Comments for Semionaut's Notebook

Comment on First Wall Rebate Appearance by jokermatt999

jokermatt999 — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:04:26 +0000

Is it just me, or does that iTunes feed appear to be not updated?

Comment on What’s your definition, Kenneth? by Chris

Chris — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:44:29 +0000

Nice update – you might want to echo the links in your Rules of Engagement page as well.

Your distinction of toy and game falls into similar lines to where I was not long ago, and (in a slightly different manner) to where I’m going… but more on this soon enough I’m sure.

Comment on Now, let’s run right down that rabbit hole shall we? by Chris

Chris — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:42:42 +0000

Wittgenstein says that the meaning of a word is how it is used; in the context of any artwork, the author is the arbiter of the game they are creating and this creates the freedom Dodgson alludes to here.

While it’s true that we use words to communicate with one another, nothing requires this communication to be clear. There are times – and especially in the case of art and puzzles – where clarity becomes second fiddle to other goals, and obfuscation can be part of the game. One only has to consider Joyce’s Finnegan’s Wake to see this in practice.

Best wishes!

Comment on Now, let’s run right down that rabbit hole shall we? by Alan Au

Alan Au — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:09:17 +0000

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” – Inigo Montoya

Comment on What’s your definition, Kenneth? by Alan Au

Alan Au — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:07:20 +0000

I contend that games are goal-driven while toys are not. That is, a game without goals is a toy.

Comment on Now, let’s run right down that rabbit hole shall we? by Brian

Brian — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:22:26 +0000

“We believe that we know something about the things themselves when we speak of trees, colors, snow, and flowers; and yet we possess nothing but metaphors for things — metaphors which correspond in no way to the original entities.” -Friedrich Nietzsche

Comment on Now, let’s run right down that rabbit hole shall we? by John Evans

John Evans — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 19:45:55 +0000

Yeah, well…the whole point of using words is to communicate ideas. If people have to figure out what each word means, it’s much harder for them to read it. There’s a point at which it becomes impossible to convey any information at all.

Comment on Now, let’s run right down that rabbit hole shall we? by JoeTortuga

JoeTortuga — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 18:27:10 +0000

Any word, when I use it, means exactly what I say it means, and nothing but!

Comment on Just be glad it’s not a prisoner-devouring beach ball by ShoNTell #22: Gaming Doesn’t Get Tougher Than This! « You Have Lost!

ShoNTell #22: Gaming Doesn’t Get Tougher Than This! « You Have Lost! — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:18:14 +0000

[...] medium. A theory to think about, certainly, but his comments section doesn’t seem to agree… Post @ Semionaut’s [...]

Comment on What’s your definition, Kenneth? by Duncan

Duncan — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 05:38:56 +0000

I don’t know… by your definition the act of programming is Play. It certainly feels like play to me sometimes. That should make my compiler my primary programming Toy. Except by your definition the compiler is a Game because it is a set of rules and/or conditions established by a community and intended as a bounded space for play.

By my definition (which is not perfect) it fits better with Toy because a compiler can only provide neutral feedback about the bounded space it exists in (errors, warnings, success). There is no meaningful feedback provided by the compiler itself that would tell me that I am doing well (or poorly) in my program writing. That is defined by the rules and meaningful feedback (if any) external to the interactions with the compiler itself.

Comment on What’s your definition, Kenneth? by Corvus

Corvus — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 21:26:10 +0000

Interesting. Good feedback, thanks.

Comment on What’s your definition, Kenneth? by Corvus

Corvus — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 21:25:50 +0000

Excepting Word Processors and compilers weren’t designed (and typically aren’t used) for play.

Comment on What’s your definition, Kenneth? by Duncan

Duncan — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 21:19:35 +0000

I think it needs to be included here because I am of the opinion that Toys can exist in a simulated space. Because leaving out feedback leads to your definition that everything in a Simulated space is a Game. That would make your Word Processor and your Compiler a Game, when really they are Toys.

Comment on What’s your definition, Kenneth? by Michel

Michel — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:56:51 +0000

I think you added “constraints and freedoms” to emphasize the mutable nature of a space that can switch between DM and PM, but when I read your definition it still comes across as a fixed experience/space.

Game is a set of rules and/or conditions established by a community that define variable constraints and freedoms within a bounded space intended for play.

Comment on What’s your definition, Kenneth? by Corvus

Corvus — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:33:52 +0000

I mean, I don’t disagree that meaningful feedback is important to the final experience, I just don’t know that it needs to be included in these core definitions.

I’m curious to hear what other people think about it.

Comment on What’s your definition, Kenneth? by Corvus

Corvus — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:31:40 +0000

I’m personally not sure feedback is a part of this level of the discussion, but I’m chewing over it before I write my next post.

Comment on What’s your definition, Kenneth? by Duncan

Duncan — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:28:01 +0000

I think you are missing a fundamental part of what a game is in your definitions of Game and Toy. You speak of constraints and freedoms (Rules) within a bounded space (Environment) but you don't talk about what that results in: Meaningful Feedback. There is no Game until the Rules are communicated to the players via a feedback mechanism. You can have all of the pieces of a boardgame and all you have is a Toy until the community begins to give and receive feedback with regards to the rules. Which is why the same boardgame pieces may become a completely different game by applying (and receiving feedback from) a different ruleset.

Toy is an object created or used for the purpose of play that suggests, but does not define, a bounded space and provides only neutral feedback.

Game is a set of rules and/or conditions established by a community and intended as a bounded space for play that provides meaningful feedback.

Comment on Just be glad it’s not a prisoner-devouring beach ball by Duncan

Duncan — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:16:57 +0000

I will go on record here agreeing with Joe. Simulated environments play the same role in a system that real environments do with the limitation that they are further constrained and limited than real environments. Further to that the level of simulation (or accuracy of the simulation) limits the usefulness of the environment but does not do so in a way that necessitates a Game within that space.

Which is why all virtual games are limited versions of what could be played in real life. An RPG (even one with actual role playing) is limited in what can be done by the simulated environment it is played in. On a computer this is very limiting at times. In your imagination (a legitimate form of simulation) the limitations are defined entirely by you. In reality there are further constraints and you wind up either LARPing or relying on some other form of simulation because our reality constrains the use of magic.