In defence of specific definitions
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 сен 2024
- TotalBiscuit brings you a discussion video on the importance of precise definitions and language when it comes to gaming.
Check out Errant Signal's video: • Errant Signal - Glitch...
Proteus footage from NorthernLion • Let's Look At: Proteus...
Check out Glitchhikers here - glitchhikers.com
Follow TotalBiscuit on Twitter: / totalbiscuit
Follow CynicalBrit on Twitter for video updates: / cynicalbrit
Follow our Facebook page for announcements: / cynicalbrit
I've been reading Jesse Schell's book "The Art of Game Design" and I really like his definition of a game. He says that "a game is a problem solving activity, approached with a playful attitude."
He also says that this definition is imperfect, but it's okay to have this imperfect definition because taking half a minute to elaborate on what your product is is very useful for both consumers and producers.
The comments are enabled?
Comments are enabled again ?
This...this video perfectly describes my thoughts on Dead Ester as soon as I heard it described. Thank you, Sir Biscuit.
To define what a video game is you need to define what a "game" itself is.
A game is a activity in which a person partakes which can be for a challenge, to practice or to escape from the stress of the average life by exploring artificial environments which may be bound by rules other than the normal.
That's a pretty vague and flat outbad definition. Football, soccer and all other sports are in themselves games and they don't involve "artificial environments" byany reasonable definition of the words, especially if you think of amateurs. Neither does hide and seek, you can play that in any environment. And it's missing the aspect that games are contests that have a win/lose condition, from hide and seek to board games to card games to the olympics. Even rock paper scissors, which also doesn't even involve exploring environments to begin with, let alone "artificial" ones
Do you have any opinion on The Stomping Land?
I have no problem with proper definition but when the people defining something are dilettants that have no experience on the field and are just overpaid wastes of space I will have issues. Like how is "turn-based" part of roguelike? They went overboard with the details. It's as if all soulslikes have to be third person action games. It has nothing to do with that but people that don't actually play games have no idea what's wrong with this.
It's like watching a warmovie that is an actionflick and deciding that my warmovie is not a warmovie because it's about wartime family drama instead of shooting. WTF? No. This stuff angers me.
The notion to stick to solid stuff so you can navigate people easier is neat but when the definitions themselves are garbage... yea...
When they've "decided" what a roguelike is (as if any gamer gave these people any right to do so) it was like when random idiots started going about rewriting the definition of racism. It is horrifying what can happen when idiots have any sort of power - such miniscule things and in a few years it's completely normal to be selected for the annual purge lottery...