ID:154438
 
I have had this on my mind for a little while, about games in general, and computer games specifically.

Some know that its possible to create GM Powers, giving you the power to instantly teleport here, and there, and attack this and that, make this or that, whatever. Mainly you can almost anything you wanted to do within the game.

But if you look at it from that perspective, all games really are is a set of limitations. Thats all a game is, when you first start out, maybe you cant do a skill yet, thats one limitation right there. You cant cast this spell yet, you dont have enough magery. You cant equip this weapon yet, you dont have enough strength. You cannot walk through walls. You cant swim, you will drown.

All these limitations make up a game, therefore all or most games are sets of limitations, which define the rules of a game.

Take tic tac toe for instance, you can only go one turn, then the other player gets to go, if this limitation wasnt there, you would be able to win on your first turn, placing three x's or three o's in a row.

When you think of a game as a big long set of limitations, some can be broken, and some not ever broken, it opens up all kinds of ideas and ways to do more things in your game.

The entire level system is a big long list of things you cant do until you earn something up to a certain point. You cant cast this spell until you gain 300 xp, and you cant gain 300 xp until you get level 2, and you cant get level 2 until you go kill that rat over there........

So in conclusion, I think that thinking of games this way gives you the power to see through some blocks, if your having trouble with ideas, looking at your game this way may give you another idea for your game, and how you could achieve that feature.

--FIREking
FIREking wrote:
I have had this on my mind for a little while, about games in general, and computer games specifically.

Some know that its possible to create GM Powers, giving you the power to instantly teleport here, and there, and attack this and that, make this or that, whatever. Mainly you can almost anything you wanted to do within the game.

But if you look at it from that perspective, all games really are is a set of limitations. Thats all a game is, when you first start out, maybe you cant do a skill yet, thats one limitation right there. You cant cast this spell yet, you dont have enough magery. You cant equip this weapon yet, you dont have enough strength. You cannot walk through walls. You cant swim, you will drown.

All these limitations make up a game, therefore all or most games are sets of limitations, which define the rules of a game.

Take tic tac toe for instance, you can only go one turn, then the other player gets to go, if this limitation wasnt there, you would be able to win on your first turn, placing three x's or three o's in a row.

When you think of a game as a big long set of limitations, some can be broken, and some not ever broken, it opens up all kinds of ideas and ways to do more things in your game.

The entire level system is a big long list of things you cant do until you earn something up to a certain point. You cant cast this spell until you gain 300 xp, and you cant gain 300 xp until you get level 2, and you cant get level 2 until you go kill that rat over there........

So in conclusion, I think that thinking of games this way gives you the power to see through some blocks, if your having trouble with ideas, looking at your game this way may give you another idea for your game, and how you could achieve that feature.

--FIREking

Or, in contrast, a game is a series of possibilities.

A games starts with nothing more than idea (and some games dont even bother with this). As more is added to the game, the series of possibilities increases.
In response to Botman
the reason why its plausable to think of games as a set of limitations is because there will always be rules in every single game. You will never ever find a game without one rule.

Its not always true that games have a set of posibilities, because what if you die, and the game ends? You then have no possibilities, but you have all limitations.
In response to FIREking
FIREking wrote:
the reason why its plausable to think of games as a set of limitations is because there will always be rules in every single game. You will never ever find a game without one rule.

Its not always true that games have a set of posibilities, because what if you die, and the game ends? You then have no possibilities, but you have all limitations.

But its the fact that you have the possibility to die at all.

What about games with no caps on stats, levels, wealth etc? There are no limitations there.
In response to Botman
Sure there are... you are limited to doing whatever can be done with wealth, power, and stats, etc. You can only do what the designer wants you to do, has thought of for you to do, and has allowed for you to do. Aside from that, you're limited to however much wealth and power, etc., that you have at the moment, and you're limited to gaining more through appropriate channels and actions.

The fact is, a game is a defined reality. To define something is to make something "definite"... which literally means to mark off its limitations (root being "finite," "de" in the same sense as "demark" or "denude.") Before you've conceptualized a game, there are no limitations. Then you start putting in ideas. Like commerce. Commerce is the set of rules under which trading occurs. Or combat. Combat is the set of rules under which conflict occurs. Or physics. Physics is the set of rules under which movement/existence is carried out. You can romanticize things and say that by creating these rules, you're allowing for the possibility of these things to happen at all... but for those possibilities to have meaning, you have to set the limitations.

Think of it this way: BYOND is practically infinite in the number of "possibilities" it presents. When you make a game, though, do you allow for everything BYOND can do? No. You take what fits in the game. You limit things. This goes back to the low-level/high-level programming language thing. BYOND is inherently more limited than C++, and so on... each refinement actualizes/destroys a little bit more potential.

When you sit down to use Dream Maker, you're bringing to life your vision. You can do that in Dream Maker. In my game, I force you to live through my vision. You can only incorporate your own ideas as far as I'll let you. Again, you can romaticize the issue and say that the players shape the creator's vision... but this is only to the extent the creator has allowed, and if the creator has bent over backwards to make the game as open-ended as possible, with a player-created and player-shaped world, then this is still the creator's vision. Players are being "limited" to shaping the world.

A game can be less limited than others, but it can never be unlimited.
You have a point, but a game has to be more than a set of rules. Every game has rules, but not every set of rules is a game. ("No parking", in and of itself, isn't much of a game.)

The best definition of a game (computer or otherwise) I have read is in the article "I Have No Words & I Must Design". I could just copy and paste the definition, but you wouldn't get as much from it. Anyone who wants to design games should read this (and other articles on the same site).
In response to Botman
yes there are there are limitations in EVERY game on the face of this earth, you cant reach 588509385908 hp until you have <= 588509385907 first. and you must bypass some limitation to get to 588509385908 hp in the first place, if you didnt, then the game would just start, and end right away.
In response to Shadowdarke
Shadowdarke wrote:
You have a point, but a game has to be more than a set of rules. Every game has rules, but not every set of rules is a game. ("No parking", in and of itself, isn't much of a game.)

Actually, in a way, it can't be more than a set of rules... even the visual/aural components of it are nothing more than ways of marking things off.

When someone tells you that you have to "play the game to get ahead," or whatever, what are they telling you? They're telling you to obey the rules. Sure, it's a metaphor... but if I may mix similes, "If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, chances are, it's a duck."

Every set of rules is a game, but some are more challenging, more rewarding, or more fun than others. Think about this: parking space is a limited commodity, made even more limited by the rules and regulations that limit where and when and for how long you can leave a vehicle parked. The challenge then becomes: how close can your park your car to the door of your destination building, without endangering your car or yourself? It's not a fun game, but it's a game nonetheless. If the rewards of this game don't appeal to you, you settle for the first available spot: playing the game half-heartedly.

I could set up a game where you put your hand on either the green table or the yellow table. If you put it on the green table, I hit your hand with a hammer. If you put it on the yellow table, I douse you with kerosene and light you on fire. It wouldn't be a fun game, would it? But it would be a game.
In response to LexyBitch
LexyBitch wrote:
I could set up a game where you put your hand on either the green table or the yellow table. If you put it on the green table, I hit your hand with a hammer. If you put it on the yellow table, I douse you with kerosene and light you on fire. It wouldn't be a fun game, would it? But it would be a game.

Lol

--FIREking

ps. you made some good points lexy!
In response to FIREking
Well, you tangentally hit on some very fundamental philosophical tenets in your post. Limits are very important. Limits are what allow us to experience reality. You and I could not communicate without strict limits being set... the word "well," the first word of this post, does not mean anything or everything, it can only mean a very limited, specific set of things that we have previously agreed it can mean. If you all of a sudden decided that "well" can and should mean "Would you like a million dollars?", this conversation would go nowhere.

This touches on what Jon Snow said, when he said that words are meaningless. It also touches on our most recent incarnation of that belief... a certain newbie on newbie central who was outraged when no one realized that his post should mean what he thought it meant.
In response to LexyBitch
You can certainly make "no parking" into a game, but you have to impose some sort of goal before it becomes a game. A person can make an entirely different game from the same rules if they select a different goal, like seeing how many parking tickets they can collect or discovering where the police tow cars that are parked illegally for too long.

I look at my gaming books now and realize that none of them are a game. They contain the rules limiting how people play the game, but there is no game until a DM, GM, referee, or storyteller gives the player a goal. As you said, if a player doesn't accept the goal then they are half-hearted about the whole game. The players can often add their own goals to the mix if the game master is flexible.

Oddly enough, by this definition none of the big MMORPGs (that I have played) are really games. They are just toys. The players each bring their own goals into it and define their own gaming experience. Some people make it their goal to become powerful, others want to explore fantastic places, some just want to meet friends, and a few find glee making other people miserable. In RPGs survival is one of the basic goals (dramatic martyrdom aside), but most MMORPGs have made it so that you can't even fail to survive. I've seen people make a game of finding how long it takes the weakest creature to kill them.
In response to FIREking
FIREking wrote:
LexyBitch wrote:
I could set up a game where you put your hand on either the green table or the yellow table. If you put it on the green table, I hit your hand with a hammer. If you put it on the yellow table, I douse you with kerosene and light you on fire. It wouldn't be a fun game, would it? But it would be a game.

Lol

--FIREking

ps. you made some good points lexy!

This reminds me of a game me and a mate did play, and IO must say it was very fun, then again, it was his little brother that was "playing" it.
In response to LexyBitch
LexyBitch wrote:
Sure there are... you are limited to doing whatever can be done with wealth, power, and stats, etc. You can only do what the designer wants you to do, has thought of for you to do, and has allowed for you to do. Aside from that, you're limited to however much wealth and power, etc., that you have at the moment, and you're limited to gaining more through appropriate channels and actions.

I was actually refurring to the specific number, not the limits of what you can do with the said number.

The fact is, a game is a defined reality. To define something is to make something "definite"... which literally means to mark off its limitations (root being "finite," "de" in the same sense as "demark" or "denude.") Before you've conceptualized a game, there are no limitations.

Then you start putting in ideas. Like commerce. Commerce is the set of rules under which trading occurs. Or combat. Combat is the set of rules under which conflict occurs. Or physics. Physics is the set of rules under which movement/existence is carried out. You can romanticize things and say that by creating these rules, you're allowing for the possibility of these things to happen at all... but for those possibilities to have meaning, you have to set the limitations.

Think of it this way: BYOND is practically infinite in the number of "possibilities" it presents. When you make a game, though, do you allow for everything BYOND can do? No. You take what fits in the game. You limit things. This goes back to the low-level/high-level programming language thing. BYOND is inherently more limited than C++, and so on... each refinement actualizes/destroys a little bit more potential.

When you sit down to use Dream Maker, you're bringing to life your vision. You can do that in Dream Maker. In my game, I force you to live through my vision. You can only incorporate your own ideas as far as I'll let you. Again, you can romaticize the issue and say that the players shape the creator's vision... but this is only to the extent the creator has allowed, and if the creator has bent over backwards to make the game as open-ended as possible, with a player-created and player-shaped world, then this is still the creator's vision. Players are being "limited" to shaping the world.

A game can be less limited than others, but it can never be unlimited.

While I agree with most (all) of what you have to say, it doesn't actually mean a game isn't a seriers of possiblities also. Seeing how possibilities and limitations are contrasts of one another, and are directly linked its kinda like the Chaos Theory.

*Edit* I thought I should probly explain myself better. I refer to the Chaos Theory to inforce the idea that limitations and possibilities are mutually inclusive of one another. Really, A limitation is, or rather, creates a seriers of possibilities. Such as, the ability to equal or surpass the limitation. Likewise, every(?*) possibility has it's limitations.

* I put the "?" because I havn't actually thought about this, nor do I have time right now, so I'm going to go on the side on caution.
In response to LexyBitch
It also ties in with my not so recent post on the meaning of the term 'information'.

Basically, to make a game is to create a formula for experiencing an aspect of reality. You are saying, "look into this microscope, see this tiny part of reality that I have isolated? I think that its beautiful, dont you?"

A game has a high degree of entropy; All has gone still except the buzzing of the things the creator has focused on.

Maybe this is a metaphor for life, death happens when the creator stops looking at us.
In response to Botman
Seeing how possibilities and limitations are contrasts of one another, and are directly linked its kinda like the Chaos Theory.

I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but can you give a reference for what this has to do with chaos theory? I just read a book on the subject ("Does God Play Dice?" by Ian Stewart, good book even though I disagree with the author in a lot of cases), and I'm just not seeing this connection. Perhaps you have a different meaning of "chaos theory" (which is sort of a misnomer in and of itself) other than the mathematical one?

-AbyssDragon
In response to Shadowdarke
Oddly enough, by this definition none of the big MMORPGs (that I have played) are really games.

I think thats true, and I don't neccessarily see this as a bad thing. I play MMORP"G"s mainly to explore and interact with the world. I like seeing the way designers have envisioned a fantasy realm.

But to expand on that topic.. many, many of the top-selling "games" aren't really games by that definition. Look at the entire Sim series. Not a one of them has a real goal. I absolutely loved SimLife. I used to spend hours toying with evolution (my favorite moment was when my group of extremely deadly black widows, enclosed to a small island, evolved flight and destroyed all life--even the raptor colony and Nessie).

However, I don't think there's anything to be gained by pointing this out. We'll still refer to ourselves as "game programmers", even though we should probably call ourselves by the more general term "play-thing programmers".

-AbyssDragon
In response to AbyssDragon
AbyssDragon wrote:
Oddly enough, by this definition none of the big MMORPGs (that I have played) are really games.

I think thats true, and I don't neccessarily see this as a bad thing. I play MMORP"G"s mainly to explore and interact with the world. I like seeing the way designers have envisioned a fantasy realm.

I don't think it's a bad thing either. I enjoy playing with those big online toys too. Imposing particular goals would only take away some of the magic. Some people don't like baseball, some don't like soccer, but almost everyone enjoys playing ball in some form or another.

(On a related note, I do think MMORPGs lost something by removing the struggle for survival. With unreliable connectivity I totally understand the reasoning for it.)

But to expand on that topic.. many, many of the top-selling "games" aren't really games by that definition. Look at the entire Sim series. Not a one of them has a real goal.

It's odd you should mention the Sim games, because the article I linked to at the beginning of this thread discusses them some as well. The designer of the original SimCity admited it wasn't quite a game, but a software toy.

However, I don't think there's anything to be gained by pointing this out.

Good point. When all is said and done, I'm still likely to call SimCity or Anarchy Online a game.

We'll still refer to ourselves as "game programmers", even though we should probably call ourselves by the more general term "play-thing programmers".

I prefer to think of us as "world designers". ;) Again, that's a distinction that not many people will ever use.
Good way to view it. Now if only people would use that idea in some way besides making monsters harder in each section, so you can only visit sections with monsters that you can handle until you are strong enough to go to the next section. That's all I ever see...
In response to Foomer
Foomer wrote:
Good way to view it. Now if only people would use that idea in some way besides making monsters harder in each section, so you can only visit sections with monsters that you can handle until you are strong enough to go to the next section. That's all I ever see...

Okay, I'll start an offshoot of this thread...
In response to AbyssDragon
AbyssDragon wrote:
Seeing how possibilities and limitations are contrasts of one another, and are directly linked its kinda like the Chaos Theory.

I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but can you give a reference for what this has to do with chaos theory? I just read a book on the subject ("Does God Play Dice?" by Ian Stewart, good book even though I disagree with the author in a lot of cases), and I'm just not seeing this connection. Perhaps you have a different meaning of "chaos theory" (which is sort of a misnomer in and of itself) other than the mathematical one?

-AbyssDragon

Thas what I tried to explain better in my update. The Chaos Theory, in lamen terms (other wise known as the Butterfly Theory), is that everything is connected. I was refuring to it in it's non mathamatical sence. Thus, every small alteration to the possibilities in a a game create numourous limitations and visa versa.
Page: 1 2