instead they take turns testing their skill (maximally in the control and balance of Billiards) and building their completion-strategy (thinking many moves in advance, the focal skill of a Chess master) either through movements that advance them towards the end game or that directly inhibit their opponent from reaching the end game. While both Chess and Billiards differ greatly in system navigation (the Formalism of the chess pieces movements v. the elegant coaxing of geometry, accuracy, and causality that control the cue ball) both still hinge upon oppositional competition and influence. My strategy in Chess is to maneuver in such away as to reach Checkmate, simultaneous to and married with this strategy is my ability to maneuver in such a way as to prevent you from reaching check-mate and prevent you from stopping me from reaching check-mate. Similarly, I use these same axis in Billiards, my shots are not merely to sink the correct balls but also to maneuver the field of play in such a way as to hinder your ability to sink balls or prevent me from sinking balls. This influence is the defining characteristic of all games. Without this influence (as an integral component of the feat-structure) you have tests of skill. Video-games present some interesting iterations of the form of a game. Take Tetris for example, on it?s own Tetris is a puzzle, when I pit my score indirectly against yours it is a test-of-skills, when we play multi-player Tetris (in which the completion of lines on my side of the screen dumps ?junk? blocks onto your side) it becomes a game-proper. Additionally one may choose to argue that the AI opposition in a video game is little different from the Horse, rings and parallel bars of Gymnastics. That they make up the field of play rather than serving as obstacles or opponents. While it is compelling to reduce AI to that there is the nagging notion that however inhuman the AI may be they are, in a sense, actively working against you, in that they are adjusting their behavior based on your performance (i.e. your actions influence them and alter their pattern). One could retort that an AI such as Deep Blue is merely an incredibly complex obstacle, one that, like water, flows through it?s computations in order to obscure Kasparov?s way to his end-game. To which I must retort that Deep Blue was doing more than standing in Kasparov?s path, that it?s hindrance of Kasparov?s executions was married to it?s own pursuit of an end-game. Unlike a tricky ski slope or puzzle box, Deep Blue was competing and trying to win. On a lesser level it could be said that the enemies in a VG are doing the same they are trying to win the game; although their end-game is different than the primary player?. |
