[MUD-Dev2] [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system]
Caliban Darklock
cdarklock at gmail.com
Thu Apr 12 10:43:47 CEST 2007
On 4/10/07, Miroslav Silovic <miroslav.silovic at avl.com> wrote:
>
> Premise 1 is easily attacked: MMOGs are by definition big - that's the
> part of what "massive" means. Space taken by any individual player is
> negligible compared to the overall world size.
Negligible damage is still damage.
> Premise 2 and 3 actually counter-argument your conclusions. Players that
> introduce "toys" are still part of the network effect (whether they want
> it or not).
But it's not the right network effect. I specifically stated the
network effect of PLAYING TOGETHER. If the player is not playing with
others - the very definition of a toy - then he is not part of that
network effect.
> Um, this is again not true. Introducing new rules is part of the network
> effects mentioned above.
Semantics. If you introduce a second ball to a game of soccer, is it
still soccer?
No. It's a different game. The game of soccer is destroyed, and
replaced by another game.
> Disruption is not about playing the game outside the consensus, it's
> about invading other players private boundaries.
And said boundaries exist by consensus. Your point?
> Frankly, I don't think you introduced a concise, useful definition of
> "toy" into this discussion yet.
A game is a set of rules that requires consensus among players, and by
implication must have more than one player.
A toy is a set of rules that does not require consensus.
> Rearrangement requires design effort and upload of information from the
> player's client. Therefore it does add content.
"This monster is just like the last one, only yellow!"
If it doesn't change the rules, it isn't new content. It's just more
of the same.
> This is arbitrary statement. Properly designed game doesn't have to be
> closed.
My entire point in quoting Chris Crawford was to identify the flaw in
his definition.
> I agree with the first part - it is a good thing. But since I don't see
> any necessity for the closed system, there is no boogeyman.
There is in Crawford's definition. That's the flaw.
More information about the mud-dev2-archive
mailing list