What Kind of Game Best Reflects Life?
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Patrick
Jun 11, 2009, 10:34:24 AM6/11/09
to Thinking about Games
They say games are an art-form and art imitates life. So, what kind
of game do you think does a good--or bad--job of reflecting life or
some aspect(s) thereof?
Our friend Sukunai, in another thread, says this:
<<Life is a game of chance. You may die walking across the street, or
driving on the highway or be mugged while going to a movie.
Chess has next to no chance. I guess it comes off feeling too much
like playing a video game against the AI and winning is so utterly so
what like. Oh I won, what a complete shock.
If I am better than the other player, it will feel like I am playing
a
wargame against a kid. Oh I won, boy that felt good.
<<That's the attraction of games with either enough detail load, or
variability to make winning uncertain. You can't know, and being well
versed on the rules would be nice, but won't impress the dice any.>>
Personally, I have a sneaking suspicion that chance is really just an
illusion--that there's no such thing as an accident. Anytime
something happens that seems dicey or accidental or random, it
probably only looks that way because of our limited human viewpoint.
If we could somehow take an omniscient, God's-eye view of the
situation, we'd see a clear chain of cause and effect every time.
Hence, it could be that "deterministic" games like chess and go
actually do the best job of reflecting life. Whereas "probabilistic"
games like backgammon and dominoes reflect a narrower view of life,
where the random factor accounts for human limitations.
When I play a game like chess or go--or a strategy game like
Civilization or Risk or Third Reich--I feel I'm assuming a role
similar to a god on Mount Olympus, hovering over the earth and
manipulating all the petty human affairs below. And I believe it's a
key aspect of human nature to want to "play god" in this sense. It's
why some people aspire to be world leaders or CEOs--movers and
shakers, directors of major events. In an "overview" game like this,
a player has the chance to at least vicariously exert his will and get
his own way, making things happen as he sees fit (at least in his own
domain; his opponents may thwart his plans, of course).
But when I play a game like bridge, poker, or dominoes--or Magic: the
Gathering or an RPG or a tactical card-based wargame like Up Front--I
feel I'm assuming a very different role: that of the hero. Unlike
the Olympian god, I have no grand overview; I see only what's in front
of me and have to guess the rest or discover it over time. Nor are my
commands necessarily carried out automatically; random factors may
interfere, forcing me to backtrack or take a detour or adjust my plans
in some other way. I believe this is another key aspect of human
nature--wanting to be the hero and endure a successful adventure.
I've mixed some dimensions of games above. More properly, we should
consider deterministic vs probabilistic games separately from open-
information vs hidden-information games. Or make a grid and explore
four kinds of games.
But although it doesn't always happen in individual game designs, I
think there's a natural link (if only a conceptual one in my own mind)
between deterministic games and open information, and between
probabilistic games and hidden information. And it comes down to the
question of which role you want to assume: (1) the Olympian god,
looking down and directing everything, or (2) the hero, venturing into
the unknown in quest of treasure and glory.
You might say neither kind of game does a very good job of imitating
life; both kinds of game are bigger than life. They cast the player
in a role beyond the ordinary.
Yet I'd say both kinds of game imitate life, in the sense that they
enable players to vicariously do what everyone, at some time or other,
dreams of doing: being godlike, or being heroic.
You can't very well do both at once. If you have the godlike
overview, your path as a hero will be clear and illuminated and all
the possibilities laid out before your eyes, so there won't be any
challenge or adventure. But if you're the hero, venturing along a
dark, dangerous, risky path, the best you can do is *wish* you had an
overview of the big picture (and try to imagine it, and build it over
time as you map your progress).
Just some thoughts that crossed my mind.
What are your thoughts? Do you think of life as more deterministic or
probabilistic? Which seems more realistic to you--having a godlike
strategic overview, or being like a hero making your way along a path
of adventure? Which sounds more appealing? And why?
--Patrick
of game do you think does a good--or bad--job of reflecting life or
some aspect(s) thereof?
Our friend Sukunai, in another thread, says this:
<<Life is a game of chance. You may die walking across the street, or
driving on the highway or be mugged while going to a movie.
Chess has next to no chance. I guess it comes off feeling too much
like playing a video game against the AI and winning is so utterly so
what like. Oh I won, what a complete shock.
If I am better than the other player, it will feel like I am playing
a
wargame against a kid. Oh I won, boy that felt good.
<<That's the attraction of games with either enough detail load, or
variability to make winning uncertain. You can't know, and being well
versed on the rules would be nice, but won't impress the dice any.>>
Personally, I have a sneaking suspicion that chance is really just an
illusion--that there's no such thing as an accident. Anytime
something happens that seems dicey or accidental or random, it
probably only looks that way because of our limited human viewpoint.
If we could somehow take an omniscient, God's-eye view of the
situation, we'd see a clear chain of cause and effect every time.
Hence, it could be that "deterministic" games like chess and go
actually do the best job of reflecting life. Whereas "probabilistic"
games like backgammon and dominoes reflect a narrower view of life,
where the random factor accounts for human limitations.
When I play a game like chess or go--or a strategy game like
Civilization or Risk or Third Reich--I feel I'm assuming a role
similar to a god on Mount Olympus, hovering over the earth and
manipulating all the petty human affairs below. And I believe it's a
key aspect of human nature to want to "play god" in this sense. It's
why some people aspire to be world leaders or CEOs--movers and
shakers, directors of major events. In an "overview" game like this,
a player has the chance to at least vicariously exert his will and get
his own way, making things happen as he sees fit (at least in his own
domain; his opponents may thwart his plans, of course).
But when I play a game like bridge, poker, or dominoes--or Magic: the
Gathering or an RPG or a tactical card-based wargame like Up Front--I
feel I'm assuming a very different role: that of the hero. Unlike
the Olympian god, I have no grand overview; I see only what's in front
of me and have to guess the rest or discover it over time. Nor are my
commands necessarily carried out automatically; random factors may
interfere, forcing me to backtrack or take a detour or adjust my plans
in some other way. I believe this is another key aspect of human
nature--wanting to be the hero and endure a successful adventure.
I've mixed some dimensions of games above. More properly, we should
consider deterministic vs probabilistic games separately from open-
information vs hidden-information games. Or make a grid and explore
four kinds of games.
But although it doesn't always happen in individual game designs, I
think there's a natural link (if only a conceptual one in my own mind)
between deterministic games and open information, and between
probabilistic games and hidden information. And it comes down to the
question of which role you want to assume: (1) the Olympian god,
looking down and directing everything, or (2) the hero, venturing into
the unknown in quest of treasure and glory.
You might say neither kind of game does a very good job of imitating
life; both kinds of game are bigger than life. They cast the player
in a role beyond the ordinary.
Yet I'd say both kinds of game imitate life, in the sense that they
enable players to vicariously do what everyone, at some time or other,
dreams of doing: being godlike, or being heroic.
You can't very well do both at once. If you have the godlike
overview, your path as a hero will be clear and illuminated and all
the possibilities laid out before your eyes, so there won't be any
challenge or adventure. But if you're the hero, venturing along a
dark, dangerous, risky path, the best you can do is *wish* you had an
overview of the big picture (and try to imagine it, and build it over
time as you map your progress).
Just some thoughts that crossed my mind.
What are your thoughts? Do you think of life as more deterministic or
probabilistic? Which seems more realistic to you--having a godlike
strategic overview, or being like a hero making your way along a path
of adventure? Which sounds more appealing? And why?
--Patrick
Sukunai
Jun 11, 2009, 12:15:06 PM6/11/09
to Thinking about Games
Holy crap that's deep Patrick :)
No I am I guess forced to say that chance is indeed chance.
In a situation where the chance is 50/50, the chances are very limited
of course. Flipping a coin won't give you any reason to think you are
in control of the chances. It is logical to assume your choice might
happen more readily, because there's only one other choice available.
But each coin toss is always exactly 50/50.
Games like my oft quoted ASL, well it's the massive numbers of
variables, that make each turn an entirely new round of well nigh
impossible to predict fully variables.
For instance, a German 4-6-7 infantry squad will have exactly the same
stats it had last turn. But the circumstances it finds itself in,
won't be.
Chess on the other hand, has fewer variables. Granted, the number of
variables open to the player are still a staggering sum if you reduce
them to a numerical assessment.
I find, that games that are less easy to control, simply are less
likely to feel straight jacketed.
In Chess you only get to move one piece, and it can only move in it's
own fashion.
That is the limiting factor.
And if the opponent is more creative in using those limited choices,
they tend to be the winner more frequently.
Whereas, with ASL, well some of my units might be hidden initial
placement, and the opponent simply has no idea where they are. Some
units will be reinforcements, and until they arrive, you can't really
entirely predict the conditions.
They might be conditional reinforcements, and I might not have
assurances they will arrive, or it might be they are discretionary.
To use the art comment, well some art is good, and some art is not.
Some art is a child's doodle, and some art if the work of a master.
Some art is made to be basic, and some art is entirely complex.
The art that is drawn by hand, will look entirely different from art
that is machine created. I personally prefer my anime as drawn,
instead of it being enhanced by cgi.
Some games are really just very basic and very ordinary. It's ok
though, sometimes basic and ordinary is ok. My favourite beverage is
really just a cold glass of water.
But people are all unique, and while I continue to think my desire to
purchase War in the Pacific, a computer game too complicated for it's
own good, I at least know it will likely give me the most real looking
recreation.
It's possible though, that Gary Grigsby's less complicated game World
at War A World Divided was a much more logical purchase.
The thing is, do they both recreate the feel of the Second World War?
If so, which one is the most fun to the largest number of players?
If making a game is all about making money, then the answer is of
course to pick the right choice.
if the game is all about making a great masterpiece of simulation,
then the correct choice might be one that is not liked universally as
much as the more profitable one.
And then some players like me, might own both :)
And in the end, never play either often, and end up playing something
like a World War 2 mod for Civilization.
No I am I guess forced to say that chance is indeed chance.
In a situation where the chance is 50/50, the chances are very limited
of course. Flipping a coin won't give you any reason to think you are
in control of the chances. It is logical to assume your choice might
happen more readily, because there's only one other choice available.
But each coin toss is always exactly 50/50.
Games like my oft quoted ASL, well it's the massive numbers of
variables, that make each turn an entirely new round of well nigh
impossible to predict fully variables.
For instance, a German 4-6-7 infantry squad will have exactly the same
stats it had last turn. But the circumstances it finds itself in,
won't be.
Chess on the other hand, has fewer variables. Granted, the number of
variables open to the player are still a staggering sum if you reduce
them to a numerical assessment.
I find, that games that are less easy to control, simply are less
likely to feel straight jacketed.
In Chess you only get to move one piece, and it can only move in it's
own fashion.
That is the limiting factor.
And if the opponent is more creative in using those limited choices,
they tend to be the winner more frequently.
Whereas, with ASL, well some of my units might be hidden initial
placement, and the opponent simply has no idea where they are. Some
units will be reinforcements, and until they arrive, you can't really
entirely predict the conditions.
They might be conditional reinforcements, and I might not have
assurances they will arrive, or it might be they are discretionary.
To use the art comment, well some art is good, and some art is not.
Some art is a child's doodle, and some art if the work of a master.
Some art is made to be basic, and some art is entirely complex.
The art that is drawn by hand, will look entirely different from art
that is machine created. I personally prefer my anime as drawn,
instead of it being enhanced by cgi.
Some games are really just very basic and very ordinary. It's ok
though, sometimes basic and ordinary is ok. My favourite beverage is
really just a cold glass of water.
But people are all unique, and while I continue to think my desire to
purchase War in the Pacific, a computer game too complicated for it's
own good, I at least know it will likely give me the most real looking
recreation.
It's possible though, that Gary Grigsby's less complicated game World
at War A World Divided was a much more logical purchase.
The thing is, do they both recreate the feel of the Second World War?
If so, which one is the most fun to the largest number of players?
If making a game is all about making money, then the answer is of
course to pick the right choice.
if the game is all about making a great masterpiece of simulation,
then the correct choice might be one that is not liked universally as
much as the more profitable one.
And then some players like me, might own both :)
And in the end, never play either often, and end up playing something
like a World War 2 mod for Civilization.
Patrick
Jul 29, 2009, 2:15:36 PM7/29/09
to Thinking about Games
Here's a pretty neat article on this topic--one that goes beyond
games:
http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2006/12/life-the-ultimate-game/
games:
http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2006/12/life-the-ultimate-game/
Sukunai
Jul 30, 2009, 6:43:10 PM7/30/09
to Thinking about Games
Skimmed the article Patrick, but I liked the main gist of it.
Life is indeed a game that shows a lot about us.
I see a lot of people make a lot of regular atypical choices that seem
to me to be obvious bad choices, but they constantly make them all the
same.
Marriage is a great example of a good game to play :)
Hey my wife is no looker. In fact my wife is downright over weight.
Some would ponder how I can enjoy sex with her. And I can relate to
the reaction, even though I am able to see past their own limitations.
Hey, sex feels the same regardless of whether your woman is drop dead
gorgeous or just NOT gorgeous. Your manhood can't really see her, and
really, the operation of the male sex organ is limited by the tactile
reality it lives in.
I DO routinely enjoy very cliche porn and use it for what it is meant
for (I do this with the wife's permission). But I DO prefer to enjoy
my sexual needs being fulfilled with my wife's body all the same.
Because the real thing is impossible to replace.
I think I have mastered something most fail at miserably, because I
was able to realize ANY woman can meet your sexual needs, she doesn't
need to be a looker.
I met my wife, and I was not immediately 'not interested' because she
didn't live up to some entirely hopeless expectations. She shared some
interests and that was all I needed.
We dated a year's worth of engagement, got married and all because I
thought being single sucked.
I had a choice, choose the woman that was happy to have me, or
continue to date my right hand like the rest of the single males of
the world.
I chose the former, because the latter is the choice of the person
that expects too much from life.
Parenting is also a heck of a game. And boy let me tell you, raising a
teen is definitely the advanced game option. Dirty diapers and
midnight feeding is so totally beginner level difficulty setting.
Terrible twos hah!, one lousy year at best with a kid that is quite
simple to deal with. try comparing a bratty 2 year old with a
rebellious 15 year old :) You can pick up the 2 year old and sit him
in his room and let him holler for an hour if you feel like it. The
teenager though, he's likely as big as you and likely just as
dangerous as you. You have to be damned good at out thinking a 15 year
old.
The work place, ahh such a great place to get bonus use out of your
copy of Art of War hehe. Because the office is indeed a battleground.
Lose a battle and lose a promotion. Fail to advance and possibly get
downsized and then your mortgage is in jeopardy. That leads to family
strife and before you know it you are renting a dump, paying alimony
and your life isn't worth living.
I think I have it as good as possible in some cases while I have
crapped out in others.
I really lost out in the health department. I can't work.
But, while you are off going to work, I am casually getting up and
having sex with my wife.
Granted, while that sounds rather like I have the better deal, but
pride is a peculiar thing.
I'd rather have the job and only get sex occasionally.
Still I DO have a hobby room. And I have heard of sooo many guys that
complain because their ex just didn't like that they liked to wargame
for a few hours at the end of the day.
'You don't spend enough time with me'
Really, it's easy to correct that complaint eh.
You present your wife with a skimpy sexy nighty something that says
only one thing, sex toy. You inform her she's to be in it after 10,
and she's to stay in it on the weekends until you've enjoyed her while
she wore it.
You make it plain she is to perform as your private sex play thing
nightly and to indulge your fantasies with enthusiasm.
Either she does, and hey then you likely won't miss the wargame (or
shouldn't), or she gets smart, and is glad you give her some peace on
a regular basis, or she gets to play the part of being a play toy for
you.
heck, you CAN make a woman stop whining about not being the center of
attention if you have a brain :)
I personally won't play a wargame against a wargamer that isn't clever
enough to escape the grip of a whiny atention starved wife. if you
can't master the wife challenge, then you likely suck as a wargamer
too.
I don't hide my model purchases from my wife either. She's aware she
can have her fair share of the family income. If she plans HER
resources well, she can have nice things too.
Each model I have bought, I earned because of wise money use.
Life is indeed a game, and I am a master player in my opinion :)
Life is indeed a game that shows a lot about us.
I see a lot of people make a lot of regular atypical choices that seem
to me to be obvious bad choices, but they constantly make them all the
same.
Marriage is a great example of a good game to play :)
Hey my wife is no looker. In fact my wife is downright over weight.
Some would ponder how I can enjoy sex with her. And I can relate to
the reaction, even though I am able to see past their own limitations.
Hey, sex feels the same regardless of whether your woman is drop dead
gorgeous or just NOT gorgeous. Your manhood can't really see her, and
really, the operation of the male sex organ is limited by the tactile
reality it lives in.
I DO routinely enjoy very cliche porn and use it for what it is meant
for (I do this with the wife's permission). But I DO prefer to enjoy
my sexual needs being fulfilled with my wife's body all the same.
Because the real thing is impossible to replace.
I think I have mastered something most fail at miserably, because I
was able to realize ANY woman can meet your sexual needs, she doesn't
need to be a looker.
I met my wife, and I was not immediately 'not interested' because she
didn't live up to some entirely hopeless expectations. She shared some
interests and that was all I needed.
We dated a year's worth of engagement, got married and all because I
thought being single sucked.
I had a choice, choose the woman that was happy to have me, or
continue to date my right hand like the rest of the single males of
the world.
I chose the former, because the latter is the choice of the person
that expects too much from life.
Parenting is also a heck of a game. And boy let me tell you, raising a
teen is definitely the advanced game option. Dirty diapers and
midnight feeding is so totally beginner level difficulty setting.
Terrible twos hah!, one lousy year at best with a kid that is quite
simple to deal with. try comparing a bratty 2 year old with a
rebellious 15 year old :) You can pick up the 2 year old and sit him
in his room and let him holler for an hour if you feel like it. The
teenager though, he's likely as big as you and likely just as
dangerous as you. You have to be damned good at out thinking a 15 year
old.
The work place, ahh such a great place to get bonus use out of your
copy of Art of War hehe. Because the office is indeed a battleground.
Lose a battle and lose a promotion. Fail to advance and possibly get
downsized and then your mortgage is in jeopardy. That leads to family
strife and before you know it you are renting a dump, paying alimony
and your life isn't worth living.
I think I have it as good as possible in some cases while I have
crapped out in others.
I really lost out in the health department. I can't work.
But, while you are off going to work, I am casually getting up and
having sex with my wife.
Granted, while that sounds rather like I have the better deal, but
pride is a peculiar thing.
I'd rather have the job and only get sex occasionally.
Still I DO have a hobby room. And I have heard of sooo many guys that
complain because their ex just didn't like that they liked to wargame
for a few hours at the end of the day.
'You don't spend enough time with me'
Really, it's easy to correct that complaint eh.
You present your wife with a skimpy sexy nighty something that says
only one thing, sex toy. You inform her she's to be in it after 10,
and she's to stay in it on the weekends until you've enjoyed her while
she wore it.
You make it plain she is to perform as your private sex play thing
nightly and to indulge your fantasies with enthusiasm.
Either she does, and hey then you likely won't miss the wargame (or
shouldn't), or she gets smart, and is glad you give her some peace on
a regular basis, or she gets to play the part of being a play toy for
you.
heck, you CAN make a woman stop whining about not being the center of
attention if you have a brain :)
I personally won't play a wargame against a wargamer that isn't clever
enough to escape the grip of a whiny atention starved wife. if you
can't master the wife challenge, then you likely suck as a wargamer
too.
I don't hide my model purchases from my wife either. She's aware she
can have her fair share of the family income. If she plans HER
resources well, she can have nice things too.
Each model I have bought, I earned because of wise money use.
Life is indeed a game, and I am a master player in my opinion :)
Patrick
Aug 5, 2009, 9:04:09 AM8/5/09
to Thinking about Games
Maybe a little TMI there . . .
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages