Chris Bateman - whom I mentioned earlier - is an interesting mix of a Game Designer and a Philosopher. Imaginary Games is one of his recent books, which is exploring the world of videogames from the perspective of philosophy, or more precisely, based on the Make Believe Theory of Prof. Kendall Walton.
Honestly, I have no idea about how good the book is, because - after two days - I am still only reading the first chapter. Normally, I consider myself a quick reader, yet I can only read this book slowly.
One of the issues is that the concepts require a very good grip on the language, which, as a non native speaker, I don't have. Also in some cases I am pretty sure that even the native speakers need to read a sentence twice to get it. :D But that is to be expected from a book about this topic - statements must be precise in this field, so that the argument will have a sound foundation. Special thanks to the built in dictionary in the Kindle for helping me with some rare words.
The other issue is that I simply cannot focus on the text. Not because it is boring - just the opposite. Some concepts in the book trigger so many ideas and thoughts in my mind, that I forget about the text, and start chasing them. This book is actually a journey for me in my own mind, I am learning as much about my beliefs and thoughts as about those in the book.
While it is not strictly game design related, or not in the common sense, I think it is a good idea to read this book for everyone interested in designing videogames. It gives new a whole new perspective to look at how games and players interact.. that's apparent from even as much as I have read so far.
And here is a dump from two more relevant thoughts I've had while reading it.
Game with ad-hoc rules: A game is pretty much a system of rules, a context (story, etc) and the players. (I will not argue about this, only stated it to illustrate my point). What happens if we create a game where the players can add/change/remove rules? Can we say that the rules of the game is a current subset of all the possible rules for the game?
Here is an example: Four players play on a board. Each of them will try to get a piece to the end pont, going along a path. In every turn each player does three things:
- Throw a dice
- Move the piece according the current ruleset
- Add/Change/Remove exactly one rule (this could also be the first one, the order is irrelevant now)
A rule can be something to do with the roll on the dice and the number of movements, for example: Every player moves the piece by Diceroll + 1. Let's also say that these rules can only add/subtract only by maximum 5 (on the whole ruleset) or multiply or divide by 2, and we execute the rules in order.
(I could add a few more details to this, but this should be enough to show what I mean)
So, how do we define the rules on this game now? Are the ad-hoc rules actual rules of the game, or are they part of the context?
Replaceability: The part I am reading now is about the involved parts when making a game. Surely, you can say that the process is part of the game you play, and even the electrons generating the current are somehow involved in the game.. but somehow we also have a feeling that there are boundaries beyond which we would not include anything as "part of the game". For me this is about replaceability: If I can replace a part of the system to something else, that is maybe working based on totally different principles, and there is no noticeable difference in the game, that it is something I'd not include. A good example for this is the connection type in online games. If I replace the ADSL based connection with one on Fiber, the differences will not be visible, thus the connection type is not relevant. Mind you, the speed of the connection is, so ultimately connection is a factor to consider. Also, SSD versus old school HDD, DDR2 Ram modules versus original DDR RAM modules will not cause a significant difference in most cases.
My point here is that if we have the abstract idea of storage, connection or computer memory, with the required attributes, we don't need to care about the underlying technology. Going one level down, if we know how transistors work, we don't need to understand how the electrons pass in the neutralized part of silica. One level down, if we know how to control the electron flow, we don't need to understand the dual wave/particle nature of the electrons.
This is in a way similar to software architecture. The components usually are treated as black boxes, with only the input and output defined, without enclosing anything on their internal mechanics or implementation details.
While it is not strictly game design related, or not in the common sense, I think it is a good idea to read this book for everyone interested in designing videogames. It gives new a whole new perspective to look at how games and players interact.. that's apparent from even as much as I have read so far.
And here is a dump from two more relevant thoughts I've had while reading it.
Game with ad-hoc rules: A game is pretty much a system of rules, a context (story, etc) and the players. (I will not argue about this, only stated it to illustrate my point). What happens if we create a game where the players can add/change/remove rules? Can we say that the rules of the game is a current subset of all the possible rules for the game?
Here is an example: Four players play on a board. Each of them will try to get a piece to the end pont, going along a path. In every turn each player does three things:
- Throw a dice
- Move the piece according the current ruleset
- Add/Change/Remove exactly one rule (this could also be the first one, the order is irrelevant now)
A rule can be something to do with the roll on the dice and the number of movements, for example: Every player moves the piece by Diceroll + 1. Let's also say that these rules can only add/subtract only by maximum 5 (on the whole ruleset) or multiply or divide by 2, and we execute the rules in order.
(I could add a few more details to this, but this should be enough to show what I mean)
So, how do we define the rules on this game now? Are the ad-hoc rules actual rules of the game, or are they part of the context?
Replaceability: The part I am reading now is about the involved parts when making a game. Surely, you can say that the process is part of the game you play, and even the electrons generating the current are somehow involved in the game.. but somehow we also have a feeling that there are boundaries beyond which we would not include anything as "part of the game". For me this is about replaceability: If I can replace a part of the system to something else, that is maybe working based on totally different principles, and there is no noticeable difference in the game, that it is something I'd not include. A good example for this is the connection type in online games. If I replace the ADSL based connection with one on Fiber, the differences will not be visible, thus the connection type is not relevant. Mind you, the speed of the connection is, so ultimately connection is a factor to consider. Also, SSD versus old school HDD, DDR2 Ram modules versus original DDR RAM modules will not cause a significant difference in most cases.
My point here is that if we have the abstract idea of storage, connection or computer memory, with the required attributes, we don't need to care about the underlying technology. Going one level down, if we know how transistors work, we don't need to understand how the electrons pass in the neutralized part of silica. One level down, if we know how to control the electron flow, we don't need to understand the dual wave/particle nature of the electrons.
This is in a way similar to software architecture. The components usually are treated as black boxes, with only the input and output defined, without enclosing anything on their internal mechanics or implementation details.
No comments:
Post a Comment