Sub Specie - Latest Comments

Re: Ludus Linguarum (This Is (Not) a Game)

Oscar Strik — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 07:49:22 -0000

Also, some comments and an older article by John Brindle that I missed: John Brindle on the word '(video) game' http://sfy.co/bDpz #storify

Re: Ludus Linguarum (This Is (Not) a Game)

Oscar Strik — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 02:37:26 -0000

I can definitely see where you're coming from. I would also say Proteus is a borderline case according to Juul's model, for the reason you mention.

In Dutch, like German, there is indeed no etymological difference between play (spelen) and game (spel); that may also colour my instinct towards the matter somewhat. At the same time, it illustrates that the distinction between the two is not based in everyday language (at least not all languages), but in analysis. Thanks for pointing it out, as I hadn't thought of it explicitly.

I haven't read Gee, but I can sort of get behind your last statement. Maybe Proteus is little-g, but certainly big-P, for play.

Re: Ludus Linguarum (This Is (Not) a Game)

John — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 19:59:46 -0000

Yes, I'm approaching the term game from a rules-based definition like Juul's. Huizinga's and Caillois's are certainly broader, though they are talking more about the activity of play. (Part of that might be a language issue; I think Juul points out that in a few languages there isn't a distinction between the words for play and game, though you'd know more about it than I do.)

Within Juul's definition, it's possible Proteus could be considered a "borderline case", like Sim City and other simulations, which lack explicit goals, but in which players can set their own goals. And I definitely agree that there are still rules, which also includes rules like the representation of gravity and so on which impact player movement.

Another fairly common element in a definition of games is conflict and variable, quantifiable outcomes, which is where Proteus et al struggle a bit. It's like how bouncing a tennis ball against a wall is "play", but if you count how many times you hit a certain spot, then try to beat your record, you've turned it into a "game". I suppose we could talk about conflict and outcomes in terms of player psychology (Raph Koster has allowed room for that, from memory), but I think that takes us back to "play" rather than "game".

I know an approach like mine, which is more formalist, is annoying for people who would prefer to talk about the player experience, but as I said, my interest lies more on the design side.

Taking a cue from James Paul Gee and D/discourse, maybe we could simply draw a distinction between an experiential little-g game, and a formal Big-G Game!

Re: Ludus Linguarum (This Is (Not) a Game)

Oscar Strik — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 14:16:06 -0000

I agree totally on emphasising the sound design. Kanaga manages to keep it harmonic while allowing the music to respond closely to the avatar's position (more interactivity). The base chords and ambiences seem to respond to height and/or type of ground, and of course there are many proximity-based sounds that play when you get near objects, all of which are harmonious too.

Re: Ludus Linguarum (This Is (Not) a Game)

Darren Grey — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 11:07:09 -0000

I don't see anyone clamouring to have Medal of Honour declared a not-game because it has awful design, so I find it hard to take your argument seriously.

From a design perspective Proteus has some really great use of procedural content generation, reactive music/sounds and passive interaction. These aren't important to all games, but I think it's unfair to dismiss them as unimportant to the medium as a whole. There is a lot of really good design in the game. In particular any sound designer should pay close attention to it. As a developer in particular I found inspirational.

Dear Esther I'm more inclined to agree with you on though - for me it was an example of a game with several design flaws. But since many others enjoyed it I have say it clearly got some things right.

Re: Ludus Linguarum (This Is (Not) a Game)

Oscar Strik — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 11:05:26 -0000

Hi John, thanks very much for taking the rime to read and reply.

You are right that my assessment of the motivations of the 'non-game' camp may be off the mark. I wrote that part rather superficially, and indeed you could very well argue that Proteus is not a game from a purely analytical and non-social standpoint. Whether community forums and opinion pieces are the right places for that, I'm not sure.

Regarding Dear Esther, I would argue that it may be a bad game (I liked it, but have some criticisms of it), but it is nonetheless a game, which you'd probably expect given my article. The same goes for Proteus, and basically any game.

In your last three paragraphs, you argue from a particular definition of game which absolutely requires something more than interaction. I take it you mean rules, and are therefore arguing from something like Juul's definition of a game?

Like I tried to say, this definition -while useful- is by no means the only 'right' one. As Jeroen Stout reminded me on twitter yesterday, Proteus and Dear Esther would be games if you take Huizinga's and Caillois' ideas as points of departure. For example, take Caillois (http://nideffer.net/classes/27.... Although it is not very explicit, I would not go so far as to say that Proteus does not have rules. In fact, the very interactivity of video games is governed by (programming) rules, so you could even argue that interactive worlds are games by default. Beyond that, Proteus has certain rules regarding the response of animals to your action (proximity leads to movement), the functioning of the magic circle (entering it leads to time accelleration), etc. Obviously, these rules are very different and in a way more shallow than puzzles or conflict rules in games, but that's a difference of degree, not essence. In Caillois' four-way game categorisation, I would say Proteus is mostly mimicry or make-believe.

I stand by my point that Proteus is a game by most definitions, even Juul's, if you accept my proposition that there are rules in Proteus. Whether it's a *bad* game is a completely different matter, and depends on what kind of games you like. Besides, I mainly argue against people claiming it's not a game. I'm not one of the people Rose mentions who think you're a shallow person if you don't like this kind of game.

As for a design perspective, I'm not sure if I agree. If they're not bad creations or bad art, why are they bad games? Because they have simple and implicit rule systems? I don't think that gets in the way of a good experience per se. See also Chris Bateman's article on 'thin play': http://blog.ihobo.com/2012/07/....

For me a bad game is a game designed poorly, where any element of the game (rules, spatial design, art, narrative, sound, etc.) gets in the way of a pleasant experience. Again, this is very subjective, so I understand if simple rules and lack of challenge may get in the way of someone's enjoyment of Proteus. That doesn't make it into a 'not a game'.

Re: Ludus Linguarum (This Is (Not) a Game)

John — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 09:40:47 -0000

I like your level-headed approach to this, but I think your speculation about the motivations of the "non-game" crowd is wrong. For me, at least, it's not about some "gamer" identity or about the value of a product. It's just an issue with game design. Something like Dear Esther, for example, in which you just walk around and listen to things and look at things, is either not a game, or it's a really, really bad game. (Like the Snakes & Ladders analogy; I think that's pretty commonly believed to be a really bad "boardgame", and I suspect it would still be considered so even if they released a version with the most beautiful boardgame artwork you've ever seen.)

Proteus might be a beautiful experience for people, but what they like about the game has very little to do with its form as a game (or not). It's purely about its aesthetics, the music and the visuals, and the interaction as you move through the world. (And interaction is not enough to qualify something as a game, otherwise you'd be suggesting all sorts of things can be games.)

From a game design perspective, I think we risk undermining games by suggesting these Snakes & Ladders analogues are great examples of games. I think the design of systems and the opportunities they afford players is what makes games beautiful, interesting, and fun things. The only conclusion I can reach from that perspective is that Proteus and Dear Esther, etc, are either not games, or they're really bad games. But they might not be bad creations, or bad works of art, or whatever, so a better solution would be to call them something they'd be more comfortable with.

But you do raise some very practical issues in the article, like the lack of commonly shared alternative labels, and the business implications of not calling something a game. So it's not something that can be easily solved, wherever your preferences lie.

Re: Sub Specie

Fred — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 03:59:20 -0000

wow

Re: Asteroids and the Human Near Future in Space

Oscar Strik — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 05:10:34 -0000

And the technology is certainly developing: < http://proceedings.aip.org/res... > (2002)

"Impacting at hypervelocity, an asteroid struck the Earth approximately 65 million years ago in the Yucatan Peninsula area. This triggered the extinction of almost 70% of the species of life on Earth including the dinosaurs. Other impacts prior to this one have caused even greater extinctions. Preventing collisions with the Earth by hypervelocity asteroids, meteoroids, and comets is the most important immediate space challenge facing human civilization. This is the Impact Imperative. We now believe that while there are about 2000 earth orbit crossing rocks greater than 1 kilometer in diameter, there may be as many as 200,000 or more objects in the 100 m size range. Can anything be done about this fundamental existence question facing our civilization? The answer is a resounding yes! By using an intelligent combination of Earth and space based sensors coupled with an infra‐structure of high‐energy laser stations and other secondary mitigation options, we can deflect inbound asteroids, meteoroids, and comets and prevent them from striking the Earth. This can be accomplished by irradiating the surface of an inbound rock with sufficiently intense pulses so that ablation occurs. This ablation acts as a small rocket incrementally changing the shape of the rock’s orbit around the Sun. One‐kilometer size rocks can be moved sufficiently in about a month while smaller rocks may be moved in a shorter time span. © 2003 American Institute of Physics"

Re: Harlequin Valentine, or Lustprinzip & Todestrieb

Oscar Strik — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 03:48:20 -0000

Thanks very much for your personal story! I'm glad my piece touched upon some emotions also experienced by others.

Re: Magic and Technology

Oscar Strik — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 03:46:14 -0000

Now and again, memes pop up illustrating the above terminological issue:

Re: Asteroids and the Human Near Future in Space

Oscar Strik — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 10:23:33 -0000

"Sunlight has a subtle effect on asteroids, pushing them around ever so slightly. This Yarkovsky effect, as it’s called, is caused when sunlight is absorbed and re-emitted as heat. Now scientists have measured the precise change in an asteroid’s orbit caused by this."

< http://www.space.com/15959-sun... >

Re: Harlequin Valentine, or Lustprinzip & Todestrieb

Papel_de_arroz — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 11:32:54 -0000

Hi
Thank you for the exquisite
piece you’ve presented: how I encircle people that “tale” dreams.

The interpretations
and relations you’ve constructed from your dream are far more than any literary
level and folklore tale.

The symbolic & emotional always prevails after I dream and although
my mind can distinguish authors, music and the experience itself my “inner” (let’s
call it) cannot separate a “real” emotion from a dreamed emotion.

This was quite a weight for years to me with reasonable people phrasing ¬“was
just a dream”.

I recall one of my frequent dreams; quite similar to yours ¬Harlequin
Valentine, or Lustprinzip & Todestrieb , in some ways: meeting an eerie woman,
manly in day-to-day casual environments, who seemed to enjoy my company.

Her appearance was always transfiguring. Her alterations in photographic presence; personality;
voice; smell; approaches, always equalled my own sense of beauty and
sensibility.

It didn’t too long to realize that this dream was possibly a projection
of myself, and all the academic; literary and even intuitive interpretations followed.

But they were just attempts to justify something what I feel.

¬ I’ve never stopped having that dream although I could explain it. ¬ I never
stop feeling that way about the eerie woman. ¬ Now, every time I dream and she’s
there I try to relish her presence instead of rationalize her company.

~Thank you