I also arrive at a design philosophy of moderate simulationism in MMOs through an analysis of features that define MMOs as concrete games.
Games can be classified along a continuum from abstract to concrete. The most abstract games, you might call them “pure”, are abstract strategy games. The most concrete game would be life itself. The gamism-simulationism dichotomy that I engage with frequently in my abstract design discussions is parallel to the abstract-concrete continuum. Gamism tends toward abstraction—rules for the game’s sake—and simulationism tends toward the concrete—rules for the metaphor’s sake. MMO design is locked in a struggle between the game and the metaphor; the debate is the center of many design discussions and also the source of many ill-conceived arguments.
Abstract Games
“Abstract” as used in “abstract games” means a lack of reference or relation to the real world—Abstract games’ mechanics do not model or have a significant intended relationship with the real world. Think of an abstract game as conceived and played for its own sake. Any similarities we see between it and the real world are not the sources of design decisions, but simply exist because people relate their world to everything they see (a classic reformulation of “if your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”).
Abstract games are games designed for the sake of gaming. They do not seek meaning through association with the real world. They give meaning to themselves and their peers. In this way board games can seem utterly trivial to a mature human being unless they genuinely enjoy games (disregarding the social aspect for the sake of discussion).
The “purest” and most extreme abstract games are abstract strategy games. These games have three crucial features:
- Perfect information is available when the state of the game is fully known by both players. (Note that the state of the metagame does not matter here.)
- No element of chance can be present in the game mechanics. This means that only the strategizing of the players affects the outcomes of individual in-game actions.
- Only two players must play the game together. If more players are added, the game becomes political and no longer is purely strategic based on the game mechanics.
We can discern the abstractness of a game by judging how far away from these three features the game strays.
Concrete Games
Concrete games have many players, very limited information flow, and are perpetuated by chance.
If you took all chance away from a concrete game, it would most likely fall apart as a game and become quite boring. Each player would be able to precisely forecast the result of each of their actions, so all of the complex mechanics would boil down the number of viable strategies to a mere pittance. All of the highly situation decisions made in real life that necessitate the use of rare capacities and patterns of thought would be removed from the game, because chance models the interactions of the myriad minute details that a game cannot hope to simulate effectively. Quantum physics has shown us that even the most basic fabric of reality is subject to the whims of fortune. So to simulate (and therefore to be concrete) requires chance.
In real life, information flow is choked by the limits of our perception. A game that hopes to simulate real life in any way must model this stunted flow of information that may be incomplete or outright incorrect.
The vibrancy and ever-newness of our world is due to the fact that billions of people inhabit it. We are able to communicate with millions of people every day using technologies that were invented only decades ago. The effects of millions of individual interactions between diverse peoples leads to en endless stream of situations that would be fun to model and toy with in a game. Concrete games take advantage of this reality.
MMOs are Concrete Games
MMOs are virtual worlds—in no way are they abstract games. Every individual indicator in MMOs is in favor of their classification as concrete games. As such, they benefit from designs that allow simulation to happen. In this way a game can harness the natural processes of the real world that lead to endless fun and interesting situations. To choke an MMO with abstractness is to take away the very best and most natural fun that can be had in worlds full of thousands of people, saddled by necessity with limited information, and brimming with opportunities for serendipity and chance to reap havoc.
Posts
19 comments:
I do wonder where your three "crucial" elements of abstract games come from.
How does adding a third player to Go make the game less abstract?
Why would the game be more concrete if some of the beads had another colour on the backside (invisible when on the board, hidden information) and could be flipped under certain conditions?
Why would the game be less abstract if beads were randomly removed at the roll of a die?
Note that none of these make a lot of sense in Go if you want to improve gameplay. The game would probably be worse with either of those three changes, but I don't think it would be less abstract.
I outlined why a game is less pure and less abstract if it violates those three vague guidelines.
Briefly:
More than two players means politics becomes an important part of the game--this is a not mediated by the game mechanics and therefore is impure.
Elements of chance should not be involved because they reduce the role of strategy in the outcome of the game, therefore making the game impure. Also, chance is usually involved in games in order to model something, which shifts the game towards the concrete side of the spectrum. (I also think its debatable if a little bit of chance may in fact increase the strategic depth of a game...)
Perfect information is necessary to ensure both players have equal and entirely fair (?) knowledge of the game state. I'm not entirely sure why imbalanced knowledge that has balanced means of discovery would be considered less pure, though it definitely would seem to model the human condition more and so could be considered a more concrete mechanic.
The source of the guidelines was an essay on abstract strategy games that I linked to in the post. It's also corroborated by wikipedia and a few other sites I visited while researching this article.
Note that measure of quality doesn't track with the measure of abstraction.
By this article's definition, I'm quite comfortable agreeing that MMOs as presently designed are indeed more concrete. (I do find it humorous that "abstract" can be roughly equated with "absolute" in this context, though.)
What I'm not sure of is whether or not I'm happy with that. I'm more interested in MMO design that is more abstract by this measure, where the "concrete complexity" is borne of politics and player actions rather than RNGs.
It's certainly a multi-dimensional classification system. Games that are more random and less political are as abstract as games that are more political and less random; but they are not the same and should not be judged in general as if they were equivalent. This doesn't give us a framework for judging game quality, but it does give us an understanding of the groundwork for MMO design. MMOs are concrete and should not be treated as if they were abstract--they should be a sandbox instead of a themepark--because the elements of concrete design align with the intuitive meaning of MMO. Aiming to make an MMO that is an abstract game is at odds with the nature of the medium.
Perhaps it's a matter of the engine driving the uncertainty. I'd rather it be more on the shoulders of the players (with RNG fudging) than left almost entirely to RNGs. In other words, I want players to have an effect on the world.
In the end I'm arguing for the same thing, a concrete, randomish world, I'm just looking at what makes it that way, and wishing it were the players more than the algorithms.
We definitely agree on this. I'm not trying to make the case that MMOs should be extremely random, but some degree of randomness is a necessity as much as politics and imperfect information.
In MMOs that fight against these realities of concrete games, the nature of the massive world tends to generate them in its own way. Politics may not really effect the game world, but there are huge guilds that do important things in the metagame. Serendipitous meetings while questing can lead to interesting encounters.
The one exception seems to be that players want perfect information about the game world. Information availability is a unique challenge that deserves further analysis.
I've been reading a few thing on your blog after evizaer (I believe) invited me over from my blog. I'm always up for joining a video game conversation.
The subject of the article and the follow up conversation are confusing.
I'm not sure why you attributed the three "crucial" elements of an abstract game. Even though you mentioned how wikipedia and other sites share a similar guideline, the criteria seems clunky and overarching.
I have no real experience with MMO's, but I do know a bit about how they basically work. Part of the point of the article is defining two categories so that we can more clearly think about the design intent of MMOs.
It would have really helped me to have a more concrete examples. Otherwise, when the article tried to bridge the concepts to MMOs everything became vague and general.
Everything about chance, perfect information, and players fell flat for me. In fact, the last paragraph especially is bloated with exaggerated generalities.
I don't mean to be harsh, but I'm really interested in what you have to say about MMOs and their design. I'm just trying to reach some common ground quickly. If you need to point me to any number of your other posts, feel free.
Why not simply talk about an MMO's layers and how the game rules create function and shape the emergent possibilities? Aren't MMO's rooted in RPG design inherently making them very abstract? I'm not convinced that the core design of MMO's are that different from other RPGs. The way I see things, there's no need to put MMO's in a separate category.
"Why not simply talk about an MMO's layers and how the game rules create function and shape the emergent possibilities?"
I have been talking about this throughout the life of the blog. But without being somewhat initiated in the genre, it becomes difficult for you to understand the conversations that have led to the discourse I'm having. This blog is largely a reaction to the current trends and an attempt to reconstruct MMO game design in a more suitable and effective fashion. Without some background knowledge of the current situation, I'm afraid that the reaction to that situation will have limited meaning to you.
"the criteria seems clunky and overarching. "
Not really. After reading about it, I understood the reason why those three criteria are critical: each one is necessary to ensure that the gameplay is fully governed by the mechanics of the game and the actions of the players. The decision-making process within the game are fully within the province of strategic thinking.
Asymmetrical information means that both sides don't have the same understanding of the game situation. With perfect information, players don't have to act on vague suppositions (which essentially generate a similar sensation to being effected by random chance), they can act directly on information available to them to make strategic decisions.
Games with more than two players quickly become political wrangling contests. Politics is beyond the scope of the game mechanics (though it is generated from the game mechanics).
If chance is involved directly in the game, it limits the agency of the players. This detracts from the game being a contest of strategy between the players within the rules of the game.
Perhaps I'll write a follow-up post that explains why the criteria make sense with more detail...
"Aren't MMO's rooted in RPG design inherently making them very abstract?"
It depends on what RPG you're talking about.
"It would have really helped me to have a more concrete examples. Otherwise, when the article tried to bridge the concepts to MMOs everything became vague and general."
I'm talking about the motivations behind game design decisions. Such a discussion has to be a bit abstract and general in order to be at all useful. I'm synthesizing a lot of reading and experience to give this view. If I included a lot of examples, I'd end up with a 5,000 word post that would leave a lot of people even more confused--Many of the games I'd have to use would not be familiar to the audience of this blog rendering the examples ineffective.
@ evizaer
"I have been talking about this throughout the life of the blog. But without being somewhat initiated in the genre, it becomes difficult for you to understand the conversations that have led to the discourse I'm having. This blog is largely a reaction to the current trends and an attempt to reconstruct MMO game design in a more suitable and effective fashion. Without some background knowledge of the current situation, I'm afraid that the reaction to that situation will have limited meaning to you."
I understand MMO's well enough. It's not my lack of experience that I'm speaking to. Even if I was completely new to MMO's and RPGs, I would think that I could read an article and understand the core concepts.
My first issue is a language one. The descriptor "abstract" can apply to game rules, visual, or other elements. If concrete is based on real world actions, reactions, and forms, then abstract covers the other end of the spectrum. This much you've described.
However, the 3 part criteria is completely orthogonal to abstract games. When you say "We can discern the abstractness of a game by judging how far away from these three features the game strays" you are completely off the mark.
You can have a very abstract game that has imperfect information, elements of chance, and many players. This is because these three factors have nothing to do with a game's abstractness. They're three unrelated categories.
"The “purest” and most extreme abstract games are abstract strategy games."
I disagree with this statement. Surely there are games that are more abstract than strategy games. Even Go is a game that uses the dynamics of space and physical markers, two elements that are on the organic, concrete side.
There's no need to explain the terms further. I'm a follower of Sirlin's blog (as I believe you are too), and I've expanded on much of his work.
"If chance is involved directly in the game, it limits the agency of the players. This detracts from the game being a contest of strategy between the players within the rules of the game."
I disagree here as well. Though very difficult to measure (if it can be measured) luck is apart of our skill. Chance doesn't necessarily limit the agency of the player. Some players elect to use mechanics/options that have elements of chance. Especially when the player knows how much risk is involved, there's nothing detracting about it.
Of the 5 types of measurable skill (timing, knowledge, dexterity, reflex, and adaptation) chance, randomized, emergent, or unpredictable factors can test a players adaptation skill.
So when you say chance detracts from the strategy contest, this isn't necessarily so. It could simply shift the balance from focusing solely on testing knowledge based strategy to a mix of knowledge and adaptation.
"I'm talking about the motivations behind game design decisions. Such a discussion has to be a bit abstract and general in order to be at all useful. I'm synthesizing a lot of reading and experience to give this view. If I included a lot of examples, I'd end up with a 5,000 word post that would leave a lot of people even more confused--Many of the games I'd have to use would not be familiar to the audience of this blog rendering the examples ineffective"
I assume that all games writers like us process a lot of reading and play experience. I wouldn't underestimate the power of a few well constructed examples though. My rule of thumb is to not attempt to say anything unless I can back it up with examples. Like when writing essays in school, every key statement/argument needs to be well supported.
I don't doubt that this article is part of a longer train of thought. But, shouldn't it stand alone as well as contribute to the whole discourse?
Often when I find myself being very general/abstract, it's because I don't completely understand the concepts.
Abstractness is on a continuum. Games aren't abstract or concrete, they contain elements that harken to both classifications. There are gradations between Civilization 4, a very abstract world sim, and Europa Universalis, a significantly more concrete simulation of the world between 1399 and 1820. This is discernible, as well: Civ's conception of cities is completely unrelated to how cities and towns actually grow and change, whereas EU3 works on a more realistic province-level engine that clearly is written to model the real world with a higher degree of accuracy--just a quick example.
It seems as if you just do not like the words I've used ("concrete" and "abstract"). My definition of an abstract game does not have to perfectly align with yours for it to be useful. I chose the three accepted concepts that separate kinds of strategy games. It makes sense to use these as measuring sticks because all games are actually strategy games when deconstructed.
In earlier versions of this post I had a section on a different scale of abstraction relating to game mechanics vs. interface. I removed it because it was unnecessary for me to get to the point of this article. You seem to be thinking of such other scales in your opposition to my nascent classification scheme.
--
Chance does limit the agency of the player. Instead of deciding what happens, the player decides what may happen. How is that not removing agency from the player? Suddenly parts of the game that could otherwise be surefire have a chance of going pear-shaped for no reason relating to strategy.
Don't mistake non-determinism for agency. In a world of randomly decided events, a person is equally as devoid of agency as in a world where every event is predestined.
"My rule of thumb is to not attempt to say anything unless I can back it up with examples."
My rule of thumb is to provide examples when needed, but first get to the freaking point. I don't pretend to be THE GUY to talk to about anything on this blog. I'm making (what to me seem to be relatively simple) observations and analyzing what I've seen. There are enough blogs that give you 10,000 words on sliced bread. I would prefer to urge thought with 1,000 (though most often 600 to 800) well-picked words, even if it requires me to be more abstract. Sure, I'm not going to get a PhD in game design with these posts, but that's not my goal. My writing here is exploratory for me.
That said, this article may benefit from another example or two, but it's already quite long. Perhaps in a later post.
I'm still working on being a good writer in this medium. I am not sure what is more worthwhile to my readers, so I go with what is easiest for me to do well without it dragging me down into 5,000-word posts that take two weeks to write.
@ evizaer
"It seems as if you just do not like the words I've used ("concrete" and "abstract"). My definition of an abstract game does not have to perfectly align with yours for it to be useful. I chose the three accepted concepts that separate kinds of strategy games."
It's not that I don't like your definition because it doesn't match mine. I don't like that you felt the need to add so many elements to the definition of a word that already has a clear definition.
Perhaps it's the English major in me, but I'm particularly persnickety about language and word usage. I've studied enough to know that using the right word with a simple, clear definition is key for communication.
Abstract is already a word with a clear definition. If you want to use this adjective to describe a specific type of game, it would be best if you didn't add 3 other terms/words with other definitions within the word "abstract."
"It makes sense to use these as measuring sticks because all games are actually strategy games when deconstructed."
This is a completely bloated statement. The following defintions are from dictionary.com
STRATEGY: a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result:
So as long as I can create a plan to attempt to receive a specific result, I'm using strategy. Any game with an ounce of agency and a win/lose state has strategy.
Strategy games are a genre of video games that generally means the gameplay is focused on testing the skill of knowledge/adaptation over real time skills like reflex, and timing.
Even if you think about games as making planned actions to overcome challenges when deconstructed, the 3 criteria you detailed are still only types of games that can also be abstract. Though perfect info, no chance, and two players are good ways to focus a strategy game, they are not a measure of a game's abstractness. Instead, they're a measure of a game's focus on a fair multiplayer strategy gameplay with perfect information and factors that can be accurately predicted. You can't combine 4 distinct qualities into one adjective.
"Chance does limit the agency of the player. Instead of deciding what happens, the player decides what may happen. How is that not removing agency from the player? Suddenly parts of the game that could otherwise be surefire have a chance of going pear-shaped for no reason relating to strategy."
Again we go to the dictionary.
AGENCY: the state of being in action or of exerting power;
a means of exerting power or influence;
As long as the player can influence the game that's agency. Knowing the conditions of his/one's choices before making them sweetens the deal. Not all chance is hit or miss. Sometimes, chance means it has an option of going one way or another. And besides, what's the difference between either of these options, and having another player react to your actions in one way or another. Either way, the game state changes in ways that are out of your control.
"My rule of thumb is to provide examples when needed, but first get to the freaking point....My writing here is exploratory for me."
I'm getting the impression that you're being overly defensive at this point. The bottom line is, you're either writing for you or writing to communicate what you think to others. If it's the first option, then perhaps you shouldn't post online. If it's the second, then clarity of thought is a must.
You've also mentioned word count many times in this conversation as if you're under a restriction by an editor/boss like figure. It may take you a long time to write 5k words, but the length isn't something you should worry about.
Every sentence should be clear and purposeful. If by the end the article is 50 words or 5k, at least it's good right?
I'm using words to describe concepts that don't have ready definitions and don't have established vocabulary. I use "abstract" and "concrete" because an aspect of their meaning aligns with what I'm trying to say and I couldn't think of better words to use.
I'm also a language-lover. And this doesn't bother me. I'm using language as it's intended: to describe novel phenomena and relate ideas.
Resorting to dictionary definitions is OK when I'm using the words to describe what they usually describe, but I'm not. I'm describing something newly by using existing vocabulary in a different way. If you do not like my attempt to establish a vocabulary, than what would you suggest to describe the concepts I'm expressing?
I have talked to several people who have a direct understanding of what I'm saying in this article and had no problem understanding what describing. I think the problem lies in your inflexibility. You're arguing semantics instead of discussing the concepts that I'm trying to describe here.
"You can't combine 4 distinct qualities into one adjective."
Yes, you can.
"I'm getting the impression that you're being overly defensive at this point. "
I am not. I'm telling you my philosophy for using this particular medium because you suggested that I change my philosophy. I'm not writing dissertations, I'm writing blog posts. It makes sense to have separate sets of expectations and goals. My goals on this blog are to explore ideas at a relatively rapid pace and expand on those ideas which resound with my audience. In this context, I'm writing appropriately (though I could always learn to write more effectively, I know).
@ evizaer
"I'm using words to describe concepts that don't have ready definitions and don't have established vocabulary. I use "abstract" and "concrete" because an aspect of their meaning aligns with what I'm trying to say and I couldn't think of better words to use."
Abstract and concrete were the right terms to use. They are both well defined and established adjectives in the English language. This part is good.
"I'm also a language-lover. And this doesn't bother me. I'm using language as it's intended: to describe novel phenomena and relate ideas."
You used abstract/concrete, perfect information, the lack of chance, and 2 players to describe a type of game. This is good too. Using simpler concepts/words to build up to a more complex concept.
"You can't combine 4 distinct qualities into one adjective...Yes, you can."
The problem I have is that you're using a word to define a larger concept, and then using that larger concept to define the word again. You built up this idea of a "pure" abstract strategy game, and then turned around and used that criteria to as a measure of any game's abstractness. That's a logic loop and a language misstep.
"Resorting to dictionary definitions is OK when I'm using the words to describe what they usually describe, but I'm not. I'm describing something newly by using existing vocabulary in a different way. If you do not like my attempt to establish a vocabulary, than what would you suggest to describe the concepts I'm expressing?"
The concepts that you're talking about aren't as new and undefined as you think. I don't fault you for attempting to straighten things about. But in my experience, if you can't define/explain a concept in very simple terms, then 1) you don't understand the concept well enough. or 2) The concept you're thinking about is actually multiple concepts that must be defined separately and more simply.
You've got the right approach. Maybe look at other glossaries and talk to other people to see if a concept hasn't already been broken down and defined. I'm always all ears to such a discussion.
I've got a glossary I've been working on for 2 years. http://critical-gaming.squarespace.com/critical-glossary/
"I have talked to several people who have a direct understanding of what I'm saying in this article and had no problem understanding what describing. I think the problem lies in your inflexibility. You're arguing semantics instead of discussing the concepts that I'm trying to describe here."
I understand your article and where you're line of thinking is going. To be honest, there isn't much to discuss about your article. You outlined a few terms and shortly before the end you made a brief connection to MMOs. We could talk theory, but such conversations tend to go more smoothly with a primary example to talk about.
So I'm left to point out a few things about the potential missteps I see in the way you're going about this investigation on a foundational level.
Actually, I could say a few more things about concrete games as you define them. I think I'll do that shortly.
" I'm not writing dissertations, I'm writing blog posts. It makes sense to have separate sets of expectations and goals. My goals on this blog are to explore ideas at a relatively rapid pace and expand on those ideas which resound with my audience."
I completely understand the type of writing you're doing here. I don't have any problems with the style, length, or the audience. Even quickly covering material is cool. I know it seems like nitpicking, but I only brought up these points because of they in reaction to the ideas you brought up.
"I am not."
I'll take your word for it and back off a bit.
Will post more shortly. Thanks for being clear and patient with my inquiries.
I know that I'm not breaking new ground. I did some research before I made this post in order to come up with those criteria.
I'm not making a circular definition.
I was actually using two justifications simultaneously, which may be confusing.
On one hand, I was referring to the criteria I had found for abstract strategy games. I put "pure" in quotes because I don't like the connotation of it being a higher form--I see them as distinctive, but quality is independent of abstractness. You can use those criteria to achieve a broad classification of games along a scale of abstractness. There aren't precise metrics, but you can use it as a jumping-off point for design philosophy when trying to design a new game based on certain concepts (i.e. multiplayer games with imperfect information and the expectation of chance, like an MMO).
On the other hand, I was talking about abstractness as in a lack of metaphor (or relationship with real world phenomena). An abstract game has nothing but the most limited--and often inconsequential--metaphorical meaning. "Pure" abstract strategy games fit the bill here as being tremendously abstracted from real world phenomena. You can see concrete games, then, as games that are fairly direct metaphorical mappings from real life. It's important to know if the game your designing is supposed to have metaphorical meaning, and then to control that metaphor while developing the game mechanics and interface.
It just so happens that the abstract strategy criteria map well to metaphor strength and the importance of metaphor in the game design.
@ Evizaer
"You can use those criteria to achieve a broad classification of games along a scale of abstractness."
Meaning that the criteria applies to abstract and far more concrete games? Therefore, it wouldn't be best to use it to determine a game's abstractness. Right?
"There aren't precise metrics, but you can use it as a jumping-off point for design philosophy when trying to design a new game based on certain concepts (i.e. multiplayer games with imperfect information and the expectation of chance, like an MMO). "
So, you can use the criteria as a jumping-off point for designing a game with/without multiplayer, chance, and perfect information. That's certainly what the criteria is for.
"An abstract game has nothing but the most limited--and often inconsequential--metaphorical meaning. "
True.
""Pure" abstract strategy games fit the bill here as being tremendously abstracted from real world phenomena."
Sure.
"You can see concrete games, then, as games that are fairly direct metaphorical mappings from real life. It's important to know if the game your designing is supposed to have metaphorical meaning, and then to control that metaphor while developing the game mechanics and interface."
True again. It's important to know what you're making while you're making it.
"Concrete games have many players, very limited information flow, and are perpetuated by chance."
But a statement like this is too far reaching. Because the concreteness of a game is measured on a gradual scale, did you mean to talk about the most concrete games with this statement? Even so, many players, limited information flow, and lots of chance are STILL not inherent qualities of concrete games.
"If you took all chance away from a concrete game, it would most likely fall apart as a game and become quite boring. Each player would be able to precisely forecast the result of each of their actions, so all of the complex mechanics would boil down the number of viable strategies to a mere pittance. All of the highly situation decisions made in real life that necessitate the use of rare capacities and patterns of thought would be removed from the game, because chance models the interactions of the myriad minute details that a game cannot hope to simulate effectively. "
Points like this are also not true for all concrete games (let's say 50% concrete or greater). Again, are you talking about the most concrete games? If so, that needs to me more clear. Also, here's the part where examples would really help your points.
"In real life, information flow is choked by the limits of our perception. A game that hopes to simulate real life in any way must model this stunted flow of information that may be incomplete or outright incorrect."
Whenever you talk about real life it's important not to make too many generalities. Real life can be choked by our perception. Or real life can be organized and greatly simplified. A given game system can model itself after different aspects of real like thus running the gamut of experiences.
Besides, like Jesper Juul has already excellently explained, all video games are half-real. The virtual part is the game. The other half and real part is the human player. Anything we, humans, interact with can be perceived with an imperfect flow of information.
There is a degree of gradualism here. When I say "concrete games have x, y, and z", I mean that games that are far on that side of the scale tend to have those characteristics. But for the most part the statement is true. I could refine the "many players" part to mean "many agents that the player is supposed to perceive as effecting his game experience." Yes. It was too vague. I see what you mean now. I should definitely work on clarifying this in a future post.
It's a flaw in this article--I did not think through the concrete games section enough. I was lazy. I apologize and will try to be more diligent in the future.
I should've said that games become concrete as they bring into play mechanics modeled after real life--mechanics which will contradict the three abstract game principles.
"Whenever you talk about real life it's important not to make too many generalities. Real life can be choked by our perception. Or real life can be organized and greatly simplified."
Real life is tyrannized by our perceptive abilities. There is no doubting or questioning this fact. You have simply changed the connotation to be positive instead of negative, but you're communicating the same concept: perception is a limiting factor in human affairs and must be modeled in concrete games.
@ Evizaer
I'm glad we got to the bottom of things especially without insulting each other. It's very hard to carry on such a long and detailed conversation/debate on the internet. (At least, this has been my experience).
I'm curious to read more of your writing. And I'm more curious to start a new conversation about one particular game. I assume you're more of a PC/MMO fellow. This leaves little overlap with my console/Nintendo experience.
Perhaps we can find a game that we've both played.
Please send me an email and we can discuss games more concretely in private. No need to clog up this post with needless off-topic chatter. :)
I'm a fan of concrete games, actually, and I don't find it boring when you devise a better strategy than other players. I love it when it has great graphics and game play, more so if it's set in the medieval times. It is much better than MMO's, that's for sure.
Post a Comment