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

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 00:44:02 -0700
Jon Gilbert <jjj at io.com> wrote:

> On Jul 31, 2007, at 9:24 PM, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> 
> > Intent doesn't define what things are.
> >
> > SL might have been intended as something else, but it has a lot of  
> > game
> > elements, even by your own definitions.
> >
> > SL has goals, you can win things, it can be a virtual sandbox, you  
> > have an
> > avatar otherwise known as a player... it has an awful lot of game  
> > elements,
> > some of which you defined yourself, to not be a game.
> 
> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

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

> > 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.

> 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.

> Anthropologists have argued for decades that mankind developed sport  
> and games as a way of having conflicts which were not actual war, and  
> sometimes, of actually setting conflicts between tribes or villages  
> in a less violent manner than all-out battle. 

...or as a way of practicing and training.

> 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.

SL works like a game, "plays" like a game, is used for gaming, and feels like
a game.  It looks like a game on top of all that.

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.


-- 
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...