so i came across this site while i was researching for my presentation.. it got me confused about the word "game".. but no matter how much those ppl argue about it.. i dont think theres a definition to "game". what do you guys think?
http://www.jesperjuul.net/ludologist/index.php?p=50&c=1
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Great find- I read the blog and am also confused by the discussion and expansion of this. The term obviously leads to a dillema or not depending on your acceptance of what makes a game a game. It is obvious that as an emerging field of study the seminal thinkers-authors-theorists etc are still not in agreement. As new "media" for games- and new types of "games" emerge should we learn to expand or adapt our definitions along with? Or is there a one and only definition of a game. I lean towards something with a clear end that has a quantifiable outcome etc- but perhaps in the case of MMORPGS etc the "end" or "outcome" is only momentary- dynamic and can only be a snap shot in time between the players and or the experience?
Again to be aware that you are playing a game that might not have a real end or final outcome- doesn't make it not a game- like one of the commentors said about Prince of Persia- he might not make it to the end but he feels and believes that he is playing a game? So Feeling like or believing that you are playing a game could be enough to make it a game? More in class...
Good point. I always figured it would be easy to justify whether something was a game or not, and more difficult to define exactly what isn't a game. It often seems that, unless bound by rules which have been imposed by a second party or person, games remain toys. Can simply creating your own rules in your head and situating them onto an object/toy (whether in your head or on paper) transform it into a game?
I was thinking a lot about Lego lately. And I wanted to post a quote from Microserfs by Douglas Coupland. It's a little long but, I figured it was relevant and worth noting if anyone is interested on commenting;
"I think it is safe to say that Lego is a potent three dimensional modeling tool and a language in itself. And prolonged exposure to any language, either visual or verbal, undoubtedly alters the way a child perceives its universe...First, Lego is ontologically not unlike computers. This is to say that a computer by itself is, well...nothing. Computers only become something when given a specific application. Ditto Lego"
The quote goes on to list Lego's other attributes as "binaray" and "anticipating pixelated ideas." But when I reread this it reminded me of the basic foundation for creating a game. Anyone who actually codes their own games, may relate more closely to this excerpt. But, I assume that, as kids, we all equally enjoyed the possibilities that Lego offered.
Post a Comment